The Cincinnati daily star. [volume] ([Cincinnati, Ohio]) 1875-1880, 1877-06-30

legations. We do not believe such pay
ment to be the law of the contract; but
it is so maintained BY the opponents OF
silver money, and must be 30 main
tanned as a logical sequence OF their
doctrines.
The general argument adduced in
justification of the unlooked.fo and un-
called-tor law rejecting silver from the
category OF money in this country, is
that other nations have done so. Even
if this were true in general sense, it
would afford no reason for our doing so.
But it 1s not, in a general sense, true.
England is everywhere cited as an ex-
ample OF the successful demonetzation
of silver. But this is not absolutely true
even of England. Conceding that in
England proper, that is, in the British
Isles, silver has no function as money
beyond the legal-tender limit OF forty
shlllings, that has no relation to the
whole OF the British Empire. The whole
of British India, with all its millions of
people and hundreds of millions of
wealth, has silver money entirely. Eng
land herself conducts all her business,
both public and private, with her
Indian Empire, in silver money. Every
fortnight London puts up from five to
six millions OF rupees, the silver money
OF India, at auction, to be realized there
in Government bills on India payable in
rupees. Considered in her entirety,
England has actually retained the BIZ
metallic system of money. In her Eastern
provinces she recognizes silver money
as legal tender for all debts; and her.
self treats it as such. How then can it
be said that England has actually de-
monetized silver?
Moreover, even to the extent OF her
rejection of silver money at home, Eng
land has done this as measure Of
policy to increase the value OF her reve-
nue. from India by herself turning mon
ey-changer and speculating upon the
exchanges rendered necessary by her
| home legislation, discriminating against
her own colonies abroad. Is this the eX-
ample OF good faith and financial cun-
ming that our statesmen would aim to
emulate? In a measure, our law OF 1878
accOmplishes the same end, that is, OF
not OF the Government. When the
| United States shall come to have for
elgn possessions of imp erial extent pay
ing tribute to the "Home Government" >"
as England has, it might be an ingeni-
Gus device to demonetize silver at home
and still retain it in our colonies in Or
der to profit by the rates Of exchange,
as England does. But, until that time
comes, we had better not follow the bad
example of England, with none OF its
compensating profits.
| France has never demonetized silver;
and yet her finances and commerce, de-
spite the drawbacks Of war and domes-
tic commotion, have been even sounder
than those of England. There have
been less failures, less stringency, less
commercial Generalization among the
French than among the English mer.
chants of late years. Even Germany
TO whom France paid world Of indem
nifty, has suffered from panic and hard
times more than France did. And Ger
many had demonetized silver. To suct
examples as Germany and England at
ford, the advocates of "monometalism'
refer us as a warrant for our going ant
doing likewise. AS to England, the
analogy does not hold; and as to both
the examples are not encouraging.