Chapter IV: Foreword (4)

A simple illustration is this: A, who lives in Boston, owes B, who lives in San Francisco, $1,000, and C, who lives in San Francisco, owes D, who lives in Boston, $1,000. B and D could exchange drafts with each other; then B and D could collect each other's drafts. But B could sell his draft on A to C for $1,000 and C could pay his debt of $1,000 to D by forwarding him the draft on A. D would then collect the draft on A. It will be seen at once that this transaction has saved the expense of sending $1,000 in money from Boston to San Francisco, and also of sending $1,000 in money from San Francisco to Boston at great expense by express. This transaction between Boston and San Francisco is known and called a transaction in Domestic Exchange.

If A, who lives in New York, owes B, who lives in London, $1,000, and if C, who lives in London, owes D, who lives in New York, $1,000, B, the resident of London, can draw on A in New York, and sell the draft to C, who resides in London, and C could pay his debt to D, who resides in New York, by forwarding B's draft to D, who resides in New York. D could then collect the draft from A. It is perfectly clear that by means of this transaction, the expense of sending $1,000 in gold from New York to London, and also the expense of sending $1,000 in gold from London to New York, has been saved.

This draft would be Foreign Exchange, because the cities are in two different countries.

MR. MERCHANT: According to your illustration, Mr. Banker, if our sales of cotton, grain and meat to Great Britain should amount to $1,000,000,000 a year, and the sales of Great Britain to us of woolens, silks, cotton and cloth and other manufacturies should amount to $1,000,000,000, we would not have to transmit a single dollar of gold either way, because the debts would just cancel each other. If the debtors in the United States could find out who the debtors in Great Britain were, then they could exchange debts with each other. The debts of the two countries would just offset each other.

MR. BANKER: That is absolutely true, and it is entirely possible that the $2,000,000,000 worth of goods in the two countries could be bought and sold without moving a single dollar's worth of gold either way across the Atlantic.

MR. MANUFACTURER: Well, that is just what we want to do and save the expense and trouble of transmitting the money, and it is up to you, Mr. Banker, to explain just how we are to accomplish this trick or feat, because it will save a tremendous expense, if this can be done.

MR. BANKER: Yes, and will bring other advantages to the business interests of the country of almost incalculable importance, as we shall soon see. Now, the question is how to gain these ends. Two things must be accomplished in this connection, if we are to profit by every advantage that can possibly be taken in our trade with each other, as well as in our trade with other countries.

_First_: The Bills of Exchange must be of such a high character as to invite those, who need them to pay debts with, to take them unhesitatingly.

_Second_: The Bills of Exchange must become known to those who may want to use them to pay debts with, instead of shipping the actual money.

MR. MERCHANT: Of course, you gentlemen are aware that our debts abroad are being settled in just this way today to a very large extent, and I do not think that you need worry very much about the Bills of Exchange not becoming known to those who need them to pay debts with, if they are made of such a high character as to command a market, for the market will at once develop and make itself felt. That is, I mean a general market for Bills of Exchange of unquestioned character. The only thing for us to do is to give our Bills of Exchange such a standing as to command ready and general acceptance in the commercial world. How can we do that?

MR. BANKER: That can be accomplished in a very simple, easy and natural way, if we will only adopt it. Let me illustrate what I mean.

Today, A, living in this country, sells a bill of goods, say for $50,000, to some one in Great Britain; the purchaser in Great Britain arranges with his bank to accept a 60 or 90 day bill drawn on it by the American shipper. Such drafts are drawn on well-known bankers, and when accepted become virtually a time-deposit at the bank, and therefore can always be disposed of at the lowest current rate of interest. This arrangement is a very great advantage to the English business man, as it enables him to use the high credit of the bank in carrying on his business.

At the present time our National Banks are not authorized to accept drafts made in this way, but if they were authorized to do so, the credit of our banks would be given to the drafts made by one business man upon another whether the drafts were domestic or foreign. Such an obligation is the most desirable one for a bank or an investor to hold, as a temporary investment for the following reasons:

_First_: The draft arises out of a transaction where goods passing from buyer to seller are equal in value to the face of the draft. The goods are actually in transit, and the draft is economically a title to the goods.

_Second_: The seller is invariably good, or at least thought to be.

_Third_: The buyer is invariably good, or thought to be.

_Fourth_: The bank accepting the draft is invariably good, or believed to be. But above and beyond that no bank will engage in such a transaction, without making itself absolutely safe in some way.

MR. MERCHANT: Mr. Banker, if we should adopt that principle in this country, we would at once make every dollar's worth of goods in transit, or ready for shipment, a liquid asset, practically a cash asset, as we shall see, for the American merchant and manufacturer; because a large amount of capital would at once be attracted to this field for steady employment, or temporary investment.

MR. MANUFACTURER: There is nothing so essential to relieve the constant strain upon individual credit and mobilize the really liquid wealth of the country, as the creation of the kind of paper you have just described. Think of it for a moment; there are the goods in transit, the shipper, the buyer and the banker back of the paper that will be coming due within the next sixty or ninety days. You can hardly imagine anything safer, and more quickly convertible into cash.

