Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1891-04-09
DEFINING A DOLLAR.

|
letter on the silver question, contribute
, to its columns, says:
The fact that the silver question
certain to cut large figure in the nez
Presidential campaign in this eOuntr,
makes it quite important that it be ur
derstood by voters.
The Republican party has alway
been the party of honest money, and
is not likely to depart from its tradition
in this respect to accept the heresie
pertaining to the free coinage of silver
| The World is disposed to be perfectl
fair in this discussion and therefor
gives space again to-day to lette
from Mr.. E. ID. Stark, the apostle o
free coinage.
Mr.. Stark lays considerable stress upol
the dictionary definition of a dollar
This is right. 1t is important that W
know the meaning of words. Webste
says the dollar is "a piece of none,
first coined about the year 1913 in tht
valley of St. Joachim, in Bohemia
The word itself is an abreyiation o
"Joachimsthaler."
The first meaning given to the dollar
in the dictionary is, "a silver coin O
the United States weighing about 412.
grains and equivalent to about shilling
and pence sterling. 1t is equal to l0(
| cents, 10 dimes or Ito of an eagle.
This definition has not always beer
thus. In the Webster's Dictionarie:
issued up to 1873, the definition saiC
that this silver coin equaled Az grains
of silver.
Thus we see that the definition in the
dictionary must necessarily change as
the statute creating the dollars changes
The definition that is now correct would
not be correct should the United States
Congress pass free coinage law any
more than the definition that was ac-
curate before 1873 is correct now.
The dictionary makers know no better
way to define the value of the dollar
than to measure it by the sterling money
of England, and by our own gold coin.
If free coinage should prevail, and
the weight of the dollar should remain
the same as now, it would be necessary
to modify in marked degree the defini-
ton of dollar. The fact that makes
the silver dollar as now constituted
worth one-tenth of an eagle, is the fact
that 10 silver dollars can be exchanged
at will, at the banks or at the Treasury
at Washington, for gold coin called an
eagle.
In case of free coinage the value of
the silver dollar would fall to 80 cents,
it's bullion value as measured in gold or
in English sterling. Then the dictionary
makers would be obliged to say that the
silver dollar is two twenty fifths of the
gold eagle.
The free coinage of silver should
never be permitted on the present basis.
If permitted at all, the amount of bullion
contained in the dollar should be in
creased to the value of one tenth of An
eagle, and when for any reason this
value of the bullion in silver dollar
shall differ from one-tenth of that in
gold eagle there should be a readjust-
ment-that is, provided we are to have
free coinage.
The fact that the silver dollar is for
all practical purposes held equal to one
tenth of gold eagle by the government
ought to be satisfactory TO the silver men,
as it certainly is entirely satisfactory
to the business world.
What the silver men are trying to do,
disguise it in words as they will, is to
initiate the currency to the extent of
making the silver dollar, which should
be equal to ITO of gold eagle, equal
to only 2-25 of gold eagle, and yet in
sist upon having it pay debts at the old
ratio.
Is this fair or honest?
1t is the same old heresy of the ''rag
baby" in new guise, and the same peo-
pie who fondled and caressed that ''rag
baby" and deceived themselves into the
belief that it was, and by right ought to
be, real live baby, are now deceiyiDg
and trying to deceive others
into the claim that an 80 cent silver dol
lar would be 100-cent dollar
1t will not work. The history of
finance is against it. Had John Law,
Sam Carey and Bob Schilling never lived
the chances of fooling the people might
be better than they are now.