The Lamar register., 1900-10-17

yer, but also by demanding that paper
money should be redecmable in coin.
AT the first opportunity thereafter for
practical exposition of its views, the
Democratic minority in Congress, when
provision was being made for the eX-
penses of the Spanish war, favored the
dilution of our currency by the issue
of 100 million dollars OF government
paper. with no provision for coin re-
serve to support such issue. In the ma
tional platform of 1900, the Democratic
party demands the retirement of lln-
tional bank notes (which are not legal
tender and are by law rcdeemable in
lawful money!. ''as fast AS the govern
ment paper and silver certificates can
be substituted for them" Nothing is
said about coin redemption of such
government paper" Mr. Bryan. in his
speech at Topeka accepting the Popu-
! list nomination for the presidency, said:
1T Is true that the Populists believe in
an irredeemable greenbnck. while the
! Democrats believe in Il grcenback re-
decmable in cOin.' But the latest con-
gressional votes. and the national plat
form of the Democratic party, show an
acceptance by that party of the Popu-
| lists views on money; and, in any
event, we find Mr.. Bryan taking the
leadership of the Popuist party. in the
belief of that party in an irredeemablc
grecnback.
| The fundamental idea of bimetnllism
rests on the use of the two metals as
the standard money OF the country.
| The true interests of silver producers
| require an increased demand for silver.
! for monetary uses. Nothing can be
more hostile to those interests than the
Populist doctrine that favors an ire
deemable paper money.
Whatever may he the real Democrat
| ic view as to the use of paper money,
and of its redeemabiity. the potential
law-making force in the Democratic
party, in the event of its success, is
opposed to the free coinage of silver.
1t is fact familiar to all that the com
mittee on resolutions at the recent
Kansas City convention was made up
of one representative from each state
and territory; and in that committee
| the vote of Hawaii was rs potential as
| that of the state of New York, The
resolution in favor of free coinage was
carried by II reported majority of two,
and the votes of the several territories
We're cast in the affirmative. But neith-
er Hawaii. Arizona, Alaska. nor any
other territory has any voice in the
iinKing OF Inws: while the state of New
York alone casts u votes in the lower
| house of Congress. An analysis of the
vote in the committee on resolutions
shows that those states whose repre-
scntativcs voted against the free silver
plank control 323 votes in the two
houses of Congress: while those whose
representatives voted in favor of free
silver control only 124 votes in the law
making body. Such eminent Democrats
as David b. Hill, Richard Croker,
Bourke Cochran and Richard Olney,
and hosts of others. are avowed oppo-
ncnts of free coinage: and they sup
port Mr.. Bryan only because they think
| he will be powerless to do harm, under
existing laws protecting the gold stand
ard. Mr.. Carl Schurz contends that If
Republican Legislation has not already
erected an impossible barrier against
dangerous action by Mr.. Bryan, it can
vet make that barrier inSuperable and
impregnable before the 18th of next
March, and that Mr.. Bryan need not
be feared. for the simple reason that he
will be powerless. In this line of argu-
| ment the Colorado advocate of the free
coinage of silver can find little hope
of it's accomplishment through Demo
cratic success at the polls.
But it is said that without congress
sional action Mr.. Bryan. as the eXecu-
tive, could. under existing laws. reverse
the policy of his predecessors, Demo-
cratic and Republican, and could pay
the interest on II large part of the ma
tional debt. and n portion of the prin-
cipal, in silver. and could also pay in
silver the current expenses of the gov
crnment. He could lawfully do this
| only SO long as the parity between sill
yer and gold money was unaffected. If
the process resulted in the breaking of
| that parity. the existing law and his
sworn duty of obedience to 1t would
compel the exercise of his option in
such manner as to restore and main-
tain that parity. If he should ignore
| this requirement to maintain the parity
of our different forms of money, still,
| what effect has this action upon bimet-
allism or the free coinage of silver!
| Without affirmative legislation the
president cannot open the mints to sill
yer, nor can he increase the purchase
| or coinage of silver. The argument
| means only that he would have the
power of disturbance, without the pow
er of ameliOration. He could tear
down, but he could not build up. He
could create CONSERVATION and panic in
business centers. but he could not in
crease the quantity of money or ad-
vance one whit the opening of the
mints to silver. This is not an argu-
ment that appeals to sober bimetallists.
Some Of us who believe in the great
value and importance of general bi-
| metallism. thought that under the con-
ditionS existing in 1896, that result
could best be attained through inde-
pendent action by the United States,
and by the immediate opening of our
mints to the free coinage of both silver
and gold, at the established ratio of 16
| to 1. Even if there was some uncer-
| tainty as to the effect of such policy,
yet the pressure of the times seemed to
Justify the experiment. The effort
failed. In the meanwhile the times
| changed. The desired results have
largely come to us by other means. Ma
| ture has been bountful and has re-
vealed reserves of gold for current and
future money supplies far in excess of