Money available for the purchase of such paper would come from many sources, among them the following:

_First_: Corporations would immediately be organized to deal in such paper.

_Second_: All strong business houses, merchants and manufacturers would prefer to hold such paper instead of stocks or bonds, for their surplus funds during their slack seasons.

_Third_: Bankers of all classes, both in the country and city, would find such paper preferable to any other form of investment for a secondary reserve, and for their surplus funds during slack periods in their respective sections.

_Fourth_: If acceptances are limited as they should be to goods in transit, or on the road to consumption, the adoption of this principle will mark, indeed will accentuate, the strong, the fundamental difference between liquid assets and the more fixed forms of investment, such as bonds and stocks. Banking capital employed in this way can far more readily adjust itself to the exigent demands of liquidation in the case of a panic, or a commercial crisis.

_Fifth_: Undoubtedly, to a very large degree, foreign capital would be attracted to our market for this kind of paper, because its strength and liquidity has already been proved to the bankers and capitalists on the other side of the Atlantic. And whenever capital was required, the rate of interest would be such as to be inviting. In other words, the rates of interest would rise, correspondingly with our needs, and the entire commercial world would be our possible market for the commercial paper representing the economic title to the five or six billions of finished goods that are always passing from the producer to the consumers in this country, and to the consumers abroad.

MR. BANKER: Undoubtedly, we should soon have right here a general market to take care of all this kind of paper; and it ought to become soon the strongest and broadest market in the world for this kind of an investment, considering our vast commercial resources. All of our Bills of Exchange would be drawn in dollars, not francs, marks or pounds sterling, and we would put upon them the stamp of the eagle, and not the lion and the unicorn.

UNCLE SAM: I like that. It stirs my blood, warms the cockles of my American heart. That's business.

MR. MANUFACTURER: I understand that for such Bills of Exchange, those accepted by banks, there has grown up in London, Paris, Berlin, Amsterdam and many other European centers, a large market, known as a discount market. Indeed, that this form of paper constitutes a very essential feature of the commercial transactions of all European financial centers.

MR. BANKER: That is true, and unless we follow them and adopt the same principle, and facilitate in the same way the protection, transportation and distribution of our commodities, needed for current consumption, we will continue to work under a very great handicap, as compared with our foreign competitors. Moreover, we will again find it difficult, if not impossible, to adjust ourselves to those periods of contraction which must come from time to time, without almost immeasurable losses, and the consequent stagnation in business that is sure to follow.

MR. MERCHANT: I appreciate what Mr. Banker has just said. I am confident from my observation during the panics of 1893 and 1907 that our greatest injury came from the shock to business due to the fact that there seemed to be no real relief from the strain until there was an actual breakdown all along the line. Now it is evident that if a large amount of capital were employed in the economic titles, as it were, to our consumable commodities in the form of Bills of Exchange and the market for them extended to the financial centers of Europe, as seems probable, indeed certain, whenever the rate of interest was high enough, we should pass through any future strain, without the usual tragic results. Of course this added facility to the investment of our Bills of Exchange will not be a cure-all, but it will certainly correct an obvious and a very great defect in our present method of doing business.

MR. BANKER: Certainly it will not be a cure-all, because it is only an added facility in our credit system, and therefore must be provided for precisely as a corresponding amount of loans should be. You see, don't you, that an acceptance by a bank is practically the same thing as a loan to the buyer and seller of the goods jointly, or to one of them with the other as an endorser. The only difference is this: that if a loan is made the money would be placed at once to the credit of one of them, subject to his check, while the acceptance is an agreement to pay the amount on a future day. The bank must take precisely the same precaution in securing or protecting itself, and should carry identically the same reserve against acceptances that it does against its deposits subject to check.

MR. LAWYER: That is true, for if the buyer and seller fail to make good, and meet the draft, the bank must pay it precisely as a bank must pay the checks of its depositors, even though the borrowers of those deposits do not pay their promissory notes when due. In reality and in fact the results are identically the same, therefore I agree with you, Mr. Banker, that a bank should carry the same reserve against its acceptance liability as against its deposit liability.

MR. MANUFACTURER: Mr. Banker, have Bills of Exchange and bank acceptances been used very long, or are they something quite new and modern?

MR. BANKER: The Lord only knows how ancient they are. However, it is undoubtedly true that the use of them, especially acceptances, has grown enormously in recent years. For it is now a universal practice at all financial centers throughout Europe.

The bank liabilities of the whole world were only $16,000,000,000 in 1890, while today they are upwards of $50,000,000,000, possibly as much as $55,000,000,000. This almost appalling increase is due not only to the growth of international trade and the expansion of the credit system in foreign trade, but to domestic production as well. Of course an acceptance is the natural counterpart of a Bill of Exchange.

Bills of Exchange, or something accomplishing the same purpose, were in use among the Greeks. The history of the subject is buried in much obscurity.

