New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1878-08-19
L1RnR IND CREnIT


"One-third of a days labor bought bond
:" of the United States for 81 therefore it Is
Just that one-tlird of days labor should
"pay a bond of the United States for 81.
" Money has been made scarce, and it buys
more labor than it did when the bonds were
issued. But it is unjust to make the labor
ing people pay 500 days labor for bond
which cost the holder only the equivalent of
" 100 days labor" OF all the arguments of
the Greenback men, not one is more specious
than this But let us see how much of reason
there is in it.
II is obviously based upon the presumption
that days labor, of given kind, is really
worth as much at one time as at another. 1t
does, indeed, require the same oxeTtiOn of the
same muscles and skill, but is that ali The
worth of a thing is determined not only by
the effort which is required to get il, but by
the demand for it. bit of ordinary stone
from the top of the Rocky Mountains would
cost many days labor to obtain, but nobody
would give anything for it therefore it
is worth nothing. The labor spent in
making an Old-fashiOned spinning-wheel
might be as great to-day as it was a
century ago. but now nobody wants the
article, and labor spent in making it would
be worthless. So of every other product
of labor; the demand for it determines the
value of the labor expended in getting or
making it. Iron costs as much labor, let us
say. as it did in 1872, but there is very much
less demand for it; therefore the labor ex-
pended in making iron is worth less Labor
necessarily would fiuctuate in value quite as
widely and frequently as the prices Of the
articles which that labor would produce, but
for the expenditure of capital to sustain labor
during a period of depression in prices, and
this expenditure is prompted by the hope of
ultimate profit upon the articles made. Hence,
there Is no reason whatever for the claim
that the labor which was worth n bond of the
United States years AGO should be worth that
bond to-day; the labor may now be in less
demand, as in fact it is, and therefore depre-
ciated in value.
But this argument also goes upon the pre-
sumption that the credit of the Government
is always the same; that its promise to pay
was worth as much when it was doubtful
whether the Government could maintain its
existence as it is worth now when all foes
have been vanquished Everybody knows
that this is not so. There was time when
capitalists Of Europe, and very many of this
country, would let their money lie idle rather
than lend it to the United States on any
terms. Had that last deadly charge at Gettys-
burg ended in a Confederate victory, who
knows what United States bonds would have
become worth Those who took tho risk,
and lent to the Union, did so because they
were offered high price for the loan, and it
was then worth a high price, for the future
was doubtful. If paid in gold, they viii get
exactly the payment which led them TO take
the risk. If paid less they will DO swindled.
When a man who is about to take great risks
asks money from neighbOr for that purpose,
and, because all will DO lost il he fails,
offers half the profit if he succeeds, what is
he but scoundrel if, after success, he re-
fuses to pay the promised proht7 But the
scoundrelsm is still greater when patriotism
as well as sober judgment has urged the loan.
Those who brought forward their little savings
to aid the Nation, and staked their all upon
its success, deserve not such treatment as
would be held scandalous and dishonOrable,
If between two neighbors in purely business
venture.
The holder Of bonds who has purchased since
the war is not less entitled to his profit. He took
the risk, which we now see was not small,
that ignorance and dishonesty would combine
to rob him. He paid higher prices than were
paid during the war, because the risk was
thought to be less. But nc paid what all the
world then considered fair price for the