View original document

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

AGAINST THE SILVER-PURCHASING POLICY.

SPEECH
OF

HON. J O H N DALZELL,
OF PENNSYLVANIA,

IN THE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 23, 1893.




WASHINGTON.

1893.




SPEECH
OF

HON. J O H N

DALZELL.

The H o u s e h a v i n g under consideration t h e bill (H. R. 1) t o repeal a part of
a n act, approved J u l y 14,1890, entitled "An act d i r e c t i n g the purchase of
silver bullion and the i s s u e of Treasury n o t e s thereon, and f o r o t h e r purposes"—

Mr. DALZELL said:
Mr. SPEAKER: When the President of the United States, in the
exercise of a constitutional right, recently called together the
representatives of the people, he assigned as a reason for his
action the existence of an extraordinary and alarming business
situation, not to be accounted for by natural conditions. That
situation he charged to the existence of unwise legislation on
the money question.
Almost every gentleman who has taken part in this discussion
has announced his disagreement with the President as to the
cause of the present deplorable condition of things. In my judgment the want of confidence that underlies the present depression is due in large measure to the declared hostility of the party
now in possession of all branches of the Government to that
great economic system by whose agency the country during the
last quarter of a century has marched to unexampled prosperity.
There is, however, to some extent, a popular impression indorsing the President's views, and the remedy for fancied, as for
real evils, is a removal of the supposed cause. And whether the
President be right or not, his summons brings us face to face
with the necessity of legislating with respect to the immediate
future financial policy of the United States, and places upon our
shoulders the grave responsibility of determining what that
policy shall be.
Under these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, it was to have been
expected that every reasonable facility would be afforded for debate, and the largest liberty accorded for suggestion, to the end
that whatever should be finally determined upon might be the
ripe fruit of the mature judgment of all the representatives of
the people, and not the preconceived scheme of any one man or
set of men.
Unfortunately, however, the majority party in this House did
not adopt this view. Separated by an impassable gulf of opinion,
as the two sections of that party are upon the main question,
they were agreed on this: that no suggestion should be allowed
from this side of the Chamber, no opportunity offered for amendment; no chance given to vote, save and except upon certain
alternative schemes formulated bv them in advance of delibera3




4
tion and debate. If the country can be saved only in such way
that the Republican party shall be entitled to some share of
credit in its salvation, the Democratic programme seems to be
that it would be preferable to let the country go to ruin.
The majority of Republicans, however, careless in the face of
danger of the personnel of their leadership, are found to-day,
and will be found when this vote is taken, where the Republican party always has been found in the presence of national peril,
following along the pathway that leads to national safety and
national honor. [Applause on the Republican side.]
What, now, Mr. Speaker, are the questions to the deliberation and discussion and decision of which the arbitrary action of
the majority limits us? They are these: Shall we inaugurate
the policy of the free and unlimited coinage of silver at some legally defined but not commercially accurate ratio, or shall we
return to the policy of the Bland-Allison act and mo thly emit a
limited number of fiat silver dollars: or, lastly, shall we unconditionally repeal the purchase clause of the so-called Sherman
act, approved July 14, 1890?
Now, I assume in the first place that almost every one, except
the free silver men, who are really monometallists, is desirous
of seeing both gold and silver the standard money of the commercial nations of the world: that almost all are in favor, in
other words, of international bimetallism. But as we can not
now at this time have that, it is material to be borne in mind in
this discussion that we are here not to legislate internationally;
we are here to legislate simply for the United States of America.
And it is material to be borne in mind also that our existing
monetary system does not conform to the monetary system of
any other commercial nation at the present time.
The year 1873, when silver was demonetized, marked a revolution in monetary history. In the results of that revolution all
the commercial nations of Europe acquiesce. We alone dissent.
Except in silver standard countries, ours are the only mints that
are open to the coinage of silver.
Now, whether it was wise to demonetize silver, how silver was
demonetized, whether surreptitiously or openly, are questions
which have no pertinence in this discussion except for the purposes of declamation. "It is a condition, and not a theory, that
confronts us." The question is. can the United States, singlehanded and alone, remonetize silver under existing conditions?
And this brings me naturally to the first question, Shall we
repeal the purchase clause of the Sherman act? Now, what is
that act, and what have been its results? By its terms the United
States Treasury is made a storehouse for silver purchased at the
rate of 4,500,000 ounces per month, at its market price, and paid
for in legal-tender Treasury notes, there being a provision in the
act that these notes shall be payable in gold or silver coin, at the
discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury.
But by the terms of this same act the important declaration is
made that it is the established policy of the United States to
maintain the two metals, gold and silver, on a parity with each
other at the existing legal ratio, or at some other ratio to be defined by law.
As the President of the United States says in substance, this sec11?




