Weekly Chillicothe crisis., 1881-11-17

pdllldl VI Injurious Ill lnelT operation,
let us see what can be done through
the regulation of interest on money.
1t is to be observed that the attempts
at legislation in favor of the distribu-
ton Of wealth have mostly been in this
direction, though the success attending
them has been but partial amutter-
ly opposed to the present banking sys-
TEN, and yet, | feel that the institution
of banks acting under government
supervision and control, even though
that control has been partial and i'm
perfect, has done more to bring down
the rates of interest paid by men in
business to legal standard than all
the so-called usury laws that have been
passed. If there were no banks, bor-
rowers would be entirely at the mercy
Of usurers whose exactions would only
be limited by the power to enforce
them.
But, can no mode be devised for in
stituting banks which can be perfectly
controlledso that interest can be brought
down to a fair and Just standard? Ii
must be remembered that the amount
paid by the people of this country for
interest is no small figure, but cOnsti,
tutes two.ifths of the whole annual
product of the country, 1t is a terrible
burden, and the greater because, while
it employs no labor, it is the most eff,
fectiye means by which property is con-
centrated and accumulated in few
hands. Any practical scheme, there
fore, for reducing the rate Of interest
ought to receive a welcome from the
American people, and especially from
those who profess to be money reform.
ers.
So long as banks ale managed by pri.
yate individuals for their own profits,
we must expect that they will continue
to be burdens on industry-howeyer
fair their accounts are made to appear
before the bank commissioners, we cam
not but believe that, in some under
handel way they go beyond the law
in taking interest. 1t must not be for
gotten also that the inducement for
them to come under the government
supervision is the grant of some special
privileges, notably those of issuing
money, and receiving and lOaning out
deposits, which constitute them mon
Opolies in the most odous sense Of the
word. Governments have only sue
ceeded in getting these private banks
to conllne themselves professelly to
the taking of legal interest by allowing
them privileges by which they can get
more than legal interest. This is a
wrong, and is justly receiving the re-
probation of the people.
l see no way in which these evils
can be corrected SO long as The banks
remain private institutions. While the
inducement and the opportunity Of gain
through fraudulent or unsafe practices
continue, those practices themselves
will continue; and, besides, private
banking in its very essence however
honestly and fairly carried on, is but a
part of that system by which the i'm.
mense burden of interest, which we
have mentioned, is laid on industry.
l say, therefore, boldly that the
whole system of private banking ought
to be abolished, and replaced BY one in
which interest shall 80 for the benefit
of the people. Banks are a necessity;
paper money is a necessity; but the
government alone shall issue the paper
money, and the government alone should
reveiyc interest upon it, and therefore
the government alone should do the
banking. Then the whole Of this i'm
mense burden upon industry would be
removed-fOr what is paid TO the GOV
ernment is not accumulated, but ey-
pended for the benefit Of the people.
What would be the effects Of such Il
measure upon the distribution of the
products of industry? Rent, as we
have seen, is dependent upon interest ;
and the average of rent would soon be
reduced to the rate of interest which
the government should charge, with
whatever addition repairs and insur-
ance might require. interest," there
fore, being practically abolished, SO far
as any aCcumulations from it are con-
cerned, and rent being reduced to Il
moderate per centage, the great mass
Of the products of industry would
be divided between profits and wages.
Now the question comes--would not
Il disprOpOrtionate share be distributed
as profits, instead of going to the wage
workers? Would not capital continue
to absorb the product of labor as it
does now? Plainly it would not; for
investment Of capital must either be
made in real estate or in productive
industries; and the rent Of land being
substantially fixed, all opportunities for
receiving a larger per Centage on capt..
al must be sought through investments
in productive industries, and thus the
demand for labor would be increased
and the workman, instead of being us
now, a dependent, and obliged often tC
submit to a reduction of wages in or
der to keep his place, would find his
labor needed fully as much as the mon
ey Of the capitalist. In other words
labor and capital would then contend
on equal terms, and labor could not b(
oppressed. No doubt, the ultimate re
suit would be cooperation and the as
sociation of labor with capital in shar
ing the profits of industry,
"Thus, have endeavored, as briefly
as possible, to set forth the true solu
ton of the money and labor questions
+ l am aware that it will be a long tint
, before this solution can be reached
. The whole monied world will oppose
) it to the last for it will take away
: their power of absorbing the products
of industry; but, if the great army Of
/ producers and laborers will only keeI
1 their attention steadily fixed on this
ideal they will intimately reach it
The present agitation is only the be
j.. ginning of a long contest with money
, monopoly. Its expressions in the pas
Q have brought on the battle, and they
: will continue in the future until thu
/. laborers of the country shall Learn
! their true interests, and act accord
] ingly.
( The question may be asked how