« PreviousContinue »
LARGER VOLUME OF MONEY NEEDED. John Locke, in his “Considerations,” etc., published in 1690, said:
“Money, while the same quality of it is passing up and down the kingdom in trade, is really a standing measure of the falling and rising value of other things in reference to one another, and the alteration in price is truly in them only. But if you increase or lessen the quantity of money current in traffic in any place, then the alteration of value is in the money." Locke further said:
"The value of money in any one country is the present quantity of the current money in the country in proportion to the present trade."
The historian, Hume, says:
"It is not difficult to perceive that it is the total quantity of the money in circulation, in any country, which determines what portion of that quantity shall exchange for a certain portion of the goods or commodities of that country.
"It is the proportion between the circulating money and the commodities in the market which determines the price."
"The amount of money current in a state represents everything that is purchasable on the surface of the state. If the quantity of purchasable articles increases while the quantity of money remains the same, the value of the money increases in the same ratio; if the quantity of money increases while the quantity of purchasable articles remains the same, the value of money decreases in the same ratio."
James Mill, in his treatise on “Political Economy," says:
“And again, in whatever degree, therefore, the quantity of money is increased or diminished, other things remaining the same, in that same proportion the value of the whole, and of every other part, is reciprocally diminished or increased.”
John Stuart Mill (Political Economy) says:
"The value of money, other things being the same, varies inversely as its quantity; every increase of quantity lowering the value and every diminution raising it in a ratio exactly equivalent.”
“Alterations in the cost of the production of the precious metals do not act upon the value of money except just in proportion as they increase or diminish its quantity."
Ricardo (reply to Bosanquet) says:
"The value of money in any country is determined by the amount existing. * * *
“The commodities would rise or fall in price in proportion to the increase or diminution of money, I assume, as a fact that is incontrovertible.” * * * Ricardo further says:
“There can exist no depreciation in money but from excess; however de. based a coinage may become it will preserve its mint value; that is to say, it
will pass in circulation for the intrinsic value of the bullion which it ought to contain, provided it be not in too great abundance."
William Huskisson (“The Depreciation of the Currency,” 1819) says: "If the quantity of gold in a country whose currency consists of gold should be increased in any given proportion, the quantity of other articles and the demand for them remaining the same, the value of any given commodity measured in the coin of that country would be increased in the same proportion."
Sir James Graham says: "The value of money is in the inverse ratio of its, quantity, the supply of commodities remaining the same."
Torrens, in his work on Political Economy, says: "Gold is a commodity governed, as all other commodities are governed, by the law of supply and demand. If the value of all other commodities, in relation to gold, rises and falls as their quantities diminish or increase, the value of gold in relation to commodities must rise and fall as its quantity is diminished or increased."
“The sum total of the precious metals is reckoned at 50 milliards, one-half gold and one-half silver. If, by a stroke of the pen, they suppress one of these metals in the monetary service, they double the demand for the other metal, to the ruin of all debtors."
"The purchasing power of money is in direct proportion to the volume of money existing." •
Prof. Francis A. Walker, in his work on "Money" (page 57), says: "The value of money in any country is determined by the amount existing. "Its (money) power of acquisition depends not on its substance, but on its quantity." [Paulus, author of the Pandects, sixth century.]
REPUBLICANS SEEK CHANGE OF CONTRACT.
The following extract from an argument made by the Hon. W. B. Fleming. of Louisville, Ky., is a complete refutation of the charge of "repudiation" made against the advocates of the free coinage of silver:
The right of free coinage came down to our fathers from the common law of England, and was embodied in the Constitution and the early acts of Congress.
The act of 1792, establishing the mint, provided for the free and unlimited coinage of silver and gold on a ratio of 15 to 1, and 'that all the coin should De legal tender for all debts, public and private.'
The act approved January 18, 1837, reiterated said provisions of the act of 1792 with the modification that the gold in the gold dollar is fixed at 23.2 fine instead of 24.75, as in the previous act, thus changing the ratio from 15 to 1 to 16 to 1.
By the act of 1873 silver dollars were dropped from coinage, and by the act of 1874, adopting the Revised Statutes, the legal-tender quality of silver coins was limited to five dollars.
The Bland act of February 28, 1878, provides “that there shall be coined at tbe several mints of the United States silver dollars as provided in the act of January 18, 1837," and further directed the purchase of silver bullion at market prices in amounts not less than two millions nor more than four joillions dollars' worth per month, and for the coinage of said bullion into dollars of 41242 grains of standard silver each, and repealed all acts inconsistent therewith.
The act of July 14, 1890, known as the Sherman act, directed the Secretary of the Treasury to purchase at the market price 4,500,000 ounces of silver bullion, and to issue, in payment for such purchases, Treasury notes of the United States, said notes to be redeemable in coin, and repealed so much of the Bland act as required the monthly purchase and coinage of not less than two millions nor more than four millions of dollars' worth of silver bullion.
Act approved November 3, 1893, repealed the purchasing clause of the Sherman act, and declared it “to be the policy of the United States to continue the use of both gold and silver as standard money, and to coin both gold and silver into money of equal intrinsic and exchangeable value, such equality to be secured through international agreement or by such safeguards of legislation as will insure the maintenance of the parity in value of the coins of the two metals."
In 1878 Congress passed the concurrent resolution known as the Matthews resolution, which will be found in the chapter on Mr. McKinley's silver record.
So great an expounder of the Constitution as Daniel Webster held to the opinion that "gold and silver at rates fixed by Congress constitute the legal standard of values in this country, and that neither Congress nor any State has authority to establish any other standard or to displace this standard."
