The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1894-04-15

81. claim to what he says Is fac'
.,.h,cb NAV be n fact for aught we hno"
that every coined dollar In the "o'''
two dollars TO produce II. But """'
meant by this statement? ls II - -
that 81 cost n certain sum 10 take S'v''
600 OF gold from the earth In 49, p"'
roeshods have so improved that the S'''''
,om,o, can now be taken from the ca -
for one-half that cost? II that i -
g. meant we don't see what is mas ~
with the discussion.
or Is II meant that mems passion" '0'
working mines has led them into al 'O' -
=, wild and extrayagant ventures IN
mining which has caused each u"''a'
they produced (Which. being pfao'o''''
,,aestructible remains with u.s. tho"S"
rroduccd a thousand years ago. TO 0o9'
dophle as much as that dollar Is no"
worth in purchasing power? II TINS -
what Is meant. and we suppose II ~ 'ne"
II is the most complete demonsura''o"
Of the proposition that the value VI
dollar is 10 be referred TO the TABOR re-
ouired 10 produce it. For although II
f, eos, doubla as much labor TO produce
dollar In 1850 as IL does now, neVcrtne-
less that 1850 dollar must come down III
It's purchasing power 10 the level OF a dol
lar produced to-day; or its place VIII De
supplied by one produced to-day. and II
will be pushed on one side to enjoy IN
solitude its double value which 1t cannot
demonstrate in real life; and 1t VIII thus
be seen when Mr.. Porter's claim IS I'M
derstood correctly mot as he intends III
that there is no difference between his
claim and ours. For If man can OBJ
tain a gold dollar by less labor in corn
field than it takes to dig one out OF the
earth, he will labor for IT In the corn
field. II he can obtain n gold dollar by
less labor in mining for 1t than In work
ing for it in a corn-held, he viii mine
for it. SO that at last the value Of the
dollar depends upon the labor necessary
10 obtain IL, and that whether secured on
the surface Of the earth or dug out of its
bowels.
We must confess to great surprise in
Mr. Porter citing the case OF longtime
bonds. People will certainly not buy long
time bonds if there is to be any question
about how they viii be paid. II it is
understood that they will be paid in the
best dollars existing when they buy them
they will subscribe to them. II ques-
ton be reserved of the right OF the
lender to pay in another and less vaiua-
bic dollar they will certainly not sub
scribe. Ii is all-impOrtant. therefore, 10
longtime bonds that it be understood in
the market when they are offered that
they will be paid at maturity in the best
dollar then existing
Mr. Porter thinks that the great bles-
sing OF two dollars is that "by law eth
er would be convertible at the will of the
holder" into the other exactly. And there
is where the trouble comes in. 1t would
be convertible "by law" and not by con-
sent Of the parties In other words, the
law would clothe the debtor with power
to force the creditor to take whichever
regard to the expectation the creditor
lad when he lent the money, or to MS
wishes when it was paid. There is the
vice in the bmetallists argument. he
wishes TO substitute the coerclve power
Of law for the will and consent of the
parties. lie would make all contracts
one-sided, and that the debtors side. But
the bimetallist must remember that in
all contracts there are two parties, each
of which is entitled TO exactly the same
consideration that the other receives.
The creditor is entitled to exactly the
same consideration as is extended to the
debtor In other words. contracts must be
performed just as they are made. The
time for the debtor to ask consideration
is before he enters into his contract. At
ter it is formed he must abide by 1t as
he has made it. or confusion and anarchy
must result.