The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-05-01

ING Professor Harveys reply 10 Mt.
Cleveland letter. May ask ths flror
or line or two, I'm winch | nope 90 snow
how entirely you fail 30 a9prehend his
argument. much less 10 answer II? And
Ignt mere let nc say thar / entirely
cree with Mr.. Cleveland, That "Whdt Is
now needed more than anything else Is Ca
pam ana simple pI ,seniaton u the
argument IN favor of sOuuu money but
with the proyisO that IL is absolutely
necessary, first. 10 ascertain what b.
sound money. IL is too late in the day 20
use catch phrases and pOnIercas plau-
tuces, ard set uD men OF straw, and then
amuse yourself and THINK YOU are de-
luding the people by iemOiismng the crca-
lures OF your own imagination. The peo-
pie nave learned 10 think for themselves.
AIRY appeal you make has got 10 be al
dressed 10 their reason, ana % be tuc'-
tive, must carry with IN the force or
absolute demonstration. Can you do III
Let as see, You say that Professor tiat-
Neys book. Coins Financial School, is
az absurd book. and that nothing ndt
iOolishncss Is 20 be expected from ITS
author Well. that is simply your opin-
ion, nd II Professor Harvey were % re-
tort. That you are TOOL Tor eNpfesslii-
sucn an opinion. question misnt very
properly arise as go the propiitty ana
good taste Of the language used, but u
could hardly be claimed that the merits
OF the controversy were touched on either
side. You say. further that the nimcldl-
lists throw of all Disguise All pretenslJn
10 deceucy and honesty, and that they
want free silver because they will then
be able 20 pay a dollar OF dent VAIN a
halt dollar of money and thdt th's,
which is simply stealing and rascality. Is
what everybody knows Is ~ the bottom
OF the irce-siiycr movement Thus en-
deaVOTlng hy mOnstrour assertion uu-
supported by an atom Of evidence, To
brand as thieves and scOuulrels the thou-
sands Of good and true men who agree
with Prof ssOr Harvey, and who may
fairly claim credit for as high "a degree
of
yOu may yourself posses. DO you sup
pose that this is the kind OF argument
That IS going 10 convert these men 10 TIC
cause you advocate If you do, don =
agree with you. Now a step further ana
We reach the only appearance OF an arsi-
ment your editorial contains. You seem
to think II conclusive. Let us examine 1T.
You give long extract from Professor
Harvey's letter, which may be con-
densed as follows. That since 1873 prices
generally have fallen, regularly and stead
ilyi that merchants. manufacturers ana
farmers nave all been doing business on
a falling market. that this shriLkdgc or
values has led to an enormous increase
IN the volume OF debt, until II has as
sumed such proportions as 10 threaten
utter ruin 10 all the industrial interests
OF the country. and that the main cause
Of this state OF things IS 10 be tound III
the characterization OF silver, the consc-
quont destruction OF one-half the volume
of money Of final account. and apprccia-
ton I'm value of the other half, or gold.
Your reply 10 this is. In effect. that the
decentralization of silver had nothing 10
do with h. and refer the whole cause 10
overproduction and the chcapcncd facili-
ties of production and transportation.
This. YOU say. is the argument or the ul-
metallists reduced 10 IT'S last analysis. In
other words. YOU assume this 90 Doe "A
sufficient explanation or the diflcultY-
This is your argument-a discredlted raj
lacy-against which the bimetallists make
most vigorous protests ana yet you en-
deavor 10 inject II into the discussion
and impose IL upon your readers as their
argument. Could the "reducttO at ab-
surdum" possibly have litter illustra-
ton?
II certainly seems like thrcshins over
old straw TO enter seriously at this time
into a discussion of this theory Of over
production; but. as have stated that 10
Is a discredited fallacy | DO not mean ID
leave any iOOp-hOle FOR the assertion that
/ have made a statement {hai Is unsus,,
talned by the facts mad SUPPOSED
that as long ago as ISIS the report of the
Royal Commission Of Great Britain on
gold and silver had fully considered and
finally disposed of this question. but as
IL seems there are persons who DO not
know this or are bold enough 10 chal-
lcngc it, / suppose ~ viii he necessary
20 enter the matter somewhat in detail
and see what the statistics say about n.
The index tables Of Sduerbeck. dealing
with one hundred articles Of principal
consumption. and ACKNOWLEDGED 10 be
standard authority. show from 1873 20
1893 steady and progressive ran Tor the
period, amounting 10 10 per cent II
would consume too much time and space
TO take up the whole question. Let us
consider IL with reference 10 our typical
article OF universal consumption wheat.
In 1879 wheat Of fair average quality
was worth In London i0s. per quarter OF
492 pounds IL declined steadily, until IN
June, 1884. IL sold az les. 81. per quarter
You claim this was the result OF over
production. Let us see. Bear In mind
that the increase Of the population OF the
world Is estimated az 100000 per an
mum. I cannot just now lay my hands
uDOn the total Weld of wheat for the
twenty yearS from 1913 10 1893, but In
In 1882 50o.o000oo quarters, and IN 1893 II
was 2sSoW.VD quarters and during those
three years the price declined from As
IN 1891 10 2js. IN 1898. and. as / have
shown. on 10 l9s. 3D. IN 1891 The popula-
time 100000. So here YOU have this
enormous fan in value, in spite OF in-
creased demand and lowered production.
How DO you account Tor ~ And am ]
not more than Justified m me contention
that the theory of ONerprOductOn is a
discreIitet and exploded tallact. and that
every bimetallist Of ordinary Intelligence
knows IL 20 be such? And now, mind
ful Of your closing paragraph. IN which
you stigmatize the whole case OF the BIZ
metalllsts as "idiouc folly / VIII.
nevertheless. cndcaVOr TO show what
their position Is with regard 20 sound
and only remedy for the existing condi-
ton OF things IN this couniry-tne only
relief for the depression and distress that
prevails, more particularly as regards
our agricultural in;erests-is 10 be found
IN return 70 sOund-money principles
and methods. As I said In the beginning.
Mr.. Cleveland wants "a plain and simple
argument IN favor Of sound money but
seems unable or unwilling TO give n, |
VIII endedvOr 10 do so. and Will explain
i by an Illustration. In 1872 the United
states Congress passed an act estab-
fishing monetary system for the country.
by this law A silver dollar containing
81 ia grains Of pure silver was made the
unit OF value. Gold was also made money.
and It's value fixed at the ratio Of IS for .
changed IN 1884 10 Is for /. and the guam
tity or gold In the gold dollar reduced 10
81 grains, which law remained Ia force
until 1873. This may seem 10 be a thrice
told tale. Nevertheless. II furnishes an
exam nle OF what We claim is a sound
metallic currency, and which the who'll.
history OF the world demonstrates 10 be
such \ system under which the two
metals. maintaining an absolute parity
at fixed ratio each performed, without
clash'ng or dscOrd. its appropriate work.
showing no favors 10 the rich and not
lending itself to the oppression OF the
poor. and both together entering into and
constituting the volume OF money OF final
account. system under which this cOun-
try prospered and grew rich for ninety
years. and since tho destruction OF which
in 1919, Il has with each succeeding year
become poorer, and its people more rest.
less and dissatisfied. This is the system
OF sound money which bimetalists aivo-
cate. The free coinage OF both silver
and gold at the old ratio OF Is 10 l. and
they hold that until IL Is adopted no
return of permanent prosperity Is possi-
Bile. Gold alone is neither sound nor hon
est money. II Nils the rich mans Golfers.
Ill