Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-09-16

New York, Sept. 12.-Hon. Carl
Schurz has written the following open
letter to Hon. Lyman j. Gage, Secre-
tary of the Treasury:
To the Hon. Lyman J. Gage, Secretary
Of the Treasury:
Sir.--The object of my open letter of
September 1 was. by offering a means
of escape from the dangers pointed out
by you. to call public attention to the
fact that the present campaign is by
no means u repetition of that of 1896,
and that the money question now has
no right to stand in the way of Il fair
consideration of other important Ulies-
tions on their own merits. l thank you
for the courtesy of your answer, but
l must regret that, instead of favora-
bly, receiving my Wcll-meant Sugges-
ton. 1t only shows to what lengths
partisan zeal Will go in the attempt to
frighten the people into the belief that
only Mr. McKinleys reelection can
save them from general ruin. and that
no objection to him in any other re-
spect must have any weight with
them.
TO help on the alarm. you quote from
speech made by me in 1896, showing
what disastrous consequences / pre-
dicted would be brought on by the
election of Mr.. Bryan. l believed at
the time. and / believe now that those
consequences would have followed had
Mr.. Bryan been elected then. after q
campaign turning wholly upon the
financial issue, with no existing law
seriously to hamper him, and with ma
jorities in both Houses of Congress
prospectively at his back But you
know as well as I do that circum-
stances have essentially changed, and
that there is an immense difference
~
to act and Il President elected after
campaign run on other issues. with adj
verse majorities in Congress, and
bound hand and foot by law such as
now exists. or as you and your friends
in power may still make it. Is 1t quite
ingenious. Is 1t not doing violence to
truth, to quote words uttered under
one set OF circumstances as applicable
to set of circumstances SO essential
ly different?
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE LAWS
DIRECTS.
TO my suggestion that. II the present
srw rs defective, the Republican Con-
GROSS and Administration would before
rne inauguration of the next President
have ample power and opportunity to
prevent the Executive action. with It's
disastrous consequences. which you SO
luridly depict. you object that Congress
would probably" find 1t difficult to use
that power owing to possible obstruc-
tive tactics of the minority. Whatever
those who insist upon the necessity of
Mr.. McKiniey's recollection for the pre-
servation of the gold standard may say.
my parliamentary experience teaches
me that II you, as Secretary of the
treasury, prepare n simple measure of
remedial legislation and have 1T intro
duced in Congress on the first day OF
the session, and the majority presses 1t
with Il sincere determination to use all
legitimate means to overcome obstruc-
tive tactics, the three months of the
session Will be more than sufficient to
put through such bill
There will be no trouble about this If
the Republican majority is willing to do
1t. Or do you suspect that it might not
be willing. even If such action appeared
necessary. to save the gold standard?
If not willing, then the Republicans
would be saying to the American peo-
pie substantially this: I'VE are the
men to maintain the gold standard.
Therefore. you must keep us in Office
and permit us to do whatever rfsr we
please, however obnoxious it may be to
you. For If you vote us out, we shall
let the gold standard go to pcrdition
even while able to save 1t. We have
you by the throat and mean to hold you
So" II this be really the spirit of the
Republicans in power the people will
soon conclude that they are public
danger and q nuisance and ought to be
got rid OF at any cost. You certainly
cannot wish your party to stand in
such light.
repeat. therefore, that the Republi-
can majority in Congress not only can,
but If only for its own moral salvation,
will do this thing in case of necessity,
and you, Mr.. Secretary. then relieved of
your partisan campaign service. will.
as good citizen, be one of the first to
urge it to be done, il you sincerely
think the currency law to be as defec-
aster you represent it to be.
But do you really think that 1t Is so
defective and that the dangers you pre-
dicted owing to that effectiveness
really threaten? In your letter you say
that, since I had accepted Tor argu-
ment's sake" your statements on these
points, there is no particular differ
ence between us as to what Mr.. Bryan.
las President. could do under the law
or in spite of the law as it now u.s."
You must pardon me for observing, MIR.
Secretary. that when you tell the public
that / agree with you on those points,
you strain the truth rather violently.
Accepting q statement for arguments
sake" means that we admit it only as
a basis for reasoning, while we may
really hold an entirely opposite opinion.
And in this case I have. indeed, strong
authorities Tor differing from y 'u ana.
curiously enough. among these authori-
ties you. Mr.. Secretary, occupy a very
prominent place.
CASE OF GAGE VS.. GAGE.
About July Is you gave out an inter-
view on the Identical points here in
question. which has recently been re-
published. and which stands in strange
contrast to the alarm blast sounded
month later. 1t is worth while to place
the two utterances side by side: