Full text of The Money Question of the 51st Congress : Silver Coinage : Speech of Hon. John H. Mitchell of Oregon, Debate in the Senate

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

S I L V E R

CO IN AG E.

SPEECH
OF

HON. JOHN H. MITCHELL,
O F

O R E G O N ,

IN THE

SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES,




WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 29, 1890.

W A S H IN G T O N .
1890.




SPEECH
OF

HON.

J O H N H.

MITCHELL.

Mr. MITCHELL. I move that the Senate proceed to the consider­
ation of the bill (S. 58) for the free coinage of silver, and other pur­
poses.
The VICE-PRESIDENT. The Chair lays the bill before the Senate,
pursuant to the notice heretofore given by the Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MITCHELL. I ask that the bill be read at length. It is very
short.
The VICE-PRESIDENT. The bill will be read.
The Chief Clerk read the bill, as follows:
Be U emacfed, etc., That from and after the passage of this act all holders of sil­
ver bullion of the value of $50 or more, standard fineness, shall be entitled to
have the same coined into standard silver dollars of 412J grains troy of standard
silver to the dollar upon like terms and conditions as gold is now coined for
private holders; that the standard silver dollar heretofore coined and herein
provided for shall be the unit of account and standard of value in like manner
as now provided for the gold dollar, and shall be a legal tender for all debts,
public and.private, except where otherwise stipulated.
Sue. 2. Thfrt so much of the provisions of the act of February 28,1878, entitled
MAn act to authorize the coinage of the standard silver dollar and restore its
legal-tender character,” as provides for issuing certificates on the deposit of sil­
ver dollars, shall be applicable to the coin herein named-; and so much of the
said act of February 28,1878, as provides for the purchase of silver bullion to be
coined monthly into standard silver dollars, be, and the same is hereby, re­
pealed.
Skc. 3. That the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized to adopt sucih
rules and regulations as may be necessary to enforce the provisions of this act.

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, the pending bill, irrespective of
the question as to its merit or lack of merit as a separate and inde­
pendent proposition, and the consideration of which shall not now
specially engage my attention, although I am frank to confess my im­
pression is it is about the thing needed, brings before the Senate and
the country one of the most important public questions of the day. It
is, moreover, not a party question, but rather one upon which the people
and the people’s representatives divide, irrespective of party lines, at
angles quite as divergent as do the two great political parties of the
country on many of the other great questions now before it. It in­
volves a contest not, as is sometimes insisted, between the friends and
enemies of honest money; nor is it a question as between wild infla­
tion on the one part and conservative money sense and action on the
other; nor is the subject so dwarfed in significance as to be one having
relation solely, or even mainly, to the interests of the silver producer.
It is a subject rising in importance to a plane much higher than this
and involving in its consideration questions of vital public interest. It
is a contention, in the main, between the rich and the poor, the-creditor and the debtor classes, embracing material interests of the latter




4
o f immense gravity and transcendant importance. It is an issue involv­
ing a gigantic effort, or perhaps the term ‘ ‘conspiracy ” would not be in­
appropriate, on the one hand, upon the part of a certain special class
and their allies, to depress values in order that the price of the credit­
or’s bond, note, mortgage, and gold coin may be increased in value and
their power of absorption augmented.
It is a question as to whether the volume of our circulating medium
shall be reduced and contracted in order that the demand for it may
be increased, to the end that the profits of the men who have money
and who can control money may be swollen. It is not a demand by
one class or any class for the issue of an unlimited supply of money, as
all agree such a policy would be suicidal. It is an appeal, however, by
one class, and that the great producing masses of the country, for a suf­
ficient amount of circulating medium with which to meet the largely
increased and still rapidly increasing business of the country, and
which will tend to check the alarming decline in the price of farms
and farm products and other commodities, which has been going on for
years in the United States.
The financial history of every nation on earth since nations were first
born, including that of our own, shows, without a solitary exception,
that as the volume of money became scarce prices ebbed, values declined,
wages became lower, the price of farms and farm products went down,
business streams became stagnant, and the hideous specter of hard
times, and the gaunt, starving wolf of want stood grimly grinning and
madly snarling in the pathway of the laborer, the merchant, the arti­
san, the farmer.
The great question involved in the discussion of the silver problem is
not perhaps so much what precise form legislation on the subject shall
take to accomplish the purpose, but rather whether silver as legal-tender
money, and as one of the standards of value, shall be recrowned and
restored to the position assigned it by the fathers, the builders, and the
preservers of the Republic. Shall this be done or shall it be continued
in its present state of subjection to legislative, executive, and financial
ostracism?
Shall silver in the future be regarded as money or merely as mer­
chandise? Shall the ban of repudiation of this precious metal, placed
unrighteously, if not surreptitiously, upon it by Congress in 1873, and
which was only partially removed in 1878, be swept away, and the sil­
ver dollar of the fathers restored to its former position side by side with
gold in its proper ratio as one of the measures of a dual standard ? Shall,
in other words, the double standard be restored and maintained in this
country as it existed for over eighty years, or shall the claim of the
monometallist be made good and gold alone be made permanently our
monetary standard? Shall we abandon the American idea upon this
subject and adopt that of Great Britain ?
Shall we relinquish our right and duty, as the greatest Republic on
earth, to march proudly, majestically, independently, and triumph­
antly in the front ranks in the grand march of nations, in respect of
our systems of coinage and finance generally, as well as in respect of
every other great governmental function, and say to monarchy, and
especially to that particular one whose interests in most respects are
different from our own and in conflict with ours, we will fall to the
rear; our financiers shall follow where the gold-bugs of England lead;
our financial ship shall sail only in the wake of the golden craft of
Great Britain?
m




5
Shall we turn our producers of wheat, cotton, com, butter, and
eheese, our farmers, miners, and laborers over to the tender mercies o f our
purchasers in England and elsewhere, virtually saying to them, “ You
may establish the price of our products and we will utter no word of
complaint? ” Or shall we not rather, in the majesty of our republican
and democratic imperialism as a nation, assert, not only our right in the
premises, but our unquestioned power to determine for ourselves a
financial system suited to our own country and its wants and those of
the great masses of our people? What a commentary on the moral and
political cowardice of our Government, producing as we do in this
country over 45 per cent, of the annual silver-bullion product of the
world, as we have for years past, that we should permit England, pro­
ducing none, or at least a mere fraction of not exceeding 6 per cent,
of the whole, or all Europe combined, producing in the aggregate only
about one-twelfth of the worlds annual crop, to permit either England
or all Europe combined to fix the value of our bullion without a pro­
test on our part.
These are the great fundamental questions at issue; aiid whether the
restoration of silver to its proper status as one of the precious metals is
brought about by free and unlimited coinage or by some other means
or device is not so important, so long as' the great fact is accomplished,
so long as the metal is restored to its proper and former position, shorn
of its character of being mere merchandise, and clothed again with the
unquestioned attribute of legal-tender money. There may be, and as
a matter of course are, honest differences of opinion as to the best method
of accomplishing this. Many theories have been brought forward and
pressed, all having ostensibly in view the rehabilitation of the silver
dollar as a legal-tender standard of value.
Some, not all, of these plans are founded in honest purpose,’prompted
by sincere convictions, while many are justly open to the suspicion of
having been conceived in the camp of the monometallists and intended
to be, as they really are, false lights, to deceive the real defenders and
advocates of silver as money and of the double standard, and to decoy
them by circuitous routes into that same golden camp. For one, after
giving the subject such consideration as I have been able to, I find my­
self in no sense whatever embarrassed in coming to the conclusion that
there is one way, and but one way, to fully and completely accomplish
this great purpose, and that is by providing by law for the free and un­
limited coinage of silver bullion into standard silver dollars of the pres­
ent weight and fineness, giving to the coinage the debt-paying function
of legal tender, with proper restrictions of course to protect our mints
from imposition. Then based on these standard silver dollars I would
have the Government issue its legal-tender coin certificates.
For such legislation I should most cheerfully give my vote if oppor­
tunity presents, believing that in so doing I should best serve the in­
terests of the great masses of the people, not only of the State I have
the honor in part to represent, but also of the whole country. And in
the event I should find myself in the minority on that question after a
full, fair, and energetic trial and test vote, then lam ready to consider
any and every other proposition submitted in good faith looking toward
the same end.
My attention has recently been attracted to a leading and ably written
editorial entitled “ Free coinage and repudiation,” which appeared in
The Oregonian, a leading newspaper of the Pacific Northwest, published
at my home, in Portland, Oregon, in its issue of December 20 last

VI




6
Its statements, reasons, and deductions, although ably stated from the
stand-point of the editor, are in such direct conflict, as I believe, with
the prevailing opinion of the great mass of the people of the Pacific
Northwest on this important subject, including very many, if not the
great majority, of the leading business men and financiers of that sec­
tion, and are so at variance withal with my individual convictions, that
I take the liberty of inserting it in extemo in my speech, with a view
of combating, so far as I may and in a spirit of entire fairness, what
seem to me to be its fallacies. The article is as follows; I send it to
the desk and ask that it be read.
The Chief Clerk read as follows:
F R E E COINAGE AN D REPU DIATIO N.

The people of the United States are clearly prepared to concede a good many
things to the extreme silver men. The silver-mining interest is recognized as
entitled to consideration, and the public sentiment of the country is prepared
to tolerate a degree of conservative and carefully guarded financial legislation
having for its sole or most important object the furnishing of a market for its
product. But there are two things the common sense and honest instincts of
the cou»try will never tolerate. One is the free coinage of silver bn the basis of
412£ grains to tli$ dollar. It may be well to state, at the expense of seeming a
little superfluous and elementary, just what free coinage means. W e have had
free coinage of gold ever since our existence as a nation, it is the basis of our
monetary system. Under this system any owner of gold bullion may take it to
any United States mint and have it coined into dollars, half-eagles, eagles, and
double-eagles, at the rate of 25} grains to the dollar, by paying a trifling mint
charge. Or, what amounts to the same thing, he may exchange his bullion for
coin at the rate of a dollar for 25} grains, less the charge for mintage.
See what the establishment of the same rule for silver would mean. The owner
of silver bullion, to any amount, might take it to any mint in the United States
and have it coined or exchange it for standard dollars at the rate of a dollar for
every 412% grains, less the mint charge. But 412% grains of silver is worth, in
the markets of the world, only about 72 cents. That is to say, it is worth less than
three-fourths as much as the 25J- grains of gold bullion which must be taken to
the mint for every dollar in coined gold taken out. The silver dollars paid out
for bullion under free coinage would be worth intrinsically no more than the
bullion taken in ; but by making them legal tender the Government compels its
citizens to receive them at their face, which is one-third more than their real
value.
This makes the dollars received by the bullion owner worth to him for pur­
chasing purposes one-third more than he could have obtained for the bullion in
any commercial market. That is to say, free coinage of silver would offer
to the owner of silver bullion a premium of nearly 40 per cent, over the mar­
ket price of every pound of silver he would take the trouble to cart to a United
States mint. This premium would be paid, not by the Government, which
would pay for the bullion in standard dollars worth intrinsically no more than
itself, but by the public, which the Government compels, by making these dol­
lars legal tender, to accept them at 40 per cent, more than their real value. The
Government would give the bullion owner just the value it received from him,
but it would force the citizen to whom he took this value to buy flour, wool, or
iron, to accept it at 40 per cent, advance. This is like the act of a mediaeval
monarch who should recompense a baron for some service by giving him
license to rob on the highway.
There is no sort of doubt that the establishment of free coinage for silver
would be eminently successful in creating a market for that metal. The Gov­
ernment can create a market for any commodity by opening depots at which it
will buy unlimited quantities of it for 40 per cent, more than is paid anywhere
else. Free coinage would make a market, not only for the product o f the Col­
orado and Nevada silver mines, but for those of Mexico and South America, and
not only for the new annual product of the mines of the world, but for the mass
of silver, coined and uncoined, which encumbers the exchanges and embar­
rasses the financiers of Europe and civilized Asia. It would make the United
States the dumping-ground for the cheap silver of the world, the refuse heap of
the discarded and rejected coinage of three continents. This would all be paid
for by the people of the United States, who were forced to take and use the new
coinage at its false value.
The 40 per cent, premium paid the bullion owners by the Government would
come out of every citizen who used a silver dollar to purchase goods; not at
once, perhaps, but as soon as the general scale of values had time to adjust itself
to the new false standard. This would come surely and swiftly, so soon as tha

