The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-09-19
THE SILVER PROPAGANDA
HON. r.. $. TAYLOR DISCUSSES 1T IN
A LETTER TO MIR. TURTLE.
History of the Movement i'm the
titude of the Great Parties.

iio'S o""ie sSeu the appended letter 10 SELL
ator Turpie:
L propose for this letter a brief reference
to the salient points in the history of the
prosllVer movement in the United States,
Tor the sake. mainly, of the light which
that history sheds on the present attitude
of your party on the money question
The battle of the standards has occu-
pied prominent place in the monetary his
tory of the last half century This battle
has not been between gold and silver as
rival Standards but between the gold stand
ard, on one side, and the double standard
of gold and silver, on the other. The idea
of the double standard is an attractive one
1t assumes to treat gold and silver with
even lmpartlality, to provide a standard
coin of each equal in value before the law
and to give them both free and unlimited
coinage. The advantages which it promises
are a larger supply of standard coin for
use and a Steadier measure of value than
can be found in either metal alone The
the theory that the resultant of the sep
arate fluctuations of gold and silver will
be like the mean of two sinuOus lines, which
Is nearer to a straight line than either of
| its components.
The active discussion of the question be-
gan in Europe about forty years ago. slim
ulated largely by the discoveries of gold IN
California and Australia and later by the
fall in the price of silver At that time the
goldd standard had prevailed in England for
half a century On the continent there was
heterogeneous mixture of systems with a
predomlnance of silver as the actual stand
ara The double standard was nominally
dervaluation of silver in the ratio. of Is 1888
enacted by the laws of 1S34-7 (our present
10 10 y prevented the circulation of silver
ana gave us practically gold standard
For hundred and fifty years before the
opening of this discussion the ratio of value
between gold and silver while subject TO
1nceSsant small variations, had never varied
widely. The market ratio was 1907 to l in
l69S-tWo hundred years ago, and from that
time Until 1850 it was below 14.50 in only
three years, and over Is in only three II
was 1870 to in 1850 1888 in 1856 15 20 in 1850
l5.44 in 1865 and 1857 in 1870. The equiva-
Tents of these ratios in gold values of our
coinage were follows. rejecting fractions
OF cent: A silver dollar was worth in gold
in 1850 $1Ol; in 1855, $10S; in 1860, $1.O4; in
These fluctuations of ratio, small as they
were, were sufficient to make 1t impossible
for one nation, acting alone. to maintain
silver on the basis of free coinage at a
liked ratio. The law of gravitation is not
more memorable in its operation than
Greshams law. Two kinds of coin of equal
nominal value, but unequal in real value
that is, in the commercial value of the
metal in them, will not remain in circulation
together. Our own experience had demon
strated this twice before our monetary sys-
tenn was fifty years old. By the law of
1892 we gave free and equal coinage to gold
and silver at the ratio of Is to l. That was
as exactly right as we could make it to be-
gin with. But the small fluctuations of the
lars worth more than the silver in silver
dollar, and our gold disappeared from cir
culation. The difference of value which
produced this result was not great. From
1910 to 1888 the average value of a gold dol
lar in silver was 81 o. But that was enough
to drive out the gold.
CHANGING THE RATIO.
Then by the laws of 1884 and 1897 we
changed the ratio from Is to 1 to 1888 to
1--WE call it 16), by making the gold dollar a
little smaller-only SO grains less. The pur-
pose of this was to keep both gold and silver
in circulation. But almost Immediately it
was found that we were off again, only
in the other direction. Within two years
the silver dollar was worth $1.O2 in gold, and
the subsidiary coins in proportion, and
hence they all went out of circulation This
was remedied by the law of 1853, as re-
spects the subsidiary silver coins, by max
ing them of much less real than face
value that IT could not be profitable either
to melt or export them.
This, then, was the situation at the Open
Ing OF the discussion of the double standard.
No one who knew anything at all on the
subject supposed that any one nation could
maintain double standard system by itself.
The fluctuations of the market were sure to
drive one metal or the other out of circula-
ton. But it seemed not unreasonable to be-
lieve that by international concurrence in
free coinage of the two metals at an agreed
ratio on a sufficiently extensive scale those
small fluctuations of value which the mar
kets of the world had shown for a century
previous would be controlled by the mint
ratio. and true double standard thus made
possible
The subject was not generally discussed in
this country until after the decline of silver
had begun. One reason no doubt, was the
fact that during the war and for fourteen
years following it we were not using either
gold or silver, but unredeemed paper as
money. and so felt no active interest in the
subject When the question was presented.
as it was during the latter half of the sew
entities, it found the people very favorably
disposed toward the double standard. l was
OF that way of thinking myself. 1t seemed
to me that the advocates of the double
standard had the better of the argument on
theoretical grounds.
But by that time the decline in the value
of silver had become serious. Our silver
dollar, which was worth $102 in gold In
1870, had dropped to SO cents in 1875. Silver
had lot been so low before for two hundred
years. That this was due largely to the de-
monetization of silver by the German gov
eminent in 1871, and by our own in 1873 was
not to be doubted. But there 1t was, a very
manifest and a very threatening fact.
Whether or no the depreciation could be
arrested by. the return to free coinage on
the part OF our government alone was a
point on which opinions differed. Some of
the people were opposed to the double stand
ard on any terms; they believed the single
gold standard to be the best. Another class
was so infatuated with the idea of cheap
money that the fall in the price of silver
was only an additional reason for coming
it. Another class, more numerous than
either of these, were earnestly in favor Of
bimetalism. provided it could be attained
But to do this silver must be brought back
to par value with gold at the mint ratio.
How to do that, and do it safely. was the
question.
FAILURE OF THE EFFORT.
The thing that was done must be taken
to represent the resultant of opposing opin-
ions and the general judgment of the peo-
pie. BY the Bland-Allison act of 1878 we re-
stored the legal-tender quality of the silver
dollar and undertook a cautions experiment
in silver coinage; not opening the mint to
free coinage, but providing for the coinage
on government account of bullion pur-
chased by it at a rate not less than s.. 000 900
nor more than 100000 month The sec
retaries of the treasury took what seemed
to them to be the safer side and executed
the law by coinage at the minimum rate,
and this was continued for twelve years.
Meantime, silver instead of rising in value
as it was hoped it would, fell, with some
fluctuations from 50 cents per donur in l,.s
to 81 cents in 1890 Then as a sort of for
lorn hope, passed the Sherman bill in
creasing the purchases by the government
to 4.509.O00 ounces per month, equivalent at
the price of silver then prevailing to about
mated sufficient to cover the output of
the silver mines of the United States. With
in the next three years the value of the
silver dollar fell TO 90 cents. 1t had become
manifest that the attainment of the double
standard was an impossibility Germany,
Austria, Russia, Japan had gone, or were
going. to the gold standard. The world
wide drift i'm that direction was as unmis-
taxable as the sweep of the sun through the
sky. Silver had fallen to point from
which it's uplifting by us to par with gold
was an utter impossibiity. To persevere
i'm its cOi00Qa ever undey.. the restrictions 0f