Show CARLISLE AGAIXST CARLISLE Secretary Carlisle has spoken his piece at Memphis where the socalled Sound Money convention is in session ses-sion It is not our purpose to discuss in detail the gentlemans reiteration of antisilver sentiments which have been replied to over and over again and which are at complete variance with his own arguments of seventeen years ago as we have already shown by quotations from his speeches during dur-ing the debate on the BlandAllison coinage bill when he strongly advocated advo-cated the unlimited coinage of both gold and silver But we will call attention at-tention to a few of his statements He saysIt It is the metal that fixes the value of the coin and not the coin that fixes the value of the metal Is that true Take the standard silver dollar today Is it not of the value of a dollar for all money purposes pur-poses in this country What gives it that value Is it the metal According Accord-ing to Secretary Carlisle the metal in it is only worth a little less than fifty cents It is then the stamp of the government upon it authorized by law that fixes the value of the coin Is it netNow Now suppose the law was so fixed that silver was restored to its status previous to 1873 and was coined in unlimited quantities at the present ratio with gold would not the value of the metal appreciate until it reached the coin value Then would it not be the coin that fixed the value of the onetal and not the metal that fixed the value of the coin The very reverse re-verse of the great financiers proposition proposi-tion is the truth He says further after stating his inability in-ability to understand what is really I means by a double standard We have now practical bimetallism the use of both metals as money we should have then practical monometal lism the use of only one metal as money This Is a conclusion based on facts established by the experience of all nations in all ages Is it possible that Mr Carlisle does not understand the financial position of this country previous to 1873 Gold and silver were each freely coined without limit and though the silver dollar was the monetary unit yet the gold dollar was as much the practical standard of values as the silver dollar was That was real bimetallism That is what bimetallists sometimes called silver men want today Does he mean to say that we had practical mono metallism previous to 1873 He must know better and therefore exposes himself to the reflection that he is talking against his own convictions convic-tions The use of only one metal as money is exactly what the bimetallists bimetal-lists or silver men desire to prevent Another singular statement he makes is try own opinion is that after we have passed a certain limit the more silver dollars were coined the less they would be worth because the inflation itself would still further diminish their purchasing power Why will not the same notion apply to gOld Has there ever been a time when tie purchasing power of a lawful law-ful coin diminished according to the increase of its coinage If i o why would not the principle work with a gold coin as with a silver coin But here is another singular assertion The attempt to coin the two nctals without limit as to amount into full legal tender money and keep both in circulation at the same time has been made by nearly every civilized nation in the world and has failed in everyone every-one of them England persisted in the attempt for nearly 500 years and notwithstanding not-withstanding severe penal statutes against the exportation of coins or bullion bul-lion was at last forced to abandon the effort and adopt the single standard That is really laughable First he declares the attempt at unlimited silver and gold coinage has always been a failure and then he admits that England carried it on for five centuries And that he designates an attempt and that he declares was a failure Just the same kind of attempt at-tempt made in this country from 1792 to 1873 in which there was not anymore any-more of a failure Both metals were coined into money at the same time by the nations for ages and it has only been since the speculators In gold have obtained power over the legsila tors of the nations that silver has been stricken from its timehonored place Then he builds a long and specious argument on this assertion One of the most effective arguments made by the advocates of free coinage is that the people are in debt and that it is the duty of the government to relieve them by such legislation as will enable them to procure cheap money for the purpose of discharging their obligations In that Secretary Carlisle plays the demagogue The term cheap money is an Invention of the enemy Bimetallists lists do not want cheap money or dishonest money or unsound money They demand the restoration of silver to be coined into money as gold is without discrimination Neither would be cheap money or dear money then They would be lawful money at a fixed legal ratio One would be as good as the other The people would be relieved by the increase of full legal tender money The money lenders would not be placed at such an immense im-mense advantage as now Mr Carlisle denies that there is such a thing as a distinct debtor class and makes the special plea that the creditor class are also debtors this merely making a play in words Does he mean to say there is no class in the world which make it their special business busi-ness to lend money And are not those people who are compelled to accede ac-cede to their terms really and truly a debtor class as much as the others form a creditor class And if the latter can corner the gold and the I law helps them to demand payment in gold for the obligations of debtors is not that a tremendous advantage J I for the creditor class and a similar disadvantage to the debtor class Mr Carlisles whole argument goes to show that he has gone over to the gold interest body and souL We will not attribute him improper motives That would not affect the truth or err er-r of his position He has reversed himself The only difference between hIs position on the coinage question in 1873 and that held by the silver met whom he attacks today is the question ques-tion of charge for mintage He proclaimed himself emphatically in favor of the unlimited coinage of both gold and silver but with a charge for mintage om either metal to be paid by the owner of the bullion brought to be coined That is a minor matter It does not affect ithe great question J of bimetallism All that he said at Memphis in May 1895 contradicts and antagonizes what he said in Congress in February 1873 We are sorry to see him take this untenable ground for his own sake We are glad to see its weakness for silver and Blackburns sake That gentleman ought to be able to follow the Secretary and double him up with ease In Kentucky and Tennessee and other Southern States silver has always al-ways received sound support It will take much more subtle sophistries than those used by Secretary Carlisle to make goldites of the southern people peo-ple It Is a good thing for silver to have such hollow and sounding brass and such a thin and tinkling cymbal held up for a gold argument as that presented in Kentucky and Tennessee by the great metallic turncoat the Secretary of the Treasury |