MI




new policy were positively and permanently adopted. W ith it, as a certain
corollary, would come the disappearance of gold from the country and the per­
manent degradation of our currency to a silver standard. Let us be explicit as
to what this degradation means. It is not that a silver dollar will be less a dol­
lar than now„but that a gold dollar will be more, measured in silver, and a
silver dollar will buy less. Thai is to say, it will take one and a third dollars,
when the standard shall have been revolutionized, to buy anything, including
a gold dollar, which can be bought for a dollar now. The premium will be paid
by the people of the country and will have gone in advance into the pocket o f
the bunion owner. This is why the idea of free coinage is intolerable.
Scarcely less intolerable is the idea which is the vital principle of the bill pre­
pared under the auspices of the Denver Chamber of Commerce as an alterna­
tive to the free-coinage scheme of the late silver convention at St. Louis. The
president of this body is now in Washington urging his measure upon the at­
tention of members of Congress. It provides for the purchase of four millions
of dollars’ worth of bullion per month and its.coinage into standard dollars.
This would yield from five to six millions of such dollars at present prices. Onehalf of this amount is to be set aside monthly as a fund for the redemption and
cancellation and destruction of United States legal-tender notes, as rapidly as
such notes shall be received in the Treasury or any subtreasury of the United
States. Another portion is to be devoted to the replacement o f retired national
bank notes, and the remainder is to partly replace the gold now held in the Treas­
ury as security for the redemption of outstanding legal-tenders. The redemp­
tion fund is always to be 30 per cent, of the amount o f notes out, but it is not
specified how*much of it is to be gold and how much silver. Sooner or later, of
course, it would be all silver. The bill also makes both gold and silver certifi­
cates full legal tender.
This is fiat repudiation of one-fourth of the most sacred part o f the public debt
of the United States. It sweeps away the entire basis of our Government cur­
rency by decreeing the progressive redemption of legal-tenders and the displace­
ment of national-bank notes with silver dollars. It places legal-tenders, national-bank notes, and silver certificates upon precisely the same basis, by giv­
ing them the same security and the same debt-paying power, that of silver,
valued at the rate of $1 lor 72 cents. It would replace gold with silver and expel the
former from the country as surely, though more gradually than free coinage. It
would degrade our monetary standard just as certainly as that in the long run.
It would just as insidiously rob the users of our national currency of one-fourth
o f its value by the readjustment ol prices to the diminished value of the cir­
culating medium. Its only merit—and this is a doubtful one—is that it would
commit this robbery, not for the entire benefit of the mine-owners, though they
would probably manage to bull the price somewhat at first, but for the benefit
o f the Government, which would continue on a larger scale the picayunish busi­
ness of buying 72 cents’ worth of silver and paying a dollar’s worth of debt
with it. This Denver bill will not meet the approval of the American people.
They are willing to concede a good deal to the silver men, but not free coinage
•r repudiation.

Mr. MITCHELL. In the first place, Mr. President, the statement
o f fact in the beginning of this editorial, and made the basis for several
important deductions, to the effect that “ we have had free coinage of
geld, ever since onr existence as a nation,” while entirely true in the
abstract, is not altogether free from disingenousness. There is in the
statement an unpardonable suppressio veri. A complete and perfect
statement of fact in this connection, to the end that the argument should
be entirely free from the slightest suspicion of unfairness, required the
further statement in the same connection, being used for the purpose it
was, to the effect that for nearly eighty-one years, and up until March 3,
1873, when silver was demonetized, we had free coinage of silver in this
country as well as of gold. The statement, to have been entirely free from
unfairness and at the same time accurate and historically correct, should
have read: 44We have had free coinage of gold and silver ever since our
existence as a nation, until 1873, when Congress demonetized silver,71
Let us see how this is.
The act of April 2, 1792, entitled “ An act establishing a mint and
regulating the coins; of the United States, ’ ’ provided, among other things,
for the establishment of a Mint at the seat of Government of the United
States for the purpose of a national coinage, and that there should be




8
from time to time struck and coined at the said Mint coins of gold,
silver, and copper of certain specified denominations. And section 14
provides as follows:
That it shall be lawful for any person or persons to bring to the said mint gold
and silver bullion in order to their being coined; and that the bullion so brought.
shall be there assayed and coined as speedily as may be after the receipt thereof,
and that free of expense to the person or persons by whom the same shall have
been brought. And as soon as the said bullion shall have been coined, the per­
son or persons by whom the same shall have been delivered shall upon demand
receive in lieu thereof coins of the same species of bullion which shall have been
so delivered, weight ior weight, of the pure gold or pure silver therein contained:
P rovided, nevertheless, That it shall be at the mutual option of the party or par­
ties bringing said bullion, or the Director of the said Mint, to make an immediate
exchange of coins for standard bullion, with a deduction of one-half per cent,
from the weight of the pure gold or pure silver contained in the said bullion, as
an indemnification to the mint for the time which will necessarily be required for
coining the said bullion and for the advance which shall have been so made im
coins.

This act also provided that all the gold and silver coins issned at
such mint should be ‘ 1lawful tender in all payments whatsoever.’ 9 By
this act it was provided that the ratio of value of gold to silver in all
coins issued should be as 1 to 15, according to the quantity and weight
of pure gold and pure silver; that is to say, every 15 pounds weight of
pure silver should be of equal value in all payments with one pound
weight of pure gold, and so in proportion as to any greater or less quan­
tities of the respective metals. The standard of the two coins was also
established by this act: That all gold coins of the United States should
be 11 parts fine to 1 part alloyed; so that 11 parts in 12 of the entire
weight of each of the said coins should consist of pure gold and the re­
maining one-twelfth part of alloy, and that the alloy should be com­
posed of silver and copper in such proportions, not exceeding one-half
silver, as should be lound convenient.
A standard for all silver coins of the United States was by this act
fixed at 1,485 parts fine to 179 parts alloy; so that 1,485 parts in 1,664
parts of the entire weight of each of the said coins should consist of
pure silver and the remaining 179 parts of alloy, which alloy should
be wholly of copper.
While by the act of January 18,1837, entitled “ An act supplementary to the act entitled 4An act establishing a mint and regulating the
coins of the United States,” ’ free coinage of gold and silver was con­
tinued and the legal-tender function also continued as to both coins.
The standard, however, was changed by increasing the alloy. This
act provided that the standard for both gold and silver coins of the
United States should thereafter be such that of each one thousand parts
of weight nine hundred should be of pure metal and one hundred of
alloy; that the alloy of the silver coin should be of copper and the alloy
of the gold coins of copper and silver, provided that the silver did not
exceed one-half of the whole alloy. The weight of the coins respect­
ively was also changed by this act. That of the silver dollar was fixed
at 412| grains, the half-dollar at 206i grains, and so on, and that of
the gold eagle at 258 grains, or 25.8 grains to the dollar. The only
restrictions on the receipt and coinage of bullion at the mints, both
gold and silver, were those contained in section 14 of the act, which
reads as follows:
That gold and silver bullio* brought to the mint for coinage shall be received
and coined by the proper officers, and for the benefit of the depositor: P rovided,
That it shall be lawful to refuse at the mint any deposit of less value than $100,
and any bullion so base as to be unsuitable for the operations of the m int: A n d
provided alao, That when gold and silver are combined, if either o f these metals

MI




9
be in such small proportions that it can not be separated advantageously,
allowance shall be made to the depositor for the value of such metal.

no

And the only subjects of charge by the mint to the depositor under
this act were, first, for refining, when the bullion was below standard;
second, for toughening, when metals were contained in it which ren­
dered it unfit for coinage; third, for copper used for alloy, when the
bullion was above standard; fourth, for the silver introduced into the
alloy of gold; mid, fifth, for separating gold and silver when these
metals existed together in the bullion—the rates of these charges to be
fixed from time to time by the Director of the Mint, with the concur­
rence of the Secretary of the Treasury, but to be in an amount so as
not to exceed the actual expense to the mint of the materials and labor
employed in eaph of the cases mentioned, and that the amounts so re­
ceived from these charges should be accounted for and appropriated for
defraying the contingent expenses of the mint.
This act, in the eleventh section, also provided that the silver coins
before that time issued at the mint of the United States and the gold
coins issued since the 31st day of July, 1834, should continue to be legal
tenders of payment tor their nominal values of the same terms as if they
were of the coinage provided by that act.
In the second section of the act of February 9, 1793, it was provided
that, at the expiration of three years next ensuing the time when the
coinage of gold and silver under the act establishing the mint should
commence at the mint of the United States, all foreign gold coins and
foreign silver coins, except Spanish milled dollars and parts of such
dollars, should cease to be a legal tender.
In other words, at this early period in the history of our Government
we find it asserting its own independence as against foreign govern­
ments in the matter of finances and financial legislation as well as in
other respects. It is true this limitation, or demonetization rather, of
foreign gold coins as legal tender was suspended by the act of Febru­
ary 1, 1798, for and during the space of three years from and after the
1st day of January, 1798, and by the act of April 10, 1806, the opera­
tion. of this restriction upon foreign coins—that is to say, by the second
section of the act of February 9, 1793—was again suspended for and
during a space of three, years from April 10, 1806.
By the act of March 3,1819, the gold coins of Great Britain and
Portugal, of their then standard, were declared to be legal tender in the
payment of all debts, at the rate of 100 cents for 27 grains, or 885 cents
per pennyweight; the gold coins of France, of their then standard, at
the rate of 100 cents for every 27$ grains, or 84} cents per pennyweight;
the gold coins of Spain at the rate of 100 cents for every 28£ grains, or
84 cents per pennyweight, all until the 1st day only of the next No­
vember (1819). And this act then further provided as follows:
And that from and after that date (November 1,1819) foreign gold coins shall
oease to be a tender within the United States for the payments of debts or de­
mands.

This, therefore, was the state of the case substantially in reference to our
coinage legislation until the year 1873, when, in an act the title of which
contained no intimation of any such purpose, the standard silver dollar
was boycotted by being omitted in our system of coinage, although from
the year 1792 until that date 371J grains of pure silver, or the silver
dollar of 412} grains of standard silver, had been the standard of value—
the unit o f account—and the gold dollar was made the sole standard.
Having, therefore, with some degree of care attracted attention to

MI




10
the main features of our coinage legislation daring the first eighty years
of the existence of our Government, and to the fact that both gold and
silver were in all legislation prior to the year 1873 admitted to free
and unlimited coinage and treated as equal as legal-tender money in a
certain fixed ratio, the one to the other, further attention will be given
to the arguments of the editorial quoted. The editorial proceeds, after
entirely ignoring the important fact that silver stood side by side with
gold, each entitled under the law to free coinage, for a period of over
eighty years of our country’s history, with the statement that “ i t ”
(gold) “ is the basis of our monetary system. ’ ’
The editor then proceeds to draw arguments hostile to the free coin­
age of silver by assuming that the commercial value or intrinsic worth
of silver bullion, if that metal were remonetized, restored to its former
position as the standard of values equal with gold, would remain the
same as now with the heels of the Government placed on the white
metal, with hostile legislation discrediting it, with the doors of the
mints flung in its face, and a combined and persistent effort all the
while being exerted on the part of the executive officers, Treasury offi­
cials, banks, boards ol trade, chambers of commerce, and clearing-houses
to dishonor it. Granting this assumption of the able editor, doubtless
some of the evil effects predicted from the free and unlimited coinage
of silver might follow. But no one in his right mind supposes for a
moment that such would be the case any more than that the reverse
would follow, that the appreciation of silver would become so great and
abnormal as to drive the gold dollar out of existence as money, reduce
it to mere merchandise, and invite financial disaster. The argument,
it is submitted, is a rather transparent begging of the whole question.
But not only so. This assumption is in direct conflict and wholly
inconsistent and irreconcilable with the other argument continually in­
sisted upon by the monometallists, to the effect that the only object in
view on behalf of the friends of silver legislation is to increase the value
of silver as a produet of this country; and in that connection it is ad­
mitted that the effect of the free coinage of silver bullion in this country
would be to increase the commercial value of silver to such an extent
as to restore the present legal ratio of 16 to 1, as fixed by law as between
the two metals. In fact, the learned editor, it will be seen, later oil
in his editorial confirms the view suggested. He says:
There is no sort of doubt that the establishment of free coinage for silver
would be eminently successful in creating a market for that metal.

Most assuredly; and in creating a market, the price of silver bullion
would necessarily be enhanced, or, to be more accurate, the value of silver
would be enhanced and that of gold lessened. ‘ 1The creation of the mar­
ket ’ ’ would, as a matter of course, restore it to its par value with gold in
the legal relation of 16 to 1; and is not this desirable ? This being so, wljat
becomes of the argument ? The premises being swept away, the deduc­
tions are all valueless for the purposes intended. The argument is the
old, threadbare one of the monomentallists. It is the argument of the
creditor against the debtor, of the banker against the farmer, of the rich
against the poor, of the bondholder against the interest-paying masses, of
the holder of the bond for the pound of flesh against the helpless sufferer,
bleeding at every pore as Shylock’s pound is exacted; it is the argu­
ment of the capitalist against the honest toil of the daily laborer, the
farmer, the mechanic, the artisan. It is the argument of Wall street
against the suffering, toiling millions—the builders and producers of
the country—whose bone and muscle, whose sweat and blood, whose in-

MI




11
domitable energy, fearless enterprise, integrity and push, have laid the
foundations and erected the grand structure of empire in the vast fields
o f the mighty West. In a controversy like this I prefer to be classed
with the latter.
But we must not, in discussing this important subject, deal in gene­
ralities. Stubborn historical facts and figures which can not be made
to falsify, misrepresent, or exaggerate must be invoked. And in this
connection it may be well to ascertain as nearly as possible the extent
of the decline in the price of commodities, which all concede has been
going on in this country for the past fifteen or sixteen years, and de­
termine as nearly as we may its real cause.
DEPRESSION IN VALUES.

