Chapter VII: Part 7

But, as I then stated, there is one certain sign that that is not, except to the slightest extent, the cause of the present universal fall of prices. When prices fall owing to improvements in manufacture, business revives, the masses of the people are at work, those who toil find themselves possessed of more of the comforts, of the conveniences, and even of the luxuries of life than before. They are better contented with their condition, and more buoyant and hopeful than before. On such occasions money becomes more and more in demand than it was before, and instead of being hoarded is put into active and productive business where it will make a profit. But when interest falls, pari passu, with the fall of prices, it shows that the fall of prices is not due, except in the smallest degree, to improved methods of production, but to the increased value of money.

Mr. BLAIR. I was not controverting the Senator's theory as to the existing facts in this country, but I understood him to be laying down an absolute principle, applicable under all circumstances and in all times, that the fall of prices is a demonstration of the increased value of money. I supposed that the fall in prices resulting from a protective tariff was beneficial, and not an indication of an increase in the value of money, and that that fall of price was not owing to the increased value of money, but was by improved machinery and all that. So it is possible that some of the fall in prices in this country may be owing to increased facility in the matter of production and to the beneficial operations of the protective tariff.

Mr. JONES of Nevada. Mr. President----

Mr. REAGAN. If the Senator from Nevada will permit me, I wish to ask the Senator from New Hampshire if he means to be understood as assuming that a protective tariff reduces the value of the commodities produced?

Mr. BLAIR. I was simply asking for information of the Senator from Nevada, and he can answer that question much better than I; but the Senator from Texas understands very well that I do believe a protective tariff reduces prices.

Mr. JONES, of Nevada. Mr. President, so far as a tariff has the effect of reducing prices in any country, it is not by reason of the levying of any certain percentage of duty on the imported goods. The first effect of the tariff certainly always must be to raise prices. The fundamental theory of the tariff is--whether it be correct or not I am not now discussing--that by that tariff you place the price of manufactured goods up to a range at which they can be produced in the country in which the tariff is levied, and upon the level of the range of wages and manner of living which obtain in that country. By so doing, if you have a proper volume of money, you set all your people at work, and keep them at work at a variety of occupations. In such case every forge, furnace, and factory becomes a school, every machine-shop an academy, and every cunning device and invention becomes a lesson, teaching the people how to deal with the subtle forces of the universe. So far as this country is concerned the theory of the tariff is that 65,000,000 people should have a varied and complete system of manufactures, which should supply practically all their own wants, instead of an abnormal proportion of them being driven into the single occupation of farming and relying on foreign manufacturers to supply such finished products as they need. To draw out and develop the aptitudes of a people a large variety of occupations is indispensable. When all men are employed at their aptitudes new inventions multiply, progress is accelerated, and the secrets of nature are more rapidly unfolded. Hence the McCormick reaper; hence the sewing-machine, that great instrument which clothes the world, because of the discovery that the eye of the needle should be at the point; hence the air-brake, the telegraph, the electric light, and thousands of other inventions that a protected people originate and develop, which would perhaps not have been originated or might have been long delayed if it had not been for the discouragement to imports caused by the tariff, and the encouragement to our people to go into manufactures by which their varied talents are drawn out and cultivated.

There is no doubt that eventually as our conditions improve, increasing numbers of our people will by degrees emerge from agricultural and enter manufacturing pursuits. A tariff, by stimulating the organization and development of industries, trains men to greater skill and perfection of workmanship in a variety of departments, and with greater skill comes greater efficiency of labor, and so greater economy of time. In that way the prices of certain products are in time reduced; but that is not a reduction of which any one complains.

The true cause of the present discontent will not be found in the protective tariff, but in the exactions of the single gold standard.

Fifteen years ago England was on the gold standard. It is on the gold standard to-day; yet prices in England are 35 per cent. lower than they were fifteen years ago. There being no reason why there should be any change in the trend of prices, so long as a fierce contest for the possession of gold shall be waged between England, France, Germany, and the United States, we are justified in assuming that a proportionate decline of prices will continue. That means a further decline of 30 or 35 per cent. in prices during the next fifteen years. Where is this tendency to stop? and if it does not stop, how long will it be before the masses of the people become the bond slaves of the creditors? It is shocking to the moral sense of mankind that a few money-lenders and bondholders should thus be able, silently and insidiously, to wreck the business of every country in the world by constantly increasing the value of the money unit.

While admitting the necessity of more monetary circulation, our gold standard friends fail to show us how it is possible for an increase in the volume of money to benefit our merchants, farmers, or mechanics if the prices that prevail in gold standard countries are to prevail here; for that is what the gold standard means for us, Mr. President. It means that the prices that rule in gold standard countries are to rule here.

The extreme indefiniteness with which the term "gold standard" is used has so befogged the relation which gold money bears to industry and commerce that people lose sight of the essential feature of that relation. It is impossible to have a clear conception of the gold standard without keeping in view exactly what is implied by the term. What men must mean in this country by "the gold standard" is not the touch of the metal, for they never touch it, and rarely, if ever, see it. The maintenance of the gold standard here simply means the maintenance here of the range of prices that prevail in gold-using countries; that is to say, that low and lowering range of prices rendered necessary by the attempt to measure the value of the constantly increasing mass of the products of industry in all the western world by the constantly diminishing volume of gold. No relief can come to the toiling masses of this country until we can lift our prices above those that now prevail in gold-using countries.

