Chapter VI: Part 6

In all the broad range of articles that, in a state of civilization, are needed by man, the only absolutely indispensable thing is money. For everything else there is some substitute--some alternative; for money there is none. Among articles of food, if beef rise in price, the demand for it will diminish, as a certain proportion of the people will resort to other forms of food. If, by reason of its continued scarcity, beef continue to rise, the demand will further diminish, until finally it may altogether cease and center on something else. So in the matter of clothing. If any one fabric become scarce, and consequently dear, the demand will diminish, and, if the price continue rising, it is only a question of time for the demand to cease and be transferred to some alternative.

But this can not be the case with money. It can never be driven out of use. There is not, and there never can be, any substitute for it. It may become so scarce that one dollar at the end of a decade may buy ten times as much as at the beginning; that is to say, it may cost in labor or commodities ten times as much to get it, but at whatever cost, the people must have it. Without money the demands of civilization could not be supplied.

Money was the most potent instrumentality in the evolution of society from a low to a high plane of civilization. It is valueless to man in isolation. It is indispensable to man in organized society. It is as necessary for the proprietary distribution of wealth as railroads and steamships are to its physical distribution. The aggregate force of the demand for money in any country depends upon the numbers of the population; with a stationary population the demand is steady, with an increasing population the demand increases, and in order to maintain undisturbed the equation of supply and demand the volume of money should be increased in at least a ratio corresponding to that of the increase of population.

There are certain circumstances that to some extent disturb the relations between population and money supply, such as the broadening of the areas of population, and the multiplication of money centers. These circumstances might render necessary a larger percentage of increase in the money volume than would be indicated by the increase of the population.

But under any circumstances the smallest money-increase that will suffice to maintain the equity of time contracts is an increase corresponding to the increase of numbers of the population.

Under conditions of unvarying demand and unvarying supply the value of the unit of money would be unvarying. If as population and demand increase the supply of money be proportionately increased, there is no possibility of a change in the value of the unit of money.

The constant and unceasing effort to exchange services and all forms of property, which have but limited command over the objects of human desire, for money, that sole instrumentality that has unlimited command over such objects, is, and ever will be, eager, intense, and unwavering.

With population and consequent demand rapidly increasing how do the advocates of the gold standard expect to increase the money volume of the country in this proportion, while the yield of gold, instead of increasing in proportion to demand, is every day becoming less and less capable of meeting the requirements of the arts alone?

THE QUANTITY OF MONEY IN CIRCULATION SHOULD INCREASE IN A RATIO NOT LESS THAN THE RATIO OF INCREASE OF POPULATION.

It will be admitted that if the population of a country be increased by any given percentage there will be a proportionate increase in the demand for all articles that supply human needs. If the population increases by 3 per cent., there will be needed 3 per cent. more house-room, 3 per cent. more furniture, 3 per cent. more food, 3 per cent. more of all things that enter into consumption. These things can only be got by a demand first made on money. Then why not 3 per cent. more money?

The present monetary circulation of this country including gold, silver, and paper, is represented to be $1,700,000,000. As our population doubles in thirty years, the rate of increase is 3-1/3 per cent.

If the money volume be not increased by a proportion at least as great as this, the true relation between the supply of money and the demand for it will not be maintained. The demand increasing as the population increases, while the supply either does not increase at all or increases in a degree incommensurate with the demand, the money volume shrinks and the purchasing power of the unit becomes greater by reason of the increased keenness of competition to get it. This is but another mode of stating that the prices of all products of human labor decline. Prices falling, business ceases to be profitable, stores and work-shops close, and men are relegated to idleness.

THE QUANTITATIVE THEORY OF MONEY--THE VALUE OF EACH DOLLAR DEPENDS ON THE NUMBER OF DOLLARS OUT.

Thus by the universal competition to get it the value of the dollar is made to depend upon the number of dollars that are out. This is a principle that lies at the very foundation of the science of money. The law, stated broadly, is that the value of each unit of money in any country at any given time depends on the whole number of units in circulation in that country. The larger the number of units out, population remaining the same, the less must be the value of each unit; the smaller the number of units out, population remaining the same, the greater the value of each.

Notwithstanding the variance sometimes found between the premises and the conclusions of economic writers, there is no economist of repute who does not admit this to be a fundamental principle.

On the theory I have propounded therefore 3-1/3 per cent. of $1,700,000,000, or $56,000,000, is the minimum amount of money that should be added to the currency of this country during the present year.