5
ond clause is really a control of the discretion of the Secretary
of the Treasury, so that these Treasury notes are practically
payable in gold. The consequence is that the gold obligations of
the Government are being increased each month to the extent
of the value of 4,500,000 ounces of silver.
In other words, we are paying each month gold for silver.
This act has been in operation since the 13th day of August,
1890, thirty days after its passage.
Mr. WALKER. It was passed on the 14th of July.
Mr. DALZELL. The act was passed on the 14th of July, and
went into operation on the 13th of August. And what has been
the result? I have here a statement from the Treasury Department showing the amounts of gold and silver coin and certificates, United States notes and national bank notes in circulation
August 1, 1893. How many of our obligations are payable in
gold? These: first, gold certificates, amounting to $87,704,739;
second, Treasury notes under act of July 14, 1890, amounting to
$148,286,348; third, United States notes, amounting to $346,681,016; in other words, there is now payable in gold by the
United States $582,672,103. These are our gold obligations, and
how much gold have we to pay them with ? Only $100,000,000 in
gold.
Why, my friends, if you put aside the immense resources and
the credit of the American people, the national Treasury is today, according to legal definition, bankrupt. Such being the
state of our accounts, what does it mean to continue this policy?
It means simply to widen the breach between our liabilities and
cur assets, and the time must ultimately come when our gold reserve, in proportion to the burden it has to bear, will be simply
an insignificant bagatelle. Do we want to continue that policy
indefinitely? Do we want to continue to buy 54,000,000 ounces
of silver each year without limit as to time, and pay for them in
gold?
How long do you suppose that even the imperial resources of
our magnificent domain, the energy and interprise, the honesty
of purpose of the American people, will persuade the world of
our ultimate solvency measured in the world's standard of
value—gold? It is not the monthly addition for a few months
of silver purchases under the act of 1890 that has shaken confidence; so far as the money question has anything to do with the
existing depression its influence is derived from the dreary prospect of the indefinite continuance of such violation of the laws
of sound finance.
We were told when the Sherman law passed that the effect of
it would be to put up the price of silver. We were told that silver
and gold would approach each other towards the legally defined
ratio of 16 to 1. What has been the result? I have here from
the Treasury Department, Bureau of the Mint, under date August 1—this present month—a statement of the highest, lowest,
and average price of silver bullion, and value of a fine ounce,
bullion value. of a United States silver dollar, and so on.
I find that m 1878 the value of the fine ounce, based on an average price of exchange, was $1.11; and I find, coming on down the
list, that in the month of July of this present year the value of
the same quantity of silver was 72 cents.
117




6
The schedule showing fall in values is as follows:
1878-'79
1879-'80
1880- 81
1881-82
1882-'83
1883-'84

$1.11616
1.14397
1.13508
1.13817
1.11912
1.11529

1884-'85
1885-'86
1886-'87
1887- 88
1888- 89
1889-'90

$1.09226
1.03295
98148
95617
93510
96839

1890-'91___.
1891-'92._..
1892-'93.__.
July

$1.04780
.93723
.84263
.72037

In the meantime, while the price of silver has been going
down from day to day and from month to month and week to
week, the production of silver has been increasing until this
precious metal is every day getting to be less and less precious.
I have also, here, issued by the Treasury Department, a schedule showing the production of gold and silver in the world, and
I find that whereas in 1873 silver was produced to the extent of
$81,800,000, it was produced in the year 1892 to the extent of
$196,605,000. The schedule showing the increase in production
is as follows:
1873
1874
187 5
187 6
1877
1878:
1879
1880

$81,800,000 I
71,503,000 !
80,500.000
87,600,000 !
81,000,000 j
95,000,000 ,
96,000,000 !
96,700,000 j

