The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1898-01-13

OF 10 use less oHenSfye term, much lack
OF knowledge. A man may be learned in
some things, and yet know nothing about
otner Things \ man Of far less general in
formation may know much more about sub
Ject winch he has studied than another man
much better informed may know about it
IT he has not studied it. Sometimes YOU find
nranciers who seem to imagine that a man
engaged in the handling Of money must neces-
sarily understand the money question and
tnat man who has not much money to han
ele must necessarily be ignorant in regard
10 tne money question. A man was once
making speech and made some remark upon
the subject of money, and farmer under
LOOK 10 correct 1t. and he said to the man:
w nat do you know about this subject?
You have not handled 81 900 in ten wears"
man may study the subject to find out
why IL IS that he has not more chance to
handle money, and q man may handle so
much that he has no concern or reason to in
yesugate the subject at all. In order to I'M
ueistand or to argue I'VE must have some
point on which We can begin. We must COM
e me- at some proposition which all accept,
anu l want to commence at the foundation
ana bulld up in the discussions of this oues-
etoh' anu my hrst proposition is that all men
are created equal, If that proposition is not
true, In the sense in which it is used in
our government, then my foundation is false.
t = an men are not entitled to equal rights
DeIoie Tue law ana all stand with respect to
government On the same level. then l con-
less the foundation Of my argument is err
IUneoUs. II Lhere is a person here who dis
PC'AS lnat all are created equal and should
STAND equal before the law then 1 cannot ex-
pect him to agree to bimetalIsm heceuse hi
t3 IS punt upon that solid foundation
-'1oie tHah mat, II there is a person in this
aeuIence VINO does not believe in the doctrine
VI elualIIy before the law. then I say that
pTlSon %nateyer ne may call himself, to what
ever party he belongs has no business IN
ti'e III country where the government is
pdseu upon the principle of equality before
then e ia NV Now II all men created equal,
t tnen no ciIiZeh has a natural right to in
Jure any other citizen. That follows 90 a
necessary consequence 80
If ALL MEN ARE CREATED EoTTA1,
Inen now can you assert that anv one ner-
oors L'S q NATURAL right to injure any other
n 81 @GLI, @iau II any citizen has natural right
" IhJure any other citizen then no good GOV
eminent will either enable or DeTmit one
CIIZeh TO lnJure another. Now I think Won
WI "Iii nave 10 agree with me thus far, because
~ GLG can 1es:roy this proposition without
admitting that he is out of harmony Win
tte government under which he lives IF
feet ooh - i ne uuIy OF government to pro-
iib ea0n ciI!zsn IN the enjoyment of life and
liberty and in the pursuit Of happiness thea
you cannot defend any law which has for its
oVer a me GIVING or one citizen an advantage
OF government are not difficult Questions
w wbGn tney are analysed and the principles
shalt not steal' is recognized as a con,roap Nd
mfent; both sanctioned in morals and en-
tc[cea , by law If tell you that no man
TAKE property of another man, wbv. Won saw
eEefyDody Will accept that. make it broader.
tna1 II Is no more right to rob by law than
70 ROD by force, either in day or night And
| propose to show you that the gold Standard
- - larceny by law, and that those who love
sAai ioS tbd itVe IL best because it is easier to
81! tAat way than to steal in the CID
lda liI way. ApDlause) Don't misunder-
S T1aL lie, ne don't mean to say that every
HIVES an WIN" me u peeyes in the gold standard he
PgteS IN II because he wants to do wrong.
b bIE snail SHOW snow you and think 1 can
t Hhiors 9ioGl tnat VIII convince you, that
iEoSe VINO DeIleye in the gold standard intel
y,
u uoeS, beleYe in it because they prefer to
nave the commandment which 1 have given
mental pr Sla5sa Now tbd taking as our fqnda
not enact laws for the benefit of a
FEW AGAINST THE MANY,
or CT for the benefit of one against some one
tIse let US see II We apply this doc
f bdne to the subject of money. What is an
ABOUT an honest dollar, but you don't get any
aehnlt1on OF it, or a definition of it from
e od VINO TAX about it most Ask one of the
aa'oca[es OF gold standard what he regards
as an honest dollar, he will look wise and
ne teils you that by an honest dollar he means
S so nood money. And you then ask him what
ne means by sound money. He then looks
a IIttle wiser, If 1t is possible for him to
io9k wiser, and says it means an honest
circle, put If you get him to define it, he will
say that an honest dollar or sound money ia
money 1 mat when melted loses none of its
value. The melting pot test that is what
you call it, the melting pot test" That IS
his test for determining whether money Is
SOUND or dollar is honest. -
want TO Show you that that definition is
not correct. 1t leaves out of consideration
the greatest and most important thing in a
dolar. Purchasing. power is immaterial to it.
Supposing that all the nations In the world
should get together and decide upon the gold
standard and agree upon our dollar az a
unit: They then decided that we had too
much money, and got together SO per cent of
the money and sunk it in the ocean, what
would be the result? We would still have
an honest dollar. Suppose also that instead of
contracting the currency you expand it; sup
pose you had agreed upon the dollar as the
unit of standard and somebody would find a
way to make one hundred times as much
what would be the result? Why if YOU
melted it you would not lose ANYTHING hut II
would be honest according to the definition
given by the advocate of the gold standard
Inc definition given by the gold-bug omits
o obe nIoSL important thing in a dollar-pur-
chasl4g power The definition given does not
nciude purchasing power; therefore, wheth
er the dollar buys much or little il ia an
not t ooliar, providing you can melt it with
OUT loss; He seems to be ignorant of the
TACT tnat that characteristic is a Iaw-giyen
characterlstic. Why can you melt a gold
dollar a. lar. without loss Because you can coin
II without charge. If you charge five cents
for converting a. piece of gold bullion info
gcid coin. and you melt it up you lose five
cents cent Ihey seem not to understand that
eoG can an De melted without loss simply be
cause the law says that you can coin it into
money without charge. 1 heard of q de-
Date which brings out this idea. We had
Two men discussing the question. and the
golu Dug said the gold was the only good
money. To back his statement he asked fbot
you put one thousand dollars in gold in your
house, one thousand dollars CT silver and one
thousand dollars in paper in your house
-FOUR mouse then burns down, the gold would
De melted, the silver would be melted and
tne paper would be burned. The silver would
De worth put one-half its former value the
gold would not lose its value at ali Will lie
the paper would be gone entirely. There
lore, ne said, gold would be the best money
Inc other fellow then took for an illustra
tion one thousand dollars in gold one thou
SAND IN SILVER and a like amount in paper
currency, on board a ship, and the shin
would sink. The gold would 20 to tba hnt
tom the silver would go to the bottom. but
the paper would float, therefore the nanar
Wouia De the best money. There is inst as
good sense In that argument The law saws
N substance, If man puts gold and siIver
IN his house, and his house burns, and tho
gold and silver is melted, he can taLe. t tt,e
gold and have it recoined without loss AID
the silver you will have to take to some eban
ana TURN lt into spoons. If YOU had law
uhGer which we could take silver to the mini
ana nave 1t coined at certain price would
you sen 1t to any one for half price? OF
ouy all they have to sell for Just half What IL
can De sold for in the market Then t,,rn
around ana sell it for full price There &c
a good profit in it, 10
THERE IS MILLIONS IN TT
So, my friends I come to nv definition
u IS not an original definition The defni
tlon Wnlch L give you of an honest dollar is
d ueWnltlon which can be found in the work
OF every reputable writer of political economy
Wao ever wrote on public money since 1873.
You cannot ind in the old writer's of politicai
economy any difference 1Inon tbis rrI,hi.i