The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-05-28

been done, the question Is still open.
and perfect fairness IL not attained.
have written for information. I'm no
spirit Of argument. / have not read
Coins Financial School," But desir-
ing Information. | put the question just
as II occurs TO me.
/ am, with grateful appreciation.
o. p. WILSON.
Conway. Ark. May %. 1895.
II our correspondent could show that
the same quantity Of wheat was raised
this year In the world as was raised
five years ago. and that exactly the same
quantity had been raised each year In
those FIVE years. and that the number Of
consumers OF wheat had been exactly
the same in each year. and that each
consumer had consumed exactly the same
quantity each year, then he would have
a strong case for showing that money
had Appreciated in value and that 1t
was little hard on him to pay 100 bushels
OF wheat for a case I'm which he could
have done the whole thing five years ago
for 800 bushels. Even in that case. how
ever. II would be an apparent, and not
a real hardship. He got five hundred
gold dollars. upon his express promise
that he would return five hundred gold
dollars. Did he not. deliberately agree.
then. that he would take all the risks OF
gold dollars being hard to get? And II
he did is he 10 be let off from per-
forming his contract, merely because II
~
The lender had five hundred gold dollars
at the beginning. and he would have kept
them If the borrower had not beguiled
him into parting with them by his prom
ises that he would return them in kind.
Is the lender to be made loser in such
a case. or should the loss fall on the Dor
rover, who deliberately agreed to assume
IL?
But our correspondent cannot show that
the supply Of wheat has been the same
In each Of the five last years. and the
demand has been different in each OF
them. If 700 bushels Of wheat are re-
quired now to do what 500 bushels did five
years ago, it Is because the supply OF
this year than it was five years ago. or
the demand for wheat is less now than
it was five years ago. 1t is not because
there is any scarcity of money. Money
is the most abundant commodity that
we have. Money can be borrowed in
any sums wanted. at cheaper rates than
it ever could be. How can money be
scarce II this is the fact2
our correspondent will say that It can
be borrowed by the favored few, but not
by the many. We strike hands with him
there. and unite with him in saying that
the legislation which confines the privi-
lege OF borrowing TO those persons who
are known to the managers Of the nation
al banks is one of the most tyrannical
and oppressive enactments ever imposed
upon any people. What he wants is a
repeal of the 10 per cent. tax upon the
issues Of state banks, so that he can
have his local banks, whose managers
know him, and will. therefore. grant him
such accommodations as his credit and
resources entitle him TO.
How will our correspondent account for
the recent prodigious rise in the price
Of cotton and wheat and oil? There
has been no change in the quantity of
money, yet see the enormous rise in all
of these commodities. They have risen
because the world thinks that the supply
is short. and If the world finds out that
it is mistaken about this, they will fall
again. The prices of articles depend
upon the supply of them and the demand
for them, and not upon the quantity of
money.