1881

$102,000,000

188 3
188 4
1885
188G
1887
1888

115,300,000
105,501), 000
118,500,000
120,603,000
124,281,000
140,706,000

1882

111,800,000

1889
189 0
1891
189 2

$162,159,000
172,235.000
186,733,000
196,605,000
5,104,961,000

The production of silver h i s quadrupled within the last three
decades; it has more than doubled within the last two.
When this bill was under discussion, gentlemen advocating
the free coinage of silver talked to us glibly about the double
standard; how, under the double standard, silver went up and
gold came down, until they got exactly together. They read to
us, and gentlemen on the floor now read to us, from books, quoting axioms and illustrations and experiences that have no relation to the experience of the present time, nor any conformity
to existing conditions. They read to us axioms founded upon
the experience of the world prior to 1873, when it was in the
practice of bimetallism. I put against their theories, their
axioms, and their maxims our own actual experience, and quote
to them the maxim, the homely maxim, that " example is better
than precept."
Now, how much has this experiment with silver cost us? I
have a letter from the Acting Director of the Mint, Mr. Preston, in which he says:
The a m o u n t of silver purchased under t h e act of J u l y 14,1890, a g g r e g a t e d
161,521,000 fine ounces, at a cost of $150,659,000.

The value'of the same at to-day's market price, 73 cents and a
fraction,would be $118,714,000. in other words, we have lost by
this experiment, or rather paid for this experiment, the sum of
$31,955,000- Who pays that money?
Who but the people of the United States, including the poor
people, whose self-vaunted champions on this floor threaten us
with war if we do not break down the dikes and welcome to our
mints the disasterous flood of European silver. Think of it—
adding what the Bland act cost us, it amounts to $2 apiece, and
more, as a tax upon every man, woman, and child within all our
broad domain. This is the price that we pay for our experience
117




7
with limited free coinage of silver. "If these things be done in
the green tree, what shall be done in the dry?"
But this policy which we have been pursuing is dangerous in
another direction. It is dangerous in the possibilities that it
offers for the contraction instead of the expansion of our currency.
Pour good money and bad money together into the channels of
trade, and the bad money will drive out the good, in pursuance
of a law as inexorable as the 1 iw of gravitation.
What is good money? Henri Cernuschi, one of the ablest and
most distinguished of bimetallists says:
That only is good m o n e y that will stand the test of fire, and which is worth
as m u c h as bullion w h e n melted as it had been worth i n the coin itself.

Take a gold dollar, for example, and subject it to the furnace,
destroy every vestige of the Government stamp, and the bullion
left is worth just 100 cents. Take a silver dollar and subject it
to the furnace and destroy every vestige of the Government
stamp, and the bullion left is worth 56 cents or thereabouts today. In this latter case you have destroyed the Government's
promise to pay the other 44 cents.
Mr. BROSIUS. We " trust in God " for that.
Mr. DALZELL. Yes, as my colleague from Pennsylvania suggests, we "trust in God" for that.
Mr. BROSIUS (handing Mr. DALZELL, a silver dollar). The
legend on that dollar, "In God we trust," is supposed to sanctify
the theft.
Mr. DALZELL. Now, if the proposition that I laid down a
moment ago, that bad money will drive out good, be true—and it
is an admitted axiom in political economy, and is known as Gresham's law, but it is the law of human nature, of selfishness, and
of self-defense—if that be the law, then to continue this policy
is to bring us to the situation where, as sure as pitiless fate, we
shall part company with the leading commercial nations of the
world and take our place beside Mexico, China, and Peru.
Let me call attention to a matter that has been referred to
many times upon this floor—some of the facts of our own financial history. Because of what was afterwards proved to be an
error in fixing the ratio of silver and gold in our original mint
act of 1792, gold was undervalued and silver overvalued. Silver
then was bad money and gold was good, and from 1805 until 1834
this nation was on a silver basis. Then the ratio was changed
from 15 to 1 to 16 to 1. A mistake was then made in the other
direction; silver was undervalued and gold was overvalued; gold
became bad money and silver good; and from 1834 down to this
present time, substantially, we have been on a gold basis.
Two standards, our free-coinage friends say. Impossible! as
impossible as two yardsticks, two bushels differing in capacity,
two pounds differing in weight. You can not have at the same
time two measures of value, one of which is money, like gold,
and the other of which is a commodity, like silver. You may
have them, it is true, but you can not use both at the same time.
One or other will prevail. That is the uniform and universal
lesson of all monetary history. One other thing let me say.
This silver that we are laying away in our Government storehouse is practically of no use for redemption. In times of panic
no m m who has a certificate payable in gold will take silver for
117