Even if our prices remain as they are and do not increase, gold will eventually leave the country if it continue to increase in value as it has been increasing during the past fifteen years. We have been enabled to maintain the gold standard here for the past twelve years notwithstanding a considerable addition of money other than gold to our currency, but we have been able to do so only because other countries have been using an equal or greater amount of money other than gold. We have been using no greater proportion of silver or paper money than other countries having the gold standard are using, hence we have been able to maintain their level of prices and still keep the metals together. But whenever we shall attempt to prevent a further fall or prices in this country, it will be impossible for us to retain our gold so long as prices in gold-using countries continue to decline as they have been declining. Gold will leave as quickly because of contraction abroad as of inflation here, if by "inflation" is meant a coinage of money sufficient to maintain prices at a steady level.

Should gold leave the country, then, in order to supply its place, in order to maintain the _status quo_ in prices, and prevent a further fall from the present low range, we should need to have as many dollars of silver in circulation as there are now dollars of gold. Gold would go out only because our prices were rising, and as it went prices would cease to rise. That process might continue until three or four hundred million dollars of gold had gone. In all this, where would be the disadvantage to our people?

Considering the rapidly increasing population and wealth of this country, all the silver that can be procured from the mines will be necessary to maintain the level of prices and to keep pace with the increasing demands for money. If, however, it slightly exceeds--and it could not at the utmost more than slightly exceed--the amount actually demanded by increasing population and business, the over-plus of each year would take a great many years to drive gold out of the country, dollar for dollar. For, when prices here, of things internationally dealt in, are at an equilibrium with prices of the same articles abroad, gold can not go any faster than silver comes in.

IF $2,500,000 SILVER PER MONTH HAS NOT DRIVEN OUT GOLD, HOW MUCH WILL DO SO?

For twelve years past we have had a silver coinage of nearly $2,500,000 a month, yet no gold has been driven out. Having tested the capacity of that quantity of silver to drive out gold, we find that instead of driving it out its coinage has resulted rather in bringing gold in. For, to whatever cause the influx of gold may be ascribed, it is unquestionable that the gold has come, and it has needed all that gold, and all the silver that we have coined, to maintain international prices here.

It is admitted by all that gold can not go out except by reason of a rise in this country of the prices of articles of international commerce beyond the prices of the same articles prevailing abroad. It is only then that it becomes more profitable to send out gold in payment for our foreign purchases than to send out commodities--the products of our own country. Commodities will always be sent out in payment for other commodities so long as it is more profitable to send them than gold, and when, by reason of low prices prevailing abroad and high prices here, it is no longer profitable to send out commodities, purchasers send out gold, but only because it is to their advantage to do so.

Now, having seen that the coinage of $2,500,000 of silver each month was insufficient to so raise prices in this country as to induce gold to go abroad, but that on the contrary it resulted in an influx and accumulation of a large amount of gold, we may safely assume that only so much of the amount of silver which Congress shall now provide for as exceeds $2,500,000 a month will have any influence in raising prices in this country above international prices, and so providing a stimulus for gold to go abroad in payment for commodities imported into this country.

If the amount of silver which shall be now provided should be, say, $5,000,000 a month, the excess over the present coinage would be $2,500,000 a month. This, then, would be the amount that would drive out gold. As one dollar of silver would drive out no more than one dollar in gold, no more than $2,500,000 could go out monthly. That would leave in circulation the same amount of money that is in circulation now. There would still be no increase in the money volume of the country, and, with no increase in the volume of money, prices here would not rise above international prices. At the rate of $2,500,000 a month, it would take twenty years to drive out $600,000,000 of the $700,000,000 of gold now in this country. It would take even longer than that, because the $600,000,000 driven out would tend to raise international prices abroad, and so check the outflow of gold from here.

Mr. McPHERSON. Will the Senator yield to me for a question, or does he prefer to go on?

Mr. JONES, of Nevada. I am always ready to answer a question.

Mr. McPHERSON. I do not want to interfere with the Senator's line of argument, or with his speech in any form, but it does seem to me that there is something fallacious about the Senator's argument, or else my judgment and the experience of the world is all wrong. I wanted to ask the Senator this question: If it be known that the Government of the United States, if you please, by such an increase of the silver coinage in this country as will be produced by the free coinage of silver, to which theory, as I understand, the Senator is fully committed--if that be the theory of the Government hereafter by the command of Congress, I want to ask the Senator if he broadly and boldly asserts that no gold can be driven out of the country to a greater extent than dollar for dollar for the silver that comes in?

Mr. JONES, of Nevada. Absolutely; I say so.

Mr. McPHERSON. Then I want to ask the Senator another question, which seems to be pertinent. Does the Senator assert that if a 72-cent dollar, the value in bullion of a silver dollar during the year 1889, as has been furnished us by the Director of the Mint and the Secretary of the Treasury, were coined without limit (I say without limit, the limit being, of course, the amount of bullion that is brought to the Treasury to coined), and the people of this country who have been in favor of a safe and honest currency, a currency either gold or as good as gold, which the Treasury has been able to maintain, having forced no silver upon the people if they did not wish it, and in that way the silver dollar having been maintained equal to the gold dollar, I want to know, with the people of this country to-day the holders of $500,000,000 of gold, how it is possible for the Senator to believe that with a 72-cent dollar to take its place the gold coin would circulate for a single week, or a single day, or a single hour? If they have the gold will they not hold it?

