The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1898-01-13

was too large or not, Il ought to be taken into
used to buy. l hope that hereafter no gold
bug will array himself against the highest
court OF the state of Minnesota. If the dol
lars nave risen in their purchasing power and
that fact is worthy of being considered,
whether Judgment was too large then my
the dollar mas risen in value? Is it not worth
made that dollar? It has been done by law.
therefore injustice has been done by law.
The increase in the purchasing power of the
dollar has made man pay more than ne
agreed to pay, and has enabled the man who
right to collect. l want to ask you what
in morals is the difference between allowing
IN, man to take or to have in the first instance
what he is entitled to, and then going to him
ank taking part of what he has saved and
making a Law, that raises the purchasing part
you to collect the same number OF dollars,
put dollars Of greater purchasing power to
called thief! But if you make a law to
take it by law you are fnancier (Applause)
Now, bimetallism is not q recent inven-
ton. Bimetallsm is not an experiment. BIZ
metallism is an old established principle. 1t
has existed for thousands of years, and if any
OF you who advocate bimetallism have been
frowned down as men who were trying to
bring some new order of things, let me give
you few propositions to submit to your
opponent. Bimetallism is the old thing, and
gold standard is the experiment. We had
bimetallism for eigthy-one years in the United
states. from 1iS2 TO 1878, and yet IN all that
time there never was political party of any
name that ever condemned it in national
convention. Do you know of any other policy
that lasted that long without some party de-
nounctng it? You cannot say that the people
did not know of the gold standard because
for fifty. years England had the gold stand
ard, and we had the double standard, and
no great man from Washington to Lincoln
preferred the gold standard while had the
double standard We adopted the gold stand
ard without any party asking for it. Do you
believe that our government changed from
one to the other without knowing it. The
change was made without the American peo-
pie knowing it. We abandoned bm1.alism
and substituted the gold standard without
the American people knowing that it was be-
out the knowledge of the people, but con-
gress did it without the members of con-
gress knowing what was being done.
Now you say that is not possible. Well,
it was done, and 1 think 1 can show you
that it is not impossible, even as a matter
of reason. We were not using at that time
either gold or silver. We were using paper.
| The bill was to codify the mint law. The
members Of congress stated that they did not
know when the bill passed, that the bill
demonetized silver. Blaine who was then
speaker of the house said he didn't know
it. Others said they did not know it. If
anybody tells you that it is impossible to get
bill through congress without the members
OF congress knowing what the bill contained,
you ask him who put section % in the Ding
ley bill. Members of all parties examined
it, read it and talked about it, and yet it.
signed by the president, and then they asked
WHO PUT SECTION %
in that bill? My friends, that is not the
strangest thing. Not only was the change
made without the public asking it, or with
out their knowing it, or without congress
knowing 1t, but for twenty-three years ex-
pertinent under the gold standard was so
disastrous that no party Of any name dared
to approve of demonstration in any plat
form, or dared to say that the gold standard
was blessing to the American people
Sometimes you find advocates of the gold
standard who were shocked that any man
could believe in free coinage And yet the
man who defends the gold standard is de-
tending a thing that after twenty-three
yers of experience, could only muster 1872 900
voters in the United States who liked it.
Only one party in the history of this nation
ever declared in a national convention for a
gold standard, and that was the party known
as the National Democratic party. 1t polIed
$4,000 votes. Many of them by mistake.
(Applause.)
Take the political history of this coun-
try, and what do you find? You find that in
1895, after we had the gold standard for a
little more than twenty-three years, the DEM
ocratic party declared against the gold stand
ard and IN favor OF Independent bmetalism
and stated how it wanted free and unlimited
coinage of 16 to 1 without waiting for the aid
or consent of any other nation. You may
oppose the doctrine if 20 want to, but that
one Democratic platform that could not be
construed both ways in different parts of
the country. AS soon as the president was
elected, he asked authority to send a com
mission to Europe. To keep the gold stand
ard because it was a blessing? MOI To get
rid of it, because it was a curse Whv
should we send a commission to Europe to
get rid of a gold standard if it was a bless
ing! Inc man who advocates the gold stand
ard has to do it in spite of all the history
of the United States. | will go further Pos
slbly our people are not intelligent enough to
know what is good for them. Possibly TWEEN
ty-three years Of experience are not sufficient
to enable to determine whether the gold
standard is good or bad. If you insist that
our people cannot be trusted in patriotism or
in intelligence I will get some evidence from
across the ocean that ought to satisfy YOU
France has had the gold standard for twenty
years When our commission went to Europe
France at once joined and asked with ours for
England to bimetallism. Some people
say the Germans are in favor of the gold
standard. 1 have very often heard the gold
people say that the Germans are so favorable
to sound money. Yes, they are in favor of
sound money. Let me call your attention to
what has been done in Germany. In the
spring OF 1893, the popular branch of the Ger
man assembly passed a resolution declaring
in favor of international bimetallsm. Why
did those people representing the masses of
the German people declare in favor of inter
national bimetallism if the gold standard had
been a blessing, which they had for over
twenty years. But the Berlin chamber of
commerce Immediately met and passed a res
oluton that the gold standard was all right
What does it mean? 1t means that in Ger
many it is the same as it is here. The masses
cry out for bimetallism, but the financial
man wants the gold standard.
Our commission went to England and what
did it find there? 1t found a sentiment in
favor of bimetallsm. 1t found that the
labor organizations were sending petitions to
the English parliament asking it to make
concessions to bimetalism. The commission
found that the agricutuTists were petition
ing the government to make concessions to
bimetallsm. Within a year a report has
been filed and read in this country largely
by this time, report signed by ten out Of
fou-een members Of an agricultural COM
mission, appointed by a gold standard gov
ernTsnt to inquire into agriculture, and they
reported international bimetallsm as a relief
to the farmers of England. If you want to
ireland: read that pamphlet by the venerable
Archbishop Walsh. and see the harm done to
the Irish people. There is a sentiment in ia
vor of bimetallism in England, and that SEN
timent strong that our commissioners
sent back word saying that they were hope
full something was going to be done.
My friends, there is q sentiment in favor of
bipetallism. Net among the silver miners.
but among the farmers, the laborers, the
merchants, the people who have been Droduc-
ing the wealth. But you will tell me that
England did not join with u.s. No. If you
read the morning paper of Sept. % you found
that On the day before there was a confer
ing house in London. and you found that
that conference passed by unanimous vote
protest against any concessions being made
to bimetallsm, and every man attending
that meeting was pledged to secrecy. Those
who were present, a mere handful Of people
so small that they could be confined within
the walls CT a clearing house. protested
against concessions being made to bimetaI-
lism and were needed by their country; de-
clared that the English government could NOT