It is stated upon high authority that among the bankers of the Roman world there existed a certain method or means of effecting payments abroad.

MR. LAWYER: Here is what one author, Wilbur Aldrich, says:

"From the beginning of the Christian era the Jews became dispersed and, shut out from other trades and occupations, became usurers, or money-lenders at interest, a business which by the Canon law was forbidden to Christians. The Jews were united by such strong ties that their business assumed almost a corporate aspect. They bought, sold and transferred for collection part of the many debts constantly owed to them, and became practically an international exchange community. Their practice gradually evolved the Bill of Exchange.

"Rivals of the Jews, and more given to money changing, Lombard and other Italians naturally also became exchangers. Many large Italian houses included whole families, and had branches in many cities widely separated. The financiers from each city in Italy and from associated leagues of such cities, frequently united for exchange purposes. Italian finance thus grew into a great system of international exchange. Among the great fairs of the Middle Ages, under the influence of the Italians, some became connected chiefly with the business of exchange; Piazenca, the most noted of the fairs of exchange, was practically a clearing house for foreign exchanges.

"The Bill of Exchange was already in frequent use in the middle of the thirteenth century, but at this time its form was that of a document certified before a notary. At the end of the fourteenth century, it had approached the form now in use. It should be added that the Bill of Exchange was drawn only by the money changers and the bankers that had branches or agents.

"The business of bill broking grew up in England towards the end of the fourteenth century. The issuance of Bills of Exchange, based upon genuine business sales of goods, was recognized as a legitimate source of gain by the Canonists; or the ecclesiastic lawyers."

MR. BANKER: You _see_, Mr. Manufacturer, from what Mr. Lawyer has just read, Bills of Exchange, in practically the same form that we now have them, have been in use about 500 years. However, we are not now so much interested in a post mortem of the Bill of Exchange as we are in its place in our commerce. What we are most interested in is, just what part the Bill of Exchange is playing in the trade and commerce of today. What we want to get clearly fixed in our minds is what it is, and what it does, as distinguished from other instruments of trade.

_First_: For the purpose of a definite idea of just what exchange is, let us remember that exchange includes every written promise or order to pay money that is used to substitute one credit for another credit, or to make one debt pay another debt.

_Second_: That Bills of Exchange (sometimes called drafts, or acceptances, indiscriminately) are promises or orders to pay money which are used to substitute one credit for another credit, or to make one debt pay another debt, at some distant city. If the cities are in the same country, the Bills of Exchange are called Domestic Exchange. If the cities are in different countries, the Bills of Exchange are called Foreign Exchange.

_Third_: Let us agree, gentlemen, that so far as we are concerned we should not, and shall not, consider the acceptance of any draft by a bank as legitimate, unless the draft has grown out of an actual sale and shipment of goods. In other words, what I want to impress upon you is that if the draft is the economic title to goods, which are moving from the producer to the consumer, the liability of a bank upon an acceptance is reduced to a minimum. Acceptances of drafts growing out of sales and shipments of goods will never be a source of dangerous expansion, because they will liquidate, or pay themselves out, as the goods will be wanted to eat, to wear, to use, or to go into other manufactures, almost immediately.

_Fourth_: I want to nail one fact down right here so that no one of you will ever overlook it, or forget it; and that fact is this: An acceptance is just as much a bank liability as a deposit subject to check, for if the seller and buyer, or the drawer and the drawee, don't pay the debt on the day named, the bank will have to pay it, just as much as it will have to pay the checks against its deposits, although the people who borrowed the deposits have not paid their notes. It is clear, therefore, that the same reserve should be carried to protect acceptances as deposits.

MR. LAWYER: I am convinced of that, and I think we cannot insist upon this conclusion too strongly for two reasons. First, the credit facilities for trading, or carrying on business, are increasing at a tremendous rate, and this particular form of credit is probably increasing at a greater pace just now than any other. Second, there is no form of credit more indirect, subtle and liable to mislead than this; therefore, it will require double diligence to keep it as good as gold. We must remember that since gold is our standard of value, gold alone is the touchstone of all credit, acceptances as well as deposits and bank notes.

MR. BANKER: There is no question whatever about that. If we want an absolutely sound and impregnable financial and banking system, we must meet checks and acceptances with gold just as well as bank notes, for they are all identical and the same thing--only in different forms--bank credit. Gentlemen, if you place our banks in a position where they can pay gold no one will ever ask for gold, except for some special purpose like that of export.

MR. MERCHANT: Is it not a fact that credit transactions in business are increasing every year?

MR. MANUFACTURER: Mr. Merchant, I presume you mean, relatively. That is, that the proportion of business transactions in credit as distinguished from cash is greater now than formerly.

MR. MERCHANT: That is precisely what I mean, of course. I am aware that there is on the average a great increase of business every year.

