The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1900-08-26
GOV. STONE ANALYZES
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN
Concise and Lucid Statement of the Paramount Questions at
~Issue-Bryan Stronger Than in Is96-Predcts
Democratic Success.

Extracts from an article by Ex-Governor Stone
of Missouri in the September Forum.
Ratio is not necessarily an immutable
quantity. 1t has been changed, and can be
changed again, If need be. Republicans say
that If We coin silver and gold at the ratio
of is to l, the silver dollar will be worth
less than the gold dollar. will have a small
er purchasing power, and that, In conse-
quence, We shall have two measures of diff
ferent values. They say, also, that silver,
coined at that ratio. being a cheaper money.
would drive gold out of circulation; that it
would disturb our exchanges and make CON-
merce with foreign nations difficult; and
that it would be dishonest to creditors, since
it would compel them to take less than had
been promised to them. But. while the Re
publicans make these special pleas against
the particular ratio mentioned, they are, in
fact. opposed to the free coinage Of silver
at any ratio. The Fundamental objection
made to the ratio of 16 to l Is that the bull
lion value of the silver dollar would be only
about one-half the bullion value of the gold
dollar: and. therefore. it is said. that the
intrinsic value OF the two dollars would be
so radically different that parity between
them coud not be maintained. But IL parity
between them could be maintained; that is
to say, if the gold dollar and the silver dol
lar could be made to have the same, or SUBJ
~stantially the same. intrinsic value and pur-
chasing power, then they would be inter-
changeable, and the evils apprehended from
coming both. whether real or imaginary,
would disappear. If this parity or equality
Of value cannot be maintained at the ratio
of l6 to /. then il certainly can be at some
other ratio.
Now, we Democrats believe In sound
money. In parity, in equality in the pur-
chasing power OF dollars. and all that. as
much as anybody believes In them II any
person. or party, who really desires bi-
metallism believes that the ratio of IL to l
Is not a correct ratio, We are ready to dis
cuss that minor phase Of the question with
a view to reaching hg an agre sem,lssn so,d sus we we
ard Republicans, for the reason that they
are opposed, as above stated. to the free
coinage Of silver at any ratio; In ether
words. they are opposed to bimetallism.
Upon the coinage question, therefore, the
difference between the two parties Is funda-
mental.
Now, what would be the effect Of Mr.. Nc
kinley's election upon this question. and
What WI nh the s , effect s Of Mr. b Bry sisa,sd sle e % sa If
to say that, SO far as the single question
Of silver coinage Is concerned, nothing
n wou.d be S.S done sot du ahas,, his Is, te 1bev T Want s0 in
that particular, and they would be content
to leave the coinage question as 1t Ii. No
probably would procure. the passage Of ad-
ditional currency notwithstanding the
~greenbacks. for instance. and comforting
greater privileges upon national banks. but
the coinage situation would probably remain
undisturbed.
Practically the same effect as to the coin
age would follow in the event of Mr.. Bry-
ans election. TIT Senate. by a large ma
jority, is pronouncedly committed to the
gold standard. and there Is not one chance
silver coinage could be enacted during Mr..
Brya term. The effect on silver coinage,
therefore. during the ensuing presidential
er Mr.. "f Bryan n Or Mr.. McK lin i ss' Should ude' be
elected. There would be an important diff
ference in effect. however. as relates to
Bryan should be elected the .greenbacks
would not be retired, and the national banks
ereiEa.S sea oSer fG she tinanei tp a sfsrsise Of s the
people. And even as to the coinage guess
ton, silver would have its friends. instead
strive inteiligently and oonscientiousiy to
restore 1t to its old place in the confidence
and affairs Of the business world. both in
principle bimetallism is as important as
ever. events transpiring since 1896 make 1t.
as a practical question, OF less immediate
consequence in this campaign than it was
in the last.
Mr.. Bryan would undoubtedly attempt to
sAbiiP ~ aAu iduiSdle me tIuStS. liclc
is not a trust magnate in America who
does not believe that. Can that be done. If
the whole power Of the Government should
be used to accomplish 1t? Why not? The
Democratic platform proposes a means Of
defining trusts, and points out some specific
remedies against them. which, If enforced,
would make them Improbable and impos-
sible. But, If only the milder method of
regulating them should be attempted, whose
hands could be the better trusted to put a
stiff bit on and hold the reins most firmly
McKinley's or Bryan's? The practical DIFF
candidate OF the other would be this: II
Mr.. Mckinley should be elected. the trust
question would sink into ''innocuous
desuetude," while trusts themselves would
continue to flourish; while If Mr.. Bryan