The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1893-07-30
JUDGE HUGHES ARGUMENT FOR
SILVER.

less that our readers will find his art
!. IS an out and out. unconditional ia
r money man. He believes that IL Cor
. gress stamps a piece OF leather one inc
square as a dollar. providing that It sha
be legal tender for a dollar. that piece O
! leather is n dollar. This belief is dis
tinctly declared in the latter part of hi
article. He says:
Congress, In our country. has abso
lutte power TO declare what is money
IL IL had no conscience 1t could max,
gold bonds solvable in salmon bricks
The fiat made the ratio right
the fiat made the gold and silver coins
money. What is needed is money, and
not standards nor any degree OF intrin-
slcalty. All talk OF standard and OF in
trinsic value is idle and delusve Money
is the thing needed and nothing but the
fat Of Congress can create legal tender
| money in the United States. To contend
that silver dollar shall be enlarged
| commensurately with Engand's deprecia-
| tion OF silver metal in London Is as silly
as TO contend that legal tender Treasury
note shall be ampllfed until the intrinsic
value OF the paper OF which II IS made
| shall be equal TO the value OF the note"
There can be little common ground for
The Times and such a writer to stand
upon. Discussion OF financial questions
between the two must necessarily be an
tagonism from the beginning to the end.
Speaking OF the condition of things that
existed prior to 1873 Judge Hughes says:
"Prices were remunerative. and money,
except so far as wars and revolutions
prevented, was in conservative abundance,
the rich using gold and the poor silver"
AS matter OF fact. nothing could he
more unfounded than this statement.
There was never day prior TO 1873 when
a poor man would not greedily take every
gold dollar he could lay his hands on
or when a rich man would refuse a silver
dollar IL it were offered him. We appeal
10 the personal knowledge OF every citi-
zen TO say whether we are right in this
or not. We can conceive OF but one
reason why Judge Hughes should have
brought this statement into his paper,
and that is that It might be known to be |
part Of the literature OF the |
dollar OF the Daddies." But that ltera- |
leading as anything can be- The dollar
Of the Daddes" is n myth. IL never ex-
listed. Prior to 1873 the United States
Government had never coined but eight
million Of silver dollars. and only few
of them, in the Treasury Of the United
States, were in America in 1873. Prior TO
hat date the country was, and for many
7ears had been, on an exclusively gold
'asis. The Government has coined s42O,-
10000 Of silver dollars since 1873, and it
las made every effort II could make TO
induce the people to take these silver
ollars from it, yet 1t has been able TO
ush out upon them only s57,OoO,OOO Of
hem. The rest are stacked up in the
'reasury's vaults. The sons refuse TO
ave anything whatever to do with the
Dollar Of the Daddies." This is abso-
ute, record fact.
Before taking up the general argument
Judge Hughes paper we feel bound
D notice some Of its isolated statements.
He says:
The comments OF the New York Journal !
Commerce on the official tables il :
ublishes OF the foreign commerce Of the l
nited States for 1892. were as follows,
| its issue of the 23d OF January last:
For the year 1892 this country imported !
My SH6,l9S.179 in foreign merchandise X
nd sent out 1898, AS, 1893 of domestic pro- o
ice and manufactures, showing an ex- :,
sss Of merchandise exports over mer-
iandise imports of SCI. 22l,7 TIA. In addi- Il
on to this. there have been sent out to &
reign countries during the last year 4
II. 4723O4 In specie, against an import of n
NY $39,171S9, showing an excess Of S73-
LOG in specie, making a total nominal
'cess Of slS5.516.19S in exports over i'm I
)rts; and In the face Of this our bankers | c
e still shipping millions Of gold every q
eek. The nominal balance Of trade on
e years business has fallen off millions
specie" a.
We do not preserve our files OF the .,
'urnal Of Commerce and are not able W
erefore TO verify this quotation. We In
ell sure, however, that Judge Hughes "
ust have taken 1t at second hand and "a
at he has been imposed upon. The II
cal year closes with June sOth, so that V:
e Journal Of Commerce was of course al
able to write on January %, 1898, with III
rtainty OF what the statement TO be m
ide June 80. 1898. would show. But 1t ju
d all the facts concerning foreign trade hi
: the year ending June 90, 1892, and It st
d enough OF those for the year that o.
uld end June 30, 1893, to make 1t i'm IN
sible to go so far wrong as this quota oi
n carries 1t. The Bureau Of Statistics Cd
) now published the figures Of our 81
e;gn trade for the year ending June 30.
}, and n comparative statement OF II
the past twelve years may be seen
the Financial Chronicle for JUL %,
) at page 12s. The year 1892 was a -.
one for us. The balance Of ~.
de in our favor for that year was s2O2- -,
6S5. statement OF our ex- so
Is and imports OF specie in ~,
same year Is found on the 80,
ne page. We exported $50, OO5, $50 OF spe- los
in 1892. and we imported s69,654,542 -,
king balance of specie against us OF ~,
S51 ,Sii instead OF 81, 295. lO6 as stated tio
Judge Hughes. and, dedIcting our !
Of specie from our gain in other ex- mo
Is. the year showed us n net balance tro
the good of slS9.524.sA. But the Jour pla