66

Disguise it as we may, the line of battle is drawn between the forces of safe currency and those of silver monometallism. I will not believe that if our people are afforded an intelligent opportunity for sober second thought they will sanction schemes that, however cloaked, mean disaster and confusion, nor that they will consent, by undermining the foundation of a safe currency, to endanger the beneficent character and purposes of their government. Yours very truly,

"GROVER CLEVELAND."

CHAPTER XI.

WILLIAM J. BRYAN'S REPLY.

THE President's letter drew forth a storm of protests from the silver men, and Hon. William J. Bryan, of Nebraska, promptly addressed the following letter to the President:

"The Hon. Grover Cleveland, President.-DEAR SIR: In your recent letter declining an invitation to attend the Chicago gathering in the interest of sound money,' you say: What is now needed more than anything else is a plain and simple presentation of the argument in favor of sound money."

·

"To a vast number of our people' Coin's Financial School' seems to be a plain and simple presentation of the argument in favor of sound money,' but some of your friends have not been pleased with the argument. Since you secured the unconditional repeal of the Sherman law you have very properly taken the place so long held b- the author of that law, Senator Sherman, and are now the acknowledged leader of the gold-standard advocates of the United States, both Democratic and Republican, and to you, therefore, as the leader of that element, the people naturally look for a plain and simple presentation of the argument in favor of sound money,' according to your understanding of sound money, or at least for an intelligent definition of it.

"What do you mean by the phrase sound money '?

In your letter you make frequent use of that and kin. dred phrases. In fact, in the course of your letter you speak three times of 'sound money,' twice of a 'safe currency,' once of a 'sound currency,' once of a 'safe and sound currency,' once of safe and prudent finan cial ideas,' and once of wholesome financial doctrine.' You also speak once of a ‘debased currency,' once of a 'degenerated currency,' and once of cheap money.' In one place you describe your opponents as the forces of silver monometallism,' but you nowhere explain what you mean by sound money,' or what you consider cheap money.'

6

"Now, everybody favors sound money' and 'a safe currency,' and a plain and simple statement of what you mean by those euphonious and universally admired phrases might dispel the war clouds and make a line of battle' unnecessary. If by sound money' you mean a gold standard why did you avoid the use of the word 'gold' in your letter? If by a safe currency' you mean bimetallism why did you avoid the use of the word of 'bimetallism' in your letter? Your letter nowhere contains a direct reference either to the gold standard or to bimetallism, but is quite replete with expressions which may mean a great deal or nothing, according to the interpretation placed upon them.

"Your opponents have always given you credit for courageously defining your position on public questions. Will you prove their confidence well founded by stating frankly what kind of a financial system we shall enjoy if the sound-money sentiment abroad in the land succeeds in saving us from mischief and disaster.' Your opponents candidly avow their purpose and clearly outline the legislation which they desire. Is it not fair

to ask that you define your policy with as much frankness?

"Your opponents favor the free and unlimited coinage of gold bullion into dollars, each containing 25.8 grains of standard gold. Are you in favor of this? Your opponents are in favor of the free and unlimited coinage of silver bullion into dollars, each containing 412.5 grains of standard silver. Are you in favor of this? If not, are you in favor of the coinage of silver bullion into dollars of any size? If not in favor of the free coinage of silver, what charge, if any, would you make for coinage? If you are not in favor of the unlimited coinage of silver, what limit would you sug gest?

"Your opponents not only believe in the restoration of the free and unlimited coinage of both gold and silver at the present rate of sixteen to one, but they are in favor of taking this action at once without waiting for the aid or consent of any other nation on earth. Do you agree with them? If not, do you favor the restoration of bimetallism by international agreement? If you are in favor of an international agreement, what ratio would you advise and what nations are in your opinion necessary to such an agreement? If you favor an international agreement, how long are you willing to wait for it? Your opponents are in favor of making standard gold coin and standard silver coin equally a legal tender for all debts, public and private, and are opposed to making a silver dollar a promise to pay a gold dollar or a gold dollar a promise to pay a silver dollar; do you agree with them?

"Your opponents believe that the free and unlimited coinage of gold and silver at the present ratio of 16 to

1 by the United States, regardless of the action of other nations, will give us sound money and a 'safe currency.' They not only believe this, but they support their position by arguments so plausibly presented that even you are frightened into the belief that the sound money sentiment must be crystallized and combined and made immediately active' in order to prevent their success at the polls. Can you define your position so clearly and defend it so plausibly as to scare your opponents as badly as they have scared you? Is the failure of the gold-standard advocates to define their purposes and defend their financial system due to lack of knowledge of the subject or to an unwillingness to let the people know what they intend? If the proprieties of your official place oblige' you to forego the enjoyment' which you would derive from the wiiting of another letter explaining your last letter and defining your position on the financial question please designate some one who has authority to speak for you so that the people may be afforded an intelligent opportunity,' as you suggest, to study and decide this now paramount public question.

"Yours very truly,

Прија