The Washington weekly post., 1900-11-27
VIA It Be Done?


The programme Informally laid out by
a number OF influential Republican Sena-
tors and Representatives for the ap-
preaching final session Of the F1fty-sixth
Congress omits one item that seems to US
to be important, II not urgent However
mortlfying it might be FOR the Republican
leaders 20 do that which in their national
platform and In a thousand other ways
they have proudly asserted that they had
done, its doing could not clip the branches
Of their pride more severely than should
have been the case when In the midst OF
the Presidential campaign they confessed
that In spite Of their lofty claim the thing
had not been done az all.
There was no better piece of timber In
the Republican platform, before 1t was
proclaimed a fraud by Republican au-
thorty. before IL was discredited by the
head Of the finance department than the
declaration that "the stability Of our cur
Tency or a gold basis has been secured ."
That was the announcement that, after
a long struggle. which will be memorable
In the nations history, the right had tri-
Umphed; that the duty deyOlved on the
Republican party by the elections Of 1886
and 1855 and emphasized by the course Of
events in the nations and the worlds
finance and business, had been discharged
Il was accepted as the crowning glory OF
the Mckinley administration. The country
was ready TO pay due tribute TO the fidel-
ity which that declaration evinced.
And when the deception was exposed
and admitted and the defect of the cur
rency act pointed out-when the Repub-
lcans, instead OF claiming honor and pop
ular approval for having secured the sta
bility Of our currency on a gold basis. un-
dertook 10 make capital out Of the allega-
ton that the gold standard was still at
the mercy of an unfriendly Executive
there was widespread. deep. and justifia-
bic resentment But the exposure un-
doubtedly served to hold in alliance with
the Republicans large numbers of Gold
Democrats who would else have gone
over to Bryan. They felt that in spite of
the deception that had been practiced
upon them, the standard would be safer
under Republican rule than under a Bryan
administration.
Would it be unreasonable to expect the
F1fty-Sixth Congress at its second and
last session 10 accomplish the work which
the platform declares was performed at
its first session. but which the admins
traton. through its Secretary of the
Treasury, and the party, through its or
eans. have admitted was not performed? :?
Is II not important TO complete forthwith
the reform that was the chief object of
the currency act? Could there be any ex-
cuse for another failure TO place the
standard beyond the reach Of the execu-
tive department, to plant it so securely
that no President could tamper with it,
and where only full legislative power
could touch Il?
There has been enough of talk on this
subject. The country demands the main.
tenance Of the gold standard. The entire
Mckinley vote, supplemented by more
than half of the Bryan vote, may be
safely assumed TO represent the strength
of that standard. The Senate tinkered the
House bin with fatal effects. But Senator's
who were responsible for that tinkering
were loudest in declaring that the meas
IRE as il finally passed was perfect so
far as related to fixing the standard. Since
then they profess 10 have seen a new
light Is it not time for trifiing to stop? Is
IL not the imperative duty of the Fifty
sixth Congress 10 do the work which it
claimed 10 have done in the first session? ?
1t is too serious a matter for trivial
treatment This Congress has taught the
country 10 look for farce-comedy when it
approaches the trust question. Is IT going
TO put the monetary standard Ia the same
category?