The advocate and Topeka tribune., 1892-09-28

into very general use as currency In any
gre8t commercial country. The princI-
pal Office Of these coins ls to form basis
for the issue of notes or certificates,
which constitute the most convenient
form Of circulation among the people.
Any measu @ which would have q ten
dency to broaden this basis OF circulation,
by increasing the amount Of metallic
money with which the paper can be re-
deemed, would, In my opinion, be bene-
fetal not only to this country but to the
world generally; but this cannot be done
by the fabrication Of two coins Of the
same denomination but Of unequal in
tEinslC value, because both of the coins
cannot constitute at the same time the
money OF redemption. Slxty-eight cents
worth of silver and one dollars worth of
gold cannot both be standards OF value
at the same time and place, and this has
been fully demonstrated by our own ex-
perlence during the last fourteen years;
for, although the silver dollar has been
all that time full legal tender under the
statutes Of the United States, everybody
admits that we are still on q gold basis
and, therefore, the value of the paper In
circulation Is measured, not by silver, but
by gold.
How can we change this and 80 broaden
the basis of circulation as to make silver
q part Of the real money by which values
shall be measured and paper redeemed?
There are onl y two ways in which this
can be done by governmental action; first,
by the coinage Of silver dollar actually
containing dollars worth of silver; or,
secondly, by an international agreement
fixing common ratio between silver and
gold for coinage purposes. When either
of these things is done silver will be
fully remonetized, and silver and gold
together will constitute the real metallic
money of the world, the money with
which all paper circulation will be re-
deemed, and into which all contracts will
be resolved upon that settlement.
Iquote thus fully from Mr.. Carlisle's
letter, In order that the readers Of the
american Banker may have the subject
of criticism before them In juxtapositlon
to the criticism itself.
The foregoing plausible argument Of
Eered by Mr.. Carlisle would appear, at
first glance, to be fair and logical, but
upon investigation it will be found to be
= string Of speciOuS sophistries, intended
10 deceive and befuddle the unwary.
1 shall very briefly point out the dis
Ingenious ingenuity exhibited by Mr..
Carlisle in his effort to make untrue
assertions and professions assume the
form Of truth Immaculate.
In the first place Mr.. Carlisle 10 not
'in favor Of unlimited coinage Of both |
metals upon terms of sTact equality" nor
ioes he mean what he says when he
'tstes that mo discrimination should be
made In favor Of one metal and against
he other" In thus boldly making these
ISsertlons, either question Mr.. Car
isles sincerity, or deny his claim to o
easonable knowledge Of the subject of
which he writes. He Is either Insincere
IT Ignorant. To test his sincerity, l
hould ask him II he favorS the idea Of
aking away the legal value from gold, by
epealing all statutes which give the
alue Of one dollar to any certain num-
'er OF grains OF gold, just as has been
lone by silver, In the United States and
q several other natIonsY To test his
I should ask him if he con-
ldered "tsrms Of exact equality" the
fixing the value Of the one metal by
Nv, for monetary purposes, while the
slue of the other metal, for monetary
urposes, is determined by the demand
Or Its use In the arts and for commercial