And if labor is continually increasing its power of producing all products except gold, as shown by Doctor Robert Giffen,1 Then it is obviously unfair and dangerous to make gold alone the metallic basis of our currency. If President Cleveland was right when he said, "I hope a way will present itself in the near future for the adjustment of our monetary affairs in such a comprehensive and conservative manner as will afford to silver its proper place in our currency," then I may reasonably ask all reasonable monometallists and all reasonable bimetallists fairly to consider the plan I have proposed, for I claim that it is precisely what the President hoped for. I am not now debating any question regarding debts already contracted. My plan refers only to providing a currency on a just and safe basis for contracts to be made after the passage of the act. Safety and equity lie in wedding the two metals together as in that clever ar 1 See Appendix, page 88. See Appendix, page 79. What the President Hoped For. 75 rangement of the brass pendulum supporting glass tubes containing quicksilver. Increase of heat lengthens the brass arm, and at the same time raises the quicksilver so that the centre of weight in the pendulum is maintained at a constant distance from the point of suspension. Both our great political parties at their conventions have declared, in the most distinct manner, in favor of preserving the parity of gold and silver, and using both metals together in our currency. The President and the Secretary of the Treasury and both Houses of Congress have all most distinctly committed themselves to this policy.1 The only difficulty is to find some plan to accomplish this in an honest, safe, and permanent way. Such a plan I have endeavored to set forth in my first Letter on Joint-Metallism.2 ANSON PHELPS STOKES. |