The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-04-18

! "a, ~, a. vas Increasing, but the In
ducncc OF these creditors have DONNA.
ted your administration, ana you insi1'
upon such currency az they nav 70
,shi,shed a. a sound currency. IL means
no ,oufscafsCn OF the property OF ,hs
ncor,e by tie saic Of property cnneI
mortoarcx. judgments and executions IL
,eana that fixed incomes VIII wipe out
,bo Interest of stockholders In our rail-
roads and corporations.
Now. we want TO make this remark:
When a man has labored and accumu-
hated property worth $4,000, II he puts
~ into the form Of a house and lot. even
the binictallic committee will admit tha'
he has right 10 get for 1t through all
time all the rent that hec an get any one
| 10 nay him. II. instead OF putting IL
into a house and lot he lends it to an
| other man. who agrees TO pay him $,2Oo
each year he has It. and then return him
the $4,000. why has he not the same
| right 10 have the Si.2o0 year while the
borrower retains IT. and then TO have
his $4,000 returned to him in coin OF the
| value loaned as he has to have the
| annual rent OF the house. and possession
of the house when the lease terminates?
The bimetallic committee says ne
has not. because the prices of every
thing that the borrower Of that money
produces have been falling so since he
borrowed the money that # takes double
as much Of those things to sell Tor
enough to repay the money as IL look
when the money was borrowed.
II that were so. it would furnish no
reason why the borrower should not COM
ply with his contract and return the
same money that he borrowed. When ne
borrowed the money. he made an uncon-
dit,onal contract with the lender that he
would return him money Of exactly me
same value as he borrowed. lie agreed
then that ne would assume all the rlsNs
Of the transaction, and If there is 70 be
q loss. on whom shall 1t fall-on the
borrower. who agreed 10 take the risk.
or on the lender, who stipulated that ne
was to incur none Of the risk?
But nothing can be further from the
fact than the claim Of the committee
| that II takes now twice the value Of the
things the borrower produces to pay back
what he borrowed. Twenty years ago a
man had TO hold in his hand the chisel
that cuts metal on a turning-lathe. Now
IL is held by machinery, and one man
can tend six turn'ng-lathes. The conse-
ouence is the product Of the turning
lathe is much cheaper than It was twenty
years ago. The debtor has to deliver
twice as many pieces of metal that have
been turned on the lathe TO pay his debt.
II is true, but the preparation Of those
pieces has cost him only one-half what
IL formerly cost him. Is his situation
any worse. because he delivers two pieces
| Of metal now, when he had formerly
to deliver only one?
| Apply the same principle now TO the
case of the wheat necessary to pay the
| Presidents salary. The use of labor
| saving machinery has enormously reduced
the cost of producing wheat, and the
| quick transportation by steam between
all parts OF the world, and the opening
| of immense new tracts Of country TO the
production OF wheat, have immensely low
| cred the average price at which all the
wheat the world wants can be furnished.
Should the fact, then, that it takes
, 10000 bushels of vsheat TO pay Inc Presi
dents salary of $4,000 now, when it
would only have taken 1900 to pay the
|. salary of $4,000 in 1873, be any reason
| why we should reduce the President 5
! salary? The use Of labor-saving ma
chimes. the spread of wheat-growing, and
| its growth in many places where labor
| is very cheap, enable a great mass Of
It's producers to sell 1t at present prices,
which are satisfactory TO them. Shall
| the Presidents salary be cut down, and
creditors be deprived of their rights. be-
cause some wheat-growers are unable to
sell their wheat at present prices and
live2 1t would seem TO be the plainest
! dictate Of justice that the Presidents
salary should be kept as il is. ana that
the rights of creditors should be respect
| ed as long as wheat-growers enough TO
furnish all the wheat that the world
needs are satisfied with present prices.
and II the other wheat-growers cannot
| live by selling wheat at present prices.
why, then. IL would seem that they will
have to starve unless they are willing
10 give up wheat-growing and take up
some other line of business that is bet
| ter suited 10 them. But 1t does look
like the most cruel hardship TO deprive
creditor OF the money he labored TO
acquire. because an Illinois farmer finds
himself unable to live by selling his
wheat at the price which the wheat
producer in Argentine compels him to
take The Illinois farmer must give up
wheat-raisng. if he cannot compete with
the Argentine wheat-grower and 20 into
| some other business that will give him
better profits.
The whole case of the bimetallic COM
mittee when reduced to its best analy-
sis, Is this: The improvements in meth
DDS Of production and transportation have
cheapened everything, and thus brought
comforts within the reach of the masses
that hungercd and starved before. The
bimetallic committee 10 preserve mo-
nopoiies to different sets, would DO away
with all this. raise prices again and bene-
TT different sets by it, but produce in
calculable suffering rom hunger and cold
amongst the great masses Of mankind
| and they 80 about doing this
| ny dchasinc tle money of the