MR. BANKER: In some localities credit transactions are increasing, but in others they are practically at a standstill. For example, I suppose if you should take some country town in a cotton-growing district, the amount of cash used from August to January might be 75 per cent of all the transactions; for the planter pays the pickers and all the laborers cash, and they in turn pay the storekeeper; during other periods of the year, when accounts are running, the cash used is much smaller. The average amount of cash used gradually falls as the people come to use banks more and more, the bank checks taking the place of currency. Generally speaking, however, the average country community does about 60 per cent of its business with currency, while the medium sized cities, or towns, do possibly as much as 60 per cent of the business with checks. In the largest cities as much as 90 per cent of the business is done with checks, while the clearing houses settle their differences or balances with about 5 per cent of actual money, where money is used. Sometimes the differences or balances at the clearing houses are settled by checks or drafts on a financial center.

While we have no definite figures that justify a positive statement, it is generally estimated that about 90 per cent of all the business of the country is done with some form of credit instrument, checks, drafts, or bills of exchange.

MR. MERCHANT: Then all forms of exchange, promissory notes, checks, drafts and bills of exchange are really mediums of exchange in precisely the same sense that gold coin and currency are mediums of exchange.

MR. BANKER: Certainly they are all just as efficient as mediums of exchange, as gold coin and other forms of currency, although not as facile for small trade. But, in large transactions they are far more expeditious, more convenient, cost much less, and involve less risk. These are the reasons they are used instead of cash to so large an extent.

UNCLE SAM: Boys, from the attention that you have given this subject it is evident that you are mightily interested, for you have had to work a good deal harder to understand what you were talking about than usual. But we have arrived, we have really gotten somewhere, difficult as Exchange is generally thought to be.

Now, in order to fix in your minds just what progress we have made during these five talks, I want to review what we have accomplished, or agreed to.

The first night we found out that our standard of value was gold. The second night we decided that our money was gold coin and that nothing else would do. The third night we found out that our currency was gold coin, token money, United States Notes and bond-secured notes; we also found out that the United States Notes and bond-secured bank notes were not fit for currency. The fourth night we determined that the only currency in addition to our gold coins and token coins worth considering for our purpose was a credit bank note, or bank credit currency. Tonight we have found out what Exchange is and that nine-tenths of our business is done in some form of it; but that we must keep it as good as gold by holding adequate reserves to protect this form of credit as well as any other.

Now, I call that going some.

MR. MANUFACTURER: Uncle Sam, last Wednesday evening, during our discussion, Mr. Banker frequently used the word "reserve" in connection with our currency, and insisted that the reserves should be such as to protect the currency, and tonight he has again used the word "reserve" in the same way in connection with exchange. While I know in a general way what he means, I am not at all sure that I comprehend fully what a reserve is in its true and broader sense.

MR. FARMER: Nor do I, and to confess the truth I am a little dazed on that very point, and I want to suggest that we spend the next night finding out what a bank reserve is. If all that Mr. Banker has been saying is true the reserve is certainly the hub of this wheel, and I want to tell you now that unless the hubs of your wheels are all right, you won't have much of a wagon when you get through.

MR. BANKER: That's right. Your reserves are the very heart of the whole question, the hub of the wheel.

UNCLE SAM: Well, then, we'll have reserves up next Wednesday, and let us hope that our reserves will never get down, at least to a dangerous point.

Good Night.

SIXTH NIGHT

VALUE, PRICE, WEALTH, PROPERTY, CREDIT

UNCLE SAM: Well, boys, what about reserves?

MR. LAWYER: Uncle Sam, soon after we departed the other night, I began to think over the subject of reserves; but soon found myself considering several other points, which, it seemed to me, we should take up before reserves. Therefore, without consulting you, I telephoned Mr. Merchant, Mr. Banker, Mr. Manufacturer, and I saw Mr. Laboringman and talked the matter over with him. We all agreed that there were several other points that we should discuss tonight instead of reserves. I knew that Mr. Farmer lived on a Rural Free Delivery route, and that I could reach him by noon the next day or Thursday morning; so here we are ready to talk about something else. And we came to this conclusion without even consulting you, for which possibly we ought all of us now to beg your pardon.

UNCLE SAM: Well, there you go again. Really, I feel as though I were in about the same position that one of my wisest Presidents, Abraham Lincoln, said he was in, with regard to his influence over his Cabinet. You will remember he once said, "I don't believe I have any influence with the present administration, anyway." Of course, we all know that was one of Honest Abe's sly drives, because he knew deep down in his soul that in the end he was always the master of ceremonies. However, what is it that you want to talk about? Of course, you understand, that under the circumstances, having made the arrangement to talk about reserve, "I am completely upsot."

MR. FARMER: Well, I'm the fellow that suggested that we talk about reserves tonight; but I am sure that the change made was most advisable. To use an ugly illustration, possibly ugly to this august assembly, we now have our horses representing the standard of value hitched up to our wagon which represents our currency and exchange, the things that carry the value, wealth, property, and all commodities that go by price, the trades having been made on credit, but calling for capital. I think with Mr. Lawyer that we had better find out just what these various words or terms mean before going any further. Otherwise we will certainly be using words whose meaning we do not know, or, at least, do not properly appreciate.