The act authorizing the refunding of the national debt (1870) and the act to provide for the resumption of specie payments (1875) under which the bonds extant, including those issued by Secretary Carlisle, both provide that the bonds issued thereunder shall be redeemable in coin of the present standard value, and the bonds so issued all so stipulate on their face.
Section 3693 of the Revised Statutes provides that the faith of the United States is pledged to the payment in coin of all the obligations of the United States except in cases where the law authorizing the issue of such obligations has expressly provided that the same shall be paid in lawful money or other currency than gold and silver.
That private creditors understand the law to provide for payment in gold or silver at the option of the debtor is clear from the fact that none of them demand payment in gold. That public creditors so understand is equally clear from the fact that Morgan, Belmont & Co. concluded an arrangement with the Secretary of the Treasury for the purchase of $62,400,000 of bonds for which they offered to give a sum that would have netted the Government $16,174,770 more than the amount actually paid by them provided Congress would give authority to the Secretary of the Treasury to contract for payment in gold instead of payment in coin. This option was presented to the Congress by the President in a special message on February 13, 1895, and was refused.
Does any sane man believe that there is any obligation, either legal or moral, on the part of the Government to pay these bonds in gold in the face of these facts?
Thus, the defense against the charge of "dishonesty" and "repudiation" is not only good in law but, as no code of ethics, ancient or modern, teaches that it is dishonest to settle debts in the lawful money existing at the time of the contract, is equally sound in morals; and, therefore, is a complete vindication of free coinage advocates against all charges brought or which can he brought against them.
It is well known that the acts of 1873 and 1874 surreptitiously demonetized silver. The Democratic platform simply proposes to restore the condition existing up to 1873. This and nothing more. We have undone the wrong of 1874. Is it dishonest to undo the wrong of 1873? If demonetization was wrong must not full remonetization be right? If not, why not?
If remonetization "scale down” the credits of the rich, it will only scale them back to the old level from which they were and ought not to have been raised. If it be right so to "shade down” the values of money and credits and "shade up" the value of commodities, good morals cannot require that we ask the consent of the Shylocks of the world, who procured the passage of the acts of 1873 and 1874 and who control the financial policy of England if not of Germany, Austria, and the United States.
Suppose the First National Bank of New York wanted to borrow $100,000, and its directors, at a meeting called for the purpose of authorizing such contract, refused to authorize the contract to provide for payment in gold, but provided by resolution for payment in coin, that is in gold or silver at the option of the bank. What would be thought of the president of the bank if he should nullify such action by waiving the option? He would be instantly dismissed as untrue to his trust. In like manner the people who are practically stockholders in our body politic have time and again refused through their representatives in Congress to surrender their option to pay the public indebtedness in silver coin.
They who would change the terms of the contract by changing the value of the dollar and insist upon payment in an ever-appreciating dollar are the real repudiationists. He who stands by the contract and the Constitution is not guilty of immorality; but he who is engaged in the attempt to so change the contract as to enrich the creditor by adding to the burdens of the debtor is the dishonest man.
V SECRETARY CARLISLE'S LETTER. In a letter, dated September 12, 1896, Secretary Carlisle said as follows on the subject of the maintenance of parity between gold and silver: * * * *
“With knowledge of these assurances the people have received these coins, and have relied confidently upon the good faith of their Government, and the confidence thus inspired has been a most potent factor in the maintenance of the parity. The public has been satisfied that, so long as our present monetary system is preserved, the Government will do whatever its moral obligations and express declarations require it to do, and very largely as a consequence of this confidence in the good faith of the executive authorities the silver coins have not depreciated in value. It is not doubted that whatever can be lawfully done to maintain equality in the exchangeable value of the two metals will be done whenever it becomes necessary, and, although silver dollars and silver certificates have not, up to the present time, been received in exchange for gold, yet, if the time shall ever come when the parity cannot be otherwise maintained, such exchanges will be made. It is the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury, and of all other public officials, to execute in good faith the policy declared by Congress, and whenever he shall be satisfied that the silver dollar cannot be kept equal in purchasing power with the gold dollar, except by receiving it in exchange for the gold dollar, when such exchange is demanded, it will be his duty to adopt that course. But if our present policy is adhered to, and the coinage is kept within reasonable limits, the means heretofore employed for the maintenance of the parity will doubtless be found sufficient in the future, and our silver dollars and silver certifi. cates will continue to circulate at par with gold, thus enabling the people to use both metals instead of only one, as would be the case if the parity were destroyed by the free coinage."
(hairman Faulkner Protests Against it in a Dictated Interview.
WASHINGTON, Sept. 17.-Late this afternoon Senator Faulkner, Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Committee, gave out the following dictated interview on the Carlisle lettr published this morning:
"I have read the letter of Secretary Carlisle, and my astonishment is equal to my regret that the Secretary of the Treasury should have announced a policy which invites a depreciation in the currency and will at once encourage the gold speculators and money-lenders of the country to additional raids upon our gold reserve, with a view of forcing the Government to continue issuing interest-bearing bonds to carry out the policy suggestd in the letter of the Secretary of the Treasury. I shall not comment upon the reasons which gentlemen holding the views of Mr. Carlisle have as to why the silver certificate and the silver dollar have to-day in this country the same purchasing power as the gold dollar, but I cannot refuse to express my absolute dissent from the policy announced by Mr. Carlisle as the one which will govern the Treasury in reference to redeeruing silver certificates and coineil silver dollars in gold.