The evening times., 1900-10-03

Continuing His Allegiance to Him.
BALTIMORE, Oct. S.-Col. Charles Mar
shall. one of the most prominent lawyers
in the State, who four years ago opposed
the election of Mr.. Bryan because of the
Democratic nominees views on the fnan-
cial question, and who was member of
the Committee of Seventy of the Honest
Money Democratic League. has declared
his intention of voting the Democratic
ticket this fall
Colonel Marshall believes that the or
ganization of the league to oppose Mr.
Bryan Is not necessary this time, and has
declined to join. When asked his reasons
for so doing, he said that he did not be-
lieve the league could make honest
money any more secure than it now is
by electing Mr.. Mckinley.
Certain persons" said Colonel Mar
shall using the name of The Honest
Money League are trying to secure the
election of Mr. Mckinley, and all friends
of honest money are urged and invited by
the league in that name to aid in his cleo
tion.
Now, if the election of Mi. Mckinley
is necessary to order 10 secure the cause
of honest money, meaning by honest
money a gold currency, have We not got
honest money now? If We haven't honest
money, why haven't we honest money?
Have not Mr.. Mckinley and the Republi-
can party had absolute control of leglsla-
tion in the United States since the MAORI
ty IN the Senate became opposed to silver?
Having had control of legislation in the
United States since that time, why has
not an effective honest money law been
enacted?
If Money Is Not Sound, Whye
If the law that has been enacted and
approved by Mr.. Mckinley is not an effet-
tive law 10 secure what is called honest
money against everybody, even against
Mr.. Mckinley himself, unless the majority
Of the people become favorable 10 the sill
yer standard rather than to the gold stand
ard and elect a Congress to repeal the
law we now have, why is not the legisla-
tion that We have effectual? Whose fault
is it? It must be the fault Of those who
enacted the law as it now stands. Those
who enacted it and Mr. Mckinley who ap-
proved it. constituted the legislative au-
thority of the United States Government,
all of which has been and is in the hands
of the Mckinley party, and they could
now do whatever legislation can do to Sc
cure honest money.
IF that party, under such circum-
stances has net enacted an effectual hon.
est money law, what becomes of the
pledges to enact such law, upon which
pledges Mr.. Mckinley secured his cleo
tion in 1896 with the aid of Democratic
votes? If the party headed by Mr.. Nc
Kinley could have enacted a law which
would be effectual to put the repeal of it
beyond the reach of any person in the
world (unless the people of the United
States should change their views on the
- AZ; y;,,la
they viii not dol and failed TO pass such
law was not that failure due to the Nc
Kinley party2 And if it was due TO the
fault of that party, shall we trust that
party again. particularly If the conse-
quences of the alleged defects in the law
Will be SO disastrous as they are now rep
resented to be? Besides this, the sans
party until the 4th of March 1901 will
continue to have absolute control of Iegis-
fation.
Il Mckinley to He Trusted:
'If the Honest Money League people
mean what they say when they assure US
that the election of Mr.. Mckinley is nee
rssary to secure the continuance of honest
money, they must mean that the Repub-
1iCan party and Mr. Mckinley cannot be
trusted between the present time ard the
expiration of the last session of the pres
ent Congress Oh March + 1901 to correct
the alleged defects in the present law. If
they cannot be trusted to make use Of the
time that still remains to them to make
any necessary changes in that law can
they be trusted to do so any more after
renewal of Mr. McKinIey's present
term, and after a renewal of the control
of his party in Congress?
Can the Honest Money Democratic
League give assurance that Mr. McKin-
ley and his party, if he be reelected will
not continue to juggle with honest money
legislation? Why should Democrats be
asked to contribute to the reelection of
Mr. Mckinley when Mr. Mckinley and
his party have either utterly failed to keep
the promise upon which he was elected
and upon which he was voted for by a
great many Democrats in 1896. unless he
intends 10 fail to keep that promise now,
having ample time left him to correct any
errors in the attempt to fulfill it? II so.
shall we trust that man and that party
again to do what they have failed already
10 do?
IF it be true that the present Iegisla-
tion in favor of sound money is not SUI
fcient to prevent it from being inter-
fered with by any authority except the
authority of the people of the United
States, shall Democrats contribute to
the continuance in power of a President
and party who have already betrayed
like trust and thereby vote to prolong