The Effect on Business of Free Coinage at 16 to 1.

We would have had a larger volume of money in the United States and this would have prevented the disaster which overtook us, and besides we would have given off more gold to Europe, and this would have saved them from the injuries which resulted from scarcity of money. short, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN SLIGHTLY RISING PRICES WITH BUSINESS STIMULATED, INSTEAD OF FALLING PRICES WITH BUSINESS PARTLY PARALYZED. We shall now resume the history of the conflict between the moneyed interests and the interests other-than-moneyed.

X. THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE MONEYED INTERESTS AND THE INTERESTS OTHERTHAN-MONEYED, 1890-96.

Next in order of time after the passage of the Sherman silver purchase law was the meeting of Congress in the following December.

A. EFFORTS OF THE CONTRACTIONISTS.

At

The moneyed interests of this country and of Europe, through their New York agents, did not take kindly to the new silver purchase law which they had helped pass to head off the free coinage of silver. the beginning of this session of Congress they brought in a bill for reducing the amount of silver to be purchased by the Government. The amount they inserted in the bill to be purchased yearly was 12 million ounces, in place of the 54 million ounces which the law then in force provided for.

because of its intimate connection with the bank failures of 1891."

The extent of the monetary strin gency the report shows, by stating that in the cities of New York, Philadelphia and Boston, the "exigency made it necessary to resort to the is. suing of clearing-house loan certificates for the purpose of settling clearing-house balances. This expedient had been successfully resorted to during the panics of 1873 and 1884." New York issued 16 million dollars in certificates, Philadelphia 5 million dollars and Boston 8 million dollars.

A more general statement of the condition of business for the year ending October 30, 1891, is thus stated by

With their usual guile they entitled the bill "An Act to provide against a contraction of the currency." The bill was brought up in the Senate for discussion December 30, 1890. The bimetallists, of course, offered amendments in the nature of free coinage. (See illustration, preceding page.)

B. BIMETALLISM.

They pointed out that to stop the falls in general prices we must have more money, and that silver money at its bullion value is much better than paper money. As to partly-standard silver money redeemable in gold, that is much worse than paper money redeemable in gold (same effect page 158, above).

January 14, '91, the Senate passed the free coinage bill by a vote of 39 ayes, nays 27, absent 22. Among those voting against the bill were Platt and Hiscock, of New York; Allison, of Iowa; Sherman, of Ohio, and Edmunds, of Vermont. Again it was the East against the West.1

The bill was taken over to the House and referred to the Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures.

While it was in committee there were

Mass Meetings

** * *

held in New York City and Boston. The one in New York, February 11, is thus described in a press despatch: "It was a monster mass meeting and was called to protest against the free coinage of silver in the United States. It was entirely non-partisan. When Grover Cleveland's name was mentioned [advocate of the gold standard] it called forth a perfect ovation." E. Ellery Anderson was chairman. of regret was read from Mr. Cleveland.

Grover Cleveland on Free Coinage.

A letter

He said: "It surely cannot be necessary for me to make a formal expression of my agreement with those who believe that the greatest peril would be invited [?] by the adoption of the scheme embraced in the measure now pending in Congress for the unlimited coinage of silver in our mints. If we have developed an unexpected capacity for the assimilation of a largely increased volume of this currency, and even if we have demonstrated the usefulness of such increase, other conditions fall far short of insuring us against disaster, if in the present situation we enter upon the dangerous [?] and reckless [??] experiment of free, unlimited and independent silver coinage." (See illustration, opposite page.)

1 Appleton's Annual for 1891, p. 232.

The next day this letter was widely commented upon. A press despatch from Washington said: "It braced up all the anti-free coinage Democrats and relieved the Republicans of the fear of making it a party question."

Congressman Darlington, of Pennsylvania, is reported as having said: "It will make Mr. Cleveland solid in Pennsylvania, throughout New England, in New Jersey and New York. With these States. behind him [in his race for the Presidential nomination in 1892] he need not be anxious about the South and West. The South and West are for him on the tariff question, and they may overlook the difference of opinion on the silver. It does not make any difference anyhow if he has New York and these other States with him.”

McKinley Replies to Cleveland.

The next evening after Mr. Cleveland's letter to the Mass Meeting in New York was read, Mr. McKinley delivered a speech in Toledo in which he said: "Mr. Cleveland, during all his years at the head of the Government, was dishonoring one of our precious metals, one of our own products. He endeavored even before his inauguration to office to stop the coinage of silver dollars, and afterward and to the close of his administration persistently used his power to that end. He was determined to contract the circulating medium and demonetize one of the coins of commerce, limit the volume of money among the people, make money scarce and therefore dear [i. e. make falling prices for commodities]. He would have increased the value of money and diminished the value of everything else- money the master, everything else its servant. He was not thinking of the poor' then. He had left their side.' He was not 'standing forth in their defense.' Cheap coats, cheap labor, and dear money; the sponsor and promoter of these, professing to stand guard over the welfare of the poor and lowly. Was there ever more glaring inconsistency or reckless assumption?" 1

When Did McKinley Lie?

Evidently when Mr. McKinley upbraided Cleveland for advocating "dear" money he did not think of how it would affect his own Presidential chances, for it was contrary to the interests of the moneyed classes and contrary to the position he had assumed in 1890. In a speech in the House, June 25th, 1890, against the free coinage of silver he said:

"They [the Bimetallists] talk about silver being Cheap money, [i. e. it will give rising prices for commodities.] And gentlemen no longer

1 Toledo daily papers of February 13, 1891.