The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1901-09-11
SoME LEADING EDITORIALS.
THE DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM OF 1899.

THE DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM OF 1S9s
From the Washington Times.
What the democratic platform Of 1902 contained upon '
coinage question is now ancient history so rapid mas pee
the onward march of political events Not only IS u
in chronological sense but the subject with winch II ue'
has ceased to be living political issue and can never DC
reurrected under conditions which are not ke
to occur within life Of the present generation but even
ancient history fairly and canddy dealt wth ooh
the of the truth itself and because tends 70 eie
up present points Of difference between the soaeu s
and silver wings Of the democratic party
First it is well understood that prior to 1899 the Demo
cratic party had in its National platforms maze any
declaration which bore specifically and directly upon inc
question Of silver coinage It had eontented set win s
era expressions favorng the constitutional money OF the
country which, every ought TO know eoss'eu VI
gold and silver with limitations upon the coinage OIL
either constitution itself does actually provide LOT
the coinage either metal 1t simply recognizes both ana
the coinage enacted in OF that hstru
provided for their unrestricted coinage There never
any direct question this point until the issue was
squarely made in 1896.
after the decentralization of silver in 1873 both par
ties in general way assumed that such action had been
mistake and that in proper manner the country
finances should be brought back bimeac basis When-
the question in congress large segment oil
both parties took position that the was to re-
open the minis silver the ratio of sixteen ounces OF
silver OF gold which had been the legal relation
1884 Upon about IS cent OF the demo-
congress had consistently voted for that proposition
Thus the matter stood until isoa when Mr. Cleveland
was nominated for third time What then the plat
form decaration2 First have the following:
I'VE hold the Of both gold and silver the stand
ard money of the and the OF both god
and silver without discrimination against either metal or
charge for mintage.
Standing by itself that could but thing, namely
metals should coined without Limitation and
without charge. But does stand alone Immediately
following it this statement:
of equal intrinsic and exchangeabe value by such safe
guards Of legislation as shall insure the maintenance OF the
at ali times the payment of debt and
and redeemabe in such coin We insist upon this policy
especially necessary for the protection OF the farmers and
stable money and auctuating currency
1t will be that this passage is intended
to modify the first quoted The question then is What
do the two passages when construed together?
1t is fundamental rule of law that all parts of docu-
men shall together and possible in such
that both may be made operative That is to
should be allowed nullify the other should
they be interpreted that they mutually destroy each other
Applying this rule the gold standard democrats left
with absolutely nothing in support of their position The
only way then they sustain themselves by giving the
passage Interpretation that will utterly destroy
the first This is wholly inadmssible either in law in
plain understanding The first clause in fact
was the primary proposition the second merely explained
that in using the metals standard money 1t should
be done in such way that the gold dollar and the silver
dollar should be of equal value By possible distortion
and scarcely by perversion OF language the second
clause be interpreted make declaration in favor
of the gold standards the declaration specific that both
ton against either idea which is Numerically opposed
to the gold standard be expressed in words.
What then does it mean? 1t means simply that there
should be such adjustment OF the ratio would insure
parity of value between the dollars and the metals
1t is insult intelligence to talk about using
both metals standard and without discrimination
and the time advocate open mint for and
closed for the other If that is discrimination
what would be Hence the qualifying provision went mere
the question OF ratio. The question is what
the proper ratio having the maintenance of parity in view?
An overwhelming majority OF the democratic party said that
sixteen of silver to OF gold rating
which they could be coined and the parity the two
dollars fully maintained
1t order fairly carry out the decara-
on in its entirety ratio had be agreed upon-some
for the free coinage of silver had be tried The
socaled silver presented their plan in perfect good
faith and without the slightest effort at disguise They said
that sixteen would maintain parity which was all that
the platform required and they believed what they said
What proposition did the gold democrats make looking to
the of silver standard money metal? Absolutely
They suggested ratio they opposed all they
opposed every limited coinage of silver
and advocated the gold standard is therefore self-ev
dent that in the campaign of the silver were stand
ing squarey upon the platform of 1892 while the gold men
turned their backs completely. There not word
in the platform of 1892 which negatives idea of the free
coinage of silver the ratio OF one but it does
epudate the gold standard language that not be mis-
taken.
AS before observed the question under review has asd
into history What has here been merely by wav Of
historic review and academic analysis 1t is question which
we should be able consider calmly dspassonatey and
airlyjust would any other of history or alb
strac economies When this is done those democrats f
Mckinley in 1906 and again in 1900 will find that from the
standpoint of orthodox democracy their position is weak
They would better let bygones bygones and close
up the ranks upon the great issues of today.
Uses for Carnesies Wealth.
San Francisco Examiner