Cassius and the Gracchi wrong? Or were their arrogant, inhuman, purse-proud assassins wrong? Is the Democratic party to be democratic, or is it to be aristocratic? Shall "the future of the Democratic organization" be limited to an act of self-destruction, namely, proclaiming absolute enmity to all things "agrarian," all things plebeian, all things popular, all things ameliorative? - a proclamation of cruel scorn of poverty? fierce hostility to equity? base and servile submission to presumptuous and heartless plutocracy? Or shall its perpetuity and its future power and glory be assured by a brave return and strict adherence to the "agrarian " principles of its great founder, Jefferson, who turned to the forests and fields, and looked to the country, for political righteousness, but never dreamed that it could be found (except in isolated individuals) amid dense populations, where poverty and crime, want and squalor, debauchery and degradation, are the companions of cruel greed, merciless avarice, and inordinate wealth. Shall the Democratic party in the future content itself with reiterating its mere adhesion to the "eternal principles," and with chanting parrot-like the empty and vapid sophism, "I am a Democrat"? or shall it realize the full meaning of the "eternal principles," and that their beneficence is wholly lost if they are not constantly applied to the changing conditions of men? That the mere formal indorsement of the most sacred principle, unless the principle is applied to, and made operative through, the affairs of men, is the veriest mockery? That good principles, like other good things, are designed for use, and that a party which forever prates of principles, but never reduces its principles to use, never offers to apply them to existing conditions, will be repudiated by a disappointed and disgusted people?

In vain may Senator Hill summon before the experienced gaze of the restored Democracy the stale and antiquated ogre of socialism. The reclaimed Democracy is thoroughly conscious of its own identity, and of the legitimacy of its claim to the Jeffersonian inheritance. It is not socialism. It is not anarchy. It is not plutocracy. It is not lawless. It is not licentious. It is not predatory. It is not destructive. It comes as Tilden came, with "Reform " on its banners and

66

healing on its wings." It is apt, sympathetic, receptive. It has no Bourbon corpuscles in its strong healthy blood. It listens with interest, but with caution and criticism, to all men. It learns from the individualist that "Safety lies in distrust of power," not only governmental power, but also the power of property. And it is admonished by the growth, solidarity, and boundless ambition of property, that monopolies must be governed, checked, and controlled by government. Democracy recognizes the individual as the unit in the social and civil compact, and has, therefore, regard for numbers. The greatest good of the greatest number being the desideratum, and the presentation of the rights and opportunities of each individual being the effectual protection of all, Democracy is pledged by its very genius to abolish, remove, and destroy the great monopolies, which, having vanquished competition, rule commerce, trade, and industry with a sway absolute and exclusive.

In its choice of means, Democracy, while keeping in view the perils of paternalism, will nevertheless resort to restriction, segregation, and suppression, as likewise taxation, not only of incomes, but of undue accumulations, and by amendment of the Constitution where necessary.

It must make railways public highways in fact as they are in name, and it must not falter at any step necessary to accomplish this. It must banish protection and monometallism, disincorporate ordinary trade, disenthral commerce, emancipate labor, and restore to the people their lost right to live.

The preservation of human rights, the sole aim of Democracy, imperatively requires that property must be kept under control by government, lest property control government. The Magna Charta extorted from King John by the Barons was for the Barons; the Bill of Rights in our Constitution was designed to limit official action and prevent official encroachments upon the rights of the people. A new Magna Charta, a new Bill of Rights, must be proclaimed. A charter can and will be found in the "eternal principles " of Democracy, not only negative, restrictive, and prohibitive, but affirmative and suggestive, which will reach, treat, and dispose of

wrongs which have grown up in the very shadow of the republic, out of industrial, commercial, and economic conditions wholly unforeseen by the founders of our institutions. Liberty is the goal; character is the end; virtue the ideal. To the possession, enjoyment, and development of these, material independence, or at least comfort, is indispensable. Laws, therefore, which render inordinate accumulations of property impossible, and which tend to the dissolution and diffusion of existing aggregations of wealth, are imperatively demanded by every consideration which could move a wise, just, and humane people.

Civilization rests upon property. product and parent of civilization.

Property is at once the

He who has it can live

as he will. He who has it not must live as he can. It quenches all thirst. It appeases all hunger. It appeases all hunger. It ministers to every taste, responds to every impulse, supplies every want, satisfies every desire. Avarice, ambition, cruelty, greed, and ostentation join like a ravening pack in fierce pursuit of property. Except at intervals the world has been unable to withstand them. We have reached that stage in our development as a nation where we are face to face with the question whether ours shall be any exception to the fate of other nations. If we are incapable of self-government; if we are too voluptuous to be humane, too sordid to be patriotic, too selfish to be just, too cowardly to be free; if we are to go the way of all other nations, the sooner we succumb and sink into the inertia of hopelessness, the better. But in that case let us at least not pollute our souls by any false and puerile protestations in the name of Democracy.

If our bosoms no longer hold the celestial flame, if on the altar of our hearts no longer burns the Promethean fire, if cupidity and cunning have supplanted courage, justice, and compassion, then indeed it were idle to discuss "the future of the Democratic organization." Liberty, equality, fraternity were the watchwords of the old as they are of the renewed Democracy. Has Senator Hill the hardihood to assail them?

In Jefferson's day the preservation of popular rights depended upon successful resistance to authoritative preten

sion and the invasive instincts of official power. In our day it depends upon successful resistance to a power more subtle, more insidious, and vastly more extensive; a power whose activities and potentialities extend to every home and touch with a silent but awful admonition every individual — the power of money, the power of capital, the power of property. If we prove equal to this unparalleled occasion, if we rise to the height of this stupendous era, it must be through the power of a Democracy as pure and as constant as that of Jefferson, and as much more bold, adventurous, and comprehensive, as much more defiant, direct, and concrete, as the power of Mammon is more hostile, more tenacious, more cruel, more able, far-reaching, and determined than the power of mere political ambition.

The future of the Democratic organization depends upon its being able to realize the presence of the most profound issues that have confronted mankind since the dawn of history.

Failure means Democratic extinction, national chaos, and revolution. Efficiency in this supreme hour means Democratic ascendency, peaceable evolution, prosperity, justice, liberty.

T

THE MULTIPLE STANDARD FOR MONEY.

BY ELTWEED POMEROY.

HE money question is a great, disturbing question in our economic and political life. It will continue to be such till it is settled right, and it will never be settled right till it is put on a true scientific basis. This pape. is an attempt first briefly to analyze money, so that we may know the conditions of the problem; and, second, to suggest a synthesis from that analysis and a theory which shall be constructive and truly scientific.

I. ANALYSIS.

Money has two functions or uses. It is a medium of exchange and a measure of exchangeable value. All of its functions are included in these two. Hoarding does not come under these heads, but hoarding is not a function or use of money. It is an abuse of it; it then loses its money quality and becomes a mere commodity.

1. A MEDIUM OF EXCHANGE.

As a medium of exchange, money must have five properties. The material of which it is made must have, first, fitness; and, second, be hard to counterfeit. In itself it must have, third, exchangeability; fourth, be of sufficient volume; and, fifth, have sufficient elasticity of volume for the business which it is intended to promote.

Money is not the only medium of exchange. Checks, notes, drafts, credits, etc., unauthorized by the government, are as truly mediums of exchange as money when they are accepted. They are either founded on or measured in terms of money. All of them, when freely passing current, with money constitute the currency of a country. Money is that part of the currency of a country which is issued by the government and clothed with the legal-tender power. Should the government become so weak and issue so large a quantity money that it ceases to pass at par, then money loses some

of