The Republican journal. [volume] (Belfast, Me.) 1829-current, 1897-08-12
The Ohio Democratic Platform.


"Recognizing that the money question is
paramount to all others at this time, we in
vte attention to the fact that the constitu-
ton names silver and gold together as the
the money metals of the United States.'
This statement is inaccurate and inten-
tionally misleading. The only place in
which the constitution ''names silver and
gold together" is where it declares that
''no State shall make anything but gold
and silver coin a tender in payment of
debts" 1t does not say that silver and
gold shall both be coined in an unlimited
manner or that either one or both shall be
coined at all, but specifically gives to
Congress the power to determine what the
coinage of the United States shall be, both
as to the metals used and their relations,
by saying in explicit terms in section 8:
''The Congress shall have power to coin
money and regulate the value thereof. !"
1t does not name silver and gold to-
gether'' as the platform says, but names
gold and silver together, pointedly giving
the preference to gold by saying in section
10: "No State shall make anything but
gold and silver coin a payment for debts. ="
If anything is to be inferred as to the re-
! iation which it intended that the two
metals should bear it is clearly that gold
was to be preferred, since it is first named
in the only place where the metals are
t,a fro Of no I,tf
wanted to be frank. why did they not
follow the wording of the constitution in
their statement and say ''gold and silver
instead of reversing it and saying ''silver
and gold. "
"The first coinage law passed by Congress
under the constitution made the silver dol
lar the money unit and admitted gold to free
coinage at ratio based upon the silver dol
lar unit
The first coinage law clearly made gold
standard by first naming all the gold
coins which. it said, should be of the value
of given number of units, and said that
the unit should be ''of the value of Span
ish milled dollar as the same is now cur
rent, and to contain 416 grains of standard
silver If the advocates of silver insist
that this act interpreted the meaning of the
constitution and that this Interpretation
must be followed. why do they now insist
upon a standard silver dollar with only
-l2 II grains of silver instead of the 41G
grains which the act specifically names?
BY their own proposition they demand
violation of what they claim is a constitu-
tional requirement. This act which they
claim is an incorporation of the constitu-
ton on this question provides that every
fifteen pounds weight of pure silver shall
be of equal value in all payments with one
pound weight of pure gold" If this is
an Interpretation of the constitution why
do these sticklers for its observance pur-
pose to violate it by saying that every six
teen pounds weight of silver shall now be
equal to one pound of gold? Would there
not be equal authority for saying that
every sixteen or eighteen or twenty or
thirty pounds weight of silver shall equal
one pound weight of gold? By their own
proposition to change the ratio they admit
that neither the constitution nor the first
act passed under it is binding as to the
future relations of gold and silver as
money. The fact that this act specifically
said that every fifteen pounds weight of
pure silver shall be of equal value with
one pound of weight of pure gold' indi-
Gates that gold was intended to be the
measure of value, for had the trainers of
this act intended that silver should be the
measure thay would have said that one
pound of gold should be equal in value to
fifteen pounds of silver Alexander
Hamilton, who was one of the trainers of
the constitution and whose report to
Congress was the basis of this act said of
the alleged unit, the Spanish dollac,
''that species of coin has never had any
settled or standard value while gold
has a fixed price by weight with an eve to
its fineness. This greater stability of the
value of gold coins is an argument of force
for regarding the money unit as having
been hitherto virtually attached to gold
rather than silver
If the trainers of this platform insist
that the first coinage act passed under the
constitution is an exact Interpretation of
of the meaning of that instrument, why
have they and their party always insisted
that protective tariff is violation of the
constitution when they know that the
very first act passed under that constitu-
ton declared that the tariff duties which
it levied were ''for the support of govern
ment and the encouragement and protec-
ton of manufactures?'
Regimental Reunions.