The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-08-24

provement, instead of answering the argu-
ments put forth In favor of bimetallism.
insisted that more money would make
better times.
The Republican party. however, while
claiming credit for the increase in circu-
an adequate supply of standard money.
1t denies the necessity for more real money
while it permits national banks TO expand
the volume Of paper promises TO pay
money.
IF the Populists felt justified in oppos-
ing the Republican party when Ii sought
to conceal it's gold standard tendencies
under the mask of international bimetal-
ism, the opposition should be more pro-
nounced in proportion as the Republican
party more openly espouses gold mono
metallism.
I'm 1896 the reform forces charged the
Republican party with intending TO retire
the greenbacks. This charge. denied at
the time, has been confessed by the inan-
car Dill, which converts greenbacks, when
once redeemed, into gold certificates and
extends new privileges to banks of issue.
III a Populist opposed the Republican party
when Its hostilities to greenbacks was only
now since no one can longer doubt the pur-
pose of the Republican party to substitute
bank notes for greenbacks.
1t Is true that the Populists believe I'm
an irredeemable greenback. while the
democrats believe In a ~greenback redeem
able in coin; but the vital question at this
time, SO far as paper money is concerned,
Is whether the government or banks shall
issue ii.
There will be time enough to discuss the
redeemaDillty OF the greenback when the
~greenback itself is saved from the annihila-
ton which now threatens it.
The republican party is now committed
TO a currency system which necessitates a
perpetual debt, while the Populist finds
himself in agreement with the Democrats,
who believe In paying off the national debt
as rapidly as possible.
POPULISM AND DEMOCRACY.
IF belief In an income tax justified a
Populist in acting with the Democratic
party in 1896, what excuse can he find for
aiding the Republican party now when
even the exigencies of war have not been
sufficient to bring that party to the sup
port of the income tax principle?
"Populists believe in arbitration now
as much as they did In 1896, and are as
much opposed to government by injunction
and the black list as they were then, and
upon these subjects they have as much
reason for cooperation with the Demo-
cratic party to-day as they had four years
ago.
Democrats and Populists alike favor the
principle of direct legislation. If any differ
ences exist as to the extent to which the
principle should be applied these differences
can be reconciled by experiment.
Democrats and Populists agree that Chi
nese and other Oriental labor should be ex-
cluded from the United States.
Democrats and Populists desire to so
enlarge the scope of the nterstate-com-
merce act as to enable the commission to
protect both persons and places from dis
elimination and the public at large from
excessive railroad rates.
The Populists approve the demand set
forth in the Democratic platform for a
labor bureau. with a Cabinet officer at it's
head. Such an official would keep the ad-
ministration in close touch with the wage
earning portion of the population and go
FAR toward securing such remedial legisla-
ton as the toilers need.
In 1896 the Populists united with the
democrats In opposing the trusts, al
though the question at that time appeared
IKE a cloud scarcely larger than a mans
hand. To-day that cloud wellnigh over
spreads the industrial sky. The farmer
does not participate in the profits of any
trust, but he sorely feels the burden of
them all. He is dependent upon the sea-
crop he knows not whether it will be
blessed with rain or blighted with drought:
he knows not whether wind will blow III
down, or hail destroy it, or insects devour
1t, and the price of his crop is as uncertain
as the quantity. If a private monopoly can
suspend production and fix the price of raw
material as we'll as the price of the finished
product the farmer. powerless to protect
he purchases. Can any farmer hesitate Ia
throw the influence of his ballot on the side
of those who desire to protect the public
at large from m~onopolies?
1.-The fact that the trusts support the
Republican party ought to be sufficient
proof that they expect protection from
1t. The Republican party cannot be relied
upon to e~xtinguish the trusts, so long as
it draws it's campaign contribution from
their overlooking vaults.
The prosperity argument which the Re-
publicans bring forward to ansyer all COM
plants against the administration will NOT
deceive the farmer. He knows that two
factors enter into his income-O the size
of his crop and CD the price which he re-
ce1ves for the same. He does not return
thanks to the party in power for favorable
weather and a bountiful harvest, and he
knows that the Republican party has no
policy which insured a permanent increase
In agricultural prices. Since he sells his
surplus in a foreign market, he is not a
beneficiary of the tariff, and since he pro-
duces merchandise and not money, he does
not profit by the appreciation of the dol
lar.
A CALAMITY VAIL.
"He knows that the much-vaunted pros
perity, of which he has never had his
share, is on the wane, in spite of the un-
usual and unnatural stimulation which II
has received during the last three years.
He knows that each month of 1900 shows
a larger number of failures thar the cor
responding month of 1899, and that there
~ oAiCdOy a Lilo tCilucuCy lOWdIu q
decrease in the output of the factories.
He knows. also, that discoveries of gold
famines abroad and war on three CONT
nents ave not been able to raise the price
| of farm products as rapidly as trusts and
combinations have raised the price of the
things which the farmer buys.
Our opponents have tried to make il
appear that we are inconsistent when we
desire a general rise in prices, and vet op.
pose an arbitrary rise in protected manu-
features or trust-made goods. There is nc
conflict whatever between these two prop.
ositions.
IF a general rise in prices occurs be.
cause of a permanent increase i'm the vol
ume of money all things adjust themselve:
to the new level, and If the volume OF
money then increases In proportion TO the
demand for money the price level is tn,
same, and business can be done with fair
ness to all. If, however, the rise is arbi
trary and only affects a part of the produce
of labor those whose products do not par
ticipate in the rise suffer because the pur
chasing power of their income is decreased
IF a bad monetary system drags dowr
the price Of the farmers products, Will,
monopolies raise the price of what he buys
he burns the candle at both ends and mus
expect to suffer in comparison with thos,
who belong to the classes more favored b,
legislation.
1T is sometimes urged by partisan Pop
ulists that four years more of Republican
misrule would so aggravate economic con
ditions as to make reforms easier. No on,
can afford to aid in making matters wors,
in the hope of being able to make then
sumes responsibility for evils which he ma,
not he able to remedy No PopuIicf hour