Assuming the population of to-day to be 65,000,000 and the ratio of its annual increase 3-1/3 per cent., the population of next year will be 67,166,600. The percentage of monetary increase to be provided for that year should therefore be baaed on the increased number. And so on for each succeeding year.

I have thought best to collate a variety of citations from the most distinguished authorities on financial economy to support my contention that, _ceteris paribus_, the value of each dollar depends on the number of dollars in circulation.

John Locke, in his "Considerations," etc., published in 1690, said:

Money, while the same quantity 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 that 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.

Fichte says:

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 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.

And again:

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. * * *

That 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
debased 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.

In this case Ricardo's illustration is the supposed case of a country actually using one million gold pieces each containing 100 grains. He maintains that they would be of the same purchasing power, if the Government took out 1 grain, or even 50 grains, the quantity remaining the same, but that if, from the grains so deducted, an additional number of pieces were struck, a corresponding depreciation would result.

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.

Wolowski says:

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.

Cernuschi says:

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's] power of acquisition depends not on its substance,
but on its quantity. [Paulus, author of the Pandects, sixth
century.]

Professor De Colange, in the American Cyclopedia of Commerce, article on "Money," says:

The rate at which money exchanges for other things is determined
by its quantity. * * *

Supposing the amount of trade and mode of circulation to remain
stationary, if the quantity of money be increased, its value will
fall, and the price of other commodities will proportionally
rise, as the latter will then exchange against a greater amount
of money; if, on the other hand, the quantity of money be
reduced, its value will be raised, and prices in a corresponding
degree diminished, as commodities will then have to be exchanged
for a less amount of money. * * *

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 part is
reciprocally diminished or increased.

A curtailment of the volume of money in a country will, _ceteris paribus_, increase the value of the money of that country. All the authorities agree that this law applies to all forms of money, whatever the material; so that it applies to paper money with precisely the same force that it applies to metallic money.

Mr. Stanley Jevons, in his work on "Money and the Mechanism of Exchange," says:

There is plenty of evidence to prove that an inconvertible paper
money, if carefully limited in quantity, can retain its full
value. Such was the case with the Bank of England notes for
several years after the suspension of specie payments in 1797,
and such is the case with the present notes of the Bank of
France.

Mr. Gallatin said:

If in a country which wants and possesses a metallic currency of
seventy millions of dollars, a paper currency to the same amount
should be substituted, the seventy millions in gold and silver,
being no longer wanted for that purpose, will be exported, and
the returns may be converted into a productive capital, and add
an equal amount to the wealth of the country.

In his Proposal for an Economic and Secure Currency Ricardo says:

A well regulated paper currency is so great an improvement in
commerce, that I should greatly regret if prejudice should induce
us to return to a system of less utility. The introduction of the
precious metals for the purposes of money may with truth be
considered as one or the most important steps toward the
improvement of commerce and the arts of civilized life; but it is
no less true, that with the advancement of knowledge and science,
we discover that it would be another improvement to banish them
again from the employment to which, during a less enlightened
period, they had been so advantageously applied.

Mr. J. R. McCulloch, in commenting on the principles of money laid down by Ricardo, says:

He examined the circumstances which determine the value of money
* * * and be showed that * * * its value will depend on the
extent to which it may be issued compared with the demand. This
is a principle of great importance; for, it shows that intrinsic
worth is not necessary to a currency, and that provided the
supply of paper notes, declared to be a legal tender, be
sufficiently limited, their value may be maintained on a par with
the value of gold, or raised to any higher level. If, therefore,
it were practicable to devise a plan for preserving the value of
paper on a level with that of gold, without making it convertible
into coin at the pleasure of the holder, the heavy expense of a
metallic currency would be saved.

It appears, therefore, that if there were perfect security that
the power of issuing paper money would not be abused; that is, if
there were perfect security for its being issued in such
quantities, as to preserve its value relatively to the mass of
circulating commodities nearly equal, the precious metals might
be entirely dispensed with, not only as a circulating medium, but
also as a standard to which to refer the value of paper.

In adopting a paper circulation--

Says Lord Overstone--

we must unavoidably depend for a maintenance of its due value
upon the adoption of a strict and judicious rule for the
regulation of its amount.

Lord Overstone further declared that:

The value of the paper currency results from its being kept at
the same amount the metallic currency would have been.

