The herald., 1898-02-09


ard; (2) the secretary of the treasur,
boldly demands declaration In 1t!
favor. while asserting that the presiden
is In favor OF International bimetallism
and has the support of all the member.
of his cabinet in his effort to secure the
cooperation of other nations in getting
rid of the gold standard philadelphia
speech), and go, Notwithstanding the
attitude of the administration. the par
ty leaders are now silent. saying moth
ing about the double standard, independ-
ent or international. The reasons for this
are obvious: International bimetallism
can be defended only on the theory that
the gold standard is unsatisfactory.
With no purpose of abandoning it, they
cannot afford to say anything calculated
to make the people dissatisfied with it.
On the other hand, they say little about
the gold standard, for that provokes the
question, why is International bimetal-
lism desirable?" If the gold standard is
advantageous to the laboring man, why
not boldly advocate it's retention and
abandon international bimetallism?
Mr. Bryan contends that international
bimetallism will have exactly the same
effect as Independent bimetallism in
raising prices. If fall in prices is an
advantage, then rise in prices cannot
be desirable; and it, on the other hand
a rise in prices, whether obtained
through Independent or international ac-
caused by the gold standard. must be ad
mitted to have worked an injury. In
every gold-standard country in the
world the fall in prices during the past
twenty-five years has been disastrous.
France now desires to abandon the gold
standard the German reichstag de-
clared for international bimetallism in
1895; the farmers and laboring men of
England are now protesting against the
gold standard. Can any Democrat deny
that relief from it is imperatively de-
manded? Republican policy transfers
from America to Europe the right to
determine the financial policy Of the
United States; it favors the repeal of the
Declaration Of Independence. For the
reason that the power that controls our
financial policy can control the policy of
our government on every other subject,
Mr.. Bryan insists that the money ques-
ton must be settled before any other
question can be reached. Largely in
terested in American trusts, foreign in
vestors can easily prevent hostile legis-
lation, under a threat of the withdrawal
of capital and by the same means DOM
mate our whole policy, debating to us
how we shall protect our rights as citi-
zens, avenge insults to the flag, enforce
the Monroe doctrine. or express our SYM
pathy with those who are struggling to
be free. The right to legislate for our
people on the money question involves
the right to legislate on all questions,
and until this right is assured the dis
cussion of other questions will avail
nothing.
Mr.. Bryan's reasons for adhering to the
ratio of 16 to are worth restating: O
1t was the ratio from 1884 to 1873; (2) it is
the ratio now existing, and is more ia
vorable to gold that the European ratio;
(3) to change it by Independent action
would put us out of harmony with other
nations, especially with France; (D it
would necesstate the recoinage of more
that four billions of silver into coins
twice as large; (5) to double the size of
the coins would diminish by half the
silver money of the world, by one-quar-
ter the entire volume of the metallic
money of the world. the shrinkage add
ing billions to the debts of the universe.
Should so great an injury, asks
Mr.. Bryan, be done without the
necessity for it being proved beyond
reasonable doubt?
He comedies that some bimetallists do
not agree with him that the parity of
the metals can be maintained by the
United States alone, but calls attention
to the fact that they constitute
very small minority, and that
they are by no means united
upon what the ratio should be, if
changed, opinions varying all the way
up to go to /. The Democratic party has
declared for the historic ratio, and so
have the Populists, the National Silver
party and the Silver Republicans. To
abandon the ratio would be wrong in it.
self, and as impolitic as it would pe
wrong. The minority must yield in this
as in other contentious where there is a
divergence Of opinion. The policy of the
Democratic party cannot be determined
by few doubling Thomases, by desert
ers who supported the enemy in the last
great struggle against plutocracy. By
consenting to a meaningless platform,
the party could have retained these ele-
ments, but it let them go rather than
be wholly destroyed, for the party was
rapidly becoming a rival of the Repub-
lican party for the favor of the trusts
and the monopolies. In the opinion of
Mr.. Bryan, the party can win more votes
by steadfastly standing by the right
than by weakly compromising with
error, and those won back to the plat
form will be useful when they return,
while those who profess attachment to