The herald., 1895-07-24
Why 10 TO I?

Why 10 tor
| Editor Herald In line with the query
which l propounded in The Herald of Ju-
| ly 11th and closely related thereto is the
| question, Why do silver men when advoca-
! Sing return to bimetallism uniformly
insist On the ratio of 10 to l? The reas-
Onssfor adherence to this ratio are over
whelming. l will cite a few of them.
1t should be noted IN the frs. place
that all contracts Tor the payment or del
livery of unspecilied dollars since 1884 are
based, by unequivocal implication, on
the public statutes of the country, which
declare in explicit terms that dollars shall
consist OF 4l2l2 grains of silver. or OF 25.S
grains OF gold, nine-tenths line. AS a
matter of fact. which no monometallc or
monomaniac gold standard advocate can
evade, escape or wigsle away from. all the
500. GOO. 600 coined gold dollars, more or
less and all the 422. 900, 900 standard silver
now in this country. and on which the
vast monetary transactions OF the entire
country are based, actually contain, re.
spectively, the exact number of grains
specified ABOVE. And the ratio of weight
of the two metals in these dual units
which are designated by a single name
(dollars) Is as l6 to l. or so near that ra
ito as TO be commonly indicated by those
figures. (rhe mathematical ratio of 4l2.5
to % is as Is. So and an infin itesimal deci-
volving the payment of these dollars on
the statute books. whether they are en-
tered into and completed the same day, or
whether they were en- tered into one, two
or three score years ago, or whether they
are entered into now, to terminate hun
dred years hence, are certainly entitled
to immunity from substantial change of
content of either unit, by law. without
notice. or without provision being made
for such change of the basis OF these con-
tracts. Although the Constitution of the
United States authorizes congress to coin
money and regulate the (relative or ratio)
value thereof, 1t is land ought to be),
serious question with strict moralists
whether it would be just or right for con-
gress. un0er color of such authority, to
change either the gold OF standard silver
dollars by so much as single grain or
pennyweight. without, at the same time,
providing for the effect of such fundament-
al change on existing contracts.
1t certainly would not be considered
tolerable for congresyto add one pound or
even one ounce to the Genital, or one inch
to the standard yard, or 10 enlarge or en-
small the legal gallon measure, without
providing for the effect of such change on
existing contracts.
We can readily get a glimpse of the
gravity of even slight change of the
money unit, by noting its practical effect
on single contract for the delivery Of
money, and the number of such contracts
made by ou, 10000. 600 people daily, are as
the sands of the seashore.
An agreement made, say. on the 1st day |
OF January, 1873, to pay $1,000 one year
after date. would have been interpreted |
in other terms) exactly equivalent to a |
contract to deliver either %, 500 grains or |
55A ounces Troy of gold, or 412, 500 grains |
or s59ss ounces Troy of silver. If, during |
the life of this contract, that is. If. dur
| of Sh
have been added to the gold dollar by leg
isative enactment, the basis of the con-
tract would have been changed, and $3.50 |
would have been added to the burden of
tho debtor without his consent. if paid !
in gold. And if he paid in silver and |
the silver dollar should have been legally |
increased by a single peunyweight. the |
amount OF the debt would likewise have
been Increased without the debtors con-
sent to the extent of $5S.lS-which in
either case would have been legal spoila- |
tion.
If, then, very slight change, by legis-
alton, of the contents of either of our
standard gold or silver CONS, or units of
value. would make such differences as
these in single paratvely insignif-
cant contract for the delivery of money,
who can measure the wrongs that would
be wrought thereby in the countless mon-
ey contracts of all the people. and espe-
cially III the large contracts, such as gov
ernment and other loans, running up IN
to the hundreds of millions of dollars?
And yet the magnitude of these wrongE,
colossal as they would have been, would
have been comparatively insignificant
gnen N;nEP GG;%EParea With the great
same year, 1873! Instead of legally in
oreasing or diminishing either monetary
unit by grain or a pennyweight, one
1f the primary units which had been the
basis of our money system for over eighty
years was outlawed and practically abol-
shed. If the change of either of our dol
ars by few grains is legal spolialon,
what shall be said of the suppression al
together of one of those units. whereby
he other has been doubled in relative
value, and the burdens of all oeotors as
. result have been practically doubled?
There is another AID powerful reason,
among the many that might be adduced.
Why the ratio of coinage should not be
changed Ineztricable confusion would
olow the mintage OF either gold or sill
yer CONS having different weight from
he standard coins now in existence.
What sort OF chaos would reign, if be-
ides the several hundred million dollars
If both gold and silver of the present
tandard weight and fneness we should
lave others struck off of different weight
md tineness? To ask this question is to
answer it.
1t is unnecessary TO seek olher reasons
or adhering to our legal ratio of 1G to /.
Vt present no other ratio is possible. If,
when this country shall have returned to
he full practice of that ratio by basng
is standard on the lower specie, il will !
hen be feasible to consider with Euro
,ean nations a change from our ratio of
6 to l to the European ratio of 15lS to 1,
ither under the provision of the consti-
ution which authorizes congress TO coin
N (S1 = roIo
ive) value thereof, or if that is not con-
idered admissible. then providing for
he equitable liquidation of all money
ontracts made under the present ratio
n dollars coined under the new ratio,
which would also involve the recoinage OF
ur gold dollars or all our standard SILVER
lollars to make them conform to the
lew or international ratio.
II. d. BARROWS.
July 20. 1895.
He IIade r1istake
1T. ! 1