Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1893-02-28
TUESDAY. FEBRUARY 2s. 1893.
Tho Times on tho Currency.

The Tymes's article headed The Mental
Perversion OF Either the Dispatch or the
Times has been read and pondered by
us, but we hardly know whether TO CON-
ment upon it or not. We have high re-
spect for our neighbours opinions and for
the candor and fairness which almost al
ways mark its discussions OF the various
important questions that command ats at
tention, and 80 we will say Il few words In
reply to il. A few days ago the DISPATCH
said:
Tho point we made was simply an argument
deriving Its force from the person 10 whom II
was addressed. In other words, our contention
was simply that a man who was not opposed TO
the govern ment's issuing greenbacks having no
intrinsic value ought not 10 oppose The coming
OF silver dollars (haying 20 per cont OF intrinsic
vaiuel on the ground that these latter we're not
worth 100 per cent. Of their face value
The Times explains our words as follows:
"Ihe point Is that the Tiinss should not argue
against legsl-tender power OF 100 cents being
gwen TO piece Of silver worth 70 cents only, II
the Tfmes grants 10 the government the right to
Issue piece OF paper that the people use as n
dollar"
Why was that form of words used by our
neighbor? We beg leave to rewrito the
Times's statement Of our position so as to
make that statement read rs follows:
"1be point is that the Times cannot consist
entity argue against legal-tender power Of 100
cents being given 10 a piece II silver worth in-
triusically 20 cents at the same time that 1t
makes no objection whatever TO tho issue OF
greenbacks having no intrinsic value"
We raised no question except one of con-
sistency, or as we say in the paragraph
first above quoted, We employ an argument
which derives its force from the person to
whom it is addressed. The Times might
say that il is opposed to silver for any
ether reason than that metals want of in
triusic value and and not subject itself to
the charge OF Inconsistency which we think
II Is now chargeable with; but 1t cannot
hold both that silver dollar Is objection
ahlo because it has only 10 cents of
intrinsic value. and that greenback is not
Objectionable because of its total lack OF
intrinsic value. For If the governments
promise to redeem greenbacks in gold re-
moves all objections TO them and renders
them an honest currency" the same
promise as to silver dollars would surely
suffice 10 remove all objection to these and
render them honest currency" also. 1t
will not do to argue that greenbacks con-
stitute an honest currency and silver dis
honest currency when the government can
make the latter equal to the former by
simply promising to redeem them as it re-
deems the former. The promise to redeem
can be inscribed upon the silver dollar as
easily as upon the greenback dollar. if, in
deed, we NAV call greenback dollar at
all
Again. We say TO the Times that If the
government possesses, as that paper con-
tends, the right to issue its promise to
pay money IN certain events and under
certain stress OF circumstances" then it
has that right all the time and without
reference to what the emergency may be.
II Congress has the right TO make green
backs legal tender IN time of war it has
that right in time of peace. 1t has the
right 10 tax the notes of State banks out
of existence, as indeed. according TO our
understanding OF the matter. the Supreme
Court of the United States has decided.
Once more We do not demand that " the
government shall stamp 20 cents worth
of silver as worth 100 cents IN gold" But
we do contend that if the government may
stamp one cents worth of paper as worth
100 cents III gold il may stamp 20
cents worth of silver as worth one dollar
In cold.