MR. MERCHANT: Now just what did you say; value, wealth, property, capital and credit? That all sounds very well, but I suggest that you include one more word that has always been a source of annoyance to me when I want to buy anything, and most unsatisfactory when I want to sell anything, and that is "price."

MR. FARMER: Oh, I had that in all right, but I will admit, in a sort of backhanded way.

MR. BANKER: All right, then, let us include price in the list; then the programme for tonight is, value, price, wealth, property, capital and credit.

MR. LABORINGMAN: Just what do you mean by the value of anything? That is, what is value anyway?

MR. MANUFACTURER: I have been studying over that very thing, and I believe I can give you a definition that will wash. The value of anything is measured by the use to which it is put, and is expressed in anything for which it is exchanged.

MR. FARMER: I have been mulling over this question of value a little myself, and I think that Mr. Manufacturer has that about right. I worked it out this way: I have an old horse down on the farm that I traded for, giving Hiram Johnson, my neighbor, a mule. That mule was a mighty handy animal. I could do anything with him on the farm, but he was a little too handy with his hind legs occasionally, so I traded him off to let him practice on my neighbor Johnson. Now the value of that mule was that horse that I got in exchange for it; and the value of that horse was the mule. So, too, if I traded a hog for a sheep the value of the hog is the sheep, and the value of the sheep is the hog.

MR. MERCHANT: Hold on just a minute before you go any further, as I want to know whether anyone here can tell me what intrinsic value is. We heard so much about that during the campaign of 1896; and I want to know whether there is anything in it or not. I ran up against the same expression in one of the books that I thumbed away back in 1896. And today you sometimes hear men say that gold has intrinsic value. Now, according to your definition, if no one could use gold, or rather did not use it and you could not exchange it for anything else, it would not have value.

MR. BANKER: Precisely so. Nothing is more absolutely true than that. Gold, like everything else, gets its value from the demand for it, which comes from its use and its consequent exchangeability.

MR. LAWYER: That is undoubtedly true, all the value that gold has arises from its use and exchangeability, and its exchangeability arises from its universal use.

It may be said, possibly, that the value of anything is measured by the use to which it can be put; but I believe that it is all covered by the latter part of the definition given by Mr. Manufacturer: _The value of anything is any other thing for which it can be exchanged._ Anything has value when it is exchangeable; when it is not exchangeable it has no value. What is really more in keeping with our common everyday language, is the definition of the Roman Law, "The value of anything is what it can be sold for."

MR. BANKER: Yes, that is true in one sense, but I think we had better make a distinction between receiving money and something else. If you exchange anything for money, the amount of money received is more properly called its price.

MR. LAWYER: You are right; I think we should make just that distinction: "The value of anything is the thing you receive in exchange for it." _The price of anything is the money you receive in exchange for it._ Of course in everyday conversation, we are constantly using value and price indiscriminately. We ask, what is the value of something, when we want to know the price of it.

UNCLE SAM: Well, you have made short work of two topics or points raised already.

MR. FARMER: Yes, and if we keep our noses to the grindstone, our eyes on the sickle we are grinding, and our feet on the ground, we'll make headway right along.

MR. LABORINGMAN: I think anybody can understand this subject, at least so far anyway. We may get over our heads before we get through, but I know I'm all right yet.

UNCLE SAM: The great thing to do in a discussion of this kind is just what you do in any other matter. Talk common sense. Just talk horse sense. Do you know I flatter myself that the common sense of the American people is the wealth of the country?

MR. LAWYER: Wealth, did you say, Uncle Sam? Why that is just what we are going to talk about. It may be that common sense is the source of most of the wealth of the American people, but really, Uncle Sam, with all due deference to you, I do not think you can call it wealth. Aristotle said: "We call wealth everything whose value is measured by money."

MR. BANKER: That definition of Aristotle has never been improved upon, and today all students, scholars and economists have accepted it as correct. And, while others have talked without limit and written books without number about wealth, no one has improved upon what Aristotle said wealth was. Just keep this simple inquiry in your minds: "Can it be sold for money," and, remember that "whatever can be exchanged for money is wealth."

Let me illustrate just what I mean. If I have land, houses, cattle, horses, cotton, corn, or any other material thing that I can convert into money, they all constitute wealth. Again, if I were a lawyer, a doctor, farmer, bricklayer, engineer, musician, or painter, my services would be wealth because I can sell them or exchange them for money. Again, there is still another kind of wealth that may be described by the single word "rights," such as mortgages, bonds, stocks, bank notes, checks, drafts, bills of exchange, copyrights, patents, good will of a business, etc., all these various things are also wealth because they can be exchanged for money. They can all be bought and sold.

Let us remember this then, that all wealth is one of these three things:

_First_: Wealth is material, land, etc.

_Second_: Wealth is labor, work, etc.

_Third_: Wealth consists of rights, checks, notes, bonds, etc.

