Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1895-05-08
Units of Yalua.

From an article of the st. Louis Re
public replying to the views of CORE
spondent of that paper, we copy a por-
tion as follows
"Our correspondent, though evi
IDENTIFY favoring the 16 to ratio, does
not agree with its modern advocates,
who insist that the unit of value from
1899 to 1871 was the silver dollar.
AS to asking the bimetallic nations
of Europe to consent to ratio based
on the present commercial relation of
the metals, nobody ever thought of
such thing. If the continental Euro
pean nations would consent to return
to free coinage at Is 2 to /; if Eng.
land would consent to restore free
coinage to India at the same ratio
then we could safely join the other ma
tions and adopt the same ratio.
That is not the question before Hi
nois and Missouri. 1t IS whether the
United States, believing that an inter
national agreement is not probable,
can adopt free coinage at 16 to with
out altering the standard of value to
an extent which would be disastrous
to many classes of citizens, would drive
away capital, would increase the bur
dens of interest and would Mexicanize
our monetary system.
Our correspondent says that we were
on gold basis before the war under
the ratio of 10 to 1. BY the same rule
we were on silver basis between 1892
and 1884. Technically he is right, and
all this talk about 16 to ratio restor-
ing the unit of value as it existed from
1892 to 1873 is meaningless and unsup-
ported assertion. But it was not gold
recommendation in the true sense that
we were under between 1884 and 1860;
or silver recommendation we were un-
der between 1893 and 1884. Bimetal-
lism does not mean an absolute and
constant parity of metallic coins, but
rather an alternate standard varying
within such small limits that business
is not shocked at the slight changes,
but is really kept more stable, just as
the metals are held to a more stable
ratio, by the practical use of one when
ever the other gets for any reason a
greater commercial value.
If we took some of the POpulists at
their word and restored the unit of
value precisely as it existed in 1860
and since silver was in 1873 selling at
81. 80 an ounce, the condition was the
with the gold dollar of that period.
Following the Populist logic, the gold
dollar should still be the standard.
But that would be as deceitful as their
history and logic. The true course is
to find what would be honest bimet-
allism to-day; what would give us
that alternating use of the two units
which would preserve the equilibrium
of the metals and of business, and
which would prevent that oppressive
appreciation in the standard of defer
red payments caused by the exclusive
use of a scarce metal.
One thing ought to be understood.
After adopting a ratio we should make
no further changes. The Bimetallic
League, A. J. Warmers monometallic
silver bureau, says that the way to do
is to try 16 to l, and, if that does not
restore the equality of the metals, to
then readjust the ratio. such a prop
osition is a burlesque. One read
justment is enough. 1t is far better to
be little wrong In estimating metallic
values than to be frequently altering
them in the pursuit of ideal equality.
If We go even to Mexican basis it
would be better to stay there than to
be tearing contracts all to pieces by
another change"