8
it, and yet while you are paying out gold in redemption of those
certificates you can not sell a single solitary ounceof that silver
for the purpose of getting the gold required for the redemption,
I say, Mr. Speaker, that the purchase clause of the Sherman
law ought to be repealed. That law has failed to raise the price
of silver. It has a tendency to contract rather than expand the
currency. It leads the way to an ultimate loss of credit. I t is
costly, and it violates fundamental principles of sound finance.
Mark you, I hold that they are deserving of credit who passed
that law in the first instance, because it then offered to us the
lesser of two evils, one of which we were bound to endure. It
was passed to meet an emergency. It was passed as a temporary
measure, and ought, for that reason, to be now repealed.
But, aside from that, I want to say here that the Sherman law
on the statute book, with a Republican Administration in power,
pledged by its party platforms, its party history, and its traditions to the cause of sound money, is one thing, and the Sherman
law on the statute book, with a Democratic free-coinage Secretary of the Treasury in power, is another thing. Still another
thing deplorable, but possible, would be the Sherman law on the
statute book with a Democratic free-coinage Secretary in the
Treasury Department and a Democratic free-coinage President
in the White House.
Mr. BOWERS of California. Will the gentleman permit a
question?
Mr. DALZELL. No, my time is too short. I can not yield t©
anybody.
And, Mr. Speaker, in that possible contingency I very much
fear that many Democratic Senators and many Democratic Representatives would reflect only the opinions of the White House.
But, if the Sherman act is bad in principle and in practice, the
Bland-Allison act is worse. Under the provisions of that act the
Secretary of the Treasury was bound to purchase not less than
$2,000,000 nor more than $4,000,000 worth of silver each month,
and coin it into dollars of 4121 grains each of standard silver.
The Bland dollars are fiat dollars. Unlike the act of 1890, the
act of 1878 contained no pledge of gold redemption, and for every
cent in a Bland dollar in excess of its intrinsic value up to one
hundred the holder has nothing but the honesty of purpose and
the resources of the American people, and as the value of silver
goes down the final draft on the honesty of purpose and the resources of the American people goes up.
And, more than that, the Bland-Allison act was a more expensive act than the Sherman act. In this same letter from which
I quoted awhile ago from the Acting Director of the Mint, Mr.
Preston, he says:
The a m o u n t of silver purchased under t h e act of F e b r u a r y 28,1878, aggreg a t e d 291,292,000 ounces, c o s t i n g $318,119,000. The value of the same a t tod a y ' s m a r k e t price, 73 cents, w o u l d be $213,371,000.

W e thus have a loss of $104,748,000.
But more than that, suppose we had been operating under the
Bland-Allison act instead of under the Sherman act since 1890.
In that event we would have purchased up to date 368,341,000
ounces of silver at a cost of $380,000,000; in other words, even the
disadvantageous provisions of the Sherman law s&ved to us the
117