And in this connection I must be permitted to say that that man’s
mind must be obtuse, indeed, who, viewing the history of the decline of
prices in this country within the past few years, fails to realize that the
great central, controlling cause for all this is to be found in the contrac­
tion of the volume of our circulating medium, in the lack of a sufficient
amount of money to meet the wants of all the people, of a volume of
money that will meet the wants of the farmer as well as the banker, of
the great tired masses in their varied fields of industries, as well as the
wants of the special few whose interests are best subserved by a con­
traction of the currency, in order that the value of money may be ap­
preciated and prices of commodities generally depressed.
The financial statistics upon this subject tell a tale which ought to, and
which will when properly understood, startle the producers of wheats
oats, corn, cotton, butter, and cheese, and many other products in this
country, to say nothing of those engaged in raising cattle, sheep, and
hogs. Take any o f the five or six years between 1858 and 1873, even
the half-decade immediately preceding the year 1873, and compare the
average price per year for any such period of wheat, oats, com, cotton,
and dairy products with the prices of the same productions in this coun­
try lor each of the years 1885,1886,1887,1888, and 1889, and it will be
seen there has been a loss to the producer on the articles named of not
less than $450,000,000 for each of the years last named, while the loss
has been four times that amount, or nearly $2,000, 000,000, when com­
pared with the average prices during the years of the war, when our vol­
ume of money was at high tide.
In 1881 the corn product in the United States was 1,194,916,000 bush­
els, and the home value was $759,482,170, while in 1888 the crop was
1,987,790,000 bushels, or 792,874,000 bushels more than were raised in
1881, and yet the home value of the crop in 1888 was but $677,561,580,
or $81,920,590 less than that of the crop of 1881. But not only so.
We take the average annual crop of corn in the United States for the
six years immediately prior to the demonetization of silver in this coun­
try in 1873, and we find it amounted to 954,706,500 bushels, and that
the average home value of this annual average’ crop for these six years
was $559,042,956, while taking the average crop for the six years im­
mediately following the demonetization of silver in 1873, that is, the
years 1874 to 1879, both inclusive, we find the average yield per annum
o f these six years was 1,288,953,923 bushels, or an average of 334,247,423 bushels more than the six years preceding 1873; and yet we find
the average home value to the producers of corn for these six years was
but $513,877,207, or $45,165,749 less than the average value for six
years prior to 1873, the whole product of corn for the first series of six
years being but 5,728,239,000 bushels, and of the total home value o f

MZ




12
$3,354,257,740; while the total production of the last series of six yean
was 7,733,723,540 bushels, while the total value to the producers of this
crop was but $3,083,263,242. And yet the increase in production of corn
did not reach a greater ratio or annual percentage than did the increase
of population, business, and consumption, both at home and abroad.
In other words, the average price of corn in the United States, home
value, for the six years preceding the demonetization of silver was 60.1
cents per bushel, while the average price for the six years subsequent
to 1873 was but 40.4 cents per bushel, or a decline of about 34 per cent.
Putting it in still another form, the statistics show that the average
yield of com in dollars per acre in the United States in the six years pre­
ceding 1873 was $15.80, whereas for the six years subsequent it was
but $9.91 per acre. And still the price of corn recedes until in many
sections it has, in the past year, been cheaper than cord-wood, less val­
uable than coal, and is now being used for fuel, selling, so it has been
recently stated, in some of the Western States as low as 12J and 13
cents a bushel.
T H E DECLINE IN T H E PBICE OF W H E A T SINCE 1873—T H E CAX7SE T H E DEMONE­
T IZATIO N O P SILV ER.

But the same is also true of the wheat crop. The same fearful de­
cline of price in general averages running through a series of years is
here illustrated. For instance, the total wheat crop of this country in
1872, the year prior to the demonetization of silver in this country,
was 249,997,100 bushels and the home value to the producer of this
crop was $310,180,375; while the total product of wheat in the United
States in 1887 was 456,329,000 bushels, or 206,331,900 bushels more
than the crop of 1872, or only 21.832,600 bushels less than double the
crop of 1872; and yet the home value to the wheat-grower of the crop
of 1887 was only $310,612,960, or only the mere bagatelle of $432,585
more than was the value of the crop of 1872. But not only so.
The total crop of wheat in this country for the six years immediately
prior to 1873 was 1,413,229,100 bushels, the total home value of all
which was $1,832,373,110, while the total crop for the six years sub­
sequent to 1873, including the years 1874, 1875, 1876, 1877, 1878, and
1879, was 2,123,268,370 bushels, or 710,039,270 bushels more than was
raised the six years immediately preceding the demonetization of silver
in the United States, and yet the total home value of the crop for the
last series of six years was only $2,104,020,530, or only $271,647,420
more than was received for the crops the aggregate of which was 710,039,270 bushels more than the six years preceding 1873.
In other words, the average annual crop of wheat for the six years
immediately preceding 1873 was 235,538,183 bushels, of the average
annual value of $305,395,518, while the average annual crop for the
six years immediately subsequent to 1873 was 353,878,061 bushels, or
an annual average excess over the first series of six years of 118,339,878
bushels, and yet the average home value of this crop tor the last series
of six years stated was but $350,670,088, or only $45,274,570 in excess
of that received for a crop of 118,339,878 bushels less; or, to state the
case in a still different form, the statistics show the average annual
home price of wheat in the United States for the six years immediately
preceding the demonetization of silver in 1873 was $1.31-& per bushel,
while the average annual home price for the six years immediately
following the demonetization of silver was but 9 9 ^ cents per bushel,
or a decline of nearly 24 per cent., and the decline since then has been
much greater.

XI




13
Patting it in still another form, we find the statistics show that the
average yield of wheat in dollars per acre in the United States for the
six years preceding the demonetization of silver in 1873 was $15.91,
whereas for the six years subsequent to that event it was but $12.35;
but further, for the ten years following, that is, commencing with the
year 1880 and ending with the year 1889, the yield per acre in dollars
was less than $10, and yet in all these cases the average yield in bushels
per acre was about the same, or perhaps slightly on the increase.
T H E OREGON FARM ER.

Take the State of Oregon, for instance. The number of acres in
wheat in that State in 1881 was, in round numbers, 738,600; the yield
in bushels was 12,673,000, and the home value of the crop was $11,152,240, or about 88 cents per bushel, whereas the acreage in 1888 was
892,425, or 153,825 acres more than in 1881; the yield in bushels was
14,548,000,*or 1,875,000 bushels more than in 1881, seven years before,
and yet the home value of this largely increased crop, both in acreage
and bushels, was to the Oregon farmers but $11,347,440, or a sum total
o f only $195,200 more than they realized on a crop of 1,875,000 bushels
less of seven years before, the home value per bushel in 1888 being,
according to the statistics of the Agricultural Department, 78 cents per
bushel, or 10 cents per bushel less than in 1881.
But not only so. Take the ten years from 1879 to 1888, both inclusive,
and divide them into two periods of five years each, and we find for the
first period, 1879-1883, both inclusive, the total yield of wheat in Oregon
was 57,757,920 bushels, or an average annual crop for these five years
o f 11,551,584 bushels; that the total home value of these five crops
was $50,373,673, or an average for each year lor this period of $10,074,734, being an average of 87.4 cents per bushel for the five years
1879-1883, both inclusive; whereas the total yield of wheat in that State
for the five subsequent years, 1884-1888, both inclusive, was 71,159,000
bushels, or an average per annum of 14,231,800 bushels, being an in­
crease in the aggregate lor the latter period of five years over*that of the
period of five years ending with 1883 of 13,401,080 bushels, and an
increase in bushels in the average of the five years ending with the
year 1888 over the period of five years ending with 1883 of 2,680,216
bushels; and yet the total home value of this vastly increased crop
aggregated to the farmer only $46,889,680, or a sum of $3,483,993 less
than that received for the five years’ crop from 1879-1883, inclusive,
the average per annum for the latter period being only $9,377,936, as
against an average for the former period of five years of $10,074,834,
and an average of 21.6 cents per bushel less for the latter period of five
years, the average per bushel for the former period being 87.4 and for
the latter period 65.8 cents, or a decline of 25 per cent.
OATS.

The average value of oats per bushel in the United States for the
years 1867-1872, both inclusive, was 47f cents, while for fifteen years
immediately subsequent to 1875 it was about 34J cents, or an average
decline of about 13 cents per bushel, or about 30 per cent., and while
the average value in dollars per acre for the six years prior to 1873 was
$13.31 the average yield per acre in dollars for the six years subsequent
to 1873 was but $9.54 per acre. Again, for the ten years next succeed­
ing, from 1880 to 1889, inclusive, the average-yield of oats in dollars
per acre in the United States was but $8.55, while the annual average
value of oats per acre for the ten years ending with year 1879 was $10.22

MI




14
per acre, and yet the annual increase in yield per acre in bushels was
considerable.
B A R LE Y , BU CK W H EA T, AN D O TH ER CEREALS, ALSO T H E TOTAL CROPS OF ALI*
CEREALS.

Similar illustrations in reference to the crops of barley, rye, buck­
wheat, and other cereals will show substantially similar results, all
showing an immense decline in prices subsequent to the demonetiza­
tion of silver in this country, a decline that would undoubtedly have
been still more rapid and destructive to the interests of the producer
had it not been partially checked by the partial remonetization of silver
in 1878. Take, for instance, as another illustration, the whole cereal
crops of the United States from 1867 to 1888. The whole number ot
bushels of cereal crops of all kinds produced in the United States from
1867 to 1872, both years inclusive, was 9,094,265,800 bushels, the total
value of all which was $6,280,284,989; whereas for the six years sub­
sequent to 1873, that is, from 1874 to 1879, both inclusive, the total
crop of all cereals produced in the United States was 12,368,509,496
bushels, or 3,274,243,696 bushels more than for the first series of six
years just stated, and of the home value of but $6,175,491,230, or a
sum less by $104,793,759 than the amount received for the smaller crop
of the six years preceding the demonetization of silver.
But not only so. The statistics show further that for the next eight
years, that is to say, from 1880 to 1887, both inclusive, the total crop of
cereals produced in the United States amounted to 21,624,291,655 bush­
els, or an annual average for these eight years of 2,703,036,456 bushels,
while the total home value of the whole crop of cereals for the eight
years referred to was $10,276,823,793, or an average total home value
of the whole crop of cereals for these eight years of but $1,284,602,974.
This, it will be observed, was the annual home value for these eight
years on a crop, the average annual number of bushels of which for
these eight years was 2,703,036,456 bushels, as against an average for
each of said six years preceding the demonetization of silver of only
1,515,554,466 bushels, and which was of the home value of $6,280,284,989, or an average annual value for each of these six years of $1,046,714,166, or but a fraction less than the average annual home value for the
eight years ending with 1877 on an average crop of nearly double that of
the average annual crop of the six years preceding the demonetization of
silver, the annual average crop of these six years being but 1,515,710,966
bushels, as against an annual average crop of 2,703,036,456 bushels for
the eight years ending with the year 1887, or a difference between the
two of 1,187,325,490 bushels annually.
H O W ENGLAND PROFITS A T OUR EXPENSE.

Who can fail to realize the profits falling to English coffers when Eng­
land can purchase our silver bullion by reason of its demonetization at
a rate of from 90 to 94 cents per ounce, and realize on the same in the
shape of wheat and cotton from their Hindoo subjects $1.29 per ounce,
and what farmer having wheat to sell in a foreign market is so obtuse
as to not comprehend that, if the purchasing power of the silver rupee
in India is no less now than before silver was demonetized in this coun­
try, and it is not, as all agree, then the remote, if not the direct, effect of
silver demonetization in this country is to foster, build up, maintain
a great wheat-producing field in India from which pours annually into
the world’s wheat market, notably that of Liverpool, millions of bushels
of exported wheat from the valleys between the Bay of Bengal and the

MI




15
Arabian Sea, and which are brought in direct competition with Amer*
ican wheat, the result being a reduction in price of about 30 per cent,
on the latter ?
And what. Mr. President, does that mean to the wheat producers o f
this country ? Our crop the past year, 1889, was in round numbers 490, 500,000 bushels. Thirty per cent, reduction, if we count it in bushels,
would be 137,000,000 bushels. Wheat, shortly prior to the demoneti­
zation of silver, was worth $1.31 per bushel. At that rate now our
crop of 1889 would be of the value of $642,555,000, while at a decline
of 30 per cent, the value would be only $449,788,500, or a loss to the
farmers on the one year’s crop of $192,766,500.
These statistics therefore—and they are those of the Agricultural De­
partment—show conclusively the steady and almost uninterrupted de­
cline in the price of cereal products since 1873* when silver was demon­
etized in this country.
F A R M ANIMALS.

