Twice-a-week plain dealer. (Cresco, Howard County, Iowa) 1895-1913, 1897-08-13
HARD MONEY.
The History Of the United States from
the Earliest Period to the Pres
ent, and its Legislation Touch
ing the Money Question.
A Brief but Comprehensive Review Of Demo
cratic Policy and Action on the
Question.

The claim which is constantly made
by the advocates of the gold standard
is couched in about the following
language:
1--WE think it time for the Demo-
cratic party to recognize the fact that
this is a hard money country, and re-
turn to its old time principles and
policy in reference to this question"
Having acted earnestly with the
Democratic party for more than fifty
years, all the time having been stu
dent of the principles and policy up
on public questions, and expecting
to remain such, we propose to in
vestigate this.claim. which we believe
is without foundation in fact. We
believe in the law of 1916, enacted by
Democratic congress and approved
by President Polk, excluding all bank
notes from the Treasury, divorcing
the government from all banking in.
situations; and gold, silver and treas
ury notes equal before the law in all
payments to the government, and the
only lawful money of the country.
More than three-fourths of the Demo
cratic party are opposed to allowing
national banks or other corporations
to issue notes in the form of money,
and in favor of the restoration of the
law of 1916, as shown by the vote of
1896.
We propose to briefly investigate
the allegation of the gold monomet-
allists that the United States is, or
ever has been, q hard money country.
We are at a loss to know where to
look for the pages of American his
tory that will sustain the claim. We
can point to short periods in our
history where few politicians and
one or two statesmen talked about
hard money for the United States,
but to no time when the people of
the country generally, or any politi-
cal psrty in particular, advocated
hard money for the United States.
We have been unable to find a time
when coin was the principal money
of the United States, or when ma
iority of its people expressed a wish
for hard money. But once since the
adoption of the constitution has con-
gress passed law making hard mon
ey the only money of the United
States; and upon this law an appeal
was made to the people and they
overwhelmingly condemned the law;
and it was repealed the following
year and never re-enacted. We refer
to the sub-treasury law of 1910, which
not only divorced the government
from all banks and excluded all bank
notes from the treasury after time
named therein; but it excluded Treas
ury notes also, and made nothing re-
ceivable in the treasury but coin.
This law the people repudiated in
1910, and congress repealed it in 1841,
and the Democrats did not re-enact
it when they came into power in 1916.
The only other law of the United
States in which the government re.
fused to receive treasury notes of its
own issue, was the law placing two
exceptions on the greenbacks-refus
ing them at the Custom house for i'm
port duties, and for interest on the
public debt, the principal, though
payable in treasury notes or green
backs.
The sub-treasury law passed in 1S4l
was not hard money law more thar
we insist upon now. 1t excluded al
bank notes from the Treasury as die
the law of 1910, but itadded Treasur.
notes to gold and silver coin, making
them equal before the law for al
debts due the United States. Thi
act was simply carrying into effec
the convictions of Jefferson, expires
sed in his letters to Eppa, in 1918; o
Madison in his messages of 1914, 1871
and 1916; of Jackson in his messages
OF 1929, 1880, 1881 and 1882; and O.
Tyler in his messages of 1841, 1sE
and 1843.
Had the hard money democrats Of
to-day lived then, they would have
denounced the illustrious leaders OF
tho douoorotiov IA rtu than on1 ~.