New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-11-16

the exact meaning of what many of our modern
financiers call fiat money" There is no in
trying to evadc. II these men are right, Then l
am all wrong. Mr.. Sherman states frankly that
ne would have gold and silver deprived of all
use as money and would have them used simply
rs commodities. Ny belief is that they have come
| TO be used as money in connection with the de-
velopment of the human race. and that such
money instead of being an evidence of barbarism,
is. and always has been. an evidence of the highest
( form of civilization. also believe they should
/ continue to be 50 used. | further believe that
! the existence Of paper money. without having 1t
! based upon some material which has in ITSELF
| intrinsic value, is an actual mpossibility; and l
am frank to confess that such money is beyond
my power of conception. 1t must he very evident
TO every one that there is no halfway compromise
/ line between the theory OF Mr. Sherman and my
own. II he is right. am wrong If am right
J he is wrong. Which has the right ON his side Of
| the question? Let
POINT THAT WAS OVERLOOKED.
In this letter Mr.. Sherman quotes accurately
| the laws of the United States which account for
| the terms Eagles Dimes, Cents and Mills" " The
| Eagle shall be ten dollars; the Dime one-tenth
of a dollar: the Cent, onehundredth of dollar;
and the Mill one-thOusandth of a dollar That
| same statute speaks OF the dollar" as the unit
of value Why did Mr.. Sherman fail to give
| us the statute which defines Of what that dollar
| or unit shall consist?
Until the law provided what should constitute
dollar" the word had meaning at all. When
the statute provided that the unit of value in
the United States should be called dollar" and
| then also provided that dollar" should contain
2S.s grains of pure god or 81 IA grains of pure
silver, then the word dollar instantly meant
something. The Government III Congress had
seen fit TO do so could have made the dollar
| consist of IL clio grains of pure gold, or OF
IS 5-s grains of pure silver. The moment the Gov
ernment had thus fixed what the " dollar" should
consist Of the word then would have had definite
meaning; but III the latter case, the unit Of value
! in this country would have been just half what
| it now is The actual value Of all articles would
have remained precisely the same as before; but
in every instance, in naming the value, the number
of dollars would have been twice as many as we
now name; and each dollar would have been
worth only one-half much each dollar Is
now worth The difference in the price named
would be simply the difference in the meaning Of
the word dollar" which would be used in each
| case as the measure of value. Will Mr.. Sherman
please tell under his theory Of money what the
word dollar would mean?
/ admit that the Government could have pro-
vided that every time the word dollar" is used.
it shall mean sixty pounds of wheat, 90 pounds
of corn, so pounds of oats, one hide of leather
or, if you please one muskrat skin, one ounce
of iron, or to follow Mr. Sherman's IDOL General
Butler, a piece of corn-stalk one inch long"
The moment the Government determines of what
the dollar shall consist then every one at once
knows what the word dollar shall mean here
| in the United States. But does Mr.. Sherman
think that the word would represent the same
amount of value no matter what article had been
selected by the Government to constitute the
substance which should render the meaning of the
word dollar" definite?
A DOLLAR" MUST HAVE VALUE
Ny position is simply this: Before the word
dollar" could have meant anything, it was
necessary TO have definite understanding as to
the particular substance, and the exact amount of
that substance, which the term dollar should
represent. / do not say that Mr. Sherman in his
communication lodges this whole question lie
does not write in the tone of man who is in the
habit of lodging anything. Yet do say that he
fails entirely to grasp the real question which
! lies at the bottom of this controversy, if have
the right conception of what we are disputing
about.
The Government might have passed law, to
the effect that the unit Of value in the United
States should be called a "Dodo, and that every
| eagle should consist of ten " dodos." But until
| the Government lad also stated explicitly of
| what dodo" should consist, we would have
| had no unit of value in this country. The
moment however, that the law had defined the
| kind of substance and the amount of such sub
| stance of which each "dodo" should he made
| up then everything would have been once
| plain. 11en we would have done business just
| as readily in 4" dodos" now do it in dollars.
! But does Mr.. Sherman think there would have
| been any meaning in the term dodo" until the
| 81; cd ha1 Imam ha
think that the Government by any amount of
legal enactments, could have made "dodo"
worth anything, without naming substance
of intrinsic value of which the dodo" should
| be constituted?
Think a moment. Suppose that the Gov
eminent had said that the dollar of the United
States should consist of % $40 grains of nothing.
| Could you use such dollar in the markets of
this country or of the world? They might even
| have enacted that dollar should consist Of
| large amount of patriotism of faith in the
| Government, or of confidence in our National
| prosperity, and yet such dollars would have
meant nothing. Such money would have been of
no earthly use to any one.
| Mr. Sherman very kindly gives me the form
| of the paper money he would have used. Here
it is:
UNITED STATES STOCK
| GONE DOLLAR
| He would have that signed By Government Off
| Gals So far, good. But what right has he
| TO use the word dollar? i know what that
word means now. 1t means certain amount OF
| gold or silver. But, on his theory of money, he
| would repeal the law which makes the dollar