Mr. JONES, of Nevada. The Senator has so involved his question with his argument that I can scarcely get at what he wants me to answer.

Mr. McPHERSON. The question I want the Senator to answer is this: Will the people of this country, the financiers of this country, the banks, the moneyed men holding $500,000,000 of gold, with a certainty of the free coinage of silver and going to a silver basis, for that is what it means, put their gold in circulation, or will they hoard it? Will it disappear?

Mr. JONES, of Nevada. I scarcely know what the Senator means by a "silver basis." He talks about a 72-cent dollar. We have never seen a 72-cent dollar. The papers in the East have told us that the silver dollar was worth 72 cents. I recollect talking on that subject once with some Senators in the cloak-room. During the conversation one of the Senate pages brought me a telegram, on which he said the telegraph messenger had told him there were 50 cents due. I give the page a silver dollar and said to him: "I have been informed by some very respectable and intellectual gentlemen in here, some of them now candidates for the Presidency even, that this dollar is worth only 75 cents. I do not want to cheat a little boy. Take this out, and if the boy thinks it worth only 75 cents he can send me back 25 cents, and if he thinks it is worth a dollar he can send me back 50 cents. I will leave it to him." The page brought back 50 cents and said the telegraph boy told him he did not know what those old "duffers" in there might say, but it was as good a dollar as he wanted and was very hard to get. [Laughter.]

The Senator talks about the bullion value as though that had anything whatever to do with the value of the dollar. I have attempted to demonstrate that the material that was in the dollar has nothing whatever to do with it. Let me illustrate. Suppose the entire supply of silver of the world to-day were $60,000,000. Suppose the law limited the coinage of it to $58,000,000, and every dollar coined was at par with gold. Suppose there were a demand for half a million dollars of silver, to be used in the arts, and that the remainder ($1,500,000) of uncoined silver were barred from the imperial money use. That supposes a supply of $2,000,000 left after satisfying the requirements for coinage, and supposes only half a million dollars' demand for use in all the arts. In that case there would be a $2,000,000 supply bearing down a half million dollars' art demand, or a proportion between supply and demand of 4 to 1. Suppose that under those circumstances silver bullion went to 50 cents an ounce. Would the Senator then say that 50 cents an ounce was the value of the $58,000,000, and all the rest of the coined silver of the western world, while by coining another million and a half, which would be nothing to a country like this, all the silver would be at par with gold? Every ounce of silver coined in Europe and the United States is at par with gold, a thousand or twelve hundred million dollars of it to-day in France, $200,000,000 in Germany, $370,000,000 of it here. We are not dealing with the price of silver bullion, that portion of silver that is deprived of its immemorial use as money. We do not say what the commodity demand for silver may make that worth. Such a consideration has no bearing whatever on the value of money.

I will suppose that in some one county of the United States a law were passed that the wheat grown in that particular county should have no right to go through the grist-mill, and that that wheat, as it might very naturally do, being deprived of use, fell to one-half the price of the wheat grown elsewhere in the country. Would the price of the wheat of that one county thus under interdiction and denied the grist be a fair gauge by which to measure the value of the entire wheat crop of the country? Manifestly not. All we have to do is to take up the little "slack" of silver, and all of it will at once be at par with gold; then we shall hear no more about the "commodity value" of silver. That is the contention that the bimetallists make.

Mr. HEARST. It will be $1.29.

Mr. JONES, of Nevada. It will be $1.29 an ounce in one week--in three days--in fact the very moment you give it back its ancient right of coinage and restore to it its full money power. You coin of gold all that is brought to the mint, and you deny to a certain portion of silver that same long-established privilege, and then you measure the value of the whole supply of silver by that of the little fraction that is not coined, and which therefore has to find a market as a commodity.

Mr. McPHERSON. Then, if the Senator will permit me, he necessarily proposes that the Government of the United States shall take up all this "slack," as he calls it, in the surplus quantity of silver and shall use it in the coinage. The mints of Europe being closed against the coinage of silver, there is no other place where it will be coined. Now, if the Government of the United States should use all the surplus silver in the country, which has simply forced the price down since we remonetized silver in 1878 more than 20 per cent.----

Mr. JONES, of Nevada. Gold has risen 35 per cent.

Mr. McPHERSON. Then I think the Senator's argument is upon this idea and upon this plan, that after we are upon a silver basis, as we should be most assuredly, there would be no inequality in the money, because it would be all silver.

Mr. JONES, of Nevada. And no inequality between it and gold.

Mr. McPHERSON. Certainly not, because there would be no gold in circulation. But let me ask the Senator another question. While he can use his short-legged silver dollar for the payment of debts, when he comes to make a new obligation would not the price of the goods assume a price equal to the difference between gold and silver? In other words, while you can use a debased currency for the payment of debts, if a legislative decree requires that you shall accept it, you can not use it for any other purpose.