Alexander Baring, in his evidence before the secret committee of the House of Lords in 1819, said:

The reduction of paper would produce all those effects which
arise from the reduction in the amount of money in any country.

Prof. F. A. Walker says:

Let me repeat, money is to be known by its doing a certain work.
Money is not gold, though gold may be money; sometimes gold is
money, and sometimes it is not. Money is no one thing, no group
of many things having any material property in common. On the
contrary, anything may be money; and anything, in a given time
and place, is money which then and there performs a certain
function. Always and everywhere that which does the money-work
is the money-thing.

Sir Archibald Alison says:

The suspension of specie payment in 1797, making bank notes a
legal tender receivable for taxes by providing Great Britain with
an adequate internal currency, averted the catastrophe then so
general upon the Continent, and gave it at the same time an
extraordinary degree of prosperity. Such was the commencement of
the paper system in Great Britain, which ultimately produced such
astonishing effects, and brought the struggle [of the Napoleonic
wars] to a triumphant close.

THE TRUE MONEY STANDARD.

The true money standard of any country is not the material of which the money is made. The standard is not a concrete object, but a numerical relation. It is the relation between the number of units composing the monetary circulation of the country and the numbers of the population.

It is the legal-tender function that constitutes money. It is the power which the law imparts to any material to pay debts and liquidate obligations. It can not for a moment be doubted that the money function, being conferred by the supreme authority, is the all-sufficient guarantee of the money value. There is no necessity for re-enforcing that value with any inferior value that may attach to the material on which the money stamp is placed. The money function is immeasurably the most important that can be conferred by society upon any material, and it is absurd to urge that that function is not of itself sufficient for the maintenance of the value of money. All the value that money can possibly have--the totality of value that can exist in the shape of money in any country--will attach to anything upon which the sovereign authority stamps it, whether the material on which the stamp is placed be gold, silver, paper, or anything else. Legislators or executive officers of the Government, by increasing or decreasing the volume of money, correspondingly decrease or increase the value of each unit of that money. For no matter how many or how few the units may be, the total value of the money of the country will be comprised within the total number of those units. A change in the number of the units effects a proportionate change in the value of each unit, and whatever the value of the unit may be, it is of the utmost importance that that value should remain undisturbed.

It is absurd to maintain that a gold unit, which, as time goes on, is constantly increasing in purchasing power; is a better unit than a unit of any other material that maintains unchanging value through time.

Whenever the business of the country accommodates itself to a given number of units, the only question for the Government to deal with is to maintain that value as free from disturbance as possible; and according to all authorities on political economy that can only be done by increasing or decreasing the number of units in circulation in accordance with the demands of increasing or decreasing population.

If it be admitted that one of the most important offices of government is to see that the equities are preserved between its citizens (and if this be not so, to what purpose are our courts of equity instituted?), then it can not be denied that it is one of the highest offices of government to see that money, which measures all equities, and which must for all time continue to be the principal measure in the service of civilized society, shall be of unchanging value. It is impossible to secure this characteristic of uniformity in the value of money if we are to select as the only material on which to stamp the money function a substance whose yearly production is becoming more and more limited, and the prospect of whose sufficient yield becomes less and less encouraging.

IF SILVER REMAIN DEMONETIZED AND GOLD CONTINUE DECREASING, WHERE IS THE WORLD'S FUTURE MONEY SUPPLY TO COME FROM?

If the distinguished authorities I have quoted are correct, that a diminution of the volume of money increases the value of the money unit--which is but another form of stating that it lowers prices and produces stagnation, distress, and discontent,--what good reason can be offered by the advocates of the gold standard for confining the business of this rapidly growing country to a basis of gold, when it is well known that the entire stocks of gold and silver together are now insufficient to serve the purpose of the world's money, and have to be supplemented and re-enforced by large issues of paper notes? Do they not reflect that the production of gold is constantly diminishing and is likely to continue to diminish? And do they not know that our population is growing at the rate of over 3 per cent. per annum and will double in thirty years? Do they mean that the money volume which serves a population of 65,000,000, and is far below the needs of that population, will suffice for the 130,000,000 of the next generation? To be sure, if we are to take no note of prices, the question is a simple one.

But prices must be taken into account. The entire money question is one of prices. When it is said that money is scarce, what is meant is that business is depressed and that money is difficult to get, at the present range of prices. Should prices fall 25 per cent. money would be found plentiful enough to conduct exchange at the lower range. But when prices fall, goods sell below cost, business is unprofitable, workshops are closed, and men are thrown into idleness. If lowering prices do not affect injuriously either the business or the prosperity of the country, then it makes no difference what the volume of money may be; a small amount will meet the requirements as well as a large amount. In that case, the gold standard is as good as any.