How is it as to farm animals ? In 1871, two years prior to the de­
monetization of silver in this country, the number of milch cows in the
United States was 10,023,000 head and thefr then estimated value wa»
$374,179,093, while in 1889 the number is placed at 15,298,625 head,
at the estimated value of bnt $366,226,376. In other words, the milch
cows of this country eighteen years ago numbered 5,275,625 head less
than the number we owned in 1889 and were of greater value by
$7,952,717 than was this largely increased number in 1889.
To state the case in another form: The value of milch cows in thigh
country at the date of the demonetization of silver, and for many years
previous, averaged about $37.33J per head. They now, or did last year,
average about $23.93 per head, or a decline of over 35 per cent. In
1873, and for several years prior thereto, the sheep of this country were
worth, on an average all through, $2.96} per head, the number then
being 33,002,400 and the estimated aggregate value $97,922,350, while
in 1889 the number#is placed by the Agricultural Department at 42,599,079 head, and the estimated value at $90,640,369, or an average of
$2. 12} per head being a difference of 84-cents per head, or a decline
in price of 28} per cent, on the price of sixteen years ago
T H E PRO TECTIVE T A R IF F NOT T H E CAUSE OF T H E DECLINE IN PRICES.

As in the admirable and unanswerable response of the present Sec­
retary of State to Mr. Gladstone, it was said in substance that the needs
and interests of nations are so diverse that no one system is adequate
to meet the wants of all, and that therefore, while the system of free
trade may best suit Great Britain, the system of protection is, in view
of the fact that we are a comparatively new and undeveloped nation,
the best possible system for the United States, so also it may with like
force and equal truth and emphasis be said that, while monometallism,
and that standard gold, may suit England, the conditions in our coun­
try are such as to imperatively require the double standard—such as
to imperatively demand, in the interests of our people, that both of the
precious metals, gold and silver, be recognized and treated as money,
and that neither should be treated as mere merchandise.
Why does Mr. Gladstone; why does the Cobden Club, composed o f
the great leaders in the English Parliament and in the English fiscal
world; why does England as a nation, desire to see the single gold stand­
ard maintained in the United States and silver shorn of its attribute
as money ? Is it for and in the interests of the people of this country ?
Is that the motive prompting such a policy ? Not by any means. On
m




16
the contrary, it is in the interest of Great Britain, in the interest of
men of fixed incomes and ample fortunes, and of the money power gen­
erally of Great Britain. This desire upon the part of Great Britain is
prompted by the same motive, fed by the same nutriment, nourished
by the same aliment, and its possessor is impelled onward to deliber­
ate, earnest, aggressive action by the same motive power as is that other
desire upon their part to see the system of protection in this country
broken down and displaced by the fatal fallacy and destructive policy
o f free trade.
The desire and the intention in each case are to advance the interests
o f their own country and to cast obstructions in the pathway of the ad­
vancement and prosperity of ours. But, it will be said by some, we
admit your facts; we concede the rapid decline in prices of all cereals
and other farm products. We agree the producers of this country and
especially the farmers have not for the past fifteen or sixteen years been
sharing in their just and proper proportion of the nation’s increased
and increasing wealth, but we deny that the cause of all this is the one
yon snggest. And then the objectors, having united in uplifted voice
and emphatic gesture in uttering this protest, fiy suddenly apart like
two repellant bodies into two pretty equally divided sections, each sur­
charged with the principle of repulsion as to the other, and one of them
declares, with an air of apparent sincerity and confidence, it is the protective tariff; while the other section in equally emphatic terms in­
forms us it is overproduction. It is respectfully submitted, Mr. Presi­
dent, that neither is right.
The people of this country never hiave believed, do not now believe,
and never will believe, in my judgment, not at least in the next three
generations to come, if ever, that a properly devised system of protec­
tion to home industries, by which encouragement is given to home
labor and home capital, and whereby the labor and products of this
country are shielded from the ruinous effects of competition with the
cheap labor and the products of the cheap and in many instances ab­
solutely servile labor of European and Asiatic countries, is one that
will tend to reduce the price p f either American labor or of American
products of either farm or shop or mine. The undeniable facts of his­
tory show conclusively that there is no warrant for any such belief.
T H E DECLINE IN P RICE O F FOOD PRODUCTS CAN NOT BIB ATTRIBUTED TO O VER­
PRODUCTION.

But how is it as to overproduction ? Careful comparison o f the actual
annual increase in acreage as well as in bushels of cereals produced in
the United States with the actual increase in population and the in­
crease in home demand for actual consumption, seed, «tc., will show
that the ratio of increase of the former has not nearly equaled that of
the latter; besides, the former, that is the annual increase in production,
is not certain each year. It can not be safely estimated or with any
degree of accuracy by any rule of percentage. It is fickle, irregular,
and varying, although, on the whole, through a series of years there
may be an increase, although, in so far as the production of wheat is
concerned, as we shall see later on, there has been no increase, but, on
the contrary, a decline in the amount of production in the United States,
while, with population and the demand for cereals and the manufact­
ures from cereals for home consumption as well as foreign'Consumption,
the ratio of increase is, comparatively speaking, fixed, well defined, as­
certainable to a degree of certainty, and Marked by a comparative regu­
larity each year.
MI




17
For instance, the acreage in wheat in the United States in each of the
years 1880 and 1881 was much larger than in the two years 1887 and
1888, seven years, in each case, later. The acreage of wheat in 1880 was
37,986,717, while in 1887 it was but 37,641,783, or 344,934 acres less
than seven years before; while in 1888 it was but 37,336,138, or 650,579
acres less than in 1880, and 305,645 acres less than in 1887, the pre­
ceding year. Again, the acreage of wheat in this country in 1881 was
37,709,020, or 67,237 acres more than six years later, in 1887, and 627,118 acres more than seven years later, in 1888. But not only so. The
acreage of wheat in 1884 was 39,475,885, or 1,834,102 acres more than
any year since, being 5,286,639 acres more than in the following year,
1885, the acreage that year being but 34,182,246; 2,669,701 acres more
than in 1886, when the acreage was 36,806,184; 1,834,102 acres more
than in 1887, when, as we have seen, the acreage was 37,641,783, and
2,139,747 acres more than in 1888, four years later, when the acreage
was 37,336,138.
But farther investigation will show clearly that in so far as this
country is concerned at least there has been no increase in the produc­
tion of wheat, but instead a most perceptible falling off, in acreage as
well as actual annual yield in bushels. Take the last ten years, for in­
stance, commencing with the year 1880 and ending with the year 1889,
and divide this period into two sections of five years each, and we find
the average annual acreage of wheat for the first period of five years, that
is, 1880-1884, inclusive, was 37,738,882 acres, the total acreage for these
five years being 188,649,406, or an annual average of 37,729,881 acres;
whereas the total acreage for the five years subsequent, that is, 1885-1889,
both inclusive, was but 184,097,210, or 4.552,196 acres less in the aggre­
gate than for the five preceding years, and an annual average for this last
period ending with 1889 of but 36*819,442 acres, or 910,439 acres less
than the annual average for the five years 1880-1884, inclusive.
But how is it as to the yield in bushels ? Never but twice since the
year 1880, and these two exceptions were the years 1882 and 1884,
were there as many bushels of wheat produced in this county as in that
year (1880), now ten years ago. The yield that year was 498,549,868
bushels, being 41,331,868 bushels more than has been produced in any
one year in this country since 1884, except last year (1889) when the
yield was, I believe, about 490,000,000 bushels in round numbers (to
be entirely accurate, 490,560,000 bushels, according to the figures of
the Agricultural Department), and 77,463,708 bushels more than were
produced in 1883, 41,437,868 bushels more than produced in 1885,
41,331,868 bushels more than in 1886, 42,220,868 bushels nopre than
in 1887, 82,681,868 bushels more than in 1888, and 8,549,000 bushels
more than in 1889.
There were produced in the United States in the four years 1881-1884,
inclusive, 134,789,660 bushels of wheat more than was the aggregate
number of bushels produced in the four immediately subsequentjrears
of 1885-1888. The whole number of bushels produced in the four years
ending with the year 1884 was 1,821,316,660, whereas the aggregate
number of bushels produced in the four years ending with the year 1888
was but 1,686,527,000.
There has been an increase in the com product, but not so large when
the statistics are critically examined as is generally supposed and often
asserted. While it is true that the average annual yield of com is con­
siderably greater for the past decade than it was for the preceding one,
m i—

2




18
yet it is also a fact that there were produced in this country in the three
years 1883,1884, and 1885 173,378,895 bushels of corn more than were
produced in the three subsequent years of 1886, 1887, and 1888.
The total production for the first series of three years named was
5,282,770,895 bushels, while the aggregate product for the second series of
three years ending with the year 1888 was but5,109,392,000bushels. So
it is also with the production of rye. Take the ten years 1878 to 1887,
both inclusive, and the statistics show that for the first half of this de­
cade, ending with the year 1882, the aggregate number of bushels of
rye produced in this country exceeded by 1,051,514 bushels the num­
ber of bushels raised in the five years ending in 1887. The aggregate
of the rye crops in this country for the first series of five years ending
with the year 1882 was 124,688,066 bushels, while the aggregate in the
five years ending with the year 1887 was but 123,636,552 bushels. And
so with barley. There were more bushels of barley produced in this
country in each of the years 1884, 1885, and 1886 than in any year
since. In 1884 the barley crop of this country was 61,203,000 bushels,
being 2,843,000 bushels more than that produced in 1885, 1,775,000
bushels more than in 1886, and 4,391,000 bushels more than the crop
of 1887, the product in this latter year being but 56,812,000 bushels.
Neither is there any increase, nor has there been for many years, but
on the contrary a decline in the buckwheat crop of this country. Take
the aggregate yield of buckwheat in the seven years ending with the
year 1880, and it was more by 3,319,371 bushels than was the total
yield for the ensuing seven years ending with the year 1887. The ag­
gregate number of bushels for the first seriesof seven years was 77,948,885
while that for the last series of seven years was but 74,629,487. In
potatoes there has been a gradual falling off in yield. In the three years
ending with the year 1884, the aggregate yield in this country was
92,595,933 bushels less than was the aggregate of the total crops for the
three years ending with the year 1887.
The total yield for the first series of three years was 569.778,933 bush­
els, and for the last series of three years but 447,183,000 bushels. Oats
seems to be the only exception in cereals. There has been a gradual
and considerable increase in the oat crop in this country each year in
the last decade, the productin 1888 being nearly double in bushels that
of the lowest yield in the ten preceding years, which was in 1879, when
the crop was 363,761,320 bushels, the yield in 1888 being 701,735,000
bushels.
Taking the cereal crops, however, of this country as a whole, on the
average, it is plain that the production has not only not increased at
ail, but has actually fallen off on an average during the past ten years,
and, when considered in connection with the increase of population,
the falling off in the supply has been immense. Notably is this the
case with the cereals upon which the human race feed. The statis­
tics show that the average annual cereal crop of the United States
for the past nine years, commencing with the year 1881 and ending with
the year 1889, is 17,322,336 bushels less than was the total crop of all
cereate produced in this country in the year 1880, the production in
that year being 2,718,193,501 bushels, while the average crop each year
since that date has been 2,700,871,165 bushels. And so far as the great
staple, wheat, is concerned, there has been no increase, when consid­
ered in connection with the increase of population, but really a very
large falling off in the product of the world, take it one year with an­
other, for more than two decades past, as was clearly shown the other
MI




19
d a y b y m y friend on the right, Senator T e l l e b . While
a great increase in some sections, India and Russia for

there has been
instance, there

has been a great f a l l i n g off in other countries.
The Australian colonies, for instance, as stated by the Senator from
Nevada [Mr. S t e w a r t ] in the debate last week, brought to the Euro­
pean wheat market of last year only a fraction over one-third of the num­
ber of bushels they did eight years ago. Then they contri birted to that
market over 13,000,000 bushels, while in 1889 the amount was about
4,500,000 bushels. The statistics produced by Senator T e l l e r will bear
repeating, and they show that the world’s product of wheat in 1888
was 2,055,361,692 bushels, or only 71,710,086 bushels more than the
world’s product of wheat in 1880, eight years before, when the world’s
population was 65,000,000 less than in 1888. The statistics further
show that the world’s product of wheat in 1888 was less, with a single
exception, that being the year 1886, than it had been in any year since
prior to the year 1885. In that year the crop was 2,099,000,000 bushels,
in round numbeis, while in 1888 it was 2,055,361,692, or 43,638,308
bushels less than in 1885.
I take the liberty of inserting in my speech that portion of the re­
marks of Senator ^Te l l e r embodying these statistics, as they are both
valuable—that is, the statistics and remarks:

