Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

III-A LITTLE CATECHISM ON MONEY [Reprinted by request from The Outlook of December 30, 1911]

What is money?

Money is a convenient token of exchange which has been invented by civilized man to facilitate commerce.

What is commerce?

Commerce is the exchange of life's commodities and necessities and of labor by individuals with individuals, communities with communities, and nations with nations.

What are the things which are exchanged in modern commerce?

The six essential things which are bought and sold, as we say, in modern commerce, are food, water, clothing, shelter from inclemency of weather and climate, human intelligence or skill, and human strength or labor.

What is the use of money?

Money is of use only as it enables a man to exchange his labor or his intelligence for food, raiment, and shelter, or to exchange the food, raiment, or shelter which he has stored up and saved for the labor and intelligence of others, or to exchange his commodities for the commodities of others.

To perform this use properly, what qualities must money possess?

It must possess, first, the quality of being universally recognized as a good token of exchange, that is to say, a promise, which will not be repudiated, to pay some of the abovementioned essentials of commerce; and, second, the quality of being as stable a standard of measure as possible.

Must money possess what is called intrinsic

value?

Not necessarily. A piece of money is a token of a promise to pay useful commodities, useful labor, or useful skill. It is the promise to pay which must possess intrinsic

value, not the token. The only service which "intrinsic value " in the piece of money itself can render is that sometimes it makes the promise to pay more universally recognized, and thus more binding.

Were the "greenbackers" of thirty years ago right, then, in their contention that the most scientific money is paper money?

Philosophically, yes; practically, no, because they could not, or did not, devise means to make the paper money token universally recognizable and reasonably stable as a measure of value.

What do you mean by as applied to money?

"measure of value"

The measuring quality of money is the quality which enables men to determine, in commerce, how many loaves of bread one will give for a pair of shoes, or how many hours of labor one will give to a dentist for pulling a tooth. All commodities fluctuate in value in accordance with the needs or the desires of men, or with the variation in the action of forces of nature. A favorable season produces a great wheat crop, and the price of bread goes down; a coal strike comes, and the price of coal goes up. The dollar as a measure of value must therefore be based upon the commodity which fluctuates the least. In modern times gold is this commodity, and for this reason the most highly civilized nations use gold as the measure of the value of money. But gold itself constitutes only a fraction of the money used in the world, and its chief usefulness as money is because it is a measure and not because it makes surer the promise to pay.

Are the words currency and money interchangeable?

For all practical purposes, yes. The money

or

tokens used in the United States consist of gold, silver, copper, and nickel coins; of National bank notes; of "greenbacks' United States Government notes; and of all checks and negotiable personal notes. In a system of finance that works properly all these tokens are interchangeable, and are therefore all practically money; and all money that is current is currency.

Is there any oth quality of money, or of currency that represents money in practical life, which has not been mentioned above?

Yes. Perhaps the most important quality of commercial money, the money which serves as a token of buying and selling, is that it 'should not only be stable in character or in its measure value, but that it should fluctuate in its volume. When all the farmers of the country are selling their wheat, they must receive money tokens which will enable them the next spring to obtain new seed and fertilizer. It is manifest that in an agricultural country like the United States there will be a great quantity of money tokens needed in the fall and spring when there are great numbers of commercial transactions taking place, and a less quantity of money tokens needed in midwinter and midsummer.

Why do we not, then, put our money away in drawers and safes in the winter and summer, and simply take it out when it is needed in the fall and spring?

Because idle money brings in no returns, while money which is at work increases itself. Under the present National banking system, through which the greatest part of our current money is supplied to the people, the banks, as a guarantee of their good faith, have to pay the Government for the right of issuing the currency. As they have to pay by the year, whether or not they use their currency in commercial loans to farmers and merchants, the natural tendency is to make speculative and undesirable loans at times when the legitimate commerce of the country does not need the money. This speculative use of money is one of the chief causes of financial panics.

How large can the volume of paper currency safely be made?