But if gold alone is sufficient to bear all the enormous monetary burdens of the Western world, why do the advocates of the gold standard admit the necessity for any more circulation? To be logical, instead of favoring an increase of credit money, which has always lurking within it an element of danger to the business of the community, they should demand the retirement of the $347,000,000 of greenbacks and the $350,000,000 of coined silver, and base the business of the country exclusively on what they call "honest money." If that should be done all that could happen would be a fall in prices. Judging by the experience of the past it would not be surprising if the next move of the gold-standard men would be an agitation for the retirement and cancellation of the greenbacks. Such a movement is fully in harmony with the opinions of the gold-standard advocates for the past twenty years. Indeed, the Secretary of the Treasury who took charge of the finances at the opening of the last Administration, himself a banker, recommended the demonetization of the greenbacks almost as vigorously as he opposed silver.

MONEY VALUABLE ONLY FOR THE IMPORTANT SERVICE IT PERFORMS.

Money is valuable rather for the service which it performs than for the material of which it is composed.

When we consider the transcendantly important character of the service which money performs--when we reflect that, without it, the achievement of an advanced civilization would be impossible, we can not escape the conclusion that, compared with the value of that service, the commodity value of any material on which the money function may be stamped is too trifling to merit serious attention.

This will be made clear by reflection on the necessities of the situation.

So long as society chooses to maintain the automatic or metallic money-system, it must be obvious that to escape the evils that would result from a sudden and overwhelming increase in the supply of the money-material as compared with the entire stock in existence, and the infinitely more serious evils that would result from a wholly insufficient yearly addition to that stock, it must have on hand an enormous accumulation of the metals on which the stamp is placed. It must be manifest that no material would be fit for universal acceptance for so important a function as money unless there were available so great a quantity of it that no sudden shock could be inflicted on society by ordinary fluctuations in the current yield, or in the current consumption in the arts.

But, in the nature of things, a supply sufficient to effect that result would be so enormous as practically to destroy the market value of the material as a mere commodity if the money function and use were withdrawn from it.

THE MONEY DEMAND, NOT THE COMMODITY DEMAND, THAT GIVES GOLD ITS VALUE.

Mr. Giffen the statistician of the London Board of Trade, in an article recently published in an English magazine, berating and deriding the bi-metallists, maintains that it is not the demand for gold as money, but for gold as a commodity, to be used in the arts, that determines its value.

To prove his case, Mr. Giffen states that the supply of gold is about $95,000,000 per annum, the annual demand for the arts $60,000,000, or about two-thirds of the annual supply; while the demand for money is only $35,000,000, or about one-third that supply. He therefore argues that the art demand, being the greater of the two, contributes more largely to the maintenance of the value of gold than does the demand for that article as money. It is hardly necessary to point out the absurdity of this claim.

The commodity demand in any one year is not made upon the current year's supply, but upon the entire amount in existence, which, is estimated to be about $4,000,000,000. If the demand for the arts entirely ceased, would the addition, to the money volume, of the $60,000,000 now used in the arts produce any appreciable effect on the value of the $4,000,000,000 in existence?

On the other hand, what is the demand on gold for the money use? All the labor and all the salable property of the western world are constantly offered in exchange for it. It is a moderate estimate to assume that each dollar is earned, demanded, and paid once a week, or fifty times in each year. This constitutes a total annual money demand of $200,000,000,000, compared with which colossal sum how inconsequential is the commodity demand of $60,000,000 in maintaining the value of gold.

The amount of gold annually used in the arts is not very definitely ascertained, but in 1886 it was estimated by the then Director of the United States Mint to be $46,000,000 per annum. Mr. Giffen estimated it at $60,000,000. It is my opinion that the arts forage on the money-stock of gold to the extent of about the entire annual yield. The bullion or commodity value of that metal being determined by its money value, whoever desires to use it for any purpose other than money, takes the bullion at its coinage value, or else melts up the coin.

