---
DECEMBER 25K 1901.
The Commoner.
MR- BRYAN ON BIMRTAM.ism
Mr. Bryan has written for the Encyclopedia
Americana, now being issued by the Americana
company of New York, an article on bimetallism.
This article gives in condensed form the prin
ciples involved in the discussion of the subject
and is reproduced in The Commoner by cour
tesy of the publishers. Papers quoting from this
article will please give credit to the Encyclopedia
Americana. The final chapter in this article ia
printed in this issue.
Mr. Bryan has written for the same encyclo
pedia an article on democracy, which will be re
produced in The Commoner, beginning next week,
BIMETALLISM.
What has sometimes been called "the silver
movement" began with the discovery of the effect
of the law of 1873, and has continued with vary
ing force ever since. It was called the silver
movement, not because of partiality to silver, but
because silver was the metal discriminated
against. It might better be designated as the bi
metallic movement, because it was an effort to re
store bimetallism, and the supporters of the move
ment asked for silver nothing more than was
already granted to gold. The movement did not
originate in the mining states, but extended over
the entire country and throughout other countries,
the interest being centered in silver as a money
rather than in silver as a metal.
During the period that has elapsed since 1873
three international conferences have been held
with a view to the restoration of silver (at Paris
In 1878 and in 1881, and at Brussels in 1892), but
they have been unsuccessful, largely because other
European countries have hesitated to act with
out England and England, being largely a creditor
nation, has been unwilling to surrender the ad
vantage which a rising dollar has given her in the
increased purchasing power of her credits.
In the summer of 1893, the president, giving
an his reason the suspension of the coinage of
silver in India, called congress together in ex
traordinary session and recommended the uncon
ditional repeal of the purchase clause of the
Sherman law. Congressman Wilson, chairman of
the committee on ways and means, and leader of
the administration forces in the house, introduced
a bill identical in purpose and almost identical
in language with one introduced by Senator Sher
man a year before. Tho object of this bill was
to repeal the purchase clause of the Sherman law
without substituting any provision for the fur
ther coinage of silver. It was supported by all
who were opposed to bimetallism, and by somo
who declared themselves in favor of bimetallism,
but criticised the purchase of silver on the ground
that it was contrary to the theory of bimetallism.
These insisted that as soon as the Sherman law
was repealed tho remainder of the democratic
platform would be carried out and bimetallic coin
ago re-established. A few were induced to sup
port the measure under the belief that the sus
pension of silver coinage here would force Eu
ropean nations to an agreement for the restoration
of bimetallism throughout the world. After a
prolonged contest this bill became a law Novem
ber 1, 1893. Following this an attempt was made
to secure the coinage of the seigniorage which
liad accumulated in the treasury. This bill passed
l)oth houses, receiving tho support of many who
voted for the repeal of the purchase clause of the
Sherman law, but the measure was vetoed by tho
president. The administration then attempted
to secure the passage of a law authorizing the is
sue of gold bonds, but this was defeated in the
liouse of representatives.
As the act of 1893 virtually opened the cam
paign of 1896, In which the silver question figured
bo prominently, it may bo well to consider tho
platforms adopted just before and just after that
date.
During the period extending from 1873 to
1896 the platforms of the two leading parties,
while more or less ambiguous on tho money ques
tion, recognized the advantages of the double
standard. In 1884 the republican platform de
clared in favor of an international conference to
fix the relative value of gold and silver coin,
while the democratic platform declared in favor
of "honest money, the gold and silver coinage of
the constitution, and a circulation medium con
vertible into such money without loss." In 1888
the democratic party reaffirmed the platform of
1884, while the republican party inserted tho
following plank in its platform: "The republican
party is in favor.of the use of both gold and sil
ver as money, and condemns the policy of the
democratic administration in its efforts to de
monetize silver." .
w In 1892 the republican platform said: 'Tho
Amnrttnn .nnni- . ....
WmnVniir 1JW"vroni tradition and Interest favor
S?i nf hSfd ft0 rPubl,CQn Pty demand
lv'1,1 uthr f,ld and 8llver aa standard mon
ey, and then followed a clause demanding "that
don?UKng ?nd debt-laying Power of tho
ZTTb 80ld' or paper 8ba11 b0
Tho democratic party that year denounced tho
S,fm?law,(t,hQ act of 189) ns a cowardly
makeshift, and demanded its speedy repeal, and
then declared the party's position as follows:
Wo hold to tho uso of both gold and silver
as the standard money of the country, and to
the coinage of both gold and silver without dis
crimination against either metal or charge for
mintage, but tho dollar unit of coinage of both
metals must be of equal intrinsic and exchangea
ble value or bo adjusted through international
agreement, or by such safeguards of legislation
as shall insure the maintenance of the parity of
the two metals, and the equal power of every dol
lar at all times in the markets, and in the pay
ments of debts; and wo demand that all paper
currency shall be kept at par with, and redeemable
in, such coin. Wo insist upon this policy as espe
cially necessary for the protection of tho farmers
and laboring classes, the first and most defense
less victims of unstable money and a fluctuating
currency."
The populist party, which polled about 1,
000,000 votes that year, demanded "tho free and
unlimited coinage of silver and gold at the pres
ent legal ratio of 16 to 1." This was tho first
national platform which specifically named tho
ratio, but a majority of the democrats in congress
and many republicans had for years been voting
for bills providing for free and unlimited coin
age at this ratio.
In the campaign of 1896, the money question
was the paramount issue. The democratic plat
form, adopted at Chicago, demanded "the free and
unlimited coinage of both sliver and gold at tho
legal ratio of 16 to 1, without waiting for the aid
or consent of any other nation." The people
party which met two weeks later, adopted a
plank substantially like it, as did also the silver
republican party.