The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Morrill], whom I do not now see in his seat,
is very confident that I am wrong when I say that there has been no increase
in the wheat crop. I did not specifically state that. I meant that there had been
no increase beyond the increase of population, but I supposed that everybody
would take that into view. The statement that I made is specifically correct,
that the wheat crop has only kept pace with the increased population, and in
this country
it has
notwe
kept
with it.fewer
Wepeople,
have not got as much wheat this
year
as we had
when
hadpace
15,000,000
Since I made my remarks Mr. Ivan C. Michels, a gentleman who has given
much attention to this wheat question, has handed me a statement which I
shall quote. While I can not verify it exactly, it is practically what my own
researches have brought out, so that I should venture to say that it was correct,
even
if man.
I had not
it,theupon
the reputation
of this production
gentleman, ofwhowheat
is a
careful
HeInverified
gives
me1,587,717,577
following
as the
world’s
and
population:
1870,
bushels
and
570,601,777
souls.
I
need
not
say that of course this does not include the great part of the world that does not
have
any
opportunity
of
determining
what
is
raised.
China,
of
course,
is
not
included, ana many other countries are not considered; but we deal in this
question with those countries which have statistics, which do export articles
and
theirtheexports.
In keep
1880 hetrack
givesof me
figures of the world’s production of wheat and popu­
lation
as
1,983,651,606
and1886,1887,
657,769,935and
souls.1888,ItasisI very
production of wheat bushels
as in 1885,
couldnearly
show the
in asame
mo­
ment if I had the time to turn to my own figures. In 1888, eight years later, it was
2,055,361,692 bushels and 722,808,018 souls. That is an increase in eight years of
71,000,000 bushels of wheat. Such an increase would have no more appreciable
effect upon that great quantity of wheat than the pouring of a barrel of water
would have upon the surface of Lake Erie. The increase of wheat that he gives
me
per cent, and the increase of population 26.67. The yearly average
of Wish e28.9
a t from 1880 to 1888, inclusive, was 2,034,787,392 bushels. Mr. Michels has
also handed m e the following statement, which 1 propose to put in the R e c o r d :
“ In 1872, prior to the demonetization of silver, we had under cultivation 20,858,359 acres, producing 249,997,100 bushels, valued at $310,180,375, giving a farm
value of $1.24 per bushel, and the average value per acre to the farmer $14.87.
“ In 1888 we had under cultivation 37,336,138 acres, producing 415,868,000 bush­
els of wheat; farm value of $385,248,030, equal to 871 cents per bushel and the
farm value ox $10.30 per acre.
“ From 1873 to 1888, inclusive, we had under cultivation 526,747,054 acres. Of
eourse that is the aggregate. Average value for sixteen years per acre equal to
H1.21, with a lqsa of $3.66 per acre, showing a loss of $1,927,894,217.”
Mr. M i t c h e l l . I should like to state right in this connection, if the Senator
will allow me, that if he will turn to the statistics he will find that the average
price of wheat in the home market, in this country, for the six years immediately
preceding the year 1878 was one dollar and thirty-one cents and a fraction per
MI




bushel, while the average price of wheat for the six years immediately follow­
ing the year 3873 was ninety-nine cents and a fraction per bushel.
Mr.
I desire now to call the attention of the Senate to a statement
from the Treasury Department as to the wheat crop of 1885. It is shown to be
two thousand and ninety-nine million bushels in round numbers. The next
year it was two thousand and thirty-one million bushels in round numbers. The
wheat of that year all over the world was lower than it had been the previous
year. In 1887 it was two thousand one hundred and eighty-eight million bushelsin round n timbers.
T e lle r .

That there is, however, danger to be apprehended from the stimulus
given to the wheat industry in India by England in spending millions
in improving transportation facilities in that country, and in other re­
spects, and in bearing the price of wheat in that country through a
play on silver—purchasing silver bullion at a large discount and turn­
ing it in at par in the purchase of wheat in India, and thus depressing
the price of wheat in the Liverpool market to the great detriment of the
wheat producers of this country—is beyond question; but that the de­
cline of prices in farms and farm products in this country for the past
sixteen years, commencing with the demonetization of silver in 1873,
when we had no competition in the wheat market whatever from In­
dia, is due to overproduction, can not, in view of these stubborn sta­
tistical facts, be maintained for one moment.
Never, Mr. President, was a more deadly blow leveled at the interests
of the agriculturists and laborers of this, and in tact of all other coun­
tries, and never was any blow so prolific of disastrous results to both
these classes, as demonstrated by the rapid and alarming decline of
prices in all commodities and in the appreciation of the value of gold,
than the one evolved by the following combined and concurring causes:
First, the demonetization of silver by Germany in 1871; second, its de­
monetization by the United States in 1873; and third, the placing o f
the limit on silver coinage, and finally absolutely suspending it by
other European nations about the same time, including France, Italy,
Belgium, Holland, and Spain. The effect of this combined action o f
the leading nations of the earth was virtually to strike down and rule
out and render practically useless for the purposes of money one-half
of the world’s then annual product of the precious metals. It meant
contraction to an alarming degree and a decline in prices of over 30 per
cent, on all commodities.
For twenty-five years immediately prior to 1873 the average annual
product of the precious metals, gold and silver, had been increased over
400 per cent, over the average annual product for the forty years preced­
ing, the difference between the average annual production of silver of
these two cycles of time, that is to say, for the period of forty years prior
to 1850 and for the period of twenty-five years subsequent to 1850, be­
ing about $160,000,000. During the former period the average annual
production was only about $40,000,000, while during the latter about
$200,000,000. And with this marvelous increase of the precious metals,
although tBere may have been some minor procuring causes, the aver­
age prices of farm products had increased more than 30 per cent, over
those of a quarter of a century preceding.
But this scheme for the demonetization of silver, which proved so
eminently successful, the great promoters and engineering minds of
which were the monometallists of Great Britain, aided and seconded by
the monometallist interest throughout the world, enabled that country
and its bond-holding classes to virtually swindle its own dependencies
and surrounding nations out of hundreds of millions of dollars. Egypt
was their debtor to the enormous amount of over $500,000,000, con­




21
tracted on a bagjLs of either gold or silver payment, bnt when silver was
demonetized its payment was exacted, of course, in gold alone. So with
its creditors in India, in China, in the Argentine Republic, whose secur­
ities they also held to an enormous amount, and so with those of the
United States.
The effect, as all must admit, of the demonetization of silver was to so
change the existing gold standard, lengthen the yardstick, so to speak,
which as a unit of value had entered into all previous and then existing
contracts and obligations, and by which they were measured, to enlarge
the bushel measure by which England measures our wheat in the Liver­
pool market, thus adding from 25 to 33} per cent, to the"value of all bonds
and other securities of the creditor elass, and requiring from 25 to 33}
per cent, more of the productions of Egypt, China, India, South America,
Mexico, and the United States as well to cancel their balances and
liquidate, their outstanding obligations, than it otherwise would have
done. In other words, the demonetization o f silver was a prodigious
fraud, a stupendous crime against labor and the producing classes. It
was the organization of the monumental trust of the age and of the
world, upon the part of the world’s capital, conceived, promoted, engi­
neered, and finally consummated by the creditor class to depress the
prices of the world’s products and increase the value of their own hold­
ings.
The English historian Hume tells us the first two Norman kings levied
a shilling on each English hearth, called t; moneyage,” as an equiv­
alent for the king’s refraining to exercise his prerogative of debasing
the coin of the realm. This, although occurring centuries ago, when
the light of modem civilization had not yet dawned upon the world,
was much more considerate upon the part of the Norman kings, whose
action was tempered with more of justice and reason than is the action
o f the financial kings of England and of this country of the present day,
who not only impose a more destructive levy on the hearth of a great
majority of the producers in this country in the shape of mortgages on
their farms at ruinous rates of interest, but who, nevertheless, persist in
debasing our coin, and thus withdrawing from the producer from onethird to one-half of his resources wherewith to discharge the indebted­
ness when due.
If this country for more than three-quarters of a century grew, ex­
panded,- and prospered, not only territorially, but commercially and
in every other element which tended to establish its permanency, in­
crease its civilization, and augment its power, physically, socially, in­
tellectually, and morally, under a money system of which the free
coinage of both gold and silver, such coins being endowed with a legaltender function, was the fundamental pivot, then why should the free
coinage of silver now be denounced? Why should its advocates be
denominated inflationists, repudiators, mere visionaries, monetary
cranks, financial mountebanks, and enemies of a safe, conservative mon­
etary system? How is it that, after recognizing and approving for
so many decades the wisdom of the fathers on this subject, of Wash­
ington and Jefferson, of Hamilton and Adams, of Jackson and Clay, ot
Webster and Calhoun, we so suddenly make the marvelous discovery
that these great men, the light of whose fame has illustrated the pages
of our history and whose statesmanship illuminated the records of our
Republic, were all wrong; that they were tyros in finance, monetary
imbeciles, financial ignoramuses, and that now not only the conserva­
tion of the public interests, the promotion of the general welfare, and

MI




22

the advancement of the common good, but the very integrity o f our
Government and people, all demand that* one of the precious metals be
eliminated from our financial system; that it be demonetized and re­
jected, repudiated and scorned, and that instead of bimetallism, as rep­
resented by gold and silver, used and recognized as money and as the
standards of value, and not merely as merchandise, since the earliest
dawn of the world’s civilization, a single gold standard shall be per­
manently established; that in lien of this double standard, represent­
ing, as it does, not only all values in a certain fixed ratio, but also the
two great clases of men—the gold, the few and the rich; the silver, the
many and the poor; the one the creditor, the other the debtor class—a
golden standard alone be erected as the sole measure of all values?
Are the advocates of the free coinage of silver to be frightened by
predictions of financial disaster to follow legislation of this character
that are being continually indulged in by many bankers and other
monometallists ? Has there been such a remarkable fulfillment of their
prophecies in the past as to justify any reasonable fear of their being
verified in the future ? On the contrary, is it not a fact that without
a single exception every one of the misfortunes which they foreshad­
owed as certain to come upon the country as a result of the continued
coinage of the silver dollar has failed to materialize? As applicableto these prophets the scriptural adage, “ A prophet is not without honor
save in his own country,” should be paraphrased to read: “ These
prophets are without honor in all countries, including their own. ” We
were told in 1878, twelve years ago, that the passage of the AllisonBland act and operations under it would, among other things, drive
gold from the country, reduce our gold coins, and bullion as well, to
mere merchandise, and bring on a financial crisis.
But what has been the result since the passage of that bill? We
have up to the end of the past year coined 349,802,001 silver dollars.
Of this amount 61,266,501 of these standard silver dollars are in actual
circulation, while 282,949,073 more are represented by silver certifi­
cates in actual circulation, leaving of this vast sum o f nearly $350,000, 000, in round numbers, only $5,586,427 in silver in the Treasury
that are not represented either by silver dollars or silver certificates in
actual circulation. But not only so; over $100,000,000 of these silver
dollars have been coined in the past three years. There has been an
increase in the circulation of silver dollars since December 31, 1888,
of $487,180 and of silver certificates of $46,729,074; and, notwithstand­
ing all this, has any sudden disaster overtaken us? Has financial ruin
enveloped the country ? Has gold been driven from amongst us? Noth­
ing of the kind. Just the contrary in so far as gold is concerned.
It is true prices have remained depressed, values have continued con­
tracted, but not as a result of the coinage of $2, 000,000 worth of silver
bullion each month, but rather as a result, it is confidently submitted,
of the failure o f the Secretary of the Treasury to purchase and coin
$4,000,000 worth of such bullion each month, as he by law is author­
ized to do, On the contrary, since we commenced the coinage monthly
of $2, 000,000 worth of silver bullion the amount of gold coin in circu­
lation in this country, so far from having been decimated, has been
very largely augmented, to the extent, according to the report of the
Secretary of the Treasury and the statement of the President in hiss
message, of $293,417,552 in gold coin and in gold certificates $72,311,249, making a total increase according to this authority in gold coin
and gold certificates of $365,728,801.




