The herald., 1895-09-05
BIMETALLISM,
BONDAGE OR ELOOD
CRITICISED
By Zach Montgomery

|
l observed that in your paper Of Sum-
day last Cromwell Galpin, or some
one else who mas foisted on him the
fatherhood of brat he was himself
ashamed to own, published a criticism
on my pamphlet beaI ing the above .itle.
Evidently the said critic, whoever he
was, failed to grasp the obvious meaning
of the language he crlticses. For ex-
ample, referring to my argument in re-
futaton or the oft-repeated assertion of
monometallists thatIlegislation cannot
confer value on silver. our critic says:
''In proof OF the fallacy that legislation
does not confer value, Mr.. Montgomery
offers very unfortunate illustrat,on.'
Then he presents the following garbled
quotation from page 80 of the pam phlet:
I'm every American gold coin there is
one-tenth part of alloy. consisting of sill
yer and copper. What is it except the
law that imparts to these different
metals, so equal in intrinsic value, ex-
actly the same money value?" etc. Then,
commenting on this, our critic says:
'If the law has already raised copper
~ % feA4Aey "Aeh 6oANs ~ AOoiiy a
pity that copper could not be remoneti.ed
and silver used to make culinary uten-
sils, for which purpose there is no other
substance as satisfactory
Evidently our distinguished critic has
got himself confused by confounding the
different meanings of the word value"
as applied to the various materials of
which money is made. G old, silver.
nickel. copper and even paper have each
certain intrinsic properties of their own
that fit them for various uses and give to
each certain intrinsic value. according
to the extent and importance of the
several uses to which they are applied.
Now, neither these intrinsic properties
nor the intrinsic value derived therefrom
can be affected by legislation. But.
whenever a certain portion of any one
of these various materials is adopted and
set apart from other ma terials of the
same kind by the law-making power to
be used as money-either primary money
or token money-the particular material
so selected, set apart and used as money,
by reason OF such selection and use,
acquires another and additional value,
properly denominated its money value,
which money value does not belong to
other materials OF the same kind not so
used for money. This money value
which the law imparts to materials of
any kind selected by law and used for
money may be likened to the official
Value W UlCU lne law mpaTIS TO tDc acts
of government officer. What is it, for
example. but the law that gives II
judgment or decree signed by the Judge
of a court in his official capacity a force
and value it would not have if signed
by anyone but the judge? What is it but
the law that imparts to presidential
veto 50 much official value that nothing
snort of two-thirds vote of both houses
of congress can outweigh in value such
veto?
Let anybody but the president write
and sign the same sort of veto and it
would not be of as much value as the
blank paper without the writing. As it
is with a genuine presidential veto au-
thorZed by law so 1t is with genuine
legal tender hundred dollar treasury note
issued with the sanction of the law. By
reason of the lawits moneyvalue is equal 10
500. But take another hundred dollar
note, printed just as we'll, on Just az
good paper. but without authority of
law and like an unofficial veto, it would
be utterly useless. How then can it be
truthfully said that legislation cannot
give money value to a thing by making
1t irto money and authorizing its use. as
money?
There is, however, another kind OF
value yet 10 be considered, known as coin.
And the mononetallIst entrench them
selves behind the proposition that the
commercial value of silver bullion is now
bullion, and they claim that legislation
cannot increase that commercial value
and for that reason they oppose the Ie
monetlzation of silver, unless it be upon
such a ratio would make silver dol
lar about twice its present size.
While it is true that because of the al
most unlimited supply OF the material
neither the coming OF copper money will
materially raise the commercial value of
copper bullion, nor the printing of paper
money materially raise the comm ercial
value ofipaper, nor the bottling and sell
ing Of oceanwater for medicinal purposes
materially raise the commercial value of
sea water, it does not follow therefrom
that the coming of silver money will not
materially raise the com mmercial value of
silver bullion. Is it not well settled
principle of political economy that COM
merCial values are chiefly regulated by
supply and demand? And is it not
universally recognized fact that from
time immem orial, prior to 1893, the chief
dmand for silver throughout the world
wassfor the making OF silver coin? And
that about three -fourths of the worlds
silver was used for that purpose? Is it
not true that as long as this demand for
silver for coming purposes continued,
down to the closing of the great mints of
the woild. against silver in 1884 the
commercial value of silver held its own at
the rate of rs to l of gold? Can it be
denied that at the very time the Amer
lean congress struck its deadly blow at
silver in 1873 silver dollar in bullion
was worth more than one in gold? And
is it not fact that the closing of the
worlds mints against silver cut off nearly
three-fourths cf the worlds demand for
silver? And ii to destroy a demand for
an article spondingly destroys its
comm erciai value, how was it possible to