Even when they are taken into the management of the rulers of society, and stamped under various denominations, there must be an exact regard to their commercial value. The stamp upon them is the sign, the intrinsic worth of the metal is the value. The author referred to in the note has given us quotations from three persons of name in the literary world in support of a contrary opinion. The name of any man however great, will not have much weight with me, when I perceive that in any instance he has mistaken his subject. This I believe has been the case with all the gentlemen just mentioned.
Accidental opinion has nothing to do with it.
It arises from the nature of things. As to a pound of gold not being, as to intrinsic value, equivalent to a bushel of wheat, it might with equal truth be affirmed, that to a man perishing with hunger, a mountain of gold would not be equivalent to half a pound of bread. As to the other two authors, they seem to say, that money is in itself of no value, and of no material use to man. But what has led them into this error has been their abstraction of the idea, and taking money in the single light of a sign, without considering it as a standard. Then no doubt, even gold, while it continues in this form is of no other use than as a sign of property.