The advocate and Topeka tribune., 1893-10-25

possess the quality Of legal tender. The
quantity Of the money issued must be in
reasonable proportion to the revenues
collected, and the material Of the money
must be fashioned and executed in the
highest style of art, above the arts Of
the counterfeiters. Money is valuable in
proportion to limitation. An unlimited
money is a worthless money. If the
money can be cheaply and easily count
erfeited the counterfeisers will initiate it
to the point Of worthlessness.
Now the question arises as to the is
suing Of the French Bssignsts. Were
any Of the requisite conditions Of safe
and sound money system present in
France at the time u the issuing Of the
assignats, or at any time during their
circulationP They were issued first in
March, 1890, several months after the
overthrow of the regular government.
"The various revolutionary govern
ments" which succeeded each other in
rapid succession collected but little
taxes, and could not in any proper and
regular manner receive the assignsts in
the government revenues. There was
no established government which was
competent to confer on the new money
the quality Of legal tender. Merely an
edict of q revolutionary convention cam
not either confer or enforce the law of
legal tender for money any more than it
can enforce any other law which it had
no power to enact or enforce. Neither
did the revolutionary governments limit
the issue OF paper in any reasonable pro.
portion to its limited receivsbility in the
revenues, but it was largely over issued
by the revolutionary governments,
which, of course, reduced its value. But
it was not the French issues which
finally destroyed the value Of the Rssig-
mats. It was the English issues in the
form OF courterfsits which completed
the work # degradation which the
French issues only bfRan. The mechsni
cal execution tf the Essignsts was rude
and easily counterfsited, and the British
government embarked largely in the
business OF forgery, in order to destroy
the French tinancss and ruin the enemy.
Mr.. Thomas Doubleday, an English
writer, relates the case as follows:
The accession of England to the hostile
league of the European powers went far to
produce this catastrophe; and to complete
the work, the minister had recourse to de-
vice, novel ss a mode of wRrfsre-that is to
say the forgery Of the paper money Of the
enemy. This proctdlre on the part Of Mr..
Pitt has since been derie6, but its truth
rests upon ipdisputable evidence, and the
attempt was quite characteristic Of poll
tiCiRn who knew better than most men that
money constitutes the real sinews Of war,
If success be st hostiop, then, were justi-
ioation needed, is tn g attempt fully justi-
fed, for it completed 'hs annihilstion Of
the credit of the a'sigusta, in spite Of the
terrible means adopted by the French CON-
vention to force their circulation. It is not
little curious, however, TO reflect that
within q very few years after the destruO-
tion of the French asfignats-thst is TO say,
in 1797-Mr. Pitt should himself have
been driven by the force Of oiroum-
stances to adopt this very expedient,
and risk the hazardous step Of relying
upon an inoOnvertible paper circulation,
and that this measure, the fruit Of imperi-
oua naoaaaikv alone ahould ha OlaaaAd nv