The Philipsburg mail. [volume] (Philipsburg, Mont.) 1887-current, 1895-07-25

lishment with which he may be con-
nected. This would give him all interest
i'll the work i'll which he is employed
an interest far beyond the ordinary in
terest Of a wage Garner. 1t would be /,
spur to industry and thrift and would
increase the true permanent wealth Of
the country.
The aim Of political economists seems
to be to deal with products after they
have been made-after they get into the
hands of those who did not produce
them.
What Is an Honest Dollar?
The gold standard men tell us that
all they ask for is good money-honest
money. If that is so, then there must be
some monstrous juggling with words,
for the very pith and marrow of our
contention in demanding the restora-
tion Of the privilege Of full coinage to
silver is for good money, honest money,
money more honest than gold,
money that shall be honest not merely
today, but in perpetuity. The acute
among the gold men very we'll know
that gold money under existing condi
tions is not an honest money, but an
unjust and essentially dishonest money.
What, then, is an honest dollar? Is it
not dollar which demands at all times
the same degree Of sacrifice to obtain it?
Is a dollar honest only when it is
increasing in purchasing power, when
it is enlarging its grasp over the prod
ucts of labor? Is it an ''honest" dollar
only when it is exacting more from the
debtor than he contracted to pay and
giving more to the creditor than he
agreed to receive?
Is a dollar dishonest when, on the
date Of repayment, it commands precise
ly the same degree Of sacrifice that it
commanded when it was borrowed?
In order that a dollar may be entitled
to the designation "honest, is it neces-
sary that at the date Of repayment it
should have a greater control over hu-
man effort than it had when it was bor-
rowed?
One would naturally suppose that an
honest dollar would be a dollar that
would correctly register the sacrifices Of
men, so that at the close of the term of
q loan the creditor, in addition to lawful
interest, would receive as principal not
merely the same number Of dollars, but
dollars commanding on the average the
same degree of human effort as those he
had lent
Are we to understand that after the
making Of contract requiring the pay
ment of money a dollar becomes more
and more 'honest" in the proportion III
which it's purchasing power increases, to
the advantage Of the creditor and the
disadvantage Of the debtor?
Was the Gold Dollar an Honest Dollar In
1878?
The gold dollar having today pur-
chasing power SO per cent greater than
the same gold dollar had in 1878, was
/ the gold dollar of 20 years ago dishon-
est dollar, and is it today SO per cent
more honest than it was then, it being at
both periods Of precisely the same weight
and fineness? And if it continues to III
crease in purchasing power, will it con-
tinue to increase in honesty?
We have heard no gold standard cham
pion attribute dishonesty to any gold
coin Of any country at any date. Gold,
they say, is always gold, which in one
sense we grant, and therefore one would
suppose that contract to pay gold would
be the same contract at one time as at
another. Yet at two different periods of
time it means two totally different
things.
The Demand That One Dollar Must BE
Kept as Good AZ Another.
The gold advocates say that one dollar
must be as good as another. But they
do not define what goodness means.
What is goodness in the case Of dollar!
Is not just dollar a good dollar? Is
not dollar Of unchanging value good
dollar?
If the dollar they take for their mod
el is swindling dollar, why should
they ask that an "honest'' dollar should
be as "good'' or as bad as that?
If a dollar should get to be more val
liable than the dollar of the contract-if
goodness means dearness-then we want
dollar that shall not be so good We
want a dollar that shall demand no
more sacrifice to get it than the dollar
Of the contract-than the dollar that was
! agreed to be paid.
Premium on Gold.
When gold alone, or money based
on gold, is the circulating medium of a
country, contract calling for the pay
ment Of 1000 on the spot would on its
face seem to be the same as contract
calling for the payment Of $1,000 at a
future time, because, the sum being i'll
each case the same and payable in the
same form of money, there would seem
to be no premium involved. If, how
ever, men are obliged to give more of
their products for it in the one case
than in the other, are they not to all
intents and purposes paying premium
on gold? Is it any less a premium be-
cause the true character Of the transac-
tion is not detected? Values being al
ways stated in terms Of money, never
in terms Of commodities, it is not easy
for the uninitiated to detect variations
| in the ya1ue of the circulating Medium