The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1898-02-17
NO STEP BACKW Ard.
William j. Bryan Sticks to the
Issue and Ratio.
NO, COMPROMISES WITH ENEMY
Confident That His Position is Tcnable He
writes an Open Letter in which lie Fur
ther Entrenchcs Democracy
In the Peoples Hearts.

The New York Journal of recent date
publishes the following letter from vii
liam j. Bryan, in answer to structures
put upon the popular 16 to 1 ratio by
Arthur McEwen in numerous articles II
that paper:
In answer to your inquiry, / submit
some of the re sons which lead me to be
lieve that the money question presents
an issue which is still paramount II
Importance. In the platform adopted al
Chicago the Democratic party said" Rec
ognizing that the money question 1;
paramount to all others at this time, We
invite attention to the fact that the
Federal Constitution named gold and sill
yer together as the money metals Of the
United states and that the first coinage
law passed by congress under the con-
stitution made the silver dollar the mon
etary unit and admitted gold TO free
coinage at q ratio based on tie silver
dollar unit"
After thus elevating the question to
the place of supreme Importance, the
platform proceeded to point out the effect
Of an appreciating dollar, and declared
the unalterable opposition Of the party to
the gold standard, characterizing it as
both un-Amerioan and anti-American,
The platform specifically demanded:
First-The free and unlimited coinage
of both silver and gold at the present
legal ratio of 16 to /.
Second-That the standard silver dollar
be made full legal tender, equally with
gold. for all debts, public and private. 4
Third-The enactment of such legisla-
tion as will prevent for the future the d.
monetization of any kind of legal tender
money by private contract.
Fourth-That the United States shall
not surrender its right to redeem its
obligations in either gold or silver.
Fifth-That the government shall not
issue interest bearing bonds in time OF
peace.
Sixth-That the government shall not
surrender to national banks the right to
issue paper money.
While the declaration against national
bank notes is not at par the silver plank,
the division line between those who
favor indercndent bimetallsm and those
who oppose it is almost Identical with
the line which separates the advocates OF
government paper from supporters OF
national banks of issDe, and the two
questions will be sctil d together. Nothing
has happened since the election to lessen
the real or relative Importance of the
money question. If the gold standard
was bad in 1896 it is still bad if our
present financial system was un-Ameri-
can and nti-American in 1896, it has not
become naturalized since that time. =
In 1896 independent bimetallism was
pointed out as the only remedy for the
gold standard, and the failure of our
monetary commission to secure int rna-
tional bimetallism strengthens our con-
tention. The senate has recently put
itself upon record in favor Of that plank
of our platform which declares that the
silver dollar shall have debt paying
power equal to the gold dollar, and that
the government shall not surrender its
right to redeem coin obligations in either
gold or silver, and the house has de-
clared against the proposition. The effort
of the Secretary of the Treasury to secure
authority to issue more bonds and his
demand for the retirement of the green
backs are in direct opposition to the posi-
tions above stated. Thus it will be seen
that events, not free silver aqitators, are
keeping the money question before the
country.
The evil effects of the gold standard
are so apparent that the Republican
party refuses to become sponsor for the
system: It is so indefensible that even
Secretary Gage, in his recent speech at
Philadelphia, took occasion to say that
the President is in favor Of irrational
bimetallsm and has the support of all
his cabinet in his effort to secure the CO.
operation of other nations in getting
the gold standard.
But while the Republican party
through the chief executive, still holds
out the hope of international bimetall-
ism, none of the party leaders say a word
in defense of the doIble standard, in
ternational or independent Why not?
Because international bimetallism can
only be defended on the theory that the
existing gold standard is unsatisfactory,
and the Republican leaders know that
the Republican party has no real inten-
tion of abandoning the present gold
standard, and they cannot therefore,
afford to say anything which would make
the people dissatisfied with it. Neither
do ttey, as a rule, say anything in favor
Of the gold standard, because TO do so
would at once raise the question:: Why,
then, is International bimetallism de-
sirable ? Occasionally speaker will be
found who will take both sides Of the
question, as did Mr. Gage at Philadelphia.
After trying to show that the gold
standard had been blessing to the labor
ing man, he declared it to be the inten-
ton Of the Republicans to substitute an
other system. The question at once
arises, if the gold standard has been a
blessing to the laboring man, why does
not the Republican party advocate its
retention, rather than its abandonment?
International bimetallism will have ex-
aotly the same effect as independent BIZ
metalllsm in raising prices. If fall in
prices is an advantage, then rise in
prices cannot be desirable; and If, on
the other hand a rise in prices, whether
obtained through independent bimetal-
llsm or through an international agree
ilent, is good when the fall in prices