Were gold demonetized and deprived of its money function, and its demand confined solely to that arising from its adaptability for various other purposes, the present stock of that metal on hand and in use as money would, according to the estimates of the director of the mint, supply the art demand for more than seventy-five years to come. But, assuming that the estimate of the Director of the Mint is too low, and that my own is nearer the truth, there is at least fifty years' supply on hand. Were there fifty or seventy-five years' supply of any other commodity on hand in the market, what would be the commercial value of that commodity? What would be the value of copper, of brass, or of iron, if there were fifty or seventy-five years' supply of either of those metals in the market for disposal at one time? Nobody can pretend that any commodity of which there is an available supply on hand equivalent to the whole demand for fifty or seventy-five years can have any but the most trifling value.

Contrary, therefore, to the generally received conviction that the commodity demand is the dominating force in fixing the value of gold I maintain and insist that the commodity demand, if entering into the account at all, is insignificant. It is the supremely important _money_-demand, as correlated to the supply, that fixes the value of all money of every description whatsoever.

The demand for gold as a commodity is limited and fluctuating, but when that metal is invested by law with the higher function of money, and thus constituted a common denominator of all values, that limited and fluctuating demand is changed to an unlimited and constant one, which fixes its value for other and inferior uses. If the commodity-demand for gold were, as many believe it to be, essential to its acceptance as money, it would be a great misfortune to society. The happiness and prosperity of the world, if not wholly dependent upon, are largely influenced by, steadiness in the value of money, and this can not exist without steadiness in its volume. Whatever demand exists for gold as a commodity can only affect the volume of money injuriously--that is to say, by decreasing it. The admonition of history is that a deficiency in the money-supply is more probable, and infinitely more to be feared than an excess, and this deficiency is, in great measure, caused by the insidious and constant encroachment, upon the precious metals, of demands for them for other than the money use. When we contrast the magnitude of the world's interests and equities, which rest on steadiness in the value of money, with the comparative unimportance of the uses of the metals as commodities, it becomes apparent that the subjection of the value of money to disturbance from the demands for gilded signs, looking-glasses, bangles and breast-pins, is an evil for which society is but poorly compensated by the benefits derived from such uses.

Whatever other quality gold may posses than as the bearer of the money function is inconsistent with the healthful and proper exercise of the task assigned it as such. Whenever any portion of the metal is used for any other purpose than money it destroys the money and thus changes the value of every unit of money in circulation, for, at already stated--other things remaining unchanged--the value of each dollar depends on the number of dollars that are out. Without forewarning, and with out knowledge on the part of the people, large amounts of the money volume, on which so infinite a number of equities rest, and on the basis of which all debts and time contracts have been entered into, are, as it were, surreptitiously abstracted and appropriated to other and always inferior uses, for by far the highest and noblest use of any material upon which the money function has been conferred, is the money use. No other use can possibly be so high or so noble as that of maintaining all equities undisturbed.

It seems unworthy a highly developed civilization which, as to all subjects other than money, regulates its affairs by the application of intelligence, and bases its policies upon exact data, scientifically ascertained and correctly applied, to depend for its money system upon the accidents, make-shifts, and expedients to which primitive society, by reason of the limitation of its powers and the undeveloped condition of the human mind and hand, was compelled to resort. If the quantitative theory of money be correct--if the money standard be, as I insist it is, a steady and duly proportioned numerical relation existing between the units of population and units of money--it is the duty of society and government to see that as far as practicable that principle is put into operation.

The history of the production of the precious metals from the remotest ages demonstrates that under the automatic system of money this can only be effected by the unrestricted coinage of, and conferring the full legal-tender function on, both metals.

THE PROPOSITION THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD LEND MONEY ON THE SECURITY OF REAL ESTATE.

If a change in the whole number of money units in circulation relatively to population and business do not affect the value of each unit, then no objection can be found to the proposition recently presented in the Senate by the distinguished Senator from California, which created some surprise among Senators. The resolution of that Senator contemplates a loan by the Government to holders of real estate based upon the security of the property; and the issue of a large amount of Treasury notes for that purpose. Certainly, if a dollar, in order to perform properly the money function, must have in it or back of it a dollar's worth of material, there can be no safer security found than that suggested by the Senator from California, namely, the arable land of the United States.

It is the most absolutely secure of all securities; it can neither run away nor be stolen, it can not be burnt up, lost, or destroyed.

Arable land is, in and of itself, capable of supplying all basic wants, and must be always in demand, while gold, so far as concerns any use to which it is, or can be applied, might be dispensed with altogether, with scarcely any inconvenience to society.