Mr. JONES, of Nevada. I can not understand the Senator. We have not provided any "short-legged" dollar. The Senator is assuming a good many facts and attempting to adjust me to them. I ask the Senator to wait until he has heard my argument, and I invite the Senator then to make reply to it.

Mr. McPHERSON. I am sorry that I interfered with the Senator.

Mr. JONES, of Nevada. It was no interference on the part of the Senator, except that I can not separate the Senator's questions from the argument and assumptions that he makes. As to the outflow of gold, as I have said, it would take a long time for even $400,000,000 of it go. The amount of gold driven out would tend to raise prices abroad by making money more plentiful there, and so check the outflow of gold from here. When Senators speak about $600,000,000 of gold being withdrawn from circulation here a question that is a little curious arises. What are these people who own it going to do with that gold after they have withdrawn it from circulation? Are they going to invest it in Great Britain? Are they going to invest it in France? Are they going to the Cape of Good Hope to invest it? If they are they will reverse the policy that English capitalists are pursuing now and have been pursuing for years--bringing their gold over here for investment. The Senator tells us that gold is to disappear from circulation. What will the owners do with it? Where and in what are they going to invest it?

Mr. McPHERSON. It will be held for a premium.

Mr. JONES, of Nevada. But who will buy it at a premium? Who needs it at all? For what purpose is it needed? Who is going to pay any premium for it? Nobody is "short" on it, and there is no law which forces anybody to have it.

Mr. President, nobody wants it enough to give a premium for it. It is only worth what is daily paid in the markets of the world and nobody is going to pay a premium for it. It is a bogie with which to frighten the people who demand reform in the currency of this country. Let them withdraw their gold.

I tell the Senator it is not the men who hoard the gold in vaults who maintain or promote the prosperity of this country, but the toilers in the wheat-fields and on the farms of the country, the men who work in the planing mills, the forges, the furnaces, the factories, and in all our institutions of industry. It is they that bring us our prosperity, and not these people who are gambling for premiums on gold.

Let them gamble among themselves; let who lose and let who win, the people care nothing. The people of the United States are going to institute a money that shall install and maintain justice as between the citizens of this country, and they will not be impeded. I can tell the Senator that neither his party nor the Republican party will ever impede the march that this great country is about to make--the first in the world, I am glad to say--in adjusting to the demands of industry and commerce, that great instrument, money, the non-adjustment of which, as I have already stated, has, in my belief, caused more misery than was ever caused by war, pestilence, and famine.

But to resume at the point where I was interrupted:

The gold going out would tend constantly to restore the equilibrium between our prices and those of the gold-using countries, making the proportion of the gold outflow each year less than that of the year before. If there be included in this computation the remaining $100,000,000 of gold, which would remain after the outflow of the $600,000,000, we shall be compelled to come to the conclusion that the time when our stock of gold can be driven out will be almost indefinitely postponed.

But even should all our gold go by reason of the remonetization of silver, it will not be to the injury of the gold standard, but to its great advantage, and to the equally great advantage of the masses of the people, as well of this country, which the gold may leave, as of all countries to which it may go. It will make the "gold standard" consistent with the prosperity of the countries maintaining it. But instead of preserving the gold standard of to-day, which is a standard of wrong, it will inaugurate a gold standard that will approximate to a standard of justice.

The new "gold standard" that would be established by the outflow of our gold would be a standard of prices resulting from the influx into England, France, and Germany, the principal gold-using countries of Europe, of more than $600,000,000 of money.

So considerable an addition to their money-stock would raise prices in those countries, and by remaining there, would, with the current production, which we could spare to them, tend to maintain prices at a steady level. Such a condition would be an inestimable boon to the overburdened masses of Europe, and their prosperity would not be attained at the expense of the people of the United States. We could well afford to let gold go, since, by the coinage of silver, our own money volume would not be reduced. The rise of prices which it would effect in Europe would not only, as I have stated, secure better prices for our exported goods, but would undoubtedly enable us to maintain prices here at a substantial parity with those of Europe--that is to say, with those of the new, more rational and more beneficent gold standard which would be established by the full remonetization of silver in this country.

PRACTICALLY NO GOLD MONEY IN THE UNITED STATES.

But, aside altogether from this consideration, the gold that we already have is really a surplus--it is practically a dead and useless article. Gold, Mr. President, can not with entire truth be said at the present time to form any part of the money of this country. Who but a bank clerk ever sees a gold piece? With the exception of a few million dollars on the Pacific coast, gold is not really in circulation in this country. It is performing no useful function whatsoever. While I am engaged in delivering these remarks I venture to say no Senator within the sound of my voice has in his pocket a single gold coin of any denomination whatever, or any paper representative of one.

This is the answer to the fear expressed by some Senators that when those who hold gold shall observe the enlargement of the money circulation by the issue of the proposed Treasury notes they will be likely to hoard it. They are already hoarding it. Every body knows that that is about all that gold is used for in this country. It is hardly possible for it to be hoarded to any greater extent than it is at the present time. So little is this metal in circulation that I do not deem it any exaggeration to say that there are millions of people in the United States, "native here, and to the manner born," who have never in all their lives seen a gold coin.

How absurd, then, is the claim that any loss is to be suffered by the alleged future hoarding of gold, or that any calamity can occur to 65,000,000 people by the disappearance of that which has long since disappeared.