23
According, however, to many other reliable and prominent fiscal and
statistical authorities, notably the editor of the valuable commercial
and financial journal, published in New York City, called Export and
Finance, the amount is over $500,000,000, or was one year ago. That
paper nearly a year ago made the statement in substance that in the
eleven years ending with the year 1S88 the volume of gold in this
country had increased from $167,500,000, the amount here July l t
1877, to ^711,700,000, the amount alleged to have been here November
1, 1888.
But in view of the facts just stated is it difficult to divine what the
result financially in this country, would have been had no part of this vast
‘amount of circulating medium of nearly $350,000,000 in silver and its
representative in certificates been added to our volume of circulating
medium during the past eleven years, with the business of the country
increasing annually over $75,000,000, and in the past eleven years to the
extent of over $825,000,000 and perhaps $1,000,000,000, and population
keeping pace with business in the ratio of 3 to 5, the former being
about 3 per cent, and the latter 5, and with the immense retirement
of our paper currency? Without this increase in circulation the re­
lation between the volume of circulating medium on the one hand and
business and population on the other would have been changed to a
degree that could have tended to but one result: universal depression
in the price of everything but gold and bonds, stagnation in business,
and ultimate financial ruin.
The serious contraction occasioned by the marvelously rapid increas­
ing difference between the volume of business transacted and the num­
ber of people doing business on the one hand and the volume of circu­
lating medium on the other could but lead to the bankruptcy of the
masses. It is true perhaps, owing to our system of doing business by
checks, drafts, and exchanges of different kinds, there is not that im­
perative demand for increased volume of circulating medium in the
shape of gold and silver as required in most countries to transact the
same amount of business; but when each decade shows an increase in
the domesticbusiness of the country of nearly one thousand millions
of dollars and of 30 per cent, or over in our population, then it must
be apparent to all the volume of circulating medium can not be per­
mitted to remain at a standstill, much less be curtailed, with safety to
the business interests of the country. Nothing short of some extraor­
dinary and unexpected calamity can stay the increase in both volume
of business and population in this country at a remarkable ratio. If,
then, the volume of our circulating medium is not permitted to grow,
the operation of contraction is going on in the inverse order to a degree
that must ruinously depress values and bring ruin to the producers and
laborers of this country.
The effects of the gold standard on the financially weaker class, on
the producers and debtor classes, are well illustrated in the financial
history of Great Britian. England has the gold standard; all its mone­
tary transactions are on a gold basis, and being a creditor nation as well
as a nation of creditors as against all the world, the system suits her.
It makes money dearer. It tends to increase the value of her bonds.
It appreciates her securities. It reduces the prices of commodities. It
Augments the power of absorption. But how is it with her dependen­
cies and her neighboring nations—her debtors ? How is it with India
*nd China and Japan ? How is it with the republics of South America
And the Republic of Mexico, and last, but not least, how is it with the

MI




24
United States? India alone, it is asserted, pays tribute to monometal­
lism on the single item of exchange of from $15,000,000to $25,000,000 per
annum, and in all respects over $80,000,000 annually.
It suits England and the moneyed men of Great Britain to pay the
wheat-producers of India and Russia, and the producers of South
America, the United States, and elsewhere in cheap silver, and the more
she can depreciate its value in the bullion market for this purpose the
better it is for her. Especially is this true in view of the fact that the pur­
chasing power of the silver rupee in India remains undiminished. Their
legal-tender silver buys as much wheat now—no less—as it did twenty
years ago. If, then, England can depress the price of our silver bullion
she can purchase it and send it to India to purchase wheat, thus pocket­
ing the difference, besides bringing forward a dangerous competitor with
our farmers in the wheat markets of the world. But when it comes to
the other side of the account, every balance due her or her people, every
debt, every obligation held by her and her citizens must be met in gold
coin or its equivalent in its increased value as a standard and unit of
value, and the dearer and the more valuable such coin can be made for
such purposes, of course the better it is for the creditor. The larger the
world’s bushel measure can be made by which our wheat and other
cereals are to be measured by our purchasers, the more of our wheat and
other cereals it will take to fill it. It is true there is to-day a very large
class in England who, had they the power, would strike down the single
gold standard and erect the double standard, but it is not the class in
the main who control either in the governmental or financial world.
It is not the rich and powerful, but rather the weak, the poor, the uninfiuential, although largely, perhaps, the majority in point of numbers.
It is not the class composed of the money-lender, the bondholder, and
the banker, but rather the producing class, which includes the g**eat
masses of laboring men, the tillers of the soil, and the workers in the
mine.
W IL L FREE COINAGE FLOOD OUR COUNTRY W IT H EUROPEAN SILVER?

It is insisted that the opening of our mints to free coinage, or even to
double the present monthly investments in silver bullion for coinage,
would result in attracting to our mints a flood of European silver to an
extent that would retire our gold dollar and seriously involve us in
financial difficulty. Why any serious apprehension of such a calamity ?
The facts in reference to the annual production of silver in the United
States, as compared with the production of this precious metal in Mex­
ico, South America, and European countries, when considered in con­
nection with the demand for silver in China and India and for use in
the arts, do not justify any such fear, but rather tend to a directly con­
trary conclusion.
The statistics show that over 72 percent, of the world’s annual produc­
tion of silver is absorbed annually by India and China and by use in the
industrial arts, to say nothing of the current loss by abrasion, fire, and
flood and other causes. The United States produces about 45 per cent,
of the world’s annual silver crop, Mexico about 25 per cent.; the two to­
gether perhaps about 70 per cent. Assuming, therefore, that the prod­
uct of these two countries should seek coinage at our mints, there would
remain in all other nations combined only about 30 per cent, of the
world’s annual product to meet the demand in all civilized countries
for use in the industrial arts and the further demand of the two coun­
tries alone—India and China—provided always that such demand con-

MI




25

tInn©equal to that of the last few years. And is there any good reason
to be assigned why it should not ? In that event there would be a de­

ficit of over 40 per cent., or in the neighborhood of over $80,000,000
annually short of the demand for these three purposes.
There is not, therefore, the slightest probability, were free coinage
established in this country, with no exclusion even as to foreign silver
bullion, that any European bullion would be shipped here, and for the
two very good reasons which would always operate to prevent it: One is
the cost of transportation, the other the demand for it at home. Another
disadvantage the European owner of silver bullion would labor under,
should he contemplate shipments to our mints for coinage here, would
be one resulting from the difference in the ratios of the two metals—•
silver and gold in this country and in the double-standard European
countries—ours being 16 to 1, theirs being 15J to 1, while in India the
ratio is 15 to 1.
So that for every outlay of an ounce of gold in the purchase of silver
the owner of European bullion would be compelled to furnish an ad­
ditional half-ounce of silver; that is to say, the difference between 15J
and 16. Nor is there the slightest fear of France or Germany or any
other European countries shipping their millions of silver coins here as
bullion for coinage in our mints. The reasons just suggested apply
equally to any suggestion of that character. All the silver in Europe,
including the annual crop of all the European countries combined, and
much more besides, is needed in those countries, and will never leave
them, not, at least, to come here; and our gold dollar in this country has
nothing whatever to fear from a flood of European silver, even though,
as I have stated, the mints of this country were open to free and un­
limited coinage, and no exception made as to foreign bullion.
I f it be true that the silver-producing States are Interested in the re­
monetization of silver, then may it be said with equal truth that the
agricultural States, those engaged in the production of wheat, and
oats, and cotton, and corn, and butter, and cheese, and hogs, and cattle,
and sheep, are tenfold more interested. If the interest of the owner
o f silver bullion lies in the direction of the maintenance of the dual
standard and the restoration of silver as a legal-tender money, then
the interests of the farmer, the producer of the products of the farm,
lie in the same direction.
If it is the interest of the creditor world to maintain the single stand­
ard and to appreciate the value of'gold as the sole unit of value, then
the interest of the debtor class lies in the directly opposite direction.
I f it is the interest of Great Britain to maintain monometallism and
repudiate silver as money, and thus virtually demand an increase in
the length of the tape-measure by which the products of the farms of
this country are to be measured, then, Mr. President, it is respectfully,
but earnestly, submitted it is not only the interest of the farmers and
producers of tbis country, but their bounden duty as well, through
their Representatives in Congress and in every proper way, to denounce
and Resist to the utmost limit of constitutional and legislative power
the'iniquitous demand.
If the great money centers and money power of Wall Street and of
New England or any other class or section second the motion of the
great central fiscal power of the world across the seas and become co­
conspirators with them in their efforts to increase the value of their
accumulated millions, of their fixed incomes, of their all-sufficient




26
competencies, by eliminating silver from the world’s stock of money,
and thus still further reduce the value of the farms, farm labor, and
farm products of the South and West and the great Pacific Northwest,
then has not the time arrived when the great agricultural and mineralproducing States of those great sections should join in one mighty and
'emphatic protest, and in the majesty of their power, clothed with the
panoply of justice, insist on such legislation as will thwart the nefari­
ous purpose ? Let the protest be of such a character that its echoes
shall reverberate not alone through the frescoed halls of the nation’s
Capitol, but throughout the world, spreading dismay in the ranks of
financial cabals of this and every other land.
Next to free and unlimited coinage of silver, I believe a monthly Gov­
ernment investment in silver bullion to the extent of the maximum now
authorized by law, namely, $4,000,000 per month in value of silver bul­
lion, would come nearer meeting the demands of the hour than any other
scheme suggested. The truth is, if the authority now conferred by ex­
isting legislation were exercised by the executive officers of the Gov­
ernment, bank officials, and clearing-houses throughout the country,
a great stride would be made toward keeping silver and gold at that
nearly uniform relation, the one to the other, which was so successfully
maintained for many years prior to the demonetization of silver in 1873
by means of the free coinage of gold and silver in the mints of the
United States and in those of the Latin Union.
But unfortunately in every case where authority merely has been
given by legislation, the same not being mandatory, looking to the es­
tablishment and maintenance of the credit of silver coin, such authority
is not exercised. For instance, Congress nearly twelve years ago di­
rected the Secretary of the Treasury to purchase and coin not less than
$2, 000,000 nor more than $4,000,000 worth of silver bullion each month;
and what is the result? The mandatory part of the act only has been
complied with and the minimum amount only, or but a fraction in excessh
of it, has been purchased and coined.
Under existing law all balances in clearing-houses may be paid in
coin, either gold or silver or the representatives of either, and yet never
a .dollar of such balances is paid in silver or its representative, but all
are invariably paid in gold or its representative in value. Certain Gov­
ernment obligations may under existing law be paid in coin, either gold
or silver, and yet no part of them are paid in silver, but always all in
gold. And while no one would favor the payment of any obligation
of the Government in anything but gold coin, in any case where it could
with propriety be maintained that money obtained on such obligationswas obtained on either an expressed or implied assurance that payment
should be made in gold coin alone, there seems to be no goqd reason either
in law or morals why in the case of an obligation made at a date when both
gold and silver were legal-tender money in this country, and which obli­
gations are by their terms made payable in coin, not specifically in gold
coin, but simply in coin, and where there is nothing either expressed
or implied in or about or connected with the transaction requiring pay­
ment in gold alone, there should be any good ground for complaint on
the part of the creditor, should the same be paid in either gold or silver
coin.
I refer to all these practices on the part of executive officers, banks,
clearing-houses, etc., for the purpose of showing that it requires some­
thing more than mere legislative authority or the right to exercise disMZ




27
cretion on the part of executive officers of the Government, national
banks, and clearing-houses, if it is expected a cordial or even a per­
functory recognition of silver is to be accorded. These observations aa
to the failure of executive officers to go further than they are by law
compelled to go, refer more particularly to the policies pursued under
former administrations, and in a great measure adhered to by the pres­
ent Secretary of the Treasury during the earlier months of the present
Administration. It is, however, a cause for congratulation that both
the President and his Secretary of the Treasury, giving ear to the un­
mistakable sentiment of this country as being emphatically expressed
in many ways at the present time, have recently manifested an inten­
tion to change the policy of the Government, to some extent at least,
upon this all-important subject.
MANDATORY LEGISLATION NECESSARY.

Butin my judgment mandatory legislation alone in the right direc­
tion and on a proper basis will accomplish the purpose desired. But,
further, all attempts at compromise which omits as one of its elementsthe recognition of silver as a legal-tender money, and which seeks to
establish its status as mere merchandise should, in my judgment, fail.
The end may possibly be reached, although I seriously doubt it, in
some other way besides that of free and unlimited coinage with full
legal-tender function attached, but never if the element of full recog­
nition of silver as a legal-tender money is omitted in the scheme. A
few lines of amendment to existing legislation to compel the Secretary
of the Treasury to purchase and coin four or five million dollars’ worth
of silver bullion per month, making it obligatory upon clearing-house
officials, in so far as they may be brought within the constitutional
scope of national legislation, to pay all balances in coin, one-half in
gold, the other half in silver, or their respective certificate representa­
tives, as they are now authorized to do by law, but not required, would,
in my judgment, do no injustice to any interest and at the same time
go a long way in the direction of the practical remonetization of silver.
And while I regard the proposition of the present Secretary of the
Treasury, as expressed in his annual report and as somewhat modified
by the bill recently introduced in Congress and understood to have been
prepared by him, a? in some, indeed many, respects a step in the right
direction, yet there are in it restrictions imposed and powers conferred
on the Secretary of the Treasury which Congress should never concede
and which, unless remedied by amendment, in my judgment render
the scheme fatally defective as a measure which will tend to restore
silver to its proper place as a standard of value. With slight amend­
ments, however, the proposition would in my view stand third in point
of desirability as a measure in the right direction, among the many that
have been proposed, free and unlimited coinage being first, the monthly
investment and coinage of four or five million dollars’ worth of silver
bullion under the provisions of existing law being second.
Mr. President, I desire to submit as part of my remarks, and ask to
have printed in the R e c o r d in connection with them, a very able argu­
ment recently written by my friend, Senator S t e w a r t , of Nevada, and
published over his signature in the New York Tribune in its issue of
the 22d instant, and also editorial comment on the same in the same
paper.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. C o c k r e l l in the chair). If there
be no obiectionthe request of the Senator will be granted. The Chair
hears none.




