The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1894-08-19
ANOTHER POPULIsT On OUR MONEY
ARTICLE

lacy OF flDTt UlDutl DfiuG U'fA'b 80 NN'N
the Populists hard blow We published
a reply 20 Il from one yesterday, and this
morning we publish another reply 10 IL
from Mayor Richard V. Gaines, OF Char
lOtte county.
To our mind all that Is written IN de-
fence of the Populist views of the case
IL Wild talk. But we recognise the f"ct
that there are earnest and honest men
who entertain those views, and we there
fore. think II proper that they should nave
n hearing, AMI that their arguments
should be candidly and frankly met.
We shah not chop logic with Major
Gaines upon the question whether the
word measure" or standard" IL the
right one We are satisfied with the word
measure" but not In the sense In when
he uses H. He thinks money has mag
teal power TO fix the value OF thing. lie
thinks a thing may be worthless In itself'
but that II money declares TO II that II Is
mistaken about itself and that II Is really
valuable. II Immediately becomes invested
with the value which money assigns to H.
We insist that this idea puts the cart be-
fore the horse We say that money does
no more than this: II takes certain
amount OF labor TO dig q $40 grains or
gold out OF the ground, ind We arbitrarily
cali that a dollar. 1T takes the same
amount OF labor 80 produce a bushel OF
wheat. and We, therefore. say II IS worth
a dollar. The first function of money.
therefore. ia only &c declare the value In
itseif-that II, IN money-Of The units OF
commodity. 50 that we may Know now
many units of one commodity are 10 be
given I'm exchange for one unit OF another
commodity-hOw many bushels Of corn
are 10 be given in exchange for one bushel
of wheat. This is determined By ascer-
taIning that n takes the same labor TO
produce a bushel of wheat and a gold
dollar whereupon we say bushel OF
wheat is worth a gold dollar Then we
find that Il takes only half the same labor
10 produce a bushel of corn. and we
therefore say bushel OF corn IL worth
only half a dollar. We then say a bushel
Of wheat is worth one dollar, two bushels
| OF corn are worth one dollar. therefore
! two bushels Of corn are worth one bushel
| of wheat. and we exchange them on that
/ basis.
This IS the first function OF money. It's
| next IL TO exchange commodities one for
| the other when they are not in the pres
| ence Of each other, or 1t would not be
| convenient 10 make the exchange IL they
were.
If It has taken the same labor 20 pro-
duce one hundred gold dollars and one
hundred bushels OF wheat and two hun
dred bushels of corn. each one Of the three
is as valuable as the other. and 1t IS sup
possibly, therefore. the same thing TO an
individual whether he has one or the
other. He IS, therefore. willing 20 give the
two hundred bushels Of corn IN exchange
for the one hundred bushels Of wheat, or
either for the one hundred gold dollars.
This Is. Of course. treating the case in
It's most elementary form In practical
Me these elementary conditions are moAi-
fled by the situations OF parties. The man
who has the one hundred gold dollars
may have n plenty of both wheat and
corn, and may. therefore. be unwilling
TO exchange his dollars for either wheat
or corn He may want wooden cloth, and
may determine 10 hold his dollars for an
exchange for cloth. But In the ramifca-
lions OF society, other persons will want
to exchange something for wheat and
something for corn 20 that both COM
modities will always find customers ready
to swap something for them.
This leads US 10 word upon what
Major Gaines says about some articles
selling for more. some for less. thun cost
of production. In the illustrations we
have used We have intended 20 show the
elementary nature Of business. We have
intended TO show that business does not
consist, al the bottom, OF purchase and
sales. but of exchanges Of commodities
which take the form Of purchase and
sale FOR convenience sake. But ninety five
per cent. of the transactions OF COM
merce are exchanges of commodities, not
withstanding the fact that all of them
take the form OF sales. If the commodi-
ties were snapped directly, one for the
other. there would be little or no use for
money. Bpt. as THIS is impossible, max
Ing the Intervention OF the form OF sale
necessary, there must be money enough
TO supply the needs OF those transactions
OF sale. though when there is enough for
that all over IL must be u superiority.
Under our modern conditions, with steam
and electricity, we ind a very small
amount of II necessary. because we are
able TO use paper promises to pay money
as the machinery for sales just AZ salts
factorily as the actual money, If there
be perfect confidence that the paper
promise will be performed as made Con-
fidence that promises 10 pay will be ex-
actly performed is, therefore, the needful
thing In business, and not metallic dol
lars, which causes us to repeat what we
have many times said. that we want the
United States Government to take It's re-
pressive hand off from our right to make
all the paper promises 10 pay that We
wish. When that is done. If we will keep
the thing TO be paid up to the highest
standard. there VIII be all the money
that business can ask for
But TO return 10 things selling for less
than cost: That is because all things are
governed by the law Of supply and de-
mand. We have treated the case upon Its
elemental conditions TO show the original
nature of transactions. But this nature
must. OF course. conform itself 10 the de-
mand there is for the commodity. and
that may totally modify all theoretical
conditions. Finally. the point at Issue be-
tween Major Gaines and all Popuiists
upon the one side and ourselves upon the
other is this: They believe that money
issues out OF the Government. even as