9
enormous amount of $61,881,000. So that I conclude that the
Sherman act must be repealed; but I conclude also that we can
not go back to the provisions of the Bland-Allison act.
But, mark you, unconditional repeal of the purchase clause of
the Sherman act means simply that we shall cease to pay out gold
monthly for four and one-half million ounces of silver. All this
that we hear about driving silver from our money system, destroying one-half of the people's money, «;s some put it, and onehalf of the world's money, ;;s others put it, and all that sort of
thing is so much rant and fusti n. Not a dollar of the existing
silver in the currents of the world's trade will be eliminated nor
a scintilla of its value affected. No existing American dollar
will be less a good dollar according to the gold standard than it
was before. Every American dollar, whether gold, silver, or paper, will be the equal of every other American dollar wherever
the flag flies.
Now, only one other proposition remains, and that is the proposition for the free and unlimited coinage of silver at some one of
several suggested ratios. I shall not stop to discuss rations for
this reason: If you can lix the commercial r .tio of that which is
a commodity in the world in relation to gold by law you c m fix
it at anything you please. If you can not by law fix its real relation because it is a commodity, then it does not make any difference what ratio you put in your 1law. Now, what is this proposition for free and unlimited coin ge of silver? Reduced to terms
of plain English it is this: That every man who has 56 cents' worth
of standard silver may go the United States mint and have it
marked a dollar. " Resolved,*' it is proposed we shall say, " by
the Senate and House of Representatives in Congress assembled,
that 56 is equal to 100: that 1 is equal to 28.52."
But, you say, that is not a fc ir statement for the reason that
gold has gone up instead of silver going down. You rail against
the gold dollar as a " dishonest dollar;" and one gentleman here
even went to the trouble of bringing in a book to quote from, as
an authority to show that gold was not an absolute measure of
value. He might have saved himself the trouble. Nobody cl \ ims
that gold is an absolute stable measure of value. What we do
claim and what is true is that it is the most stable measure of
value.
Mr. WALKER. And the world has agreed on it.
Mr. DALZELL. And, as the gentleman from Massachusetts
suggests, it is the measure of value all over the world. It fixes
the value even in silver-standard countries. Now, on what basis
do you assume that gold has gone up and that silver remains
stationary? Because, you say, there are so many commodities
that have fallen in price and silver has fallen in price with
them, and, therefore, gold has gone up and silver has not moved.
Was there ever a more patent non sequiturf
Why, you do not need to imagine a scarcity of gold to account
for falling prices. New processes, improved machinery, inventive genius, new facilities for intercommunication—these and not
the scarcity of gold are the causes of falling prices. The records
of the Patent Office, the roll of the great captains of industry
whose genius has wedded usefulness and beauty and cheapness,
and made the luxury of the past the convenience of the present,




10
refute your silly claim that gold is the only factor in fixing
price.
Raw materials, food products, have fallen in price upon the
same principle. New fields have been opened, their soil put under tne plow. Civilization has pushed its resistless march
into new territory, discovered new secrets of nature, opened new
mines to the sunlight, bridged new streams, built highways to
the hitherto inaccessible; introduced electricity and steam; annihilated time and space.
Why, sir, the history of our trunk-line railroads furnishes the
key to falling prices. Let me show you just for a second. In
1865 the Pennsylvania Railroad Company and its lines west of
Pittsburg, the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad,
the Lake Shore &nd Michigan Southern, the Michigan Central,
Boston and Alb my, the New York, Lake Erie and Western,
carried 11,151,701 tons of freight, or to express it in another
way, moved of tons 1 mile 1,654,324,000. And how much did
each ton cost for carriage? It cost 2.9 cents per mile. In 1885,
twenty years afterwards, this same system of railroads moved of
tons at the rate of 1 mile 11,331,306,000, at a cost of six-tenths
of a cent a mile.
Now, these railway lines carried somewhat less than onefourth of the tons moved 1 mile in 1885; yet they saved on
the difference bat ween cost of carriage in 1885 and the cost of
carriage in 1865 $256,500,000. I might pursue this line of argument, to show the same results, with other roads, but it is not
necessary. And yet, in the face of incontrovertible facts like
these, you get up ingenious schedules to prove that silver has remained stationary and that gold has gone up.
Why, Mr. Speaker, the characteristic feature of this day is
low price of necessaries and high wages. If the low price of necessaries is due to the scarcity of gold, why have not wages gone
down also? And how comes it that the poor man's friend on this
floor denounces a system under which the poor man gets the
necessaries of life for less than they ever cost him before, and
gets as a wage more money with which to buy them? [Applause.]
The fall in the price of silver is easily accounted for on the
very simplest of economic principles. Increase the supply of any
commodity, decrease the demand, and prices go down. Now,
since 1873, when silver was demonetized, the production of silver
has increased 150 per cent, and the demand has decreased by the
amount theretofore called for by the mints of Europe, since that
time closed against it like our own, except since 1878.
Mr. WALKER. And the cost of mining is not more than half
what it was.
Mr. DALZELL. Yes; there is a difference in the cost of
mining.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to stop to go into the question at any length of the scarcity of gold. I will merely state
the facts and put the proof in the RECORD. Since 1873, when
silver was demonetized, gold production has constantly increased,
and is increasing to-day. The probabilities are that it will continue to increase to a much greater extent in the future. Here
are the figures as stated by the Bureau of the Mint of the Treasury Department:
117




