The advocate and Topeka tribune., 1892-08-31

province, and that soon to be sunk. The wealthy
inhabitants opposed the addition, being against
all paper currency, from the apprehension that
It would depreclate as it had done In New Eng
land, 10 the injury Of all creditors. We had dis
cussed this point In our juntO, where was on
the side Of an addition, being persuaded that
the first small sum struck in 1923 had done much
good in Increasing trade, employment, and num-
Der Of inhabitants in the province, since now
saw all the old houses inhabited, and many new
ones building; whereas remembered well when
first walked about the streets OF Philadelphia
(eating my rOlD, saw many OF the houses In
Walnut street between Second and Front streets,
with bills on their doors, "To be Lett" and many
likewise In Chestnut street and other Streets
which made me think that the inhabitants OF
the city were one after another deserting 1t. Our
debates possessed me so fully on the subject that
wrote and printed an anonymous pamphlet on
It entitled, "The Nature and Necessity OF Pa
per Currency" 1t was well received by the COM
mon people 10 general, but the rich men disliked
It, for It increased and strengthened the clamor
for more money; and they, happening to have no
writer's among them that were able to answer it,
their opposition Sackened and the point was
carried by majority In the house. The
utilty,of this currency became by time and ex-
per1ence so evident that the principles upon
which It was founded were never afterward dis
puted; 80 that It grew soon to be e5O,OOO and In
1880 to 100000, trade, building and Inhabitants
all the while increasing.
It will occur to the reader that the
people were divided upon this sub
ject in those days about as they are
to-day; the wealthy inhabitants op-
posed it" just as they do now, but it
was well received by the common peo-
pie Just as it is to-day. There was
this difference in the people then and
now-those who oppose this system
now make up for their lack of srgu-
ment by a surplus Of falsehood and
fidicule. These were weapons of
which the old colonists would not
avail themselves, and when they were
vanqdlshed in argument by the logic
Of Franklin, he says "their opposition
slackened." Now il would be re-
doubled under like circumstances.
But what Of the effect of this colo
nial currency? The Capital will un-
doubtedly say it deprecated and
became worthless. But what says
history? Governor Pownall said of
t.:
/ win venture to say that there never was a
wiser or better measure-never one better calcu-
lated to serve the interests of an Increasing
country, that there never was q measure more
steadily pursued or more faithfully executed for
forty years together than the loan ONCE Of Penn
sylvania, founded and administered by the as
sembly OF that colony
David Hume, the great English
historian, said:
In our colony OF Pennsylvania, the land Itself,
which is the chief commodity, is coined and
passed into circulation. A planter, Immediately
he purchases any land, can go to public office
and receive notes to the amount of half the
value Of his land, which notes he employs in
payments, and they circulate through the colony
by convention. To prevent the public from
being overwhelmed by this representative
money, there are two means employed First,
the notes Issued to any one planter must not ex-
ceed certain sum, whatever may be the value
a.. VNlo Ia Ohlfuan tn
pay back into the public office, every year, one
tenth Of his notes. The whole is, Of course, an
Initiated in ten syearS, after which 1t Is again
allowed him to take new notes to half the value
Of the land.
Rev. John TWells, of London, said:
This was the monetary system under which
the American colOniSts prospered to such an ex-
Il 4 -