28
T h e argu m en t o f M r. S t e w a r t is as fo llo w s:
AK ARGUMENT FOR SILVER— SENATOR STEWART, OF NEVADA, TELLS W H Y W 1
NEED UNLIMITED SILVER COINAGE— PRODUCTIVE INDUSTRIES, HE SAYS, ARM
SHRINKING UNDER THE BLIGHTING GRASP OF CONTRACTION AND MORE MONEY
13 NEEDED TO SECURE THEIR RELEASE.

C an th e th eo ry of th e single gold stan d ard be reduced to practice? N early 1,200,000,000 o f people are accustom ed to th e use of silver as m on ey; n o t exceeding
200,000,000 h av e ever used gold for th a t purpose. If gold enough could be ob­
tain ed, how long w ould it req u ire to in troduce it as a m edium o f exchange
am ong th e th o u san d m illions w ho h av e n ev er used it ? T he m oney of th e w orld
con sists o f gold, silver, and p ap er in n early equ al proportions. A n official of
th e T reasu ry D ep artm en t rep o rts th a t the aggregate am o u n t o f m oney o f th e
principal n atio ns of th e w orld is $11,488,500,000, consisting of $3,711,000,000 of gold,
$3,831,500,000 o f silver, an d $3,946,000,000 of paper. T hese am o u nts w ould b e
slig h tly increased if auth entic accounts could be o btained from every p a rt o f th e
w orld, b u t th ey are sufficiently accurate for th e purposes of th is argum ent.
D oes a n y one suppose th a t enough gold could be o btained to su pp ly th e place
o f b oth silv er and pap er? If so, w here w ill th e enorm ous sum of n early $8,000,000,000be found ? If no a dd ition is to be m ade, can less th an $4,000,000,000 o f gold
fu rn ish a safe basis for $8,000,000,000 of credit m oney, consisting of silver a n d
p ap er? If silver w ere actu ally dem onetized, so th a t its v alu e w ould d ep end
u p o n its redem ption in gold, w ou ld th e financial system o f th e w orld be satis­
facto ry ? W hat w ould be th e effect of an effort of a n y stro n g n atio n to redeem
its p ap er an d silver in gold? M ight n o t $8,000,000,000 of credit m oney, based
n po n less th a n $4,000,000,000 of stan d ard m oney, be called inflation ? W ould n o t
th e finances of th e w orld be like th e S tate b an k in g system o f th is co u n try in
1857, w hen a d em and for $20 in gold in Chicago b ro k e n ea rly every b a n k in th e
U nited States. If gold is th e only basis an d it is already insufficient for th e re ­
d em p tio n o f th e silver a n d p ap er in circulation, how could th e increasing d em and
for m on ey on account o f th e g ro w th of population an d business be su pp lied ?
W ith such a v ast am o u n t o f cred it m oney on so n arro w a basis o f stan d ard
m o n ey how could u niv ersal b an k ru p tcy be avoided?
TO CUT OFF SILVER MEANS TO CUT OFF GOLD ALSO.

H as th e stock o f gold increased in th e last fifteen years? A ccording to th e
b est com putations th e consum ption in th e arts, w ear, and loss hav e abo u t ab­
sorbed th e production of th e m ines. T he principal accum ulations of gold in an ­
c ien t tim es cam e from p lacer m ines o r surface w ashings in A sia. A frica, an d
S ou th ern E u ro p e ; in m odern tim es, from th e placers of C alifornia a n d A ustralia.
D urin g th e last forty years d ilig en t search has been m ade in every accessible
p a rt or th e w orld for n ew placers w ith o u t success. T he supply o f gold outside
o f th e g re a t fields is obtained by glean in g in aban do n ed placers, by w o rk in g th e
few gold-vein m ines th a t hav e been discovered, an d from silver m ines, in com ­
b ination w ith silver. I t is estim ated th a t fully one-half of th e supply, independ­
e n t of th e g re a t placers w hich are already exh austed, com es from th e silver
m ines.
T h e dem onetization o f silv er w ould cut off th a t su pp ly by stop p ing silv er m in­
ing. A single gold stan d ard for th e w orld w ould m ean th e w orst gold fam ine
th a t h as ever occurred, an d th e sh rin k ag e of values w ould con tinu e w ith o u t
lim it.
T he suggestion th a t lim ited q uan tities o f silver m ay b e used, b u t n o t all th a t
is produced, is m ade in ignorance of th e functions of m oney. If silver is n o t a
m oney m etal and-silver coin is o nly credit m oney, w h y use silver a t all? W h y
n o t use copper o r n ickel, o r pap er, if n eith er is stan d ard m oney, a n d each is
sim p ly credit m oney, dep end in g for its value u pon th e prom ise to p ay in gold ?
U nless silver bullion can be exchanged for coin a t th e m in ts a t a fixed ratio b e­
tw een th e tw o m etals equally w ith gold, silver is n o t a m oney m etal. If th e
stan d ard m oney o f th e w orld is to be increased a t all by silver, silver m ust be
trea ted as a m oney m etal equally w ith gold. If th e q u a n tity of eith er g old or
silver, w hich m ay be used as m oney, is lim ited by legislation, th e m etal so lim ­
ited is dem onetized an d reduced to a com m odity.
W H Y IS EITHER TO BE CALLED 1H E “ BETTER METAL?”

T he u nlim ited use of silver w ould n ot inflate th e w orld ’s m oney, because a ll
th e silver n ow produced is e ith e r coined o r absorbed in th e arts. T he am o u n t
o f gold an d silv er coin in th e w orld is less th an $8,000,000,000 an d is a n insuf­
ficient supply of m oney. T his is show n by th e fact th a t $4,000,000,000 of p ap er
is in actual circulation in addition to th e coin of both m etals. N o n atio n o f mod­
e rn tim es h as been able to obtain enough of eith er m etal o r of th e tw o com ­
bined to su pp ly th e d em and for m oney. E very civilized cou n try supplem ents
its gold a n d silv er w ith p ap er m oney. T h ere is n o reasonable prospect th a t
•any c o u n try ever w ill in th e futu re reach a m etallic basis, dollar for dollar, even
MI




29

b y th e use o f b o th gold a n d silver. So lo n g as th e w orld is com pelled to reso rt
to p ap er m oney to m ak e up th e deficient su pp ly o f m etallio m on ey th ere is n o
d an g er of th e acquisition o f too m uch silver.
W h y is silv er n o t as good as gold? T h e m ajo rity o f m an k in d seem to p refer
it. F o u r tim es as m an y people use it as use gold. W hen C alifornia a n a A us­
tra lia w ere furn ishin g larg e supplies of gold, th e p ro m in en t financiers of E u ­
rope, u n d er th e lead of C hevalier, of F rance, arg u ed th a t silver w as th e b ette r
m etal, an d advocated th e dem onetization of gold o n th e g ro u n d th a t its con­
tin u ed use w ould driv e silver, th e b ette r m oney, o u t of th e country. T he arg u ­
m en t is now reversed. I t is now said th a t gold is th e b ette r m etal, a n d if silv er
in u nlim ited q uan tities is used gold w ill be w ith d raw n . B oth th e philosophers
o f th irty y ears ago an d th e g old stan d ard contractionists of th e p resent d ay as­
su m e th a t th e su bstitution o f th e cheaper m oney for th e d ea rer w ould be di»astrous. N eith er set o f philosophers h as condescended to give a reason for th is
assum ption. N o reaso n w as g iven b y C hevalier a n d his follow ers w hy silver
w as th e b ette r m oney. N one h as been g iven by th e m od ern contractionists
w h y gold h as now becom e th e b etter m oney.
THE “ WITHDRAWAL) ARGUMENT ” CUTS BOTH W A YS.

Ift is curious to trace th e sam e sty le o f reasoning now used ag ain st silv er that
w as adopted m ore th an th irty y ears ago ag ain st gold. A t th a t tim e th e a rg u ­
m en ts of C hevalier an d D e P arie u w ere so a b ly refu ted b y M r. C harles M oran
in his rem ark able boo k on m oney th a t I am constrained to q uote a few passages
from h is u nan sw erab le arg u m en t. H e w rite s :
“ M r. C hevalier says th a t th e exchange of silver a t a p rem ium for gold a t p ar
is a disastrous exchange for F rance. H ow so? D oes a cou n try ever exp o rt
w h a t is n eedful to th e w ell-being of its ow n in hab itan ts? T h e fact th a t a pro d ­
u ct o r a precious m etal is exp o rted in exchange for som ething else is p ro o f posi­
tiv e th a t b oth p arties to th e exchange are benefited th ereby , for o therw ise th e
exchange w ou ld n o t be m ade. E very com m ercial operatio n is m ad e because it
is supposed to b e advantageous to both seller an d buyer. All com m ercial tran s­
actions, freely repeated, m u st be advantageous to th e indiv idu als m ak ing th em ,
a n d consequently to th e n atio ns of w hich th ey are citizen s; for th e pro sp erity
o f a n atio n d epends entirely pn th e p ro sp erity of th e in dividuals com posing th e
natio n. T he id ea th a t th e re can be a national in terest d istin ct from individual
in te rest is a legacy o f th e olden tim es, w hich political econom y is slow ly de­
stro y ing ; b u t u nfo rtu n ately th e e rro r exists in th e m inds o f m an y considered in ­
tellig en t a n d enlightened.*'
M r. D e P arieu also says th a t th e com m unity in F ran ce suffers from th e ex­
change of silver a t a p rem ium for gold a t p ar, an d y e t h e subsequently acknow l­
edges th a t th e gold received ren d ers th e sam e services as th e silv er g iven in
exchange.
If an y one w ill read th e b ook p ub lished b y C hevalier in 1857, a n d tran slate d
b y Cobden, a n d com pare it w ith a n elab o rate essay by M r. G eorge A. B u tler
in th e D ecem ber n u m b er o f T h e N ew E n g lan d an d Y ale R eview , h e w ill be
forcibly stru ck w ith th e sim ilarity of view s en te rta in ed by th e tw o d istin gu ish ed
auth o rs. T h e o nly su bstantial difference w hich he w ill find in th e tw o produc­
tion s consists in th e fact th a t M r. C hevalier arg u es for the d em o netization of
old, w hile M r. B utler contends for th e dem onetization of silver. N eith er of
lese g en tlem en app ears to h av e ta k e n in to consideration h ow th e w orld w ould
b e affected if h is arg u m e n t w ere carried to a legitim ate conclusion an d one-half
o f th e w orld ’s m oney w ith d raw n o r destroyed, b u t b oth o f th em seem to hav e
g re a t con tem p t for “ cheap m oney.” A ny m oney is good in th e ir estim atio n
w hich is d ea r; a n d th e d ea rer th e b etter.

S

CONTRACTION INCREASES THE PEOPLE’ S BURDENS.

P erh ap s th ese philosophers h av e overlooked th e fact th a t th e v alu e of gold is
o n ly $330 p er avoirdupois pound, w hile th ere a re tw enty-tw o o th er m etals w hich
possess a g re a ter v alu e th a n gold, ran g in g as h igh as $10,000 p er avoirdupois
pound, w hich is th e v alu e of th e m etal k n o w n as vanadium . I f d ear m oney is
th e end to be a tta in ed in establishing a sound financial system , w h y n o t select
from am ong th ese m etals o n e w hich is m ore v alu able th a n gold?
T he p roducing classes of th is cou n try , how ever, are n o t seek ing for d ea r
m oney. T hey w an t m ore m oney, a n d th in k th e legislation to m ak e m oney
d ear n as gone far enough. T h ey a re n o t satisfied w ith th e d em onetization of
silv er in 1873, w hereb y a n a n n u al p ro d u ct of th e precious m etals am o u ntin g to
ab o u t $200,000,000 w as reduced to less th a n $100,000,000, since w h ich tim e prices
h av e declined to k eep pace w ith th e sh rin k ag e of stan d ard m on ey m ore th a n
80 p er cent.
T h e T ribune, in its issue of N ovem ber 20, 1889, m ak es th e follow ing signifi­
c a n t s ta te m e n t:
“ N ex t m u st b e reck o ned th e im p o rta n t fact th a t, w ith prices, a n d therefore
m




30

th e cost of living, a t least 20 p er cent, lo w er th an in 1881 an d 1882, th e w ages
o f labor are on th e w hole h ig h e r.’*
T he statem en t th a t prices h av e declined 20 p er cent, in th e last eigh t y ears
is u nfo rtu n ately true; b u t I differ from th e T rib u ne as to th e w ages of labor,
because m y in fo rm ation is th a t th ou san d s of o u r people are deprived of em ploy­
m en t on account of fallin g prices. F arm ers a n d m an u facturers a re unab le to
furnish em p loy m en t because com m odities produced by labo r a n d capital w ill
n o t sell for th e cost of p ro duction. S tagnation a n d despair a re su perseding ac­
tiv ity a nd hope.
H ow long can th is rap id decline of prices con tinu e w ith o u t ru in to o u r p ro­
d uctive in terests and th e absolute d estructio n of th e d ebtor class? Is n o t a n
increase of o ver 30 p er cent, in th e obligation of every contract, w hich h as al­
read y been secured by th e w ar on silver, sufficient to satisiy th e lu st of th e m ost
greed y b ondholder? To w hat e x te n t m ust th e b urd ens of th e people be in­
creased by contraction ? M ay n o t th e avarice o f th e b o n d h old er en d in th e de­
stru ctio n o f his security?
SINGLE STANDARD RUINOUS TO FARMERS.

