Harper's Weekly Editorials by Carl Schurz. Schurz Carl
by the government Bureau of Statistics. An increased consumption of the things which enter into the daily life of every individual, especially of those things which, although in common use, are not necessaries in the strictest sense, is always a trustworthy symptom of rising prosperity among the many. Now it is shown that in the last thirty years the per capita consumption of sugar in the United States has risen 250 per cent., that of coffee more than 60, and that of tea more than 20 per cent. Moreover, the average consumption of wheat is one-fifth, and that of malt beverages nearly three times, greater than it was thirty years ago. A symptom of the same nature is it that every American on an average now spends three times as much money on letter postage as he did thirty years ago. The statistics of other gold-standard countries show similar results.
Drawing logical conclusions from such facts, the bimetallist, to be candid, would have to admit that if the establishment of the gold standard had any effect upon the material well-being of the great masses of mankind at all, it has been in the way, not of deterioration, but of marked improvement.
In the same conclusive fashion will the statisticians disprove his pretence that the volume of current money has diminished since the establishment of the gold standard; for they show by figures that the per capita circulation has actually increased. And this fact suffices to expose the hollowness of the well-worn assertion with which we have been plied for years, that the extensive decline in prices is owing to a diminution in the volume of current money. If the volume of money had determined the movement of prices, might it not be legitimately said that prices had gone down because the volume of money had gone up?
But the most characteristic delusion of the bimetallists is their belief that, excepting a small number of persons interested in the gold standard, all mankind is fairly hungering and thirsting for the realization of their scheme. The method by which the propagandist of bimetallism swells his roll of adherents is a very simple one. You ask ten persons whom you happen to meet whether it would not be a nice thing to have some arrangement by which silver and gold could be made safely to circulate together, thus giving the world about twice as much money as it has now—and nine of these persons, not having given the matter much careful thought, will probably reply that this would be a nice thing indeed. The propagandist of bimetallism then promptly registers them among the firm believers in his panacea, and thus puts down a majority of nine to one. But what will the nine reply when asked the farther questions, whether they think it possible, by mere legal enactment or by international agreement, to raise the market price of silver—which is now 65 cents an ounce—to $1.29 an ounce, so as to make silver money acceptable at the ratio of 16 to 1; or whether they think that any other ratio can be agreed upon, and which, if agreed upon, would bring about a practicable double standard of values; or whether they think that any of the great commercial nations which are carrying on their business successfully on the gold standard will be inclined to abandon that standard to the end of making so reckless an experiment? Confronted by such practical questions, the majority of nine to one will instantly evaporate. Only some visionary who hopes against hope will remain, or some debtor who has a vague impression that bimetallism will in some way relieve him of his incumbrances. Whoever doubts that this will be the result may look at the outcome of the international conferences which have been held on this matter. There was in them much eloquence so long as the “general subject” was orated upon. But when the question turned up how the thing was practically to be done, the members soon found it was time to break up and go home. This will inevitably be the result wherever the matter is intelligently discussed. In every civilized country the business community is overwhelmingly against the double standard. The yearning of mankind for bimetallism is a myth.
The serious consideration in Congress of a bill to bring about another international conference on bimetallism is one of the ghastliest performances of our day. Hardly any of the men who vote for it believe in the possibility of accomplishing the object. To say that the Republican platform obliges the party to make the attempt is like saying that a platform may oblige a party to galvanize a dead body into life. The outcome can be only to shake the confidence of the world in the intelligence or good faith of the American people, which seemed to shine so brilliantly in the late Presidential election, to discredit the meaning of the sound-money victory, and to furnish to the silver agitators in the United States an official endorsement of their most captivating arguments with which to make a new campaign.
Carl Schurz.
GOVERNOR BLACK'S BALANCE-SHEET.
Benjamin Franklin was so wise a man in his way that nobody need be ashamed to learn from him. When in doubt as to whether he should do or not do a certain thing, he would sometimes take a sheet of paper, divide it by a perpendicular line into two columns, and then put down in writing the reasons for doing the thing in one column, and the reasons against it in the other, so as to have both sets of reasons bodily before him for comparison. Then he would proceed to calculate with the greatest possible soberness of judgment the relative weight of the reasons for and against as he had them in black on white under his eyes—a good method, he thought, to evolve from a confusing uncertainty of counsel a sound and trustworthy conclusion.
It would perhaps be a useful occupation for Governor Black of this State to follow Franklin's example. He might put the reasons he had for reappointing Aldridge in spite of his flagrant violations of the civil service law, for making Lou Payn Commissioner of Insurance, and for indulging in contemptuous sneers at the merit system in the civil service, in clear language in one column, and in an opposite column a precise statement of the results which by those official acts he has accomplished. This would, indeed, be an operation retrospective in its nature. But if executed with entire candor it might set him to thinking as to whether, aside from all moral questions of right and duty, it will be profitable to continue in the same course.
As a reason for his disdainful fling at the civil service system, the Governor would probably state in the first column that, while competitive examinations may have a certain virtue, they should not be so conducted as to preclude the use of offices by way of reward and encouragement for party work. As a justification of the appointment of Aldridge and Payn, the Governor, examining his own conscience, would hardly venture to deceive himself with the assertion that these men were the best he could find for the faithful and efficient discharge of the public duties to which he assigned them. He would have to admit that he appointed them on account of the party machine-work they had done and were expected to do, as well as in obedience to directions given by the party boss, Mr. Thomas C. Platt; and, in the case of Lou Payn, because that man had a claim upon him for services rendered to himself personally, which he was by a duty of gratitude bound to reward, however offensive it might be to the moral sense of the community.
In the opposite column, the record of results, Governor Black, after a careful survey of the field, will have to note that by the attack upon the merit system in his message he has won the reputation of a Chief Executive of the State seeking to circumvent a plain mandate of the Constitution; and that he has encouraged among the party workers in general, and the members of the Legislature in particular, the inclination to nullify that mandate more recklessly than he himself may think safe. As to the appointments he has made, especially that of Lou Payn, he will have to acknowledge the fact that he had drawn on himself the severest censure from a very large part of the press, even of his own party, and from a host of persons whose opinions have great weight in the community. To make the importance of this fact clear to his mind he should carefully put down the names of the newspapers as well as of the men that have visited such indignant censure upon him, and compare them with the names of his defenders. He may then find that his lofty words about the "intolerant clamor" which will have no influence with a strong man like himself have a dismal sound in the presence of the insulted moral sense of the people. But the column of results will not be complete if he fail to record the further fact that this popular indignation is already expressing itself in a language especially intelligible to political parties as well as to aspiring public men—the language of votes. There has been a certain reaction after the Republican tidal wave of last autumn visible in several States. But nowhere has that reaction