One Thousand Secrets of Wise and Rich Men Revealed - C. A. Bogardus (some good books to read .txt) 📗

issue paper money without the Government in the banking business to back up the issue, such money in case of a failure of the issuing bank became wild-cat money, and did they not say to us wild-cat money made paupers? Now they go squarely back on all they have taught us on the money question, and advocate the wild-cat money system themselves according to their own statements. One thing I will concede is, that the Republicans and gold standard Democrats are certainly on their past statements entitled to the $1,000,000 offered by the United States patent office for the invention of a perpetual motion, would not they have a complete and perpetual motion in their bank issuing money with the Government completely separate from the banking business, for we see the bank issue would be made of paper, so we have the perpetual motion in this simple problem. Rags make paper, paper makes money, money makes banks, banks make paupers, and paupers make rags. Rags make paper, paper makes money (great cheer and laughter).

Now, my friends, let me read you a plank in a platform that contains the spirit upon which our forefathers freed the thirteen American colonies from England, the spirit on which their descendants maintained American liberty and builded from 3,000,000 population along the Atlantic shores in 1781, a nation of 70,000,000 grand Anglo-Americans, with their half a hundred states and territories extending from the rock bound coast of the pine tree state to the golden gates of California, stretching over a vast area of more than 3,000,000 square miles, with great cities, towns, villages and hamlets, with our colleges and universities that are equaled by none in Europe. I will now read you the money plank of the Chicago platform, which contains the spirit represented by the statute at New York, of liberty enlightening the world. It is as follows: "We demand a free and unlimited coinage of both gold and silver at the present legal ratio of 16 to 1, without waiting for the aid or consent of any other nation. We demand that the standard silver dollar shall be a full legal tender equally with gold, for the payment of all debts public and private, and we favor such legislation as will in the future prevent the demonetization of any kind of legal tender money by private contract." While bimetallism is the theme this evening, you will excuse me for intruding on your time long enough to briefly comment on the spirit of that plank that shines prominently above all other issues in the Chicago platform—it is these simple words, "Without waiting for the aid or consent of any other nation." I want to ask you, what would have been the result if our forefathers in 1776 had adopted any other spirit than this? Does not the answer immediately echo that we would be today English?

History tells us that while the British red coats with their muskets were invading the colonies, a handful of bold liberty loving men met at Philadelphia and signed the Declaration of Independence. You may read that instrument and you will see that it declares for American liberty from an American point of view, without waiting for the aid or consent of any other nation. When bold old non-international agreement John Hancock read that declaration, he made a speech to the multitude in front of Liberty hall, in which he implored them to throw aside trivial differences, and on the main question of independence, all good liberty loving people should hang together. Benjamin Franklin replied: "Yes, we must all hang together or we will all hang separate." In Franklin's witticism, I think I can see the solution of our present financial trouble—the good people of all parties must solve the problem, then we must all hang together or we will all hang separately to the tail of the old British lion, and while we voters are thus suspended, the cubs of that lion will devour the young Anglo-American eagles before they scarcely have time to scream for mercy.

Not only did that spirit of independence pervade in Philadelphia in 1776, but it was foremost at Bunker Hill. But Benedict Arnold and Major Andre seemed to have taken a different view, and the former fled to English assistance, the latter was executed because of his attempt to do likewise. But the spirit of independence, without waiting for the consent of any other nation, shone forth like a plumed knight or a mighty gladiator on the 19th day of October, 1781, at Yorktown, when the British gave up their swords and surrendered to the liberty loving fathers of America. Do you think Cornwallis would have surrendered to Washington if the Colonial Congress had declared that they would promote independence by international agreement, and until such agreement could be obtained, the existing will of King George must be maintained, and if Washington and his army had fought for English instead of American supremacy?

I want to say to you that it was not the international agreement spirit that won in the war of 1812 at New Orleans. General Jackson told his Kentucky riflemen to keep their powder dry and guns well loaded, and when they were close enough to see the white of the enemies' eyes to shoot directly between them. History tells us that the third volley charmed and the British surrendered to the American army once more without an international agreement.