D ear m oney in th e U nited States, so m uch p rized by those w ho possess it a n d
th e ow ners of bonds w hich com m and it, h as alread y p ro strated th e farm ing an d
producing interests a n d n ea rly closed all foreign m ark ets again st A m erican
farm ers. S ilver in In d ia h as lost none o f its purch asin g pow er by reason o f its
d em o netization in th e w estern w orld. T he average price of w heat th ro u g h o u t
th e w orld for th e la st tw enty-five y ears h as been about 2 rup ees of silv er p er
bushel. Before silv er w as dem onetized in th e w estern w orld a ru p ee of silv er
w as w o rth 48 cents in gold an d 2 rupees w as ab o u t th e averag e price of a b ushel
o f w heat. A rupee of silv er is now w orth i n th e E uropean m ark et ab o u t 32 cents
in gold, and 2 rupees abo u t 64 cents. In d ia still produces a bushel o f w heat for
2 rup ees of silver. T he people of In d ia have experienced no m aterial change in
th e price of w heat. A person w ho w ishes to o btain w heat in In d ia can p rocure
enough silver in A m erica to m ak e 2 rupees for 64 cents. W ith it h e can o b tain
a bushel of w h eat in In d ia to sell in th e E uropean m ark et in com petition w ith
th e A m erican farm er, w ho m ust also sell his w heat for th e equ iv alen t o f 2 rup ees
in silver, or, w hat is th e sam e th in g , 64 cents a bushel in gold.
T he silv er-stand ard countries h av e am ple resources to supply th e E uro pean
m a rk e t w ith all farm products. T he producers of those countries w ith cheap
m on ey can undersell th e A m erican form ers, w ho are com pelled to use d ear
m oney. T he resu lt is disastrous to o ur people.
T he E uropean m ark et for foreign w heat is m ainly supplied from th e U nited
States, R ussia, In d ia, th e A rgentine R epublic, an d th e A ustralian colonies.' In
1880 th e U nited S tates furn ished over 60’p er cent, of th e am o u nt su pplied by th e
countries nam ed. In 1888-’89 o ur cou n try furnished less th a n 23 p er cent, of th e
w h eat from th e countries above m entioned. T he A ustralian colonies a re on
th e gold basis an d suffer equ ally w ith th e U nited States. T hese colonies in
1880 sold in the E uro pean m ark et over 13,000,000 bushels of w heat, w hile in
1888-’89 th eir contribution w as reduced to 4,500,000 bushels. W h y is it th a t a ll
th e silver-standard countries continue to increase th eir exports of farm prod­
ucts, w hile the gold-standard cou ntries are com pelled to su rre n d e r th e m ark ets
of E urope, w hich th ey h av e so long enjoyed?
THE BONDHOLDERS' CONSPIRACY.

If gold is so m uch b etter th a n silver, how does it h appen th a t th e countries
w hich hav e th e silver stan d ard prosper, w hile those w hich ad h ere to th e g old
basis suffer? F ree coinage of silv er in th e U nited S tates w ould raise th e p rice
o f th a t m etal to p ar w ith gold, so th a t th ere w ould be no cheap silver to stim u ­
late production in th e silver-standard countries. T he stan d ard in those coun­
tries w ould be th e sam e as in th e U nited States. T he su perio r sk ill and e n te r­
prise of o u r people w ould soon reg ain th e foreign m ark ets, w hich w e lost by
th e legislation again st silver.
T here is q uite a n u m ero u s class o f persons w ho recognize th e necessity for
th e use of b o th m etals as a full legal tend er, in o th e r w ords, th e tree coinage o f
both gold an d silver, b u t express th e fear th a t th e U nited S tates is u nab le to
op en h er m in ts to free coinage u nless E u ro p e w ill do th e sam e. T h e reason
th ey assign is tn a t th e U nited S tates w ould be flooded w ith cheap silver. H ow
th is w ould in ju re o u r co u n try th ey do n o t satisfactorily explain. U nless th e
U nited States is able to establish an in d ep en d en t financial system o f its o w n
th e re is very little hope of relief. I t is quite certain th a t th e bonded in te rest ol
E urope, w hich is th e ru lin g in terest, w ill be v ery slow in its m ov em en ts to w ard
th e dem onetization of silver.
T he t .velve e m in en t g entlem en w ho com posed th e R oyal B ritish Com m ission
w hich h ad u nd er consideration th e recen t changes in th e relativ e v alu e o f gold
a n d silver regarded th e fact th a t E n g lan d is a cred ito r n atio n of debts pay able
HI




31

in so ld as a p aram o u n t consideration. T hey arg u ed th a t a n y increase in th o
stan d ard m oney of th e w orld w ould necessarily reduce its purch asin g pow er,
a n d w ould, therefore, be in jurious to th e b ondholders of E ng land . T he U nitea
S tates, being a d eb to r n atio n, a w h eat an d cotton pro d u cin g n atio n, can h ard ly
afford to w ait u n til th e bondholders of G reat B ritain a re w illing to m ak e m on ey
cheaper a n d p ro p erty d earer by th e rem onetization of silver.
NO DANGER OF TOO MUCH SILVEB.

W h at real d an g er is th ere in th e free coinage of silver? W hence is th e sup­
posed g lu t of th a t m etal to com e? T here is no su rp lu s silv er bullion any w here
In th e w orld. T here is only $1,000,000,000 of silv er m oney in all E urope of stan d ­
a rd fitness w hich w ould have an y m ark et value in the U nited States. T his
m oney is a full legal te n d e r a t th e ratio of 15£ of silver to 1 of gold an d is circu lat­
ing am ong th e people a t par. O ur ratio is 16 to 1. A loss of 3k per cent, w ould
be incurred in th e purchase of legal-tender silver in E uro pe for sale in th e U nited
States, besides exchange. In add ition to th is, all th e silv er m oney in circulation
in E uro pe is req u ired for sm all change and could n ot be spared w ith o u t g re a t
inconvenience. T here is no disposition on th e p art of th e E uro pean govern­
m en ts to dispose of th eir silver coin. On th e con trary , E ng land a n d p erh aps
som e of th e n atio ns o f th e con tinen t are in creasin g 'th eir coinage of silver.
T here is no d an g er o f a flood of silver from th e coin of E urope.
T h e p ro d u ct o f th e m ines is the only source of supply th a t can be relied upon
to furn ish w h a t is needed in th e U nited States. T he U nited S tates has $426,000,000 of p ap e r m oney in excess of m etallic reserves, w hich a re com m only called
“ uncovered n otes.” In o th er w ords, th ere are $426,000,000 of p aper m oney in
circulation in th e U nited States b eh in d w hich th ere is no gold o r silver coin o r
bullion. T h e rap id decline of prices for th e last sixteen years d em o nstrates th e
necessity for m ore stan d ard m oney. A n addition of $300,000,000 to th e p re se n t
volum e w ould certain ly be req u ired if th is decline is to be checked. I t w ould
req u ire $426,000,000 to place th e finances of th e country on a m etallic basis, d ollar
for dollar, w ith o u t an y increase. If declining prices are to be stopped, $300,000,000 m ore a t least m u st be added. T his w ould req u ire $726,000,000 of e ith e r g old
•or silv er or both.
T h e n et exp o rts of silver d u rin g th e last y ea r am o u nted to o nly $12,000,000, com ­
m ercial value. A ll th e silv er produced in th e w orld is e ith er coined in to m oney
or consum ed in th e arts. W here w ould th e U nited S tates find $726,000,000 o f sil­
v er? H ow long w ould it ta k e to accum ulate th a t am o u nt and add each y ear
e n o u g h to k eep pace w ith th e g ro w ing population and th e dem ands of business?
I t is n o t probable th a t th e U nited States could ever acquire enough to reach a
m etallic basis, dollar for d ollar, even if it should a tte m p t to do so. I t certain ly
cou ld n o t bo d one in th e p resen t g eneration.
CONTRACTION IS A CRUEL TYRANNY.

W h ere, th en , is th e d an g er of a g lu t ? B ut it is objected th a t silver is inferior
m on ey a n d th a t it w ould d riv e gold, th e b etter m oney, o u t of th e country, a n d
su b stitu te silver. H ow long w ould silv er be th e inferior m oney if th e U nited
States w ould ta k e all th a t is offered a t th e ratio of 16 to 1? W ould an y person
in a n y p a rt of th e w orld sell silver fo ra less price th an th e U nited States w ould
p ay ? T he price o f silv er in the U nited S tates w ould be an ounce o f gold for
16 ounces of silver, a n d th is w ould be th e price th ro u g h o u t th e w orld so long
as th e m in ts o f th e U nited States rem ain ed open to free coinage.
I hav e already show n th at, so far as a g lu t is concerned, free coinage could
a lw ay s b e m aintained. T h e o nly possible d an g er w ould be th a t th ere w ould
n o t be silver enough. A large am o u n t of p ap er w ould be req u ired in add ition
to all the gold a n d silver th a t could be o btained to supply the legitim ate d e­
m and for m oney.
I rep eat th at th ere is no d an g er of o btainin g eith er too m uch gold o r too m uch
silver. No n ation h as ev er succeeded in securing too large a supply of eith er.
A no th er objection to free coinage is som etim es m ade th a t it w ould enh ance th e
value of silv er m ines an d benefit th e silver m iners. Is th is a v alid objection?
W hy should th ey n o t be benefited? Is n o t th eir in d u stry legitim ate? H av e
th ey n o t already suffered enough ? T he silver m iners of th e U nited States alone
h av e lost in discounts on th e sil ver produced by th e m , caused by th e legislation of
1873, m ore th an $100,000,000. W hy should th is in terest be d estroyed ? W hy should
o n e of th e principal in du stries of th e U nited S tates be ruin ed for th e sak e o f a
th eo ry w hen such ru in also b rin g s d isaster to every o ther in d u strial p ursu it?
E v ery productive in d u stry is sh rin k in g u n d e r th e b lig h tin g g rasp o f c o n tra ^
tion . C ontraction is th e w orst form of ty ra n n y . I t robs th e producer a n d stops
production. I t m ak es slaves o r revolutionists. T he people of th e U nited S tates
w ill h av e n eith er slavery n o r revolution. T hey w ill stop th e contraction of stand• i d m on ey a n d rem ove th e cause.
W IL L IA M M. STE W A B T .




32
[Editorial.]
UNLIMITED SILVER COINAGE.

Senator S t e w a r t contributes a special article to The Weekly Tribune tp-day.
in which he makes a powerful argument in favor of the unlimited coinage of
silver. The Nevada Sen ator is recognized as the foremost champion of this
policy, and he has supplied in the article we print the texts upon which he has
preached many a silver sermon. He states his points with great clearness, and
while we can not indorse all of them unreservedly, nor even concede that his
conclusions are in every case the necessary consequence of his facts, it must bo
admitted that he presents a strong case, deserving the thoughtful consideration
of the public.
The Senator sees in any other policy than unlimited coinage a conspiracy in
behalf of all creditors to keep money as dear as possible, so as to make their
property—money—scarce and hard to accumulate and every other property—
produce—cheap and easy to get. Thus, in his view, monometallism means a
contraction of the purchasing material to such an extent as to increase obliga­
tions and to decrease prices—both effects being to the advantage of the creditor
or wealthy classes and to the injury of the debtor or poorer classes. He advo­
cates unlimited coinage in the belief that an increased supply of money would
equalize these conditions.
The contention that it would cause a withdrawal of gold is ridiculed by Sena­
tor S t e w a r t as absurd and incapable of proof. He holds that neither metal can
possibly be produced in quantities sufficient to supply the demands of commerce.
Our present policy is held to be in the interest of Great Britain, enabling her to
fix the market price of silver and to buy it cheaply of us and sell it dearly in her
Indian market, earning a profit on both transactions. It is evident that no com­
promise is likely to satisfy the advocates of silver coinage, and that, while they
will take what they can get, their resolute intention is to come back and re»
new their appeals until they get what they want,
to




O