MR. LAWYER: Then, if I understand you correctly, you say a man is wealthy because he has a good deal that he can turn into money. Of course I am aware that a man may be considered wealthy in one community, and in another community the same man with the same amount of wealth may be considered a comparatively poor man--in other words, everything is relative. A man worth $50,000 in some small country town may be considered, and properly so, a very rich man; but on Fifth Avenue, New York, he would be considered a comparatively poor man, because it might take $50,000 to pay a year's rent for a house.

MR. LABORINGMAN: You bet I can see that point all right.

MR. FARMER: It seems to me as though you have made that perfectly clear, but I want to tell you boys that when I tried to study up on this question during the week, I got all balled up on the words property and wealth, for I cannot see the slightest difference between these two words.

MR. LAWYER: Well, I think there is a very great difference; and I think I can demonstrate to you by an illustration right in your own neighborhood just what the distinction is between these two words. You will remember, Mr. Farmer, when that mill located over on Carroll River, and that big dam was put in, Mr. Adams, a man whom you and I both know very well, owned all the land in that neighborhood. You will remember that he proceeded to borrow money and build houses for the employees who wanted to come and work in the mill. I think he built as many as 150 houses for that purpose. You will remember the dam washed out and that they did not rebuild it; and as a consequence the mill closed down. The result was the employees all left, and Mr. Adams was involved to a very large extent, I think something over $200,000 all told. Now he still has the property, but the insurance company has the mortgages--in fact, Mr. Adams has a great deal more property now than he had before the mill located there, because he has the land and the 150 houses, but he has a good deal less wealth. For when the mill located there, Mr. Adams' wealth exceeded $100,000, but after the mill closed he could not rent or sell the houses to anyone. Now the evident result was that he had increased the amount of his property, for he had 150 houses, but he actually had no wealth left. His property was what we lawyers call corporeal property, that is, material property, land, and buildings. The insurance companies which held the mortgages had a very different kind of property, called by the lawyers incorporeal property, that is, not material property but an interest in the real or material property.

I think you will all agree that while Mr. Adams still has all his property, all the wealth there is left belongs to the insurance company which holds the mortgages.

MR. MERCHANT: Mr. Lawyer, is it not true that you could and would say that a man had a lot of property if he owns say 100,000 acres of land worth only 25 cents an acre, even if it was not salable at all?

MR. LAWYER: Yes, I think that is true, and illustrates in another way that there is or may be a real difference between property and wealth; however, it may be said that in conversation we often use the words wealth and property without much, if any, distinction. It seems to me that we should note this particular difference. _Wealth consists of property convertible into money, and therefore implies exchangeability, while property may not mean wealth at all, because the property has no exchangeable value._

MR. BANKER: Mr. Lawyer, I think that that last statement of yours will assist Mr. Farmer very greatly in understanding the real difference between wealth and property. The difference is certainly very evident.

MR. FARMER: Yes, I have caught on. There may be a very great difference between wealth and property, although we are in the habit of using these two words without any reference to the special meaning that really attaches to them. In our conversation we use them indiscriminately, and I don't know as that makes any difference; but for our purposes, that is, for the purposes of these discussions, I think it is very important that we should know the difference; because something may arise that will compel a recognition of the real difference between these two words.

MR. BANKER: I was just going to remark that the very difference between these two words suggests one of the other words we have agreed to consider tonight, and that is the word "capital"; for capital is a form of wealth, although all wealth is not capital.

Wealth, as we have seen, consists:

(1) Of material things, such as houses, land, etc.;

(2) Of productive power, called labor, etc.;

(3) Of rights, such as checks, notes, bonds, etc.

The owner of these things may use some of them for his convenience. He may so use some of them as to produce a profit. Now, when anything is traded with, or so used as to produce a profit, or as we often say used productively, it is called capital.

Stephens defines capital thus: "Capital, the source whence any profit or revenue flows."

So Senior says: "Economists are agreed that _whatever_ gives a profit is properly called _capital_."

Again M.D. Fontenay says: "Wherever there is a _revenue_, you perceive _capital_."

MacLeod says: "Capital is an economic quantity used for the purpose of profit." I would suggest that we say _Capital is anything used for the purpose of profit_.

MacLeod uses this language also: "If a person has a sum of money, he may expend it on his household requirements; or in gratifying his personal taste by buying books, or statues, or pictures, etc. Money spent in this way is not _capital_.

"But if he buys goods of any sort for the purpose of selling them again with a _profit_: Then the money so employed is '_capital_,' and the goods so purchased are also _capital_, because they are intended to be sold with a '_profit_.'

"So money let out at interest is _capital_.

"In a similar way any material thing may be used as capital. If a landlord lets out his land for the purpose of profit, it is capital.

"All modern economists class personal skill, ability, energy and character, as wealth, because persons can make a profit by their use. Hence they may be used as capital, as well as material objects.

"If a man digs in his garden for his own amusement such labor is not capital; or if he sings or acts or gives gratuitous lectures on any subject to his friends, such labor is not capital.