The gold democrats, who withdrew from tho
Chicago convention, met at Indianapolis and de
clared in favor of the gold standard.
The republican party said: "Wo aro unalter
ably opposed to every measure calculated to de
base our currency or impair the credit of our
country. Wo are therefore opposed to the free
coinage of silver except by international agree
ment with tho leading commercial nations of tho
world, which we pledge ourselves to promote, and
until such agreement can bo obtained, tho exist
ing gold standard must be preserved."
, In March, 1896, a resolution was adopted in
tho English parliament pledging the government
to assist in restoring the par of exchange be
tween gold and silver, and this pledge encour
aged many in this country to hope for an inter
national agreement
The campaign of 1896 resulted in the election
of the republican ticket by a large majority, but
as that party had committed Itself to interna
tional bimetallism, the verdict at the polls was
a victory for the double standard rather than for
the single gold standard.
In pursuance of the promise contained in tho
republican platform, President McKlnley, imme
diately upon taking his seat, sent a commission
to Europe to solicit co-operation in the restoration
of silver to its former place by the side of gold,
but this commission failed to secure any con
cessions from England and no formal conference
was arranged.
In 1900, the democratic party, the peoples
party, and the silver republican party adhered to
tho positions taken on the money question In
1896 while the republican platform said: We
renew our allegiance to the principle of the gold
standard and declare our confidence in the wis
dom of the legislation of the 56th congress by
which the parity of our money and the standard
of our currency on the gold basis has been so-
CUr6The election of 1900 resulted in .an Increased
electoral and popular majority for the republican
ticket but other questions over-shadowed the
money question in this campaign, and the result
TO again undecisive as to the standards.
The large and unexpected increase In the
output of gofd in Alaska, the United States South
Africa ana Australia has very considerably ln
cVeased ? supply of money and tc .some Mten
relieved the strain which began with the ae
monXtlon of silver in 1873, but with the white
metal still furnishing nearly ono half of the
world's basic money thcro Is no reason to believe
from past or present Indications that silver can
bo dispensed with as a standard money. Tho
gold standard cannot bo uccopted as a finality In
any country until it is accoptcd as a finality
throughout tho world, for each nation's supply
of metallic money lo Influenced by tho demand cre
ated by each other nation. It Is probable, there
fore, that what Is called tho monoy question, will.
insofar as It relates to metallic monoy, Incrcaso or
docrcaso in importance In luvcrao ratio to the
supply of monoy, occupying moro attontlon when
a decrease In tho volumo of money reduces prices
and being less considered whenovcr an incrcaso
In tho volumo of monoy increases prices.
The Government Immune.
The United States government Is building a
$3,000,000 dam across Salt river, Ari7xna, and 200,
000 barrels of Portland cement will bo required in
tho work of construction. J- was estimated that
tho cement would cost ?3'pcr barrel. Suddenly
the cement trust raised the price of cement to $9
a barrel. Representatives of tho government ro
fused to pay the increased prlco and began tho
construction of a $100,000 cement plant.
In this situation tho Detroit Free Press has
discovered a "humorous element" and dcacrlbea
it in this way:
"The cement trust heard that Its confi
dence had boon betrayed. It had been given
no opportunity to come In and explain how
it had unintentionally overstated its first bid.
It had been tricked. To Washington, ruffled
cement kings aro flocking to protest"agalnat
this "Injustice." Congrccs is to bo ashed to
pass a law "preventing tue government from
competing with manufacturers." Obviously
tho goveinment has no right to offer tho
slightest rc3istanco to private parties engaged
in a perfectly legitimate hold-up business.
Obviously when tho government feels that it
is being shaken down it may bo allowed to
expostulate quietly and politely attempting
to appeal by purely argumentative methods
to the generosity and patriotism of tho ce
ment magnates. Beyond this the government
cannot properly go."
But where ia there anything humorous in this
situation? When trusts aro ovory day permitted
to violate plain and explicit statutes, when ex
traordinary privileges are conferred upon these
great combinations of capital by the representa
tives of our government, is it at all surprising that
tho cement trust should make even the demand
which tho Detroit Free Press regards as absurd?
The trust magnates provide tho republican
party with its campaign ftfnds, and since tho re
publican party came Into power more trusts have
been created than ever before existed In all tho
history of this government. The trust magnates
accepted the republican victory as license for these
great organizations to go out and prey upon tho
people. Why should the government bo Immune
from their exactions?
All that the consumers may do is to "ex
postulate quietly, and politely attempt to appeal
by purely argumentative methods to the generos
ity and patriotism of tho trust magnates." Why
should not tho government submit, just as it re
quires the consumers generally to submit?
The Detroit paper thinks it is absurd that
congress is to be asked to pass a law "preventing
tho government from competing with manufac
turers." But do not the cement trust magnates
find encouragement in the devotion the republi
can congress shows toward a high tariff, framed ,
and maintained in order that trust magnates, un
der the guise of "manufacturers," shall bo per
mitted to prey upon the people?
Is it, after all, so absurd that congress Is
asked to pass a law "preventing tho government
from competing with manufacturers," who seek
to prey upon tho government, when we remem
ber that the republican president and the republi
can congress are just now engaged in maintain
ing, in spite of the appeals made by the consum
ers of the country, a law that is devised to pre
vent competition with manufacturers who seek to
prey upon tno people?
If the government will, for its own protection,
reject tho demand made by the cement trust mag
nates, will it for the protection of the people carry
tho principle into legislation penerally? While
denying the right of men under the guise of rep
resentatives of "business interests," to impoM
upon tho government, will it admit tho right of
the samo men to impose upon the people?
Jf
n
ri " iggga