THE ARGUMENT BASED ON OUR BALANCE OF TRADE.

One of the staple arguments of the advocates of the single gold standard is, that if our stock of gold were greatly reduced we should be unable to make payments to foreign countries in case the balance of trade turned against us. It is only through an excess of imports over exports that gold could go, and this country now produces of nearly all articles almost all that it consumes. With the exception of two years there has not been a balance of trade against us for fourteen years, as the following table will show:

_Value of merchandise imported into, and exported from, the United
States, from 1876 to 1889, inclusive; also annual excess of imports
or of exports--specie values._

------+------------+------------+--------------+-----------+----------
Year | | | | Excess of |Excess of
ending| Total | Total |Total exports | exports | imports
June | exports. | imports. | and imports. | over | over
30-- | | | | imports. | exports.
------+------------+------------+--------------+-----------+----------
| _Dollars._ | _Dollars._ | _Dollars._ |_Dollars._ |_Dollars._
1876 |540,384,671 |460,741,190 |1,001,125,861 | 79,643,481| --
1877 |602,475,220 |451,823,126 |1,053,798,346 |151,152,094| --
1878 |694,865,766 |437,051,532 |1,131,917,298 |257,814,234| --
1879 |710,439,441 |445,777,775 |1,156,217,216 |264,661,666| --
1880 |835,638,658 |667,954,746 |1,503,593,404 |167,683,912| --
1881 |903,377,346 |642,664,628 |1,545,041,974 |259,712,718| --
1882 |750,542,257 |724,639,574 |1,476,181.831 | 25,902,683| --
1883 |823,839,402 |723,180,914 |1,547,020,316 |100,658,488| --
1884 |740,513,609 |667,697,693 |1,408,211,302 | 72,815,916| --
1885 |742,189,755 |577,527,329 |1,319,717,084 |164,662,426| --
1886 |679,524,830 |635,436,136 |1,314,960,966 | 44,088,694| --
1887 |716,183,211 |692,319,768 |1,408,502,977 | 23,863,443| --
1888 |695,954,507 |723,957,114 |1,419,911,621 | -- |28,002,607
1890 |742,401,375 |745,131,652 |1,487,533,027 | -- | 2,730,277
------+------------+------------+--------------+-----------+----------

This table shows that while for last year there was a balance against us of $2,730,277, and the year before of $28,002,607, for all former years from 1887 back to 1874 the balances were in our favor--all the way from $23,000,000 in 1887 to $265,000,000 in 1881. But the total want of significance so far as the movement of gold is concerned attaching to any figures showing a balance of trade against the United States will be seen by an analysis of the figures for any one year. Let us take for example the imports and exports for 1889 and analyze them by countries.

I now present a table in which I place in one group the gold-using countries, and in another the silver and paper-using countries.

_Exports and imports of the United States to and from the various
gold-using and silver-using or paper-using countries of the world
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1889._

------------------------------------+---------------+---------------
Countries. | Exports. | Imports.
------------------------------------+---------------+---------------
Gold-using countries: | |
Canada | $42,141,156 | $43,009,473
Belgium | 23,345,219 | 9,816,435
Denmark | 3,903,937 | 846,904
France | 46,120,041 | 69,566,618
Germany | 68,002,594 | 81,742,546
Great Britain | 382,981,674 | 178,269,067
Greece | 165,079 | 988,923
Italy | 12,604,848 | 17,992,149
Netherlands | 15,062,939 | 10,950,843
Portugal and its possessions | 3,266,814 | 1,282,556
Spain | 11,946,348 | 4,636,661
Sweden and Norway | 2,615,569 | 2,983,319
Turkey | -- | 4,687,731
British possessions in Africa | 2,936,213 | 895,344
British possessions in Australia | 12,321,980 | 5,998,211
| |
Silver and paper using countries: | |
Austria-Hungary | 726,156 | 7,642,297
Russia | 8,364,545 | 2,985,631
Mexico | 11,486,896 | 21,253,601
Central America | 4,325,923 | 8,414,019
Hawaii | 3,375,661 | 12,847,740
Argentine Republic | 9,293,856 | 5,454,618
Brazil | 9,351,081 | 60,403,804
Chili | 2,972,794 | 2,622,625
Peru | 780,835 | 314,032
Colombia | 3,821,017 | 4,263,519
Uruguay | 2,192,848 | 2,986,964
Venezuela | 3,738,961 | 10,392,569
Cuba | 11,691,311 | 52,130,623
Hayti | 5,340,270 | 5,211,704
Porto Rico | 2,224,931 | 3,707,373
British West Indies | 10,453,973 | 20,723,268
Dutch West Indies | 887,778 | 654,320
China | 6,477,512 | 18,508,678
India, British | 4,330,413 | 20,029,601
India, Dutch | 2,249,604 | 5,207,254
Japan | 4,619,985 | 16,687,992
------------------------------------+---------------+---------------

By this table it is seen that the only gold-using countries having a balance of trade against us are Canada, $868,317; France, $23,446,577; Greece, $823,824; Germany, $13,739,952; Italy, $5,387,301; Sweden and Norway, $367,850; Turkey, $4,687,731--making a total balance against us in gold-using countries, $49,321,452--against which we have a balance in our favor with Great Britain alone of over $200,000,000.