"But if he sells his labor in any capacity for money: then such labor is capital for him. Thus Huskisson says: 'that he had always maintained that labor is the poor man's capital.' So Mr. Cardwell addressing his constituents said 'labor is the poor man's capital.' And a writer in a daily paper, speaking of agricultural laborers, said: 'The only capital they possess is their labor, which they bring into the market to supply their daily wants.'

"So if a man expends money in learning a profession such as that of an advocate, physician, engineer, or a profession of any sort which he practices for profit, the money laid out in acquiring such knowledge is capital: and his skill, ability and knowledge are also capital. He makes an income which is measurable and taxable, just in the same way as if he had made profits by selling goods.

"Now, there are two fundamentally distinct ways in which capital may increase:

"1. By direct and actual increase of quantity; thus flocks, and herds, and all the fruits of the earth increase by adding to their number and quantity.

"2. By exchange.

"That is by exchanging something which has a low value in a place, for something which has a higher value.

"Now, it is clear that money produces a profit, and becomes capital, by the second of these methods. Money is used as capital by exchanging it for some goods or labor, the produce of which may be sold or exchanged again, for a greater sum than they cost."

MR. LAWYER: Mr. Banker, that is very simple and very clear, but it strikes me that a distinction which is of greater importance to us is the form that capital takes, and I would say, as preliminary to a distinction in the different forms of capital, that we should have a broad definition of what capital is, concretely expressed. _Capital is that part of the accumulated wealth of the country that is used for the purpose of profit. It is either Active, Passive, or Fixed._

The Active Capital is that portion of the wealth of the country which is employed in the production, transportation and distribution of consumable commodities, and is more accurately described as the commercial fund of the country.

The Passive Capital is that portion of the wealth of the country which is derived from the commercial fund in the form of earnings, profits, savings and income from investments, and is more accurately described as the investment fund of the country. It is represented by bonds, mortgages, and other investment securities.

The Fixed Capital is that portion of the wealth of the country which is represented by real estate, buildings and all permanent improvements, such as railroads, mill property, irrigation enterprises, etc.

_If we transfer the Active Capital, or commercial fund of the country, to the Passive Capital, or investment fund, or what is still more serious, convert it into Fixed Capital, we can no more keep the people working and producing new wealth than you can keep a steam engine producing power without coal and water._

What invariably happens in the so-called good times but almost invariably what, by experience, proves "boom" times, is that business men and in fact everybody, not only take all of their spare money, and go into speculations, but they exhaust their credit as well; and what they have to pay so far exceeds what they have to pay with, that when the chain of credit breaks at any one point, the whole fabric falls.

It then takes years, usually, to catch up and reconstruct and reach a normal condition in which, after "paying for the dead horses," so to speak, the profits on business, savings from labor and the income from rents and investments again begin to supply investment funds. For example, it took at least four years to get the American people to thinking naturally and normally, after the panic of 1907--and the fact is some "dead horses" have not been paid for yet; but generally speaking, we are now ready to turn a considerable sum from various sources into the investment fund of the country, or into bonds, construction of new work, and into fixed investments, lands, buildings, railroads and other permanent improvements.

MR. BANKER: I think that you will all perceive from what Mr. Lawyer has just said with regard to the various directions into which capital may be turned and the fatal mistake that is ever and ever recurring--the transfer of active or productive capital, or the commercial fund, into the investment fund, or fixed forms, is what invariably, as he said a moment ago, breaks the chain of credit at some point.

You can readily see, indeed it takes no argument to show, that nothing in the business world should be guarded so jealously as the commercial fund of the country, in order that credit may be maintained and labor steadily employed.

MR. LAWYER: Our discussion has brought us most naturally to the last word suggested for our consideration, and that is the word "credit." I remember what Daniel Webster once said in a speech when speaking on the continuance of the charter of the United States Bank in 1837. It was this: "Credit is the vital air of the system of modern commerce. It has done more, a thousand times, to enrich the nations than all the mines of all the world." And again in another place he says: "We owe more to credit and to commercial confidence than any nation which ever existed; and ten times more than any nation, except England. Credit and confidence have been the life of our system, and powerfully productive causes of all our prosperity. They have covered the seas with our commerce, replenished the treasury, paid off the national debt, excited and stimulated the manufacturing industry, encouraged labor to put forth the whole strength of its sinews, felled the forests and multiplied our numbers, and augmented the nation, so far beyond all example, as to leave us a phenomenon for other nations to look at with wonder."

MR. BANKER: That might have been true in 1837, but today other commercial nations could truthfully reverse that comment, for they have in some respects and in some places passed us in credit facilities--they have beaten us as it were at our own game, that is, in having worked out a more highly developed use of credit.

MR. MANUFACTURER: When you recall the fact that between 90 and 95 per cent of our business is carried on in some form of credit, you realize that we have become so accustomed to this marvelous device that we have lost appreciation of its power for human achievement and advancement.

