Willmar tribune. [volume] (Willmar, Minn.) 1895-1931, 1899-04-26
BRYAN ON THE RATIO.
Present Figures of 16 to
Should Not Be Changed.

Should Not Be Changed.
There are some who admit the neces-
sity for bimetallism and who confess
that it can only be secured by indie
pendent action, but suggest change
Of ratio. They ask, why sixteen to one?
l answer that there are several reasons.
Sixteen to one is the ratio at which
we had free coinage from 1884 to 1873.
1t is the ratio now existing between the
gold and silver coins in circulation, and
it is more favorable to gold than the
ratio now existing in most European
countries. 10 change the ratio by in
dependent action, besides changing ex-
listing contracts, lessening our cur
rency and mourning great expense,
would put us out of harmony with
other nations; especially would it put
us out of harmony with France, the
European nation most friendly to sill
yer, where the ratio is fifteen and a
half to one. If, by international agree
ment, we should change the ratio to
thirty-two to one, for instance, it
would necessitate the recoinage of
more than four billions of silver into
coins twice as large provided the
change was made by increasing the
size of the silver coins). To double the
size of the silver coin of the world
would diminish by one-half the silver
money of the world; it would dimin-
ish by one-quarter the entire volume
Of metallic money of the world. Such
shrinkage in the volume of money
would, in effect, add billions of dollars
to the debts of the world Should so
great an injury be done without the
necessity for it being proven beyond
a reasonable doubt? Bimetallists con-
tend that gold and silver have been
driven apart by hostile legislation, and
that they can be brought together by
friendly legislation. They contend
that legislation favorable to gold has
Increased the purchasing power of an
ounce of gold throughout the world
and lowered the general level of prices,
while the same general legislation has
lessened the demand for silver and low
cred the gold price of that metal. They
contend that the restoration of the free
and unlimited coinage by a great ma
ton like the United States will increase
the demand for silver to point where
the mints will require all the surplus
silver OF the world, and thus, by rails
ing the gold price of silver and lowering
the purchasing power of an ounce of
gold, will restore the parity at sixteen
to one, and thereafter maintain the
parity at that ratio. It is true that
some bimetallists do not believe that
this nation alone can maintain the
parity at that ratio, but shall the great
majority who do believe surrender their
conviction to the comparatively few
who doubt? Upon what principle can
the minority demand of the ma jority
the right to dictate a platform? Those
who are opposed to the gold standard
must act together, and the plan of &C.
ton must be determined by the ma
jority. The moment the ratio of six
teen to one is surrendered, our silver
plank loses it's force. Those who op-
pose the ratio of sixteen to one are not
agreed among themselves. No consid-
cradle body of men ask for any other
specific ratio. One man says twenty to
one, another twenty-four, another
thirty-two; but all the DIRECTORS
together are small in number
when compared with those who
firmly believe. in the ability of this
nation to maintain the parity at Sin
teen to one. If it is proposed to leave
the ratio to congress, it must be remem-
bered that those who desire bimetal-
lisnl demand affirmative action, and
everyone opposed to the ratio fixed in
any proposed bill will be counted
against any kind of bimetallism. If the
ratio is left to be determined by con-
gressmen who run upon different plat
forms, it gives a chance for variety
of ratios, which will effectually prevent
any legislation favorable to bimetal-
lism, and will also give chance for
friends of the gold standard to slip into
congress under the pretense of favor
ing some underlined ratio, but who, as
matter of fact, would use their posi-
tions to maintain the gold standard.
The ratio of sixteen to one has been
adopted by the democratic party in a
convention, which, more than any re-
cent convention, received it's authority
direct from the people. The rank and
file of the party, instead of leaving the
ratio to the leaders, expressed their
own opinion upon the subject, and that
opinion has not changed since the con-
vention. This ratio has also been in
dorsed by the populist party, the ma
tional silver party, and the silver re-
publicans. To abandon the ratio would
be wrong in itself, and as impolitic as
it would be wrong. If the democratic
party were to allow it's policy on this
question to be determined by few
doubling Thomases, or by the desert
ers who supported the enemy in the
great struggle between democracy and
plutocracy, it would lose the respect
and confidence of those who now look
to it as an efficient means of restoring
government of the people. To turn
from its clear and courageous enuncia-
tons to wallow again in the mire of
ambiguity and deception would alien
ate those who have been drawn to it by
the platform of 1896. The democratic