The balance against us in favor of all the silver using countries could of course be readily settled in silver; and by carefully noting the figures of the table last given it will be seen that it is in the last degree improbable that there will ever be a balance of trade against us in the gold using countries, taken as a whole.

Hence it is clear that if we had no gold at all we could readily settle all foreign balances that might be against us.

Nations, however, ultimately, and on the whole, square their accounts with commodities. Every nation must buy what it wants with its own products. In this country especially have we nothing to fear, because any temporary balance against us could always be met by the yield from our own mines. No country has any difficulty by reason of my difference in money systems in buying what any other nation has to sell.

This view is supported by all writers on political economy. I need quote but one. Professor Cairnes, professor of political economy in the University College of London, in his able work on "Some unsettled questions in political economy" (1874), says:

It appears to me that the influence attributed by many able
writers in the United States to the depreciation of the paper
currency as regards its effects on the foreign trade of the
country is, in a great degree, purely imaginary. An advance in the
scale of prices, _measured in gold_, in a country, if not shared
by other countries, will at once affect its foreign trade, giving
an impulse to importations and checking the exportation of all
commodities other than gold. A similar effect is very generally
attributed by American writers to the action on prices of the
greenback inconvertible currency.

But it may easily be shown that this is a complete illusion.
Foreigners do not send their products to the United States to take
back greenbacks in exchange. The return which they look for is
either gold or the commodities of the country; and if these have
risen in price in proportion as the paper money has been
depreciated, how should the advance in paper prices constitute an
inducement for them to send their goods thither? The nominal gain
in greenbacks on the importation is exactly balanced by the
nominal loss when those greenbacks came to be converted into gold
or commodities. The gain may, in particular cases, exceed the
loss, but, if it does, the loss will also, in other cases, exceed
the gain. On the whole, and on an average, they can not but be the
equivalents of each other.

Mr. President, the best place in the world where we can have gold is not in the Treasury of the United States, not in any sub-treasury, but in circulation, if not in our own country, then, in the foreign countries where our surplus products are sold. That is where gold would do us the most good by making money plentiful and prices correspondingly high. It does us no good here whatever, locked up as it always is, and doing none of the work of money, but simply reduces to the minimum the tax-paying and debt-paying power of our wheat- and cotton-growing communities.

An unjust money should not be tolerated, whatever the material of which it may be composed, and the people of this country will not tolerate it. They do not fear the outflow of gold. If, in order to retain it, they must continue to lose as they have been losing for the past fifteen years, they will favor its going, and raise a shout of joy when it does go. With a perfect money system in our own country the range of our domestic prices would continue stable and equitable without regard to the prices of foreign countries. Our foreign trade would take care of itself, and whatever the balances might be, they would be much oftener in our favor than against us, and in reality concern only the importing merchant and not the Government or the people of the United States. The difficulty of gold-using countries to get our money, in which to pay us the balances they would owe us, would be much greater than our difficulty in getting their money, in which to pay them the occasional balances we might owe them.

Much the more serious question, (if it be a serious question at all, which I deny) is how they shall get our money, not how we shall get theirs. As the balances would be for the most part in our favor, it is for them to take such steps as may be necessary in order to pay us. But there is no just reason to apprehend difficulty in either case. A great country like the United States will have no trouble in buying the money of any other country at equitable rates--at rates regulated by the purchasing powers of the moneys of the two countries, respectively.

No country in the history of the world, having a money local to itself, has ever found the slightest difficulty in buying, upon ratios determined by the relative purchasing powers of the two kinds of money, a sufficient amount of foreign exchange (which simply means the money of another country) to meet all adverse balances of trade.

While earnestly advocating the full remonetization of silver and the maintenance in this country of a money volume sufficient to insure a steady level of prices and an unchanging value in the money unit, I entirely disclaim any desire for an inflation of the currency. My contention is that without silver we can not keep prices from further decline, and can not have enough money to serve the growing needs of population, industry, and commerce.

At the same time I can not refrain from expressing the conviction that, as between inflation and contraction, no careful student of history and of economic science can for a moment hesitate in deciding that the evils inflicted on society by contraction have been longer in duration and infinitely greater in degree than any that have ever resulted from inflation. During all periods in which there has been a generous increase in the money-volume of a country or of the world, activity and prosperity have been its accompaniment. I challenge the citation of an instance to the contrary.

With a volume of money increasing at a rate sufficient to meet the demands of a growing population, and especially if the money be such as will not leave the country, but, under all circumstances, will remain in it, to sustain prices, preserve equities, and reward labor, no country with a proper coordination of its industries can be otherwise than prosperous.

The property of mobility--of fluidity--which is so much lauded in gold, is precisely the property least to be desired in the money of a country, if that property of mobility or fluidity is to keep alternately bringing money into and taking it out of the country, disturbing prices and disarranging equities. When it comes, if it enters into circulation, prices rise; when it goes, prices fall, and thus, instead of having a steady and level platform of prices on which the trade and industry of the Republic may rest, like the firm and level platform of liberty upon which all our citizens stand, we whose business it is to "see that the Republic take no harm," furnish our people with an "inclined plane" of finance on which all their business must be conducted. Men buying this month at the elevated end of the platform find themselves selling next month at the depressed end.

