It Is Not Feasible

Some of Mr. Bryan"s arguments in sopport of free coinage have been modified from time to time, to fit varying circuinstances and loealities, but there is one uote that he has rung the changes on in every speech. "If the gold standard is a good thing." he asks, "why do Republicans want to got rid of it by substituting international bimetnllism; and if it is a bad thing, why isn't the United a abie to do away with it without wiiiting for the aid or consent of any otlier natiou on earth?" The reply is self-evident to any man vül stop and thiuk. Nations are like individuáis. They eannot always have thcir own way. ïhey caunot al.ifford to act without reference to eaeh other. The go'.d standard is a srood thiug for this country, as statistics showj but international bimetaliism. if it could be obtained, would be a better thing beit would improre the market for our large silver product without eausing offsettiug disadvantages. That is why the Republican party fa vors bimetallism; and it is also why it opposea silver i ïnonometallism, as advocated by Bryan. because it fears silver monometallism would cause too many offsetting disadvantages. It is not feasible for a great nation hr.ving intímate business dealings with other nations to ignore the customs and the economie conditions of tuose nations. We have international postage regulatinus. because while they benefit foreignthey benefit our own people also. For similar reasons we have international health regulations. a uniform system of weights and measures, and international agreement on many other points of mutual advantage. The demand for internatial action in relation to silver rests upon precisely the same footing. If bimetallism would help us it would also help Europeans. If it would not help thein. it is exeeedingly doubtful if it would help us. At all events, so long desire to keep in commercial touch with them, we cannot expect to force them to accept our iaea of a correct mouey standard. Unless it meets with their voluntary approval. we had better go slow on the forcing process. For while it is by no means sure that by adopting free coinage we could injure the business of the countries which have the gold standard, it is absolutely eertain that we shouM very seriotisly injure our own business if we failed to do all the fine things that the independent free silverites predict can be done by the adoption oí their untried experiment. But we a3k our readers to consider carefully one further point. If every charge brought against the gold standard by its present opponents were literaliy and indubitably true, it still would need to be proved that the remedy proposed by Mr. Bryan would be effèctive. Some remedies are worse than the disease. May not free silver be such a remedy? Might not the adoption of it be like jumping from the irymg pan into the fire.' We remember how Mr. Bryan four years ago pictured for us the same woes that give employment to his trémulo val ve today; but four years ago he had an entirely different cure. Then he wanted the people to try free trade. They tricd it, and got forty times sicker than before. Now he says he made a mistake in that prescription and ures the public to take a dose of free silver iustead._ But can we trust him this time? Does his bungling work four years ago recommend him to our confidenee as a safe medical adviser for the nation in its present extermity? Ha ving been fooled once, would it be sensible for us to take chances on being buncoed twice by the same kind of a skin game? Has' anything happened in the interval since 1892 to induce us to believe that the free trade miracle workers of that famous year are today more trustworthy for having temporarily obseured the oíd underseoring of "free trade" on their billboard posters behind the sueeestivelv