We can safely have in circulation at any one time paper currency equal in amount to the volume of the legitimate commercial transactions of the time. A promise to pay is said

to be "as good as gold" when we know that the man who makes the promise is both determined and able to keep it. A paper dollar (which is simply a promise to pay) is "as good as gold" when the bank that issues it is determined and able (or is compelled and enabled by the Government) to pay it. The volume of paper dollars issued by a bank should be governed by two factors: first, the legitimate need of the merchants, farmers, and business men of the community for these paper dollars, and, second, the ability of the bank to make them worth a dollar in commodities or in labor.

Can the plan of the Monetary Commission be defined in a few words?

Briefly, the plan is to provide machinery by which a National bank can at any given time provide the community in which it does business with the currency or money which that community legitimately needs, coupled with a system of Government supervision so effective that the bank will be enabled to keep its promise to make the paper dollars good when presented for payment.

Is the plan of the Monetary Commission designed for the benefit of bankers?

Its chief and fundamental effect will be to benefit the farmers, merchants, and manufacturers, and so, of course, the consumers and householders, of the country. It will give more liberty and efficiency to the smaller banks, and less despotic power to the large banks of the great financial centers. The great banks of Wall Street are supporting it, however, because they know that the prosperity of the individual banker depends upon the general prosperity. Merchants and farmers and householders ought to support it for the same reason.

NOTE. This catechism was written when the bankers were supporting the Monetary Bill of 1911 (popularly known as the Aldrich Bill) because it retained the control of the banking system and the currency to a very large extent in their hands; the same bankers are now opposing the Currency Bill advocated by President Wilson's Administration because the balance of control is placed in the hands of the Government The two bills, so far as commercial and financial transactions are concerned, are not radically different in their operation. The Outlook believes in Government regulation and control, and therefore regards the Currency Bill of 1913 as an improvement upon the Monetary Bill of 1911.

HER FORMER ALLIES

The lamentable conflict between Bulgaria on the one hand and her recent allies in the war against Turkey on the other last week showed indications of cessation. A five days' armistice was agreed upon, and it is at least hoped that a peace treaty will follow. The situation is discussed editorially elsewhere in this issue of The Outlook. Here we print, as of significance and value in understanding the situation: first, a cablegram from leading men of Bulgaria to Theodore Roosevelt, received by The Outlook during Mr. Roosevelt's absence in Arizona; second, a cabled appeal from the treasurer of a Balkan fund in Sofia asking for American aid in distress; third, a letter from a Greek Vice-Consul in this country setting forth the Greek side of the controversy; and, fourth, a brief article called “King Ferdinand's Part.”—THe Editors.

I-AN APPEAL FROM BULGARIA

Sofia, Bulgaria, July 29, 1913. By Cable. The Hon. Theodore Roosevelt :

Dear Sir-Bulgaria, which for more than five centuries has struggled unceasingly against the wild Asiatic tribes of Turkey for the preservation of her religion, language, and nationality, to-day, after she has finally crushed and expelled to Asia the ever-uncultured Turk, finds herself exposed to even greater trials by her "allies " desirous of grasping the whole of Macedonia inhabited by Bulgarians. While the Bulgarian army at Tchataldja and Adrianople stood against the Turkish forces to protect the allied interests, our allies, forming a secret alliance against Bulgaria, stood at the Bulgarian boundary fortifying themselves for almost ten months; and soon after the signing of peace they declared that they rejected the ante-bellum treaty and did not propose to surrender the agreed-upon territory. Concentrating their armies at the Bulgarian frontiers, Greece, Servia, and Montenegro wanted to compel Bulgaria to yield to their claim; and before she could withdraw her army from Tchataldja and transport it to her western boundary they undertook an advance, on the 18th of June, into Bulgarian territory with all their army. As a sufficient proof of this early preparation and ill-intentioned advance stands the manifesto of King Peter issued in Belgrade undated to the military headquarters, to be dated by them at the time of the general advance. In order that they might provoke Bulgaria the Greeks at Salonika, with the purpose of disarming the Bulgarian garrison, fell upon them with quickfiring guns in the very heart of the city, killed most of them, and the rest were taken into captivity. They also slaughtered the entire male population there. When steps were taken by the Bulgarian Government to