11
1873
187 4
1875.
1876
18 77
1878
1879

$96,300,000
90.750,000
97,500,000
1U3,700,000
114.000,000
119,000,000
109,000,000

1880
188 1

$106,500,000
103,000,000

1883
1881
1885

95,400,000
101,700,000
108.400,000

188 2

102,000,000

1887
188 8
1889
189 0
189 1
189 2

$105,775,000
110,197,000
123,489,000
113,150,000
120,519,030
130,817,000

1886
106,000,000
In 1887 the Queen of England appointed a royal commission
to inquire into the recent changes in the relation of the precioas
metals to each other. In the same year President Cleveland
appointed Edward Atkinson, a distinguished statistician, to inquire as to the feasibility of bimetallism by international agreement. Mr. Atkinson states the results of the investigation of
that royal commission as follows. He says:

I find i n i t a b u n d a n t e v i d e n c e s u s t a i n i n g t h e p o s i t i o n s w h i c h I h a v e t a k e n ,
to wit:
1. T h e m a s s of g o l d i n e x i s t e n c e h a s b e e n s u f f i c i e n t t o e n a b l e G e r m a n y t o
a d o p t t h e g o l d s t a n d a r d of l e g a l tender, t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s a n d I t a l y t o res u m e specie p a y m e n t substantially on a gold standard, the L a t i n U n i o n to
c e a s e s i l v e r c o i n a g e a n d t o m a i n t a i n t h e i r e x i s t i n g s t o c k of l e g a l - t e n d e r silv e r a t p a r i n gold, w i t h o u t c r e a t i n g a n y a p p a r e n t s c a r c i t y of g o l d a n d w i t h o u t a n y s p e c i a l i n f l u e n c e i n d e p r e s s i n g t h e p r i c e s of c o m m o d i t i e s o r s e r v i c e s .
2. T h e r e d u c t i o n i n t h e p r i c e of c o m m o d i t i e s h a s b e e n n o g r e a t e r t h a n
w o u l d b e w a r r a n t e d by a n d m i g h t h a v e b e e n e x p e c t e d f r o m t h e i m p r o v e m e n t s i n t h e p r o c e s s e s of p r o d u c t i o n a n d d i s t r i b u t i o n . T h i s r e d u c t i o n ,
h a v i n g been accompanied by a general maintenance or rise i n the price or
r a t e of w a g e s , h a s b e e n a l m o s t w h o l l y beneficial, t e m p o r a r y h a r d s h i p t o
special classes being admitted.

I have s iid that the probabilities are that the production of
gold would increase. Let me read you some information contained in a recent edition of the Washington Post:
OUR GOLD PRODUCT.
T h e chief r i s k of d e p e n d e n c e o n g o l d a s a s t a n d a r d i s t h a t t h e s u p p l y m a y
n o t be sufficient, b u t t h e g o l d fields of S o u t h A f r i c a n o w b e i n g d e v e l o p e d
p r o m i s e t o b r i n g relief i n t h a t d i r e c t i o n . — P h i l a d e l p h i a Ledger.
B u t w h a t a b o u t o u r o w n g o l d fields? W h e r e v e r g o l d h a s b e e n p r o d u c e d
before in years gone by prospecting has been renewed with m o s t encouragi n g results. N e w discoveries have been m a d e i n Oregon and other W e s t e r n
S t a t e s t h a t are r e p u t e d t o be v e r y v a l u a b l e . E v e n i n Colorado, t h e v e r y h e a r t
of t h e s i l v e r i n d u s t r y , t h e o u t l o o k f o r g o l d i s b r i g h t e n i n g d a i l y . S a y s t h e
D e n v e r R e p u b l i c a n of A u g u s t 14:
"Already there has been a notable increase i n the gold output. The gold
d e p o s i t s a t t h e D e n v e r m i n t i n J u l y e x c e e d e d b y $60,000 t h e d e p o s i t s i n a n y
p r e v i o u s m o n t h i n t h e h i s t o r y of t h e m i n t . I t s h o w s t h a t C o l o r a d o m i n e r s
a r e n o t c o m p l e t e l y a t t h e m e r c y of t h e m e n w h o are e n d e a v o r i n g t o s t r i k e
d o w n silver as a m o n e y metal. There are p r o m i s i n g gold districts i n both
G u n n i s o n a n d P i t k i n C o u n t i e s . T e l l u r i d e i s o n e of t h e b e s t g o l d c a m p s i n
t h e R o c k y M o u n t a i n s , a n d d u r i n g t h i s s u m m e r a l a r g e a m o u n t of w o r k h a s
b e e n d o n e t h e r e i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of g o l d c l a i m s , w h i c h , d u r i n g t h e t i m e
of a c t i v e s i l v e r m i n i n g , w e r e m o r e o r l e s s n e g l e c t e d . G i l p i n C o u n t y k e e p s
u p its reputation as a gold producer, and the c a m p o n Yankee Hill, near the
e d g e of Clear Creek C o u n t y , i s a v e r y p r o m i s i n g p l a c e . "
T h e S a n F r a n c i s c o E x a m i n e r of t h e 11th i n s t a n t r e p o r t s t h a t g o l d i s c o m i n g d o w n f r o m t h e m o u n t a i n s a t t h e r a t e of $1,500,000 a m o n t h ; t h a t -'the corn e r of t h e h a r d t i m e s " h a s b e e n t u r n e d ; t h a t m o n e y e n o u g h i s t o b e h a d f o r
s a v i n g t h e b u l k of t h e f r u i t crop, a n d t h a t w h e a t i s r u s h i n g t o m a r k e t , e v e r y
c a r g o s h i p p e d y i e l d i n g $50,000 t o $100,000 i n " E n g l i s h g o l d " a s s o o n a s i t i s
cleared.
T h e r e i s n o c a u s e of a l a r m b e c a u s e of a p r o b a b l e s c a r c i t y of g o l d f o r a currency reserve. W h a t the country dosn't produce the Government can easily
buy.