Certainly money based on land would seem to be better than money based on gold. Senators who are sticklers for so-called "intrinsic value" money, and "full-value" money, should be found supporting that proposition. But it must, on reflection, be obvious that, other things remaining unchanged, whenever the total number of units of money (or dollars) in the circulation of a country increases, the value of each unit will decrease. It is an axiom of political economy that no amount of increase in the number of units of money in a country increases the aggregate value of the money of that country.

The aggregate value of the money in circulation in a country, can, _ceteris paribus_, be increased only by an increase of population and business, that is to say, by an increase in the demand for it.

If, without increase of population, the money of a country be increased from, say, $1,000,000,000 to $2,000,000,000, the effect would be not to add to the aggregate value of the money of the country, but to decrease the value or purchasing power of each unit of the money, so that it would take ten dollars to buy what had before cost but five.

GOLD A FETICH--DEMAND FOR A STANDARD OF JUSTICE.

The history of the world affords no example of a money system regulated by human prescience and intelligent calculation. It is not too much to say that the money system of the world--the most important associative instrumentality of civilization, in so far as it is not controlled for their own advantage by the creditor classes--is practically the result of accident. We are even less logical than the ancients, for they availed themselves of the entire supply of money possible to their civilization and development. They used the full yield of both silver and gold, while we, in order to line the pockets of a privileged caste of money-lenders, reduce the money volume to the lowest possible minimum by discarding one of those metals and making all debts payable in the other.

Gold has been erected into a fetich by methods familiar to the pagan priesthood, who forbade investigation of the claims of their idol to the superstitious veneration of their followers. The quality of a universal standard claimed for gold has been set up by the classes which, like that priesthood, had interests to be served by the superstition. All things else may be subjected to the test of reason and argument, but the slightest approach to a scrutiny of the claims of gold as a much-vaunted universal standard of valuation has been repelled by interested casuists and sophists who constitute the sacred guard of the temple of the idol.

The people of this country, Mr. President, begin very seriously to doubt the sacredness of a so-called standard by which they have been robbed of thousands of millions of dollars--a standard that despoils and impoverishes the toiling masses, in order to swell the plethoric pockets of the privileged few. From all parts of the Republic we learn that the people have become aroused on this subject, that they have discovered gold to be a standard, not of valuation, but of spoliation and confiscation.

The world at large shares to a great extent in the doubts entertained by the people of this country as to the orthodoxy of the continuing worship of gold. Throughout all Europe the suspicion is beginning to make itself felt, among those who have no personal interest at stake, that the constantly appreciating value of this metal bodes no good to society, however advantageous it may be to the moneyed classes, and especially the money lenders. It begins to be feared that there may be too long a persistence in this artificial standard, and that the pressure upon the people, in the fall of prices and the increase of the burden of debt and of taxes, which multiply with time, may have serious consequences upon public order. The stock of gold, never half enough to meet the wants of the people anywhere, is year by year being drawn upon more and more for use in the arts, while the yield from the mines is decreasing, and giving no promise of any material increase from any quarter.

The pressing need of the time, the standard for which the people are calling, is a standard of equity, a standard of justice, a standard that shall measure fairly and impartially the rights of both parties to a contract, that will not wrongfully and stealthily add to the burden of the obligation on either side, that will not, under the guise of fair dealing, rob one of the parties for the benefit of the other. The first indispensable step to a realization of that standard is the full restoration of silver to its rightful position as a part of the money of the world.

In any discussion of the question, it would be uncharitable not to make allowance for the force, on many conscientious minds, of what, to the free and unprejudiced inquirer, can only be regarded as an absurd and meaningless superstition, which, notwithstanding the advance of thought in other directions, still persists in disarranging the industries and vexing the civilization of an enlightened age. It is to the strength of this obdurate superstition that we must ascribe the horror with which many minds contemplate the possible loss to the country of a part of its gold.

FEAR OF THE OUTFLOW OF GOLD.

Any prospect of the outflow of gold is regarded as the opening of a veritable Pandora's box, from which must issue forth all the evils that can afflict mankind.

It is to this fear, no doubt conscientiously entertained, that we must attribute the declaration of the President of the United States that we do not dare to tread on the edge of so dangerous a peril. It is not difficult to make the statement, but it will be very difficult to prove that we stand on the edge of any peril whatever, if most or even all our gold should go.