check those bloody incidents and to leave the dispute to the arbitration of the Russian Czar, as before agreed upon, Servia, Greece, and Montenegro declared war with manifestoes. At the same time they instigated Rumania and Turkey to take the same steps, and to invade the already devastated and sorrow-stricken territory with their armies. Realizing their inefficiency, these our allies of yesterday undertook with fire and sword to exterminate all the Bulgarian population in Macedonia. Realizing also the responsibility they owed to the civilized world, and at a time when Bulgaria was completely isolated, the Greeks and the Servians tried (and successfully) to libel the character of the Bulgarian soldier, accusing him of atrocities and maltreatment of his enemies and of the peaceful population, and also presenting Bulgaria as the disturber and creator of the pres

ent war.

66

Feeling sensitive because of all these base calumnies, we appeal to you as an advocate of the square deal," soliciting your influential pen to expose the truth; we urgently request an international committee of investigation that will prove beyond the doubts of all that Bulgaria is not the one disturbing the peace; that Bulgaria was the one at the beginning of the hostilities to ask the intervention of the Powers; that Bulgaria was the first to respond to the advice of the Powers to send delegates to Nish, Servia; that her delegates have already been waiting there five or ten days for the Servian and Greek delegates, who are delaying with a clearly obvious purpose of continuing the hostilities.

This committee will also prove that the towns and villages in Macedonia already burned are purely Bulgarian, and their maltreated and slaughtered populations are also

Bulgarian; that in Bulgaria we have more than 100,000 refugees, mostly women and children, who have been driven from their homes by the Grecians and Servians, and whose stories of fearful outrages and butchering will stir from the foundation the conscience of the civilized world. This committee will prove, consequently, that nowhere and never have been performed such deeds upon the non-combatant population by an army as the crimes committed by the Grecian army especially.

Apprising you with these facts and through you the upright American people, we implore

your advocacy of such an international committee of investigation, that will expose the true authors of such previously unrecorded outrages.

Well-meaning Bulgaria must be vindicated. Will you help us? Every well-meaning Bulgarian must be vindicated. Will you help us? Very respectfully yours,

MITROPOLGTE VASSILIY, Chairman of the Holy Synod J. VAZOFF; Dr. S. KyROFF, Rector of the University; Pastor N. FURNAJIEFF, Representative of all the Protestant Churches; DOKCHO ATA

NASOFF.

II-AID NEEDED IN DISTRESS

Sofia, Bulgaria, July 31 1913. By Cable. Colonel Roosevelt, New York :

Bulgaria asks aid and sympathy of generous Americans. Distress great. Thousands wounded. Soldiers and homeless refugees

arriving daily. Most of the harvest will be lost. Many widows and orphans must be aided for months after demobilization. DOKCHO ATANASOFF,

Treasurer Christian Herald Balkan Fund,

III THE GREEK POINT OF VIEW

[blocks in formation]

Editor-in-Chief of The Outlook: The new war was the climax of the dishonest policies of Bulgaria toward her former allies. Both Greece and Servia helped directly and indirectly in her war against Turkey. She did not only disregard this substantial help, but, engrossed by her muchexaggerated victories, she turned against her allies and tried by all the Oriental tricks of her politicians to defraud them.

From beginning to end Bulgaria has shown such a lack of foresight and decency that she lost the sympathies of her best friends even before the recent massacres.

It is untrue that Bulgaria alone has borne the brunt of the fighting with the Turks. You must not forget that Greece, during all that period of a treacherous armistice, has continued fighting in Epirus and in the Egean, keeping at the same time Turkey from transporting troops from Asia Minor. Servia and Montenegro played also their role with gallantry and honor.

The pourparlers at London for the conclusion of a permanent peace failed to materialize it because of Dr. Daneff's ultra chau

war.

vinism. Bulgaria's greediness was of such a magnitude that naturally the allies resented it. The war being not one of conquest but of liberation of our unfortunate brethren, all the allies had to settle their territorial disputes in a spirit such as to avoid a fratricidal Bulgaria, with the assistance of the others, was in fact getting more territory than all the others put together, but, not satisfied with that, she wanted it all. While Sofia pretended to ignore what there was going on in Macedonia, her armies, acting under specific orders, were gradually and stubbornly invading territories captured by the Greeks, and insisted upon Servia's keeping a disloyal treaty.