Whenever in the history of a country there has been least reliance on international money (gold) and more reliance on merely national money (even of paper when reasonable limits were placed upon its quantity), prosperity has been everywhere present. I need not recall to the minds of Senators the wave of prosperity that swept over this country when it was without any international money and resorted to the "greenback" currency.

When, as a result of the Franco-German war, France was deprived of international money, suspended specie payments, and resorted to a properly limited paper currency, her progress was unbounded.

No period in the history of Great Britain can compare for activity, prosperity, or achievement, with the twenty years preceding 1816, when specie payments were suspended, and during which period, as testified to by witnesses before the secret committee of Parliament, the discount rate of the Bank of England did not buffer a single change; whereas from that period to 1847 the rate was changed sixteen times, and from 1847 to 1874 as many as 274 times, the fluctuations being sometime of the most violent character.

When gold threatens to leave Great Britain the rate of discount at the Bank of England is raised, with the view of discouraging, if not preventing, the outflow. Raising the rate of discount is like putting the brakes on a railroad train; lowering the rate is like letting off the brakes.

These changes were not due to any greater demand for money but to the movements of gold. There was frequently, in the condition of business, no warrant whatever for a rise in the rate of discount. The only reason for it was to prevent gold from performing what "our most conservative financiers" denominate its "noble" function of "mobility"--of "fluidity"--namely, the function of going "where it was wanted." This function of going "where it is wanted" is described as the great "mission" of gold, and it is assumed that it will never be wanted at more than one place at a time. Yet hear what the chancellor of the exchequer of Great Britain said a few days ago in the House of Commons:

I admit that, as interested in the commerce and monetary system
of this country I feel a kind of shame that on the occasion of
L2,000,000 or L3,000,000 of gold being taken from this country
to Brazil, or any other country, it should immediately have the
effect of causing a monetary alarm throughout the country. (Speech
of the chancellor of the exchequer in the House of Commons, April
18, 1890.)

This is a suggestive admission, from so well-informed a source, as to the operation of the single gold standard. I commend it to those who would circumscribe and hamper the prosperity of this country by making gold alone the standard of all values.

I have thought it necessary, Mr. President, to state what I conceive to be the true principles of the science of money, the principles that, with the progress of time and growth of intelligence, must prevail the world over; because, without a clear understanding of the relation which the quantity of money in a country bears to the prosperity and happiness of its people, there would be no justification for an addition of either silver, gold, or any other form of money to the quantity already in circulation. If the value of money depends on quantity, then, as long as the world adheres to the automatic theory of money, my contention is that all the silver produced from all the mines of the world should be transmuted into coin; and even then, if the wants of the world continue to increase as they have been increasing, it is only a question of time, and that not far distant, when the combined supply of both metals will be insufficient to maintain the equities in time transactions.

The world having decreed to stand by the automatic system we are now dealing with the question as a practical one.

The only relief that can be had is to adhere strictly to that system, and give it full scope. Remove all legislative restrictions and let the world have the full benefit of all the precious metals that are yielded by the mines.

THE WORLD'S SUPPLY OF GOLD AND SILVER.

Since for thousands of years the world recognized both silver and gold as money, can anybody tell what has happened to render one of them unfitted for the money use?

No argument based on fluctuations in the current supplies of either of the metals can militate against the use of both as money. The fluctuation in the annual yield of both, taken together, is much less violent and less frequent than the fluctuation of either taken separately. By the use of both, society has much greater security against the evil of an insufficient money volume. While a large yield, now of one, and again of the other, has taken place, there is no instance in the history of the world of an extraordinary yield of both occurring simultaneously, except in the single instance of the first discovery of the mines of America. When the gold mines have been yielding largely, there has been no special increase of silver, and during the period when silver has been produced in comparatively large quantities the gold mines have been less productive.

This will be illustrated by the following table showing the yield of both gold and silver, from the discovery of America to the present time.

_Annual average production of the precious metals throughout the
world from the discovery of America to 1872._

[From Director of United States Mint.]

-----------------------------------+-------------+--------------
Periods. | Gold. | Silver.
-----------------------------------+-------------+--------------
1493-1520, average for each year | $3,855,000 | $1,953,000
1521-1544 do | 4,759,000 | 3,749,000
1545-1560 do | 5,657,000 | 12,950,000
1561-1580 do | 4,546,000 | 12,447,000
1581-1600 do | 4,905,000 | 17,409,000
1601-1620 do | 5,662,000 | 17,538,000
1621-1640 do | 5,516,000 | 16,358,000
1641-1660 do | 5,829,000 | 15,223,000
1661-1680 do | 6,154,000 | 14,006,000
1681-1700 do | 7,154,000 | 14,209,000
1701-1720, average for each year | 8,520,000 | 14,779,000
1721-1740 do | 12,681,000 | 17,921,000
1741-1760 do | 16,356,000 | 22,158,000
1761-1780 do | 13,761,000 | 27,128,000
1781-1800 do | 11,823,000 | 36,534,000
1801-1810 do | 11,815,000 | 37,161,000
1811-1820 do | 7,606,000 | 22,474,000
1821-1830 do | 9,448,000 | 19,141,000
1831-1840 do | 13,484,000 | 24,788,000
1841-1850 do | 36,393,000 | 32,434,000
1851-1855 do | 131,268,000 | 36,827,000
1856-1860 do | 136,946,000 | 37,611,000
1861-1865 do | 131,728,000 | 45,764,000
1866-1870 do | 127,537,000 | 55,652,000
1871-1872 do | 113,431,000 | 81,849,000
-----------------------------------+-------------+--------------