In the blackest of the dark days of the late rebellion when the possible, and to a certain extent the seeming probable success of the confederacy was spreading like an appalling cloud over our country, we find it on record that the English were preparing their man-of-war and navy to assist the South when the illustrious Lincoln said, "Hands off," and it was so; suppose Mr. Lincoln had said to England, "Let us have an international agreement that you are not to interfere." Why, my friends, I believe England would have signed such an agreement the day after Mr. Lincoln had acknowledged the independence of the Southern States, and not before. We may as well know that the success of a Republican or Democratic form of government is envied by all the monarchies or empires where the people have less self-government. The gold standard monarchies or empires will never, knowingly, do anything to improve times in a republic and thus create among their subjects a desire to throw off the monarchial yoke of oppression.

I know that much has been said against the American republic becoming entangled with the European powers, but I fear that many in treating on this line do not show the real menace of such an entanglement. We all know that the laws of the empires and monarchies are in the interest of the moneyed classes, and we are proud to say that in America our laws are for the masses.

Let me tell you by way of comparison why we should keep out of an international agreement entanglement on the money question. I will use the tariff as an illustration. I care not what your politics may be, you will all agree with me that there was one redeeming feature in the McKinley bill. That some good feature was in the Wilson-Gormon act, and the same quality of goodness today shines forth in the present Dingley tariff law. Do you ask what that feature is? I answer it is this: That law was passed by the independent action of the American Congress. If we do not like it we can repeal it, without waiting for the aid or consent of any other nation on earth.

Our Government bonds are all payable in coins of the United States of the standard weight and value of July 14, 1870; that weight was 23.22 grains of gold or 371.25 grains of silver to the dollar. The value of those coins was that they were a legal tender in the payment of debts.

If we have an international agreement for bimetallism we can not have it all our own way—the foreigner would be entitled to a voice. Suppose we would fix the ratio at any other than the ratio of July 14th, 1870. Then our dollars would no longer be of the weight that the bonds call for and the foreigner would have the best of us, for our own coins would not be a legal tender in payment of our bonds. Now suppose we wanted to repeal that law, could we repeal it by international agreement? Well, I guess not. The foreigners would never consent to the repeal of a law that was to their advantage. Therein lies the real menace of an international agreement even if we could get it. The only way we could ever get rid of that agreement would be just to back squarely out, then we might properly be called repudiators.

We often hear it said that the congress of 1792 used great care to put just a dollar's worth of silver in a silver dollar and dollar's worth of gold in the gold dollar. Now while it is true that according to the law of April 12, 1792, a dollar's worth of silver was put in the silver dollar, the amount of silver became worth a dollar as a creature of law, and it is not true that the silver dollar became worth a dollar because of the value of the silver contained in it. That congress made the dollar just as God made man. God said, "Let us make man," and the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul. God did not study and bother his mind about taking a man's worth of dust to make a man. No, he took some dust of the ground and formed therefrom a man and by his own authority breathed the breath of life in man's nostrils and man thus became a living soul. God then gave man legal authority over the living creatures of the earth and also gave him authority to replenish the earth. Man's rights came from the power of God.

The constitution says congress shall have power to coin money and regulate the value thereof. So congress made the dollar as God made man, and the American congress formed the dollar of the silver and gold of the earth, put the eagle on one side of the coin and breathed into that coin the legal tender law, and the bimetallic dollar became a living soul of prosperity for eighty-one years as long as the silver and gold were allowed to fly side by side; but when in 1873 the wings were clipped from the silver and the legal tender breath shut off, then the gold had to do all the work; it being too weak to do so, adversity came.

They tell us that law cannot regulate value and that gold never changes in value. Let us for a moment form ourselves into a party of truthseekers and look up the record as to that proposition. The law of April 2nd, 1792, said 371.75 grains of silver could be freely coined into one dollar, or two halves, or four quarters, or ten dimes, each to be a legal tender at its face value, if not worn, for any amount; that law also said 24.75 grains of gold could be coined into coins of the value of the dollar; of course you understand the gold was in higher denominations than the dollar. Now let us watch carefully as to whether or not the law cannot regulate value and that gold never changes. In 1834 the law said 23.20 grains of gold when coined in American money constituted a dollar. Let me see, the gold has changed all at once and the law regulates the amount of gold that goes in a dollar. In 1837, the law requires 23.22 grains of gold to the dollar,