Harper's Weekly/Which is the Hard-Money Party?

by Harper's Weekly

WHICH IS THE HARD-MONEY PARTY?

THE letter of Mr. Schurz upon the political situation effectually disposes of all cavil at his decision, and that of the great body of independent voters, to support Hayes and Wheeler. There is no question that it represents the present disposition of the wide-spread and commanding sentiment from which the May conference sprang, very much more truly than the letter of Mr. Parke Godwin. As a special rejoinder to Mr. Ottendorfer, the letter of Mr. Schurz is conclusive. It recalls many of the strong expressions of condemnation and distrust of Mr. Tilden which have appeared in Mr. Ottendorfer's paper. He there appeared, according to Mr. Schurz, as “a demagogue and a grasper after popularity,” which is a description as severe as can be found in any Republican journal. Mr. Schurz admirably sets forth the financial weakness of the Democratic party in this campaign, and the comparative position of the two parties upon this subject deserves the careful consideration of candid voters.

In recently speaking of the unity of parties, we pointed out that upon several vital questions neither party is harmonious. In both there is difference of opinion, and a contest more or less sharply defined. The absurdity of the conclusion that in this state of things the Republican party, as such, is to be denounced, and the Democratic, as such, to be preferred, is therefore evident. The real general question of the campaign is, in which party, judging from its general character, spirit, and tendency, is the better element likely to prevail? Financially, the question for all who believe that prosperity can not revive until confidence is restored, and who see that confidence is impossible while the financial policy of the government is uncertain and incalculable — the question for such persons is, which party gives the better earnest of a speedy return to a sound or hard-money basis? This must be determined by a general survey of the recent action of both parties upon the subject. Take first that of the Republican. It is true that some Republican Senators and leaders have coquetted with the rag baby. It is true also that every Republican State Convention has not been decided in expression upon the subject, and that the late National Convention refused to urge Congress to provide for carrying out the Resumption Act of 1875. These things show an unsound element in the party. But, on the other hand, its great battle of last year was fought in Ohio upon the hard-money issue, which was met firmly and fully. The hard-money Republican candidate was elected, and he is to-day the Republican candidate for the Presidency. He is one of the most positive of hard-money men, and has frankly declared his opposition to a repeal of the Resumption Act, unless a more stringent one should be substituted. The nomination of such a candidate after such a declaration is quite as significant as the action of the Convention upon the resumption resolution of Mr. Davis. With this hard-money candidate is associated Mr. Wheeler, a man of equally strong convictions and assured position upon the subject. And in the State of New York the Republican Legislature last winter demanded national legislation to make the Resumption Act more efficient for its purpose. Add to this that the general tone of the party press upon the subject is sound and healthful, and that the party is strongest in the parts of the country where hard-money views are dominant. All this, indeed, does not show that the Republican is a hard-money in the same sense that it was an antislavery party. But to the practical hard-money American voter it shows that this is the party for him to sustain, unless the other offers a fairer record and promise.

Now what is the position of the Democratic party upon this question? It contains the great majority of the soft-money men in the country. In its National Convention of 1868 it demanded a form of repudiation. In the great central States of Ohio and Pennsylvania last year it contested the election as a party of inflation. It has constantly sought, by a large majority of its members in the House of Representatives, to repeal the Resumption Act, or to secure some scheme of inflation. Many of the best men in the party, notwithstanding the strength of their party ties, feel the danger that must arise in the financial direction from a general party success; and the great, final, conclusive evidence of the essential and perilous unsoundness of the party upon the subject is found in the action of its late National Convention. It was so conscious of the enormous soft-money element in the party, whose votes are indispensable to success, that it nominated one hard-money and one soft-money candidate, and placed them upon an acknowledged compromise platform, which demanded the repeal of the pledge of resumption. This action is the distinct recognition of the power of the inflation element in the party, and it will encourage it to strain every nerve to elect members of Congress of the same views, that it may control the party financial policy. There was nothing of this kind of contest or compromise in the Republican Convention. It made, as we think, the mistake of not treating the Resumption Bill in the same way that its candidate approves it; but its declaration that honor and morality require the speediest return to hard money was confirmed by the nomination of two candidates who represent that faith to the utmost.

These facts are stated in his own way and with great force by Mr. Schurz. Is it surprising that they serve to assure him, an earnest and proved advocate of sound finance, that Democratic success must certainly and necessarily sink the country deeper in the slough? Indeed, it seems hardly possible that any one who is familiar with the late political history of the country should seriously assert that he things the financial views and promise of the Democratic party to be sounder and more hopeful than those of the Republican party. A year ago, in Ohio, Sam Cary, a sheer demagogue, was the Democratic candidate for Lieutenant-Governor upon an inflation platform, and this year he naturally incites a mob to demand bread or blood. It is true that the Republican Judge Kelley supported Cary's general position, but not less did the Democratic Governor Tilden, who publicly expressed his hope of Democratic success by the election of Allen and Cary. Judge Kelley was virtually repudiated by his party upon this point. But Governor Tilden's party has made immense concessions to its Cary brethren, and has nominated an inflationist to secure their votes. Is this the party to maintain the national financial honor, and to secure what the best men of all parties sincerely desire — a sure and swift return to a hard-money basis? The opinion of Mr. Schurz upon this subject is that of the great mass of patriotic citizens.