Shepherdstown register. [volume] (Shepherdstown, Va. [W. Va.]) 1849-1955, 1879-09-06
GREENBACk DOCTRINE.
OPPOSED TO USURY OR INTER
EST ON MONEY.
A LETTER FROM JOHN A. THOM-
son TO w. ii. RISTERSON.
". H. Rislerson, Esq, Rockland, o.

Iue OlSL ulJlIuO, auu NOuiu nave MlittCh
you sooner, but have been interrupted
by occasions to be from home. You
wish me 20 send you an article on in
terest from the Greenback standpoint.
Though have written many articles on
the subject | have not one by me at
this moment. 1t is my habit when |
write for paper to get slips and scatter
them broadcast. In the Irish World OF
the 9th August (date anticipatedD you
will find reply of Proudhon to Bastiat
on the subject of interest, and which l
think you will find interesting. You
had better send also for the two pre-
vious issues, and you will have the
whole discussion.
With Proudhon, l have been for for
ty years opposed to ali interest on mon
o.. In 1919, when in the Legislature
of Virginia, introduced bill to sup
press it, even if the penitentiary and
gallows must be resorted to. The bill
of course was voted down, as public
sentiment had not, at that time, been
sufficiently awakened TO the enormous
fraud and crime Of usury. There are
only two modes Of suppressiug uSury:
one is to do it, as l proposed, by peni-
tentiary and gallows; and the other and
better is, that the United States Gov
ernment should discharge Its sworn
duty, and furnish currency enough TO
do the exchanges in cash.
With these preliminary remarks,
will add that in my opinion it may be
broadly asserted to DC the Greenback
doctrine that the Government Of the
United States should furnish currency
enough, or, in other words, 'tokens
aud stools enough in money to effect
directly all the exchanges and com
merce of the country, to the entire eX-
clusion of all credit whatever, whether
personal or corporate. And why should
it not be SOL a little consideration OF
the necessity that impeIled the institu
ton of money, and of its nature and
design and function, will be sufficient to
show that men, in their agreement to
receive some token or "substance" what
ever with their stamp on it, for any
thing they had and did not want to
keep, because they wanted some other
usable thing, meant by this institution
Of money simply the facilitation of bar
ter or trade, or, in other words, the en-
abling one thing to pay for or cash
another in exchange, made possible by
.Io ;r,,r,,r,;o,, { tbio folau money
They never meant-that is, since bar
barous ages-that money paid for any
thing, but that it was token or order
that all had agreed to receive, and
would honor whenever presented, for
anything they wished to part with, and
the holder Of the order wanted. AS
soon as the holder Of the token or order
got the thing he wanted, then, and then
only, was he paid, and the thing he re-
ceiyed did all the paying, and money
did no part Of it whatever 1t did the
exchanging, I admit; and so say all the
works on political economy, English,
French, and German, ancient and mod
ern; for their dogma is that labor and
products pay for labor and products,
and that money pays for neither.
What, then, is money? 1t is not
wealth; for of itself it is neither food,
raiment, nor lodging. 1t is not capital;
for capital is an accumulation or surplus
Of wealth, or useful and usable and con
sumable things. 1t is not by any means,
a primary factor in exchanges, but sec
ondary; as we have seen before that la
Dor and products only pay for labor aud
products. 1t is not property-absoIute
property-for no one of himself creates
it or institutes it, or can do SO. He has
in it, when he holds it in his hands, only
a qualified property; for the stamp itself
bears evidence on its very face that he
is not the sole instituter and creator of
it, and that money is not the work OF
his hands, but is an institution and ere
alton of the whole community in which
he, with them, as partners in common,
has the qualified property, only to use
it as convenience and common tool
in bis exchanges, but by no means as
commodity or merchandise, the work Of
his hands, in which he has absolute
property.
If,then, money is not the commodity,
merchandise, or absolute property of
any individual or combination of ind-
viduals. if it is not private, but pub
lie thing; il it is in truth 'power," the
conjoint and cooperative power Of the
whole community to effect its exchanges,
where is there any foundation in truth
or justice or logic for leyying upon If
the robbers blackmail Of usury or in
terest? The truth is, that money (and
here | do not mean the material or met
al or paper through which its power
acts) is immatcriai and invisible; an
agreement of the minds of men 10 re-
ceive a certain material and visible "to-
ken" as a tool by which the exchanges
of "labor and labor's productions may
be effected. II is the atmosphere OF
commerce and trade, as invisible as the
air we breathe, and created by the com
mon consent of men, as the air was by
the will of God, and to be used or
breathed by all without interest or price,
but 10 be appropriated, monopolized, or
propertized by none.
II analyzed, therefore, and you sepa-
rate and examine money, its origin,
public, and not private institution its
being mere "token, as a check OF pa
per upon a railroad or card Of introduc-
ton to show, you will not fail TO see
that it has not only been entirely per-
verted by the designing and fraudulent
from its simple and useful nature aud
purpose, but converted and ''transub-
stantiated" into an absolute property