The representative. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1893-1901, 1895-12-04
A VALUABLE ARGUMENT
MONOMETALLISM AND BIMET
ALLISM.
Some Spacious Fallacies Answered
Let the Farmer and Work
ingman Read.

The d-monometallists, recognizing,
perhaps, their inability to meet the ar
guments and facts advanced by bimetal-
lists to the satisfaction of unbiased vot-
ers who are anxious to find the cause of
the existing depression and Distress to
learn the truth and remove the cause by
voting intelligently for policy that will
insure the return of prosperity, and. no
doubt, finding it wiser to avoid meeting
the bimetallsts squarely, and easier to
answer suppositional cases and unwar-
ranted arguments of their own making.
which they are wont to attribute
to bimetallists. than to answer the
arguments as presented clearly by
the blmetallists themselves, SEEM
ingly find it impossible to resist the
temptation of misrepresenting their op-
ponents. AS characteristic of the arg,l-
ments, or rather sophistries, of the gold
monometallists. and as exemplifyiny
their great proclivity to build straw men,
which they can throw down, while avoid
ing the issue as presented by the bimet-
allsts, we print below communication
addressed to the American by Mr.. Starr
Hoyt Nichols, of New York redoubta-
Die champion Of gOld-mOnometalliSm, to-
gether with some comments on the same.
MI. Nichols starts in. eff cost of pro-
duction is not a controlling factor in
price, | see no. reason why pound of
white sugar should not sell for as much
as pound Of silver"
That the cost of production regulates
prices when the supply can be increased
without limit, bimetallists do not deny,
and there is no justification for Mr.. Mich
OILS implication that they do. The prices
OF all commodities are primarily fixed by
supply and demand, but, inasmuch as
production will not be carried on at a
loss, while if there is large profit there
VIII be great incentive to increased pro-
ductlon, prices naturally tend to par with
the average cost of reproductions a fair
profit being included in cost of produc-
ton. Thus, with an increased supply of
commodity, demand remaining the
same, prices tend to fall, but as prices
fall, production becomes less and less
profitable, and more and more curtailed.
until finally the production again only
equals the demand at a fair cost of pro-
ductlon, and prices are restored. So. If
demand outruns supply prices rise, but
this will be ultimately offset by an in
creaslng supply where increased pro-
embarking in this line of production.
hoping reap the large profits of high
prices. These are axioms denied by
none, but money is no less controlled by
TINS law than other commodities, and as
all commodities are priced in money it
follows that If money rises or falls, prices
fall or rise inversely.
Mr.. Nichols continues: Certainly
everybody knows that barrel of shavinss
sells for less than barrel of flour. be-
cause it costs less to produce them"
Certainly, Mr.. Nichols, but everybody
should know that If the barrel of flour
and the barrel of shavings, and other
commodities fall together and this while
the labor cost of production remains the
same, the fall must be sought in some
other cause than the cheapness of pro-
duction, to-wit: the increased value of
money, that in which they are measured
Mr.. Nichols: eff your view of the ad-
vantages of rise in prices were true, it
would follow that if wheat should rise to
five dollars bushel it would be an i'm
mense gain to everybody. If pianos could
be sold for ten thousand dollars apiece
that, too, would benefit the world un-
sneakably. But this is absurd
Inversely, Mr.. Nichols, does it follow
that wheat at'five cents bushel would
benefit humanity unspeakably? Would
this be an immense gain to the farmer
class, the backbone of the nation? This
is in line with your argument Bimetal-
lists demand a stable measure OF values
and resulting staple prices. They de-
mand that falling prices, the result of
the appreciation of gold be checked by
placing the silver side by side with gold
They desire to see prices rise to the level
a mt
been cast down. Bimetallists are oppos-
ed to depreciating currency, as they are
to appreciating. In implying the con-
trary you misrepresent them.
Mr. Nichols Even if, as your con-
tend. prices fall because gold rises, how
does that injure any one? The ultimate
and fundamental transaction in every
case is not between gold and goods, but
between two kinds of produced goods
One man makes shoes and another cloth.
ThcRe two exchange for products, cloth
for shoes. shoes for cloth. AS medium
of transfer they may use gold. The
value of each commodity will be meas
ured not by the price of gold at all. For
whether gold be high or low it will be
reckoned at the same valuation in each
case. One ounce or two hundred ounces
makes no difference. so long as it is ap-
piled to both Commodities alike
Truly if all commodities, if all prop
erty, debts included, fell in price to-
gether and equally, no one would be the
loser by the appreciation of gold. But
that wholesale prices, retail prices,
wages of labor, fall equally is pure
assumption, disproven by palpable facts.
Wholesale prices fall first-the grain of
the farmer, the cotton Of the planter, the
cloth of the manufacturer. Those who sell
at wholesale are employers of labor. AS
wholesale prices fall, their profits are cut
into. and they in turn cut wages. The
money the workman receives as wages
he must spend at retail, and retail prices
are the last to fall, for they only fall as
demand falls off. the result of the i'm
poyerishment of customers. How then
does the appreciation of gold injure any
one? The farmer paying high taxes, if
he rents his farm, as high rent: if it is
mortgaged, as high interest-the same
number of dollars, whether the dollar is
worth one bushel of wheat or ten pounds