We heard this same apprehension expressed, and with equal, if not greater, force twelve years ago, when the silver question was before this body. We were then assured by the ablest of our so-called "financiers" that the country would be denuded of its gold and that all manner of dreadful catastrophies would result. The prospect was represented to be appalling, although I do not remember that any reasons were given to show how or why gold should leave the country, nor that any statement was made as to exactly how this country would suffer if it did leave.

For my own part, Mr. President, I regard it as a matter of very little consequence whether gold goes out or not. Certainly if, in order to retain gold, we must sacrifice justice, then I say let gold go.

It is not of so much consequence that we should retain gold for the benefit of a small coterie of importers as that we should preserve the equity of time contracts between the millions of our own people who import no foreign goods. It is monstrous to think of violating all equities in time transactions--and nine out of every ten of our domestic business transactions are of that character--for the absurd and inconsequent purpose of keeping in this country some particular commodity, whether it be designated as money or otherwise.

The hoarding or the outflow of gold is a hardship when, under the law, somebody is obliged to have it, as was the case during the war, when gold alone would pay duties on imports. Combinations to hoard gold at that time frequently involved great loss to the importer. But thanks to the silver legislation of 1878 and other legislation making our Treasury notes receivable for customs dues, no damage could now result from any attempted corner in gold.

The creditors of this country never can convince the enterprising and energetic people who form the debtor class that it is to our interest that a certain material shall be kept in the country as money, if the expense of keeping it is that the debtors shall continue to be despoiled as they have been for the past fifteen years.

If we can only retain gold at the expense of steady and unwavering prices, and at the expense of a steady and unchanging value in money, then the quicker gold goes out the better. The constantly increasing value of gold by reason of its increasing scarcity means the constantly increasing burden of all debt, and involves the final absorption of all the property of the country by the creditor classes. Under the operation of the present system, by which prices are constantly falling and money is constantly increasing in value, the surplus earnings of the people are flowing in a steady stream into the vaults of money-lending institutions, and into the pockets of creditors.

In a very intelligent article published in a late number of an influential magazine--the Political Science Quarterly--there is the significant statement, apparently derived from the best sources, that in the year 1879-'80, one-half of all the mortgages in the State of Indiana were foreclosed.

It were better for society that property should at once be confiscated than that the great masses of the people in every community should have to struggle through years of painful and exhausting effort in the face of constantly falling prices and then in a large percentage of cases to lose their property at last. But this can not be avoided so long as we attempt to keep up what is called the gold standard. It is a necessary consequence of the gold standard that we shall have the scale of prices that obtains in gold standard countries If the presence of gold in this country is to destroy our people, who doubts that it should go? If its presence is to result in the destruction of equity and justice, who doubts that it should go?

Nearly every witness who testified before the secret committee of the House of Commons in 1857 agreed that gold could only be held by paralysing the business of the country. It is estimated by witnesses who testified before that committee, that in the panic of 1847, in Great Britain, the property of the country, by reason of the measures rendered necessary to maintain the single gold standard, was depreciated $1,500,000,000. I commend that report to the careful and serious perusal of the advocates of the single gold standard in this country.

Among the witnesses before the committee were John Stuart Mill, Lord Overstone, and many other men distinguished in the world of letters and finance. I am informed by the Librarian of Congress that there is but one copy of the work in the United States. It would be well worth while for Congress to order a number of copies of it printed, for there is no work with which I am acquainted that contains so much practical information as to the working of the single gold standard. According to the testimony taken before that committee, the experience of Great Britain since 1819 shows that gold alone, even when re-enforced by paper money convertible exclusively into gold, instead of being a beneficent instrument of valuation, has proved a cruel instrument of injustice.

A brief consideration of the causes which affect the movement of gold will not be out of place in this connection.

RATIONALE OF THE MOVEMENT OF GOLD.

Why is it that gold leaves country and goes to another? For one reason only--the advantage of its owner. Whenever he can make a profit by sending it out, the gold goes; and the period when that profit can be made is indicated when the prices of goods that are internationally dealt in are either rising in the country which it leaves or falling in the country to which it goes. It is only to pay for importable goods that gold ever leaves the country in which the owner resides. Being an international money, and receivable everywhere at its full face value, gold loses nothing by transfer; hence it is sent wherever it will for the time being have the greatest purchasing power.

