Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1898-02-01
Oh, PECKSNIFF!

Inc esteemed lnIolllS0uCeT Is SIOW-
ing desperate in it's inability to de-
fend President Mckinley against his
resorts to a species of untruthfulness
that is rather brazen, and is certainly
startling when we hear it from SO
good and pure a paper as Pecksniff S.
We do not mean to say that Pecksnif
is never guilty of OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES
of the brazen sort-for that would not
be Pecksniff's character, but, as
a rule, he is careful that his
untruthfulness is Of SO foxy"
kind as not to be observ-
able to the ordinary reader. This
time, however, our contemporary out
open falsehood. He casts his more or
less well established reputation for
virtue and veracity to the winds in his
rush to defend the President-to whom
Editor Pecksniff owes so much-from
his own honest record on the one great
and vital question that now interests
the American people.
To be specific and to avoid Peck
shifts customary defense when cor
nered, namely, that he has been gar
bled," etc., we will let the good man
speak for himself:
The fact is, President Mckinley never
did favor the free and unlimited coinage
of silver at the ratio of 16 to l. regardless
of International agreement. nor the policy
OF placing the country on silver basis
If Mckinley did not favor the free
coinage of silver at the legal ratio of
16 to 1, what did he mean by voting
in Congress in 1878 for the Stanley
Mathews resolution, which explicitly
stated that our sacred debt" as Pres
ident Mckinley has learned to call
it, was
Payable, principal and interest. at the
option of the Government of the United
States in silver dollars of the coinage of
HUNDRED AM AND TWELVE AND ONE
SILVER; AND THAT TO RESTORE TO
ITS COINAGE SUCH SILVER COINS
AS A LEGAL TENDER IN PAYMENT
OF SAID BONDS, principal and interest,
is not in violation of the public faith nor
in derogaatfon of the rights of the public
creditor.
Now, when William Mckinley voted
for that resolution what did he mean
if not to vote for the restoration of the
free and unlimited coinage of silver at
the ratio of sixteen of silver to one of
gold?
What else could he have meant
What else was it possible for him to
mean? When Mckinley voted that our
sacred debt was payable in silver
dollars containing Ape grains each of
standard silver, which is the present
weight and fineness of the silver dol
lar at the present legal ratio of 16
to 1, what did he mean if he was not
endorsing the ratio of 16 to /? What
else could he have had in mind when
he cast shat vote? And when he voted
ito restore to its (the governments 81
coinage such silver coins what did he
mean if he did not mean to restore
silver to free aid unlimited coinage at
United States mints on an equality
with gold, for the coinage of the silver
dollar at the minis. under government
regulation. had not ceased, but silver
had been deprived OF its quality as a
money metal AMI was then, as since,
only token" money and. like paper,
only represented money of final
redemption, that is, under gold
standard rulings, gold. What
did Mckinley mean, therefore,
when he voted to restore"
silver to the coinage unless he meant
its free and unlimited coinage on an
equality with gold? AS the coinage of
silver dollars on government account
had not been stopped, what else could
he have meant by his vote for the
Stanley Mathews resolution, except by
that vote to register his belief in the
free and unlimited coinage of silver at
the ratio of 16 to /, and to place on
record his protest against the oppres-