National Republican., 1876-08-10
THE COIN FALLACY.

THE COIN FALLACY.
The New York Times, in common with
the other advocates of the single gold
standard, is hard put to it for argument
when it has to resort to most improbable
''suppositions" to sustain its theory of lone
standard for money" In the issue of the
Sd it says: Suppose that silver actually
twas our standard of value, and that silver
"mines Of great richness had been opened
" sufficiently productive to lower the pur-
" chasing power of silver to that of copper,
"would it not be the imperative duty of the
Government to adopt another standardf"
We can only answer this kind of argument
in the same style. Suppose the skies
should fall, and we caught all the larks,
would not some more have to be hatched
out? Our supposition is as probable as
that of the Times in fac, more probable,
for we have high authority for saying that
the heavens shall depart 'as a scroll when
it is rolled together" and at that time they
may fall.
This we know is all nonsense, but 1--WE
must answer fool according to his folly"
1t demonstrates, however, to what straits
the advocates Of the gold standard are re-
duced to defend their untenable position.
The Times adopts an effect for a cause.
seemingly from inability to distinguish be-
tween the two. Several Of the creditor
nations have demonetized silver, we have
foolishIy followed .heir example, and in
consequence of this its price has fallen as
compared with gold. The decentralization
was the cause and the fall the effect, but
the Times confounds the two, hence its
inability to reason on the subject. IT we,
owing as we do an immense debt to these
nations which we have agreed and are in
honor bound to pay In gold or silver coin
OF the standard weight and fineness, should
readopt silver as coin, the nations TO whom
we pay this coin, as interest on our bonds
and for the principal of them, will have to
follow our example and return to the double
standard. The argument made in the Times
of the 4th, that the nations to whom we
paid this silver as coin would return 1t to
US at high price as bullion, to be recoined,
is fallacious. We would not need to pur-
chase, nor would they desire to sell it. In
its eagerness to make point the Times for
gets the beginning of its reasoning before it
reaches the end of its article. 1t assumes
that Immediately upon the passage Of the
BLAND bill, )" all the machinery of the world
will be put to work making silver dollars,
and the entire Indebtedness of the United
States paid off in some incredibly short
space of time. Hence, silver would rise
from 81 pence, its present price, to 5S
pence, and we would be forced to pay
premium of forty per cent. for it, because
every bondholder in London, Paris, Frank
fort and Berlin would be rushing their
bonds over ''in every steamer by millions
of dollars" to be paid in this despised sill
yer. Puerility could 60 no further, and
only the callowness of extreme youth can
apologize for such contradictory assertions
and such feeble efforts. Yet they are the
best we have seen in favor of the gold
standard.
The Times endeavors to make point by
speaking of the difference between the
value of greenbacks in 1865 and in 1872
1t forgets that in common with the
NATIONAL REPUBLICAN it holds these
greenbacks to be mere promises to pay.
However. before the sentence is concluded
it remembers this fact, and says: Those
"greenbacks were, as soon as possible, to
"be raised to the full value OF coin, and
"the 1rord coin toas eCeryDhsre accepted as
q w 81
words to inquire by whom or for what
reason it is understood that "coin" meant
gold coin?" The laws of the United
States did not say so. The law under
which these debts were made said coin of
the United States, and the act of March 1S,
1869, declares that all the debts, interest
and non interest bearing. shall be paid ''in
coin or lis equivalent, and in defining
coin the words ''gold and silver" are used.
What right, then, has any one to claim
that gold coin was meant when gold and
silver were expressly mentioned?
Again, the Times says: "It is palpably
" inequitable to permit gold 10 be set aside
" when both parties understood that gold
"was promised" Let US see what both
parties understood. The law approved
March IS, 1869, page l, volume 16, United
States statutes at large, reads as follows:
It is hereby provided and declared that the
faith of the United States is solemnly pledged
10 the payment in coin or its equivalent of all
the obligations of the United States not bear
ing interest, known as United States, and of
all the interest-bearing obligations of the
United States, except in cases where the law
authorizing the issue of any such obligation
has expressly provided that the same may bs
paid in lawful money or other currency than
gold and silver.
The act to refund the public debt, ap-
proved July IA, 1870, provides that the
bonds issued under that act shall be ere
" deemsble in coin Of the (then) present
" standard value" Gold and silver were
both coin at that time, 1t is evident from
the reading of these laws that 'ft is palpa-
" bly, inequitable to permit silver ito be
" set aside when bolh parties understood
" that either gold or silver as promised"