University of Virginia Library

Mexican Silver

American Nonconformist, April 19, 1894

Wolcott's Mexican coin resolution which has attracted considerable attention, was finally passed after having been amended by Sherman who stuck the words "if not incompatible with the public interests" into the middle of it.[1] He gave as his reason that "it would be more courteous to the president." Teller, Dubois, Stewart and Cabot Lodge spoke in favor of the resolution.[2] The most notable thing said by Lodge (Massachusetts) was the following about dealing with England:

"I would strike her on those points where she would feel it most--on her colonial trade. In the interest of silver (I am not speaking with the slightest reference to protection or free trade,) I would strike her with prohibitive duties, if necessary on her Cape diamonds. I would strike her in the same way on her Assam and Ceylon teas. I would put discriminating duties on her Australian wool. We want, if we can, to force England to take the view of the silver question which we believe is not only for our interest, but for the interest of trade, of good prices, of better wages all over the world."

Lodge seems to be very much, in his attitude toward the money question, like the man in the Bible who said "Almost thou persuadest me."[3] Really I thought the resolution was all right till Sherman said he was going to vote for it, and then I began to think there must be something wrong about it, or else Sherman was not afraid of anything that did not have "legal tender" on it. Wolcott also spoke on his resolution with his usual fire and energy and I saw Edward Everett Hale in our gallery taking notes.[4] McPherson objected to the resolution and wanted to insert "for exportation" in it, but withdrew the amendment when he found what Sherman had put in.[5] It was all right to him then.

By the by Cabot Lodge said something "funny" in his speech against the tariff bill Tuesday. He said:

"The wealth of a country is in production, and the strength of a country is in its producers. It is worse than idle to talk about consumers as if they were a vast proportion of the population, who ought alone to be considered. The mere consumers constitute not only an insignificant, but wholly unimportant fraction of the community."

Queer thing, from a logical point of view, for a cultured Bostonian to say. I had always supposed that every person in the United States was a consumer.

Notes