The Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1860-1888, 1877-07-19
KENOsHA July 10. 1877.

EDITOR TELEGRAPH" Is any man
fool enough to sell a pair of shoes, a
suit Of clothes, his labor or anything
for the same price in deprecated cur
Tency, as he would sell it for in money
current round the world? Yet there
are idiots who really believe that they
can get as much for a cheap silver or
paper dollar as they could for one worth
its face in gold" This, from the New
York Evening Post, is as creditable to
| VIM. Cullen Bryant, it's venerated and
respected proprietor, as it would be to
Peter Cooper to be caught stealing a
ham or goldfish from his grocer.
In the first place no man is "fooP'
enough-not even the writer Of this,
worse than nonsense, which I quote
above-to believe, he can get as much
for a thing Of less value as he can for
thing of greater value.
Secondly-No one but such an "idiot"
as wrote the above would write or talk
about money current round the world
"a thing that never has been and is
not likely to be in our time.
Thirdly-No one but an ''idiot," and
''fool'' too, would pretend to belief in
a dollar "worth its face in gold," such
a dollar never has been, and, never will
be, put in circulation as money. And
Fourthly-Money is not valuable by
reason Of the material of which it is
made, but by it's power to pay debts,
and limitation i'll quantity. AS to cheap
ness, it is as easy to make a cheap gold
dollar as a cheap silver dollar, that is
one of a less value than our present
standard measure Of value, and as easy
to makn dear paper dollar as to make
either; for neither gold, silver nor pa
per dollars are of full value until the
law making power has given to those
dollars the power to pay debts. 1t is
this legal-tender quality, and limitation
in quantity that gives full purchasing
power to money, and how to limit pa
per money in quantity is part, and
very large part, of our difficulty. All
political economists agree that paper
money can be kept at full gold value,
but they argue that no means has been
found yet sufficient for the purpose,
but it's redemption in coin on demand.
AS the experience of the United States,
as I have in previous letters shown,
tells us SO Enthusiastically, the insecurity
resulting froma reliance en- redemption
to do this, it seems to me, common pru-
dence would impel us to look for some
other means for it's accomplishment.
To throw the burden of redemption of
paper currency in coin, or in anything
else, on banks, is to make them Of IN
certain utility to business men; not
Withstanding the issuing OF paper
money might be profitable in itself.
And to inaugurate a system that in
time Of panic and crisis, compells bank
ers in self-defence to withdraw their
paper from circulation, is to make our
folly more palpable and patent; to add
difficulty to difficulty; and to break
down where we should build up. There
is one fact in regard to the paper money
issued at the commencement of the
war, which should convey to us a val
liable lesson in finance. The first issue
of greenbacks was fifty millions of dol
lars, by act of Congress in July 1861.
These greenbacks went forth as nlo7aey
| by the supreme power of the govern
ment. They were no more redeemable
in coin than other greenbacks, and
stood as money the same as coined gold
and silver. Afterwards, Congress au-
thoriZed an additional issue of ten mil
lion dollars of the same kind, as money.
In March, 1862, Congress declared these
$6o,OO0,OOO, to be full zegaz-tendes. the
same as gold coin Of the United States.
for the payment Of all debts; and these
greenbacks rose in value as gold rose
in value. When gold went up, these
$6O,00O,OOO went up; and when gold
declined, these greenbacks declined.
IT'S true few of thesefound there way
among the people and why? Simply
because they took the place of SO much
gold in the business necessities of the
times. (Without reviewing what I
have written on this subject infinitely.