Now our friends on the other side say, " discontinue the use of
silver; take it out of the world's money, and you necessarily appreciate gold to that extent."
What I have already said refutes the assertion! W e have seen
U7




12
that the gold supply has kept pace with the gold demand, and
promises to continue to do so in the future. This has been
proven by the statistics of gold production, and by the evidence
taken before the Royal Commission.
But in addition to this the free coinage argument wholly
ignores the function of credit in our modern business life. The
volume of money consists not simply of gold and silver and authorized issues of notes, but of credit also. This is an expanding and
contracting instrument as the necessities of trade and commerce
demand. It serves to conduct from 90 to 95 per cent of the
world's business. It has been well said, the progress of civilization is towards diminishing instead of increasing the requirement of large amounts of bullion.
Much stress, Mr. Spe iker. has been laid by our friends on the
other side on the injustice of making the debtor pay in dearer
money than that which he borrowed. If I have proven anything
so far I have demonstrated that the only method to prevent such
injustice, so far as it can be prevented, is to abide by the most
stable of all measures of value, gold. And mark you the injustice to. the debtor of paying his debt in dearer money than he
borrowed is no greater than the injustice of making the lender
take his loan in money which is less valuable than that which he
loaned.
That aspect of the question seems not to have presented itself
to our friends on the other side at all. They assume that all
lenders are rich, millionaires, goldbugs, corporations, and that
all the borrowers are poor farmers, and that such being the case
it is no harm for the latter to cheat the former. Is there one
rule of honesty for the rich man and another rule of honesty for
the poor man?
Why, Mr. Speaker, I have been amused here listening to the
self-styled champions of the poor man, advocates of the millionaire mine-owners of the West, denouncing millionaires: in one
breath denouncing all moneyed institutions, aggregations of
wealth, and corporations—the indices of national prosperity—
and in the next demanding a market for the product of the
Western mines and for the surplus silver of the world. Why
not the same kind of legislation for the steel billets from the
mills of Pennsylvania, for the pig iron from the furnaces of
Tennessee, or the wheat from the fields of Dakota?
Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my friend who spoke here yesterday, representing what we call the " State " of Nevada, that
there is not a silver-producing State in this Union, California
excepted, that has as large a population as the county in which
I have the honor to live; and all of the inhabitants, mien, women,
and children, in Nevada do not equal the number of voters in
that county.
It seems to me, sir, that this indiscriminate denunciation of
wealth, this arraying of the rich against the poor, is nothing
more or less than incipient anarchy. Whence can it lead but
to a war of classes and the eventual overthrow of the State?
And is not he an incendiary, against whom society has a right
to protect itself, who raises the banner of rule or ruin and appeals to the basest passions of mankind?
Sir, the silver men pretendinp- to be bimetallists are mono<
7




13
metillists. What they would have is not a double, but a silver
instead of a gold standard. This is plainly to be gathered from
the speech of the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. BRYAN]. I
quote him:
If a single standard were really m o r e desirable t h a n a double standard, w e
are n o t free t o choose gold and w o u l d be compelled t o select silver. * * * If
b i m e t a l l i s m i s impossible, t h e n w e m u s t m a k e u p our m i n d s t o a silver
standard.

