The representative. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1893-1901, 1893-05-31

1877 136340,9l2 4O,97S,6O7 II 90
1873 733,21,749 42,245. ITO II 4S
1874 1881 $50 1850 736 II 80
1875 Ts176,25O 44,s96,705 II IS
1876 735,35s,s32 46,2s4.344 Is 80
1877 $685. 1884 47n4S29 IA 40
| should continue this table down
to the present date, and show that,
with all our silver coin and silver
notes chat these ''worShippers Of
the golden calf are continually de-
crying our per capita circulation
has not increased to what it should
be; but my purpose here is only to
show that the globe writer does not
know what he has been writing
about.
The above figures give only the
money that is officially classed as
currency" and it shows that in 1866
the amount was 81 1903, 7O2, 1876; which
is not much short of the ''two bill
lion'' the Globe financier attempted
to ridicule, and reduce to 1880, 900, 900.
In addition to this $1,8O3, 7O2, 1876, in
what was strictly currency" it is
we'll known, by all who lived in the
country then, that government
bonds were used as money, in the
place of currency, in large transac-
tions, such as buying and paying
for land, and the like; and such of us
well know that the $3.50, 900, 900, 7-3O
three year notes then outstanding
were used as a circulating medi-
UNI, and paid out by the govern
ment as money. If the Globe
critic will take the trouble
to investigate, he will discover
that his favorite authority-Secre-
tary Mccullough classed these 100
notes as part of the currency of the
country. Add this 1886, ZOO, 900, to the
above $1,8O3, 7O2, 1926, and we find the
total ''currency" of the country in
1866 to have been So, 1858, 7O2, 1926; which
shows that l was within only 80 mil
lion of being absolutely correct, upon
this basis alone, when | said that
our currency was contracted from
1866 to 1876 at the rate Of $500, 900, 900,
per year. The figures here given are
from official sources, or have been
verified by such, and are correct.
But | do not cOnfine myself to the
above, in ascertaining the extent
of the contraction of the currency for
that period. To avoid contraction
of the currency of country, it is not
only necessary that it should not be
reduced, but that it should be in
creased in proportion as population
increased. | have shown that the
currency in 1866, was $1,SO3, 7O2, 1926,
exclusive of the $3.50, 100000, seven
thirty year notes; now, if this cur
rency had been increased from year
to year, in proportion to population,
it would, in 1866, have been $2,432,-
600, 900; and if we include in our COM
putation (as we should) the $3.50, 0O0,
600 seven-thirty 3 year notes, the
amount of currency which would have
been in circulation in 1866, would be
So, 677 900, 900. This makes the amount
of the contraction from 1866 to 1876,
about $500, OOO,O 900 per year, instead of
$500, OOO,O 900, as stated by me.
Had the Globe writer been less of
partisan and as anxious to inveSti-
gate and ascertain the truth, as he is
to attempt to be Sarcast tic, he would
have found that the expenditures Of
the government in 1865 alone were
81, 900, 433, 331 81, and that in 1866 they
we're 81, 139, 344 ,O81.95, and learning
this, he would hardly have believed
that with such enormous eXpendi-
lures, in these two years. the volume
of our currency had shrunk to $685.
100000. Had he done so he would
also have discovered that according
to the records of the treasury depart
ment the public debt reached it's
maximum on August 81, 1865, amount
ing then to $2,845, 1907 ,626; and that
the bonded Indebtedness then was
81, 108, 80, 191, and on July /, 1866 it
was 81, FOG, 919, 9O4; and that there was
then no other money, or currency"
but paper money "greenbacks' for
the government to pay with.
In the face of the foregoing facts,
this Globe financial writer, tells us
that ''in 1866, there were in circula-
tiOn $685., 900, 900, instead of even two
billions" / tell him, I have here
FUSED figures for the purposes of COM
putatiOn," and that more than the
two billion remains. He must feel
rather dilapidated to be informed that
the aggregate circulation of currency
current mOney-in 1876 was over
one billion dollars instead of $780,
100000. He should study his subject
and he would not place himself in
such Supremely ridiculous attitude.
Had he done so, he would not have
had the nerve to close his article with
this precious and 'gentlemanly' par
agraph:
1T is this recklessness of state
ment, this Indifference to facts, this
love of the glamor of sonorour asser-
tion that furnishes the foundation
for the visions of finance and state
functions of the Populists, and is at
once their strength and their weak
ness"
1t is almost "cruelty to animals"
to- pursue this subject further; but as
this financial writer is particular, in
his every article, to speak of our
1854 cent silver dollars" l wish to say
to him that he is as wide of the
mark in that statement, as he was
about the amount Of our currency.
The actual value of one of our silver
dollars is to be measured by cOmpar-
ing it's purchasing power with that
of the gold dollar, and everybody
knows that we can today buy as
much of the necessaries of life with
a silver dollar as with gold one. Is
not this fact worth more than all the
theories and palaver about a "64
cent dollar" that these servants of
the Gold Trust indulge in. But he
is wrong as to the intrinsic value Of
our silver currency, which includes
our silver notes, as he will discover if
he investigates