The San Francisco call., 1899-12-13

WASHINGTON, Dec 12-There is such
great pressure, for time on the part
Of the members OF both sides who desire
10 participate in the currency debate in
the House that night sessions were or
dered to-day. Interest in the debate IS
not keen. judged by the attendance in tho
galleries. although the members them
selves are listening attentively 10 the
speeches.
Only one Democrat thus far has spoken
in favor OF the bill-Driggs Of New York
who announced to-day that he had
pledged himself before election TO support
the gold standard and proposed TO re-
deem that pledge. He will be joined by
several of his Brooklyn colleagues and
probably several others.
The features OF the debate to-day were
the speeches of Grosvenor of Ohio for
the bill and OF Cochran of Missouri and
Newlands Of Nevada against IL. The other
speakers were Parker or New Jersey, VIII
liam Alden Smith of Michigan. Prince OF
Illinois. Lawrence of Massachusetts and
Powers Of Vermont for the bill and Shat
roth of Colorado and Sims OF Tennessee
against 1t.
In opening Grosvenor said he had hoped
the Democrats would meet the issue
prompted by the pending bill but they were
here with the same old stale battlecry of
'l6 10 l." Going back TO the platform
declaration of 1896 Grosvenor produced a
poll OF the members of the committee on
resolutions of the St. Louis convention
TO show that an overwhelming majority
favored gold declaration before the
convention met The only controversy
since had been as TO who was responsible
Tor certain verbal phrases.
lie reviewed the Democratic predictions
IN the last campaign propnesylng no re-
lei, but continued Ialllng prices lucent
corn, 25-cent wheat, S-cenI cottOn ana
general distress until free silver came.
ana then described how prosperity Iol-
lowed Mckinleys election and the restor-
alOn Of confidence. The Democrats pre-
olcted We would have no foreign trade
That trade was now larger than at any
period IN our history. Another prediction
was that there would be "A contraction OF
the currency. The currency had increased
S4OJ,O0O,U0J IA three years. Referring to
the question OF antitrust legislation, he
challenged any Democrat 10 point out
any addition which could be made con-
stituuonally TO the Sherman antitrust
law. He dlssented entirely from Bryan's
remedy. He cOntended that Congress
could not assail corporations in the
States, that the states could control and
regulate their own domestic affairs.
Newlands of Nevada followed GrosVenor
in opposition 10 the bill He traced the
history of the country through the period
OF depression commencing IN 1888, con,
tending that the panic was not caused
by the coinage OF silver under the Sher-
man act ne said the increase of pros
perity during the past two years demon
strated the correctness Of the theory en-
tertained by bimetallists-that, all other
things being equal, prices will depend
upon the quantity or money In circula-
tion; that an increase of the money vol
ume means higher prices and the diminu-
ton OF the volume means lower prices.
Shafroth of Colorado. in opposing the
bill, argued that the foundation OF the
prosperfty In the Harrison administration,
the depression during the Cleveland ad-
minlstration and the prosperity under the
present administration, lay IN the sup
ply Of basic money. During the Harri-
son administration. the Sherman pur-
chasing act added four millions month
10 the supply: the repeal of that law at
the beginning of the Cleveland admins
ration brought disaster. and the great
Increase in. gold production and the con-
seouent Increase in the basic money ac-