And then he paints the glories of a silver standard.

He says:

A silver standard, too, w o u l d m a k e u s the trading center of all t h e silveru s i n g countries of t h e world, and these countries c o n t a i n far m o r e t h a n onehalf of the world's population. W h a t an i m p e t u s w o u l d be g i v e n t o our
W e s t e r n and S o u t h e r n seaports, s u c h as S a n Francisco, Galveston, N e w
Orleans. Mobile, Savannah, and Charleston.

That is to say, let us cut loose from England and France and
Germany—from European civilization—and cast in our lot with
India, China, the Straits, Japan, Mexico, and South and Central America.
Truly a suggestion worthy the mind that conceives it to be in
the power of legislation to reverse the rules of arithmetic.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have not time to discuss some other subjects that I had intended to discuss in this connection. But I
want to say that the moment you declare that 56 cents' worth of
silver is equal to a gold dollar, that moment you open your mints
to all the silver of the world. You bid it welcome to come, and
it will come; and when it comes gold will go, go into silver purchases, go into hiding, go abroad. With what result? With
the result to defeat the very purpose for which free and unlimited silver coinage is urged; with the result suddenly and
violently to contract instead of increase the circulation. The
American dollar will buy in foreign exchange just as much as and
no more than the bullion in it is worth. The United States will
be on a silver basis.
Two things, I grant you, the free and unlimited coinage of
silver will accomplish. First, debtors will be enabled to scale
their debts to the extent of from 40 to 50 per cent and cheat their
creditors to that extent; and, secondly, you will furnish a market
for the silver mines of the West. But these results will be accomplished at the price of justice and to the eternal disgrace of
the American name. [Applause.]
Now, sir, I believe in bimetallism, the use of both gold and
silver as the standard money of the world, and 1 expect to see
that system come in time. I believe that bimetallism is possible, however, only by international agreement, and I am in favor
of every honest effort to bring about that agreement. The
United States having been on a gold basis substantially for sixty
years past, debts have been contracted on that basis, and prices
fixed all over the world on that basis. I am opposed to any
measure that would either suddenly or gradually put us on a
silver basis. I am in favor of any needed measure for the expansion of the currency that will put behind every dollar issued
the guaranty that it shall be equal in purchasing and in debtpaying power to every other dollar.
" I believe, with the President of the United States, that this is
a question which rises above the plane of party politics. Good
men will laugh to scorn threats of party outlawry and treat with
117




14
the contempt that they deserve low appeals in party interest.
This question can be settled, but it must be settled by each man
in the domain of conscience enlightened by patriotism. The interests at stake involve the financial future of this great people;
they are the interests of country, and country is above all. [Applause]. This is a proposition that will meet with commendation
wherever patriotism is regarded as a virtue. But it is especially
true with us.
Why, sir; with a pomp and circumstance of peace more glorious even than the pomp and circumstance of war, all nations
and peoples and kindreds join to-day to celebrate the discovery of this western continent. In a city whose marvelous
growth, wealth, and enterprise outrun the extravagance even of
an Oriental imagination, the first fruits of the ripest civilization have been gathered to do honor to the name and rejoice in
the achievement of the courageous mariner whose sublime
faith carried him across unknown seas to unlock the gateway
of the globe's richer half.
In this, the harvest of four hundred years of American history, it is not hard to discern the richest amongst all the golden
sheaves. From the treasures of art and science and literature,
from the charms of music, from the glories of architecture, from
the gathered wealth of genius and labor, with thanksgiving in
our hearts, we turn to the colossal Republic, that, founded in
self-denial, maintained by struggle, purified by blood, sanctified
by the graves of brave men, first and alone in all the annals
of time, has demonstrated man's capacity for self-rule and in
which under the folds of that flag all men are equally entitled
to enjoy the blessings of liberty under law. [Prolonged applause.]
117




O