Whenever the general range of prices in this country of commodities internationally dealt in becomes than higher than the general range of the same commodities abroad, it is manifest that then gold can used to advantage by purchasing those articles abroad and selling them here. If the gold that goes out goes from stock that has been hoarded here, the outflow has no immediate or direct effect upon prices in this country, although, by increasing or "inflating" the volume of money abroad it assists in raising prices there, and thus tends to secure for our exported products a better price in the foreign market. But if the gold goes from the amount that is in active circulation here, and if the void created by this outflow is not filled with other forms of money, such as silver, or paper, it results in a reduction of the volume of money in actual use in this country, while at the same time increasing the volume of money abroad.

This increase in the foreign money stock causes a rise of prices abroad, while the corresponding reduction of our currency causes a proportionate fall of prices here, hence there is a constant tendency to an equilibrium of prices of all articles of international commerce.

No outflow of gold would follow a rise of prices here except in so far as that rise affected articles internationally dealt in. No rise of prices of such articles as we do not import would tend in any way to drive out gold. If, for example, raw cotton should increase in price in this country, that fact would not tend to drive out gold, because we do not import raw cotton. But should the prices of articles of manufactured cotton rise here above what those same articles could be bought for in any foreign country our merchants would send abroad for them, provided that, after paying the freight charges and customs dues, they could make a profit on them.

So, also, if crockery-ware were made in this country, and its price should rise to, say, double the present price, then, instead of buying the American, or home-made article, our crockery merchants, finding that they could buy in England, France, or Germany cheaper than they could buy in this country, would decline to buy the American crockery, and would send abroad for any article, provided that, after paying freight charges and customs dues, they could sell it here at a profit. That would tend to increase the shipments of gold to foreign countries.

That an outflow of gold does not follow from a rise of general prices, but only of prices of articles of international trade, is manifest from the fact that if land becomes cheap in other countries, gold does not leave this country to buy it. When real estate is cheap in Brazil, or Australia, or in Germany, France, or even England, the owners of gold in this country do not send it abroad to make purchases of real estate.

So wages of labor may rise in this country, or compensation for all manner of services that must be performed here, and gold would not leave as a consequence. But if cloth were cheaper--quality considered,--in England, France, or Germany, or at the remotest ends of the earth,--than in this country, our merchants would send gold for it in order to sell it here at a profit.

Altogether too much importance is attached to the possession of a large stock of gold, unless that stock form part of the active circulation of the country. So long as it remains in circulation it sustains prices and develops industry and internal commerce. But the tendency of gold being to find the most profitable field for operation, its continued presence in the country can never be relied upon.

When we take gold from other countries prices in those countries fall, owing to the reduction of the volume of money there; and owing also to the action of the foreign banks in immediately raising their rates of discount on commercial paper and suddenly calling loans. As there is less money left in such country with which to pay for commodities, we are obliged to accept lower prices for the products we ship to it.

The larger the stock of gold, therefore, accumulated by us the lower, necessarily, must be the price which we can receive for our surplus agricultural products.

In order to maintain parity between the metals, it is not necessary for us to have all the gold we now have; $200,000,000, or even $100,000,000 of gold, would maintain that parity. The parity between the metals can never be broken until all the gold leaves, and provided we retain one or two hundred million, the rest can not be placed more advantageously than where our languishing surplus products must be sold.

When gold leaves this country it is because prices here are rising. Prices are now lower than they have been since 1847. Must they continue declining in order that we may be able to retain all our gold? It is manifestly impossible for the people of this country to prosper with a constantly lowering range of prices. It is equally impossible for the present level of prices to be maintained with a constantly increasing demand for, and as constantly diminishing a supply of, gold. It is universally admitted that an increase in the money circulation of this country at the present time is an exigent necessity. The advocates of the single gold standard, while admitting that we must increase our money volume, the effect of which must be to maintain, if it does not raise, the level of prices here, insist that we shall let none of our gold go in order that prices abroad may rise.

Mr. BLAIR. May I ask the Senator a question?

Mr. JONES, of Nevada. Certainly.

Mr. BLAIR. Does the Senator mean to be understood that the falling of prices is an absolute demonstration of the increased value of the money without limitation?

Mr. JONES, of Nevada. I have already, in the early portion of my remarks, had occasion to state that when a fall in prices was brought about by a larger subordination of the forces of nature to the uses of man, as where the comforts and conveniences of life could be produced with less sacrifice than before, it was not an injury to society, but in advantage. In other words, if, by a certain amount of sacrifice seventeen year ago, only one pair of shoes could be produced, and if by the same sacrifice two pairs could be now produced, there would be a lowering of the price of shoes to about one-half of what it was seventeen years ago, which would be a very great benefaction to mankind.