The Greek Government made so many concessions in order to avoid a new war that it nearly risked its long-standing confidence of the Greek people.

Bulgaria's ambition was to take Salonika from the Greeks by the force of arms, and to that end she fortified all the surrounding strategical points. On June 19 a general assault against both Servia and Greece was ordered without a formal declaration of war, which was against the international laws.

Who can blame the Greeks and Servians for beating the Bulgars?

Who can dare call the Bulgars a brave

nation and their officers efficient? Is it bravery to flee panic-stricken before the enemy and in their wild flight to pass through sword and fire, innocent women, children, priests, and old men? Have you not read the appalling descriptions of the new St. Bartholomew nights that have taken place at Nigrita, Demir-Hissar, Serres, Drama, etc.?

You may, of course, have your personal feelings for either of the Balkan States; yet, in the name of God and of humanity, you should not pay eulogies to a nation which in a single fortnight lost all its pride and its honor, not in the battlefield, but in the peaceful cities and villages it has destroyed. Yours very truly,

DEMETRE VAFIADI, Consul of Greece.

IV-KING FERDINAND'S PART
BY E. F. BALDWIN

The peoples of the Balkan Peninsula represent fierce racial, religious, social, and economic jealousies. The peoples are naive enough to be quickly inflamed to deeds of violence and even savagery by those who would excite their tempers on anything concerning their next-door neighbors. For centuries Turkey and certain of the European Powers have taken advantage of this. proportion as they could set Bulgaria and Servia, for instance, by the ears, Bulgarian and Servian national interests were checked.

In

[blocks in formation]

ress, slow but sure, of such a race, the am-
bition of its ruler seemed to be justified-
namely, that it would ultimately become
the Prussia of the Balkan Peninsula. Other
States might outstrip it in certain direc-
tions-Rumania, for instance, in rooting itself
among the European Powers, or Greece in
individual brilliancy, as shown in the con-
structive work of a Venezelos.
But in stay-

ing power, in reserved force, the Bulgars are
justly notable, and in the long run that is the
quality that counts.

To this people came a new ruler—a foreigner, Prince Ferdinand of Coburg, really an Orleans prince, for his mother was the astute and indomitable Princess Clementine of France, perhaps the most remarkable member of the royal house displaced by Napoleon III. Her ambition and perseverance were even compared to those of Catherine of Russia and Elizabeth of England. Her son inherits these qualities. But it may be

questioned, one thinks, whether he has an equal amount of wisdom to go with them. Succeeding the rule of the beloved Prince Alexander of Battenberg, and especially that of Premier Stambulov, the greatest man modern Bulgaria has yet produced, Prince Ferdinand was long regarded askance by many. His position with them was not im proved by his willingness to change his religion when it suited a political exigency. But the Bulgars liked his perseverance, and it seemed to triumph along many lines. Fortunately, the influence of Robert College, an American institution at Constantinople, where many Bulgarians have been educated, helped the Government. When the war with Turkey came, Bulgaria seemed the strongest of the Balkan States in every respect.

She has now fallen from that high estate, and chiefly because her ruler was not as wise as he is ambitious. When finally he changed his princely rank to a kingly rank he was not satisfied with the title of King-he would be a Czar. When, by the Peace of London, Bulgaria received two-thirds of the territory taken from Turkey, he was again unsatisfied he would have three-fourths. Because of this ambition the whole Balkan Peninsula has been again drenched with blood, and, what is worse, there have been atrocities rivaling those other Bulgarian atrocities of 1876. Because of an insensate ambition three hundred million dollars has been added to the billion which the war with Turkey may have cost. Because of this ambition the ideal of Balkan federation has been eclipsed. Will it remain eclipsed? One does not believe it. The basic qualities of a people are mighty, and must in the end prevail.

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »