The representative. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1893-1901, 1893-11-29
INTRINSIC VALUE.
The Debate COntinued.-The
Chronicles Mistake.

|
It's editor to do so; but as it devotes a
column or two to a reply to our re-
cent article on the silver question,
we shall answer in friendly spirit,
some of it's points.
The editor stands on the old time
theory that money, to be mouey,
must have intrinsic value; and he
thinks gold and silver have such
value.
The recent experience of silver
shows the fallacy of this position
Silver,-because part of the nations
have withdrawn the fat of govern
ment from it,-has fallen about one
half in price. If all the world de-
monetized it silver would not be ten
cents on the dollar. And if gold had
been subjected to the same treat
ment the results would have been
the same
What is intrinsic" value? Value
in and of itself, part from conven-
tiOnal or governmental connection:
value by reason of usefulness to the
human family, for there is no other
test of value on earth. Wheat has an
intrinsic value because it is a form
of food,-so have beef, corn, potatoes,
ETC.; while woolen goods, iron, steel,
copper, ETC., have intrinsic value be-
Of do VT of TO Sc
wants. Weeds are valueless because
we know of no use to put them to
hence the very title is term of con-
tempt. If all governments denied
their fat to gold and silver and refused
to mint them into coin, what in
trinsic value would they have? How
could they be used? The wealthy
would refuse to employ cheap metals
for purposes of ornamentation, there
would be but a small demand in the
arts and in dental work; and that is
all. You could not make pots and
pans or implements or weapons out
of either metal. Hence when the
editor of the Chronicle sneers at the
fot of government, he sneers at that
which alone gives gold and silver any
material value. And why should he
despise the fat-the command, the
authority of government? Will he
name anything On earth that is, hu-
manly-speaking, higher than civilized
government? Does not that define
our rights and protect them; does not
that preserve order and defend prop
erty? Could our friend publish his
paper or openly practice his religion
against the Jiat of government? Can
not that despised fiat take him and
hang him; or strip him of all he has;
or drive him out of the country?
Our friend says:
'He, O, takes it for granted that
metallic money is not commodity;
that it's value is purely conventional
-breathed into it by the mouth of
governments"
And am I not right? Was not
the value of silver breathed in
to it by the mouth of govern
ment? And when the breath
was withdrawn has it not fallen one
half in value? And wherein is gold
different from silver? Wherein more
sacred? Silver is supposed to be the
older metal, it is named in the Bible
before gold is spoken Of. For certain
ly 5000 years-probably 10,O00,-no
man ever questioned it's value;-until
a conspiracy of money-lenders was
formed about twenty years ago, to
destroy it; and the breath Of govern
ment was withdrawn from it and it
collapsed. And in this object-lesson
the rascals taught the world that it
was the fiat of government that made
money, and not the material it was
composed of. A mighty lesson which
may yet be turned to wonderful &C
count.
Our friend quotes Daniel Webster's
denunciation of paper-money. True.
But government paper money was
not dreamed of in Webster's day;-he
referred to bank paper, which simply
represents the debts of individuals; and
does not possess the fiat of govern
ment to make it legal tender. This
is how it works. The citizen is in
debt, and the banker swaps has notes,
not bearing interest for the citizens
note bearing interest. The richer
man lends the poorer man his credit
for hire; and the recent crisis has
shown that in many cases that credit
was worthless. Against this system
of paper money Webster was right to
protest; and the editor of the
"Chronicle" is right when he writes
in that protest. But that is very
different thing from government
legal tender greenbacks, like the
first $50, ,O0O,O issued at the begin