MR. BANKER: You are right. Do you know that I regard credit as one of the three greatest instrumentalities of modern civilization?

MR. LAWYER: Well, no, I never thought of credit in that connection. That suggestion is so unusual that I am quite interested to know what you regard as the three and in what order of importance you would place them.

MR. BANKER: I regard the invention of printing as the greatest influence in the world's advancement, because it opened up the paths of knowledge to the poorest as well as the richest, and completely destroyed the supremacy of wealth in the acquisition of knowledge. We have observed what gigantic strides have been made during the past twenty years, and with what increasing and amazing facility information is now being disseminated, the progress of the last ten years outstripping the imagination itself. Everybody can now know everything, if they have the time and ability to acquire it.

MR. FARMER: How absolutely true that is. There are no less than ten magazines on my table at home. They cover every conceivable subject from electrical science, in which my son is deeply interested, to the fashion plates of the latest style of women's dresses, current events, current literature, fruit growing, intense farming, stock breeding, eugenics and euthenics.

MR. LAWYER: Hold on there, Mr. Farmer, or you'll prove conclusively that you fellows out in the country know more than we do in town.

MR. FARMER: Well, between you and me, I think that's so.

MR. BANKER: The second most powerful agent in the advancement of the human race is that instrumentality by which all the resources of the human mind have been developed and brought into requisition in meeting the ever-increasing demands of mankind throughout the world. It has destroyed the supremacy of money, and provided the means by which the most humble of the race can place his foot upon the ladder of opulence. That instrumentality is credit.

MR. LAWYER: I doubt whether such a proposition was ever thought of, certainly it has never been advanced to my knowledge before; but when you stop to think of it, I do not believe that anyone can successfully controvert that statement. Look about you, and imagine, if you can, what the condition of the people would have been without the advantage of credit. Who of all your acquaintances has not made his way to success by means of credit. Credit is certainly the gateway to opportunity, and opportunity is the everlasting hope of the world.

MR. BANKER: Mr. Lawyer, unless you stop your flow of eloquence upon this newly discovered means of human happiness, I will not get a chance to state the third greatest contributing cause to the uniform and universal development and advancement of mankind. It is steam and its modern companion electricity. Through the application of steam to ocean craft and railroads, transportation has brought the people of the whole world practically into one market zone, and we are now all eating the same food and wearing the same clothes, and to the last degree, every people, and broadly speaking, every man, is doing that which he can do most efficiently and profitably.

MR. MANUFACTURER: Mr. Banker, you have certainly opened up an entirely new strain of thought to me; and yet when you grasp the full force of the idea, and comprehend fully these three elements or forces: printing, the general transmission or diffusion of thought or knowledge; credit, the fullest use of all our talents by opening up a world of opportunity; and transportation, the fullest exchange of all the products of the mind and hand of man, you have actually covered the realm of human life up to date. And yet, who ever thought of placing this relative importance upon credit. We have been discussing the comparative importance of gun powder that brought the knight and soldier to a common level, the cotton gin, electricity, the telegraph, the telephone, chemistry, surgery, wireless, printing and steam, but whoever heard of credit in this connection?

MR. MERCHANT: What you say is distinctly true, but all these other things I can readily see are only additional facilities in making the three great fundamental instrumentalities for the advancement of the human race more efficient; and the more one thinks it over, the more impressive Mr. Banker's statement becomes.

_First_: Printing, the means of spreading knowledge;

_Second_: Credit, the fullest opportunity of developing and using the powers of mind and body;

_Third_: Steam and electricity, the means of distributing on land and sea the products of all mankind.

These three, printing, credit and power are certainly the three greatest forces of modern civilization.

MR. BANKER: Now, gentlemen, having convinced you as I assume I must have done, of the tremendous part that credit is playing in the world of today, let us try to find out and comprehend just what credit really is, and how it happens to be so essential to our present life.

The word "credit" means, "I believe," "I trust." That is, I believe in a man, in a man's character, and in his ability, and therefore I trust him to do something tomorrow, three months from now, six months from now, nine months from now, one year, or possibly a longer time, which he cannot do today. That is credit. What a limitless field of opportunity and then of speculation this confidence of man in man opens up. Credit is to money what steam is to water, and credit like steam must always be kept within control, and within safe bounds, as in the case of steam, or there will be an explosion of credit, a most direful thing. Now, there never will be an explosion or crisis in the world of credit, so long as credit is subjected constantly to the test of coin redemption, that is, the conversion of credit into money, gold. So long as credit can be extinguished by payment in gold, it is under control. But, gentlemen, when gold redemption becomes impossible, look out! Let me read what MacLeod says about that:

"It is unextinguished credit which produces those terrible monetary cataclysms which scatter ruin and desolation among nations. It is by the excessive creation of credit that overproduction is brought about, which causes those terrible catastrophes, called 'commercial crises,' and the inability of credit-shops to extinguish the credit they have created, commonly called the failures of banks, is the cause of the most terrible social calamities of modern times."