The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1898-01-27
a FOOLISH ARGUMENT.

providing for the payment Of all ma
tional obligations in silver, the most
foolish feature is that dwelt upon with
emphasis and JUNCTION by most Of the
speakers, who show, with a chuckle,
that such and such men, now promi-
nent in public life as advocates of the
gold standard, voted for a similar reso-
luton nineteen years ago when pre-
sented in the senate by Mr.. Stanley
Matthews A large portion of the men
who then favored the Matthews reso-
luton and still remain prominent in
public life are now opposed to it. This
is pointed out as another case of de-
terioration, of treachery to principle
and of yielding to the insatiate de-
mands of the money power" We are
not interested in defending eminent
Republicans like Senator Allison and
Mr.. Mckinley himself from this attack
but fair play and a proper idea Of the
duty of public men who live for years
among changing circumstances require
some attention to facts.
AS a matter OF course, the situation
is totally different today from what it
was in 1879. At that time the act
dropping the silver dollar from our
coins was only six years old, and the
average bullion value of the silver dol
lar for that year was only trif1e less
than 81 cents. The difference between
declaring that a piece of metal worth
81 cents should be a valid tender for
a debt and the same declaration when
applied to a piece Of metal worth So
cents does not seem to require expla-
nation. There is much more than that,
however, in the other changes that
twenty years have brought about
No man who has endeavored conscien-
tiously to discharge the duties of high
office over a long space of time can
avoid the charge of inconsistency and
Of a change Of base. This fol-
lows from the fact that what
is good for public policy and public
morality in one epoch may become
something entirely different in another.
Parties themselves shift and change.
The man who stands steadfast to his
conviction may find himself with his
party at one time and opposed to it
a few years later. The man who goes
strictly with his party will find it's
views and utterances of one day in
conflict with his views and utterances
of another. The man who, surveying
the whole situation, Judges a certain
line of policy to be for the best inter
ests of the country in one crisis may
repudiate his own position without i'm
pugning his sincerity or honesty, at
later date.
An interesting Illustration of this
is recalled in the case of a con-
stitutional amendment that was pass
ed just before the outbreak of the civil
war. This amendment provided spe-
officially that no future amendment to
the constitution of this country should
ever affect the domestic institutions
of any state, and particularly should
not interfere with the position of those
held to service under the laws Of the
state. The purpose Of this, Of course, was
to tie the hands of the people against
any possible interference with negro
slavery 1t passed the house by a
heavy majority and the senate by a
vote of two to one, and received the
signature of President Buchanan. Be
fore 1t could be brought before the
country effectively the rebellion came
and the great question settled itself
The point of interest is that Gen. Sher-
man and other Republicans Of equal
note, men who did their utmost, when
the break came, in the interest of the
North and Of freedom, gave a hearty
concurrence to this amendment. They
believed in maintaining the status quo
They believed that the issue Of slav-
cry would settle itself by the gradual
evolution Of industry in this country
They believed it vital to confine slav-
cry to the states in which it then ex-
listed, on the one side, and to prevent
any interference with it there by the
people of the free states on the other
They regarded this amendment as a
condition and a necessity, If seces-
sion, war and the rending of the Union
into fragments were to be prevented.
Consider, now, how easy to reproach
those men ten years later, when the
very word slavery had become a
thing of horror, and the Institution it.
self was forever banished from
the United States and territory
under it's control, with evidence
of the fact that they had
voted for an act intended to fasten the
slave system upon the country for all
time to come. Yet the defense of such
public men was simple and valid. In
like manner men who, In 1879, might
have believed, in the then infancy Of
currency discussion, that the Stanley
Matthews resolution was harmless
or even a necessary thing, may we'll be
convinced, in the light Of later expert
ence, and especially after the events
of the last few years, that to take SIM
ton Of national prosperity. Altogether
Independent of the merits of the case, it
is obvious that it is no reflection upon
the honor and intelligence of a public
man to stand on opposing sides of this
question in the very different situa-
lions created by the lapse of twenty
years.
THE TRIBUNE,S IDEA