The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1893-08-16

sospe meoey shan rid. asd eotd, then.
saly . wofDe ns0Aey th4n ulyeT. when.
shere bejne ~ Legal un1formfsy of ratio e.
sahtished betwos. them By international
accord. aSfsnc3ai ehaoGos afs produced IN
shs rsistive vssus 81 the tuo metals By ~.
assasy iegisisttcU Of passtcoias nasions."
Mr.. GihAs holds fhss soshine ssli taxa
money metal from . cesnfry bus the bal
sscs u trade. He dos not believe that
The production of silver. monetixsd and
absorbed under the Sherman Law can
directly and immedisseiy drive specie our
Of the eoantFy- An excessive production
o. silver that iaaassd oar circulation would
ineresss psicsa Stimulate imports and dis
courage exports, and In this way the bal
ancs u sssds would 30 against the country
sad srecie would have 10 Be exported to
redress IL.
Jnss % IN England the balance Of trade
has 70 b recsiAed by import or export Of
specie. Under m international bi-metAiiie
Law. With common ratio. the probability
Of EnsIsnd's losing is gold or Of the evil
rssults Of is goisg would not b increased
Under IN international h,-metaiiic agree
msnt. with sdensity Of ratio. there h uosh-
ing 10 cause one metal 70 60 rather thsn
the other.
When silver was valued 10 to I Of gold
In the United States and l5k 70 ia
Pranes IL wss ssss 70 France because The
American sender discharxsd his debt Of
IN ounce OF gold with ISL ounces Of silver
and kept half m ounce In his pocket. the
French sender RENTING gold for the same
reason The diversity Of ratio caused sill
verto 1ow 20 France and gold TO America.
bat under an international bi-metaIiic
Agreements With identity Of ratio no reason
could exist for the fight Of one metal
rather than the other.
Mr.. Gibbs argues that the United States
has no temptation to demonetise gold and
become by Law silver using country. like
Mexico or China In support Of . BIZ
metallic union Ne. Gibbs says:
LET rs suppose . bi-metallic union OF
the United states ard the principal COM
mercial nations OF Europe with their de-
Tendencies. There would then Be no M
duccment 20 send away gold, bscause there
would Be no nation where gold would
uevethS Sne rettOD GreAteS pufcno9tn8
power than silver, or where (as in Eng
land ut present. gold, or token representa-
tives Of gold, would have alone purchasing
power. Hut even in England, though
eold alone has purchasing power. no to
1873 no merchant cared whether he re-
ceived . remittance Of 1,5sO ounces Of sii-
yer or 100 ounces Of gold. The minimum
value Of silver was necessarily the same -
gold. inasmuch IS q kilogram Of
silver sent to Paris produced by
Law 800 francs. which were 1t his
disposal by bill Of exchange. Why. then, IL
that Law were restored. should America be
under any necessity Of sending gold 10
London rather than silvsr7 China can
now take our gold ct her pleasure II she
chooses to suffer the preliminary loss.
Why should We continue any longer help
less. a. We are nov to great extent, when
the enactment Of the bi-metailic law would
give N back the option Of parting with II
or keeping II - might SUIT ourselvesf But
China. some one may say, will adopt .
gold currency and draw away all our gold.
China may do that now II she 10 % minded.
and II she sells her silver at Whatever sac
rihcs and has credits on England, she can
do % BY us. for We must answer them in
gold. But under bi-metaliic law there
would be no such compuision."