_World's production of gold and silver for the calendar years
1873 to 1889, inclusive._

----------+---------------+-------------------------------------------
| Gold. | Silver.
Calendar +---------------+--------------+--------------+-------------
years. | | Fine | Market | Coining
| Value. | ounces. | value. | value.
----------+---------------+--------------+--------------+-------------
1873 | $96,200,000 | 63,267,000 | $82,120,000 | $81,800,000
1874 | 90,750,000 | 55,300,000 | 70,673,000 | 71,500,000
1875 | 97,500,000 | 62,263,000 | 77,578,000 | 80,500,000
1876 | 103,700 000 | 67,753,000 | 78,322,000 | 87,600,000
1877 | 114,000,000 | 62,648,000 | 75,240,000 | 81,000,000
1878 | 119,000,000 | 73,476,000 | 84,644,000 | 95,000,000
1879 | 109,000,000 | 74,250,000 | 83,383,000 | 96,000,000
1880 | 106,500,000 | 74,791,000 | 85,636,000 | 96,700,000
1881 | 103,000,000 | 78,890,000 | 89,777,000 | 102,000,000
1882 | 102,000,000 | 86,470,000 | 98,230,000 | 111,800,000
1883 | 95,400,000 | 89,177,000 | 98,986,000 | 115,300,000
1884 | 101,700,000 | 81,597,000 | 90,817,000 | 105,500,000
1885 | 108,400,000 | 91,652,000 | 97,564,000 | 118,500,000
1886 | 106,000,000 | 93,276,000 | 92,772,000 | 120,600,000
1887 | 105,300,000 | 96,189,000 | 94,265,000 | 124,366,000
1888 | 109,900,000 | 109,911,000 | 103,316,000 | 142,107,000
1889 | 118,800,000 | 125,830,000 | 117,651,000 | 162,690,000
----------+---------------+--------------+--------------+-------------

From this table it will be seen that from 1801 to 1820 the average yearly yield of gold was $9,710,500; of silver, $36,847,500--four of silver to one of gold.

From 1821 to 1840 the average yearly yield of gold was $11,466,000; of silver, $21,964,000--two of silver to one of gold.

From 1841 to 1860 the average yearly yield of gold was $85,150,000; of silver, $34,826,500--two and a half of gold to one of silver.

From 1861 to 1880 the yearly average yield of gold was $117,991,850; of silver, $68,043,900--nearly two of gold for one of silver.

From 1881 to 1889 the yearly average yield of gold was $105,500,000: of silver, $122,540,388--one-sixth more silver than gold.

From those figures it is plain that no continuous, extraordinary yield of silver, such as might warrant the slightest fear of an unnecessary addition to the money volume, is to be expected. On the other hand the continuous drain of gold for use in the arts, as dentistry, gold plate, jewelry, gilding, and articles of decoration generally, is seriously encroaching upon the annual supply.

Both metals possess in common, and neither in any different degree from the other, all the qualities which are recognized as necessary in a commodity money. Silver enjoys in an equal degree with gold the quality of indestructibility, of divisibility, of malleability, and of resistance to chemical changes. The stock of both existing in the world (the product of all time) is estimated to be about equal, the production of the past 500 years being set down as--

Gold $7,240,000,000
Silver 7,435,000,000

That silver mining has not proved exceptionally profitable in this country is proved by the comparatively small number that have engaged in the business. This country has been thoroughly explored in the search for additional mines without any of great value being discovered. The allurements of the business lie in its uncertainty; and for the occasional prize that is drawn thousands of blanks are found. There is always enough hope of results to induce continued effort, but there is also sufficient doubt and discouragement to deter an undue number from engaging in the business.

The mines of Mexico have been worked for hundreds of years; and up to 1873 the business of silver mining in that country had all the stimulus that a parity at 15-1/2 to 1 could give to it. It is not, therefore, probable that any material increase of output can be expected from that quarter.

Conceding, for the sake of the argument, the eventual possibility of so superabundant a yield of silver as to work injury and inequity to the interests of creditors, is it not manifest that it is in the power of society at all times to remedy the evil by a limitation of the coinage? And on the other hand, is it not equally manifest that for an insufficient supply there is no remedy?

If great mountains of silver should be discovered, does not Congress meet constantly? If there should seem to be too much, could not the coinage be readily limited to prevent depreciation? But, on the other hand, when we dedicate the monetary function solely to one metal, of which there is manifestly and admittedly the world over an insufficient supply, where is the remedy? What can Congress do to enlarge that supply? Absolutely nothing.

THE GOLD USED IN THE ARTS.

The Director of the United States Mint a few years ago estimated that of the $100,000,000 gold annually produced from the mines of the world $46,000,000 are consumed in the manufacture of jewelry, gold plate, plated ware, gold-leaf, etc., and in various processes of dentistry.

The single standard of gold, therefore, is maintained by the creditor nations in the face of the admitted fact that but $50,000,000 of that metal are annually added to the money stocks.