The Washington times., 1901-09-11

principle. The supply of money should
be sufficient to meet the requirements
of business, whatever the material or
materials may be that are used for and
accepted as money. To attempt to settle
such a question by loose generahues
about bimetallism and the gold stand
ard is utterly unsound, and wholly un-
satisfactory to those who have studied
the subject upon scientific principles
Looking at the money question as one
of adequate money supply, it is clear
that conditions are very different from
what they were in 1896. Even in 1900
the annual supply of gold was nearly
double what it was in the former year,
and the quantity available for money
use had a good deal more than doubled.
The effect was manifest in a general re-
vival of business in all gold standard
countries with an advance of prices all
along the line. This is precisely what
the bimetallists claimed would result
from increasing the supply of money
by reopening the mints to silver. But
instead of getting the increased supply
i'll that way. nature, aided by the in
mense increase of gold production. Mr..
Bryan has himself adverted to this cir
cumstance and its effects, as proving
the soundness of the silver mems con-
tention based upon the quantitative
theory. Therefore, he must see that
conditions have radically changed since
1896, and that the arguments in favor
of restoring silver to free mintage, IL
not entirely inapplicable to the present
situation. have at least lost the most
of their force.
1t can now hardly be claimed with
any show of reason that the country is
suffering from scant supply of money.
In fact. Mr. Bryan has not made that
argument himself for several months
past. He has simply talked about the
gold standard and bimetallism in an
abstract way. much as we would talk
of freedom and slavery, honesty and
dishonesty, or any other question of an
ethical character in which principles
never change.
Taking these distractions as base,
Mr.. Bryan argues that we must either
continue to demand the free coinage of
ard, and he seems to think that the ac-
ceptance of the gold standard would be
wrong. In this he not only ignores the
great economic principle involved, but
he overlooks the highly important con-
sideration that political questions of an
industrial and financial nature are al
ways more or less transitory, changing
as conditions change. The acceptance
of the gold standard now as a political
fact does not carry with it an admis-
sion that the bimetailic contentious of
former years were wrong nor does it
bind us to the gold standard for all
time. The acceptance is understood to
be for such time as the conditions
created by that standard are fairly sat
isfactory. and for no longer. Gold
might become so abundant as almost to
cease to be precious metal-in which
event its strongest champions would be
anxious to get rid of it. Or, ii might
again become so scarce as to be wholly
inadequate for the needs of the COM
mercial world. and this would once
more bring up some question of how to
increase the supply
not now dealing with the money ques-
ton in a practical way. By persisting
that the advocates of bimetallism in
former political campaigns shall con-
tinue TO urge it in subsequent ones, he
is proposing course which, so far as
we can judge by present conditions.
would mean the certain defeat of the
Democratic party. If the free silver
idea could not triumph in 1896. or in
1900, it certainly could not do so in 1904.
unless there should be a change in the
political. Industrial. and financial situa-
ton such as cannot at this time be fore
seen. The Democratic party cannot af-
ford to remain forever a minority fight
ing for mere distractions. when there
are so many substantial wrongs to be
redressed, and so much solid ground
upon which the party can stand to-
gether and win.