Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1895-06-14


selfish debtor would make it in the gold.
Which does Mr.. Smith mean shall be
done? If he does not know, his propo-
sition has no practical significance. If
he has an opinion on this point, he should
have the courage and fairness to express
1t. The utter disregard of any consid-
Grafton of equity IN this proposition Is
made apparent by what ne himself says
little further on. Mentioning the
fact that silver was at small premium
in 1873, he continues: "But since that
time the decentralization of silver by
other countries has allowed its value to
drop to the price which it will bring for
manufacturing purposes"
Now take this in connection with the
previous proposition and we have this
syllogism. One or more countries by
legal enactment demonetiZe silver-as a
result of this decentralization the market
value of silver, relative to gold. is de-
pressed 100 per cent. When this hap
pens it becomes the duty of these same
Legislative bodies, and of all other legis-
lative bodies to change the ratio of the
coinage to correspond with this disparity
of market value. The rightfulness or
wrongfulness of the original demoneti-
cation is not, according to Mr.. Smith,
a matter for consideration. 1t is Of no
importance how Iniquitous or dishonest
may have been the demonetizing legis-
lation which caused the disparity of
the market value; the result must he ac-
cepted, and the ratio made to conform to
it. Can Mr.. Smith suppose that the
American people will accept assumptions
and reasoning which lead to such con-
cusion?
The claim for historical support of the
secretary's financial theorem is without
foundation. Within the last hundred
years no European nation has changed
the legal ratio to conform to commercial
market value. In 1903 France fixed the
ratio at l54 to l. and it has never been
changed. but has continued to be the ac-
cepted European ratio from that time to
the present, notwithstanding very fire.
quent and sometimes quite considerable
fluctuations in the market value of the
metals. The United States in the period
OF its existence has made but one change
of ratio and that only to the extent of
one-siXteenth. Although the motive of
this slight change was in one sense an
inequality of market value, it was not an
Inequality resulting from or in any way
Influenced by commercial supply and de-
mand in respect TO the metals as COM
modities. 1t was due solely to the differ
ence between our legal ratio and that of
Europe. In 1892 congress adopted the
pean ratio this was an generalization OF
silver, and as consequence silver staid
here, where it was worth more than
gold and gold went as bullion to Europe
where it was worth more than silver. In
1884 with a view to retaining our pro
portion of gold the ratio was changed
but for some reason which neither the
debates nor committee reports of the
time satisfactorily explained, instead OF
being cOnformed to the French ratio il
was fixed at lG to l accurately 15.9S)
This was relatively to Europe an over.
valuation of gold, which therefore staiC
with US for coinage and circulation
while silver went as bullion to Europe
where it was more valuable. 1t will be
seen at once that this legislative change
of ratio, the only one made or attempted
for century, in no way tends to sup
port the assertion of historical recOgni
ton of the proposition that "the ratio OF
coinage must be fixed upon the CONNER
cial value of the metals in the market
The legislation was an effort not to fol