Birmingham age-herald., 1895-05-19
A PRACTICAL REPLY
To Col Sam Will John ty MT. w. P. G.
 Earding.

To Col. Sam Will John ry NIT. w. r. O'
 Harding.
 To the Age-Herald:
 It seems that the facts published over my name in your issue of the 16th in stant are distasteful to some of our free silver friends. In yesterdays issue of local paper Col. Sam Will John takes oc- casion to express his displeasure. re- marking in his opening paragraph that l have written some short paragrapns which contain more errors, to put IL mildly than was ever put in as few lines"
 This criticism is all unwarranted in fact, as 1t is faulty in its grammatical construction.
 He pronounces each paragraph in my communication fable but as his ar ticle deals only with the first, there is no occasion to defend any of my statements except this one Silver ceased to be the standard in the United States in 1854, and every monetary transaction since that date is founded on the gold dollar unit of 25.S grains, nine-tenths pure, as provided in the act of 1881"
 I could cite high authorities in support of the foregoing statement, but as they are all "gold bugs their evidence would be worthless did not intimate that an act of congress had been passed in 1884 specifically ordainng that silver should no longer be a standard: but l do say that the actual effect of that act was to make gold the sole standard in the United States. Let us review briefly the conditions at the time of the passage of that act.
 As early as 1918, it had become evident that the then existing ratio, prescribed by the act of 1792, varied from the market ratio to an extent sufficient to make the concurrent circulation of gold and silver impossible Theoretically, we had double standard; in effect, only one. and that a silver standard Gold, being un- dervalued, would not circulate, and large amounts of it were exported. A resolution was offered in congress ineuiring into the expediency of pro- hibiting by law the exportation of gold. The congressman of that day. however, were wise enough to see the impractical bility of such step, and a change of ratio was finally determined upon. The act of June, 1884, as quoted in part by Colonel John, carried the change Of ratio into effect by reducing the weight of the gold coins to point where sixteen grains of silver was equivalent of one grain of gold. The market ratio at that time was 157 to 1. Silver was under valued by the new coinage ratio and soon disappeared from circulation. In the market 15,700 ounces of silver could be exchanged for 1000 ounces of gold, whereas at the hints it required 16, 900 ounces; a difference of 300 ounces in favor of selling silver as bullion. The enormous production of gold dur ing the years succeeding it's discovery in California in 1S49 accentuated this differ ence in the relative value of the two met als, and silver cut but little figure in our coinage until 1878. Colonel Johns quota tions to the contrary, I think I have shown conclusively that the act Of 1854 placed us on a gold basis.
 Colonel John and correspondent or the same paper who signs himself "Bones'' are disturbed at my alluding to ''the gold dollar unit as defined in the act of 1837." It is only necessary to state that the act of 1887 changed in no particular the ratio, or the values of coins. as established by the law of 1854. It merely made some slight changes in the amount of alloy to be put in the gold and silver coins While it is true that the coinage of the gold dollar piece was not authorized until March 4, lS49 yet the values and weights of the eagles, half eagles and quarter eagles were es- tablished by the acts of 1884 and lS3!- the values under both acts identical; the weights slightly different. Now, II gold was the actual standard, and monetary transactions called for the payment or so many dollars, which would be, Tn point of fact, the monetary unit, the rare silver dollar or the abstract dollar in gold-the metal that performed the money function in 1S34-1S37. True, there was no such entity as gold dollar, put there was a ten-dollar piece, weighing 25S grains; thus the gold dollar unit was 25S grains, as provided in the act or 1851.
 There has never been such com as a mill-the tenth of a cent-yet Will my critic contend that such an idea IS un- thinkable. or does it require the men, ton of the city tax rate, mills, to con vince him that such thing is conceiVa- ble?
 There has been agreat deal of discus sion recently as to what the monetary unit is. and what it was declared to De in 1792. The question strikes me as some what irrelevant, but those who desire in- formation on the subject can find dis cussion of it on pages and 5 of Horace Whites Coins Financial Fool.' The charge made by Colonel John that the law of 1873 was passed by stealth IS so flimsy and has been refuted so often, that it requires no attention Colonel John challenges me to point out the act of congress prior to 1873 which says the gold dollar was a unit or that pre- scrfbes its contents to be 25.S grains standard gold" I would suggest that he get out his volume of United States stat utes at Large and refer to that act Of 1S49, approved, I think, March 5, which authorized the coinage of the gold dollar He will find that it provides at least what the contents of that dollar should be.
 In conclusion would respectfully sug- gest to Colonel John, in dealing with my tSother fables that he be less technical and more practical.
 W. P. G. HARDING.