Kansas agitator. [volume] (Garnett, Kan.) 1890-1905, 1890-10-13

Tribune.
The Supreme court of the U. S. in
their legal tender decision says: 1.-The
constitution does not ordain what metals
may be coined" That is, our money,
dollars and dimes, may be constitutions
ally made of copper. Nor would we
haze to put dollars worth of copper in
the dollar to make it a dollar; for the
constitution does not prescribe that the
legal value shall correspond with the in
trinsic value. The legal value might be
$40 and the intrinsic value only one cent.
for the legal value need not correspond
with the intrinsic value; for intrinsic
value is acknowledged by the constitu-
ton or court as an element of money.
Judge Tiffany on constitutional law.
says: "There is really no such thing
as gold money or silver money" Money
is the sovereign authority of the govern
ment impressed on that which is capable
of taking and retaining the impression.
That OH which the stamp is placed is
called coin; it may be metal, parchment
OF paper. The theory intrinsic value
for money has been abandoned by the
best writers and thinkers. There are
but few at the present time who are fool
ish enough to contend for such a theory
unless they are prompted by some selfish
motive, such as The Wall street gamblers,
whose interests prompt them to advocate
a gold basis. Gold and silver are not a
safe basis for money. The basis is too
small.
Now, as the constitution does not ac-
knowledge intrinsic value as an element
of money, it matters not what the ma
terial may be, metal or paper. John
Stewart Mill says: can incOnvertble
paper money made full legal tender,
is un versally admitted to be money"
All political economists, statesmen
and jurists say that the government can
create money; and when they say money
they mean money, real, absolute money.
Now, the real, essential part of money
is its legal tender quality; and without
this, it matters not what the material
may be, it is not real money. Notes
that are merely redeemable, such as the
national bank notes, which pass as
money, and are usually called money;
but they are not legal tender, and
scientific writer's do not acknowledge
them as money. Now, while bank
notes circulate rs money and are COM
monty called money, they are not real
money. But an incOnvertible paper
like the greenback, not only passes us
money, but is universally admitted to be
money.
The Revised Statutes of the United
States in regard to the greenbacks, pro-
vide that "These notes shall be a legal
tender, and lawful money!" and the Su-
preme court decided the act to be consti-
tutiOnal.
The Chicago Inter Ocean said: "The
laws of this country do not regard the
greenbacks as a promise to pay, but as
absolute mOney-fiat money, if you
please" Now, if the constitution and
court give congress the power to create
money, regardless of the intrinsic value
of the material, why are we in the midst
of financial famine with less than $40
per capita in circulation? We have the
smallest circulation medium of any 9TH
er civilized nation on the earth. Even
starving Ireland and England have near
ly $24 per capita. Frrnce, one of the
most prosperous nations financially at
the present time, has $50 per capita.
Now, if the constitution gives to con-
gress the right to make money, and the
Supreme court also says they have that
right, then why not issue sufficient
amount of money to do the business of
the country on cash basis, and regulate
the amount needed OH y per capita basis,
as the bufiness interests of the country
demands, and let the people have it at
the same rate they let the national banks
have it? Who would it hurt? No one,
except money lenders.
1 admit that such policy would do