The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1900-09-21

question. we have always found 1t. an
honest and courageous newspaper, and
suchsa newspaper always commands our
respect and consideration, regardless OF
Its views on this question and that We
find in the Columbia State nf a recent
date the following paragraph:
The gold organs are boasting freely OF
the great financial strength of this coun-
try as shown by the rise Of New YORK
to the position of chief money market or
the world; but they neglectsa an important
inference which may be drawn from this
fact. They held in 1896 that bimetallism
was desirable, but that it could not be
secured by the independent action OF the
United States against the will OF Eng
land, 1.-The money centre of the world
Bryan and the Democracy held on the
other hand, that this country could and
should maintain the parity OF gold and
silver without the aid or consent of any
foreign nation If the United States is
now. as is alleged by the oddities and
seems proven, the dominant power in
finance. what is to prevent it. If 1T choose
to do so, from establishing internationally
the parity of gold aid silver at the legal
ratio? What it could not do against Eng
lands will when England was dominant 1t
can do regardless of England's will when
itSPll IS zOpt1illdIlt.F- Ii OLiicldii4oA1 10 q
good thing and the goldites were sincere
in sc and tell the truth now in their
boasts, this country can re-establish 1t as
the policy of the world
We respectfully submit in reply that If
the United States occupies command
ing position in the financial world, it is
because we have adhered to the gold
standard. But whether that be confessed
or not, It is certainly a tribute to the
gold standard that under it this country
has gained such a strong position. Is our
Columbia contemporary quite sure that
we would now be occupying this com
manding position if free silver had
triumpfled in 1896?
Another thing. We shall not enter into
any discussion here as to whether or not
the United States could, as the dominant
power in finance" independently 'estao-
fish the parity of gold and silver at
the legal ratio But if the argument
used by our free silver friends. in 1886 It'll
holds good, it would not be to the ad-
vantage of the United States to have IN
ternational bimetallism''
Our Columbia contemporary will recall
that in 1896 one of the chief arguments IN
favor of free coinage for this country, was
that we were debtor nation" and that
it was to our interest to have plenty OF
cheap money with which to pay our
debts. England was roundly denounced
by the advocates of free silver for main
tanning the gold standard, and some OF
them went so far as to say that it was
through an agent of the British Gov
eminent that silver was struck down
in 1873" When the question was asked
as to why England desired the gold
standard, the reply was always ready
that England was a creditor nation
that she was lending vast sums Of money
TO the United States and that it was,
therefore, to the interest of England to
have money as scarce and as dear as
possible, and that as gold monometallis,n
made money scarce and dear, England
was naturally in favor of the gold
standard
But conditions have entirely changed
since 1896 We are now a Creditor
nation and England and Russia and
Germany and Sweden are borrowing large
sums Of money from US, to say nothing
Of the great balance in our favor abroad
on account of our enormous export trade.
If our free silver friends We're right in
1896, in contendlnS that the gold standard
was a good thing for. creditor nation,
it is quite clear, according to their arSu-
ment, that the gold standard is now a
good thing for the United States.