The advocate., 1892-07-06

the arguments upon both sides were
summed up.
In behalf of the gold standard 1t was
said:
The rise In price which has taken place within
twenty years In great number Of articles OF
merchandise Is evidently due to many causes,
such as war, bad harvests, and Increase In con-
sumption; but 1t is very probable that the de-
probation Of the precious metals has contributed
to 1t, since there has been striking coincidence
between the rise Of prices and the production OF
the new mines of gold and silver. The annual
production Of the two metals, which was only
SS0, 900, 900 in 1847, exceeds now $2OO,OOO0O0 1t
has nearly tripled and 1t is easy TO see that the
real value Of the metals has diminished. 1t Is
difficult to estimate exactly what the diminutlOn
Is, bu j, whatever it may be, it demands the at
tentlOn Of governments, because It affects un-
favOrably all that portion Of the population
whose income, remaining nOminslly the same,
undergOes yearly dlminutiOn Of purchasing
power. AS governments control the weight and
standard Of money, they ought, so far as posi-
ble to assure It's value. And as 1t Is admitted
that the tendency of the metals is to depreclate,
this tendency should be arrested by demone-
tlzlng one Of them.
In behalf of the double standard 1t was
replied as follows:
Many economists argue that the precious
metals, having become very abundant, have lost
10 or 10 per cent. Of their value, and that the
situation must be redressed by making money
scarcer by demOnetizlng silver. To this 1t may
be answered that the great discoveries Of gold
Of the last twenty years have injured nobody.
The new mass Of gold, spreading over the whole,
world has found employment in stimulating all
forms of business, and, as consequence, the
value of gold has fallen very little. According to
Mr. NeWmarch, the mass of gold and silver has
AUGMENTED 3 per cent. per annum, while the
mass of exchanges has augmented more than
per cent. per sDnum, so that the equilibrium
has been maintained. And the present is an
especially inOpportune time to demOnetize sill
YER, because the annual production Of gold has
been falling off for several years. 1t was $780,
600 600 In 1853, and 1t is now not more than $14O,
100000. What will happen to the civilized world
II silVeris demOnetlzed and II gold shall then
fail?
The Dutch monetary commission OF
1878, adopting the views Of the advocates
of a gold standard, maintained that the
value of money had been deprecated by
an excessive gold production since 1S4S,
and that, as a great gold production still
continued, Ia rise in the value of gold
would not occur, even ifagreater share Of
the monetary function was devolVed upon
it,by demonetizlng silver. Their language
was:
In consequence of the very great production
Of gold, 1t Is not probable, even If gold Is more
employed as money than. heretofore, that We
shall see the fall in the value Of the precious
metals, which we have witnessed for twenty
five years, followed as to gold by any permanent
rise.
In all the European discussions, after
1849 and prior to the German demoneti-
zation Of silver and It's consequences, the
point made was not that either metal had
deprecated relatively to the other, but
that by reason of extraordinary supplies
of gold from California and Australia,
supplemented about 1865 by new sup
plies of silver from Nevada, both metals
had deprecated relatively to labor and
commodities, and that those having fixed
incomes we're being injured by rise in
prices. So long as the double standard
existed, new supply Of either metal
was only an addition to and only affected
the value of the general mass of money,
and not the relative value of the metals.
The "fsll in gold," which Chevalier Ia
| .nnnAnA In 1877 runn ikn RnIl In rnlakion 70