The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-09-19
JUDGE HUGHES ON THE TIMES AND
JOURNAL OF COMMERCE.

Elsewhere I'm this paper will be found
this morning a letter from Judge Rob-
ert W. Hughes, remarking upon the arti-
Gle waich vc copied "a few days back
from the New York journal of Commerce
upon one of his publications and also
upon what The Times said i'm publishing
It, Judge Hughes quotes The Times as
saying "the best thought of the world
is rapidly settling down TO the conclu-
SIGN that a man who can believe In two
standards OF value is. ia a measure, a
man of unbalanced mind" and he then
proceeds 10 argue that many intelligent
and well-balanced men do believe in the
possibility OF two standards OF value
But we never said this or anything Ike
it. The Judge has utterly msquoted US.
What we said was that "a man who can
believe in two varying standarl Is OF value,
was, &c" The Judge omitted the word
varying" which left all the milk out Of
the cocoanut. We see no difficulty In
man OF sound mind believing in two
standards of value provided they do rot
vary. If Is $40 grains of gold were taken
as the standard of value, and 4l2 10
grains Of silver were also taken as the
standard, and one was worth exactly the
same in the bullion market az the other.
and would always remain OF exactly the
same value as the other. we could see no
difficulty In a man of sound mind beley
Ia. -. ~.
dollar value. But they viii not remain
OF the same value. They separate IN
value according TO the supply of each
metal and the uses men have for each.
IL is when they commence TO vary I'm
bullion value so that the % SIC grains Of
gold are worth 50 many hours Of labor,
while the Az - grains OF silver are
worth only half that number Of hours of
labor, that we say we cannot understand
how sane mind can look upon both az
the same standards OF value. They are
not the same standards orvalue any more
than a yard stick thirty inches long is
the same standard OF measurement as a
yard stick thirty-six inches long. We
must be permitted TO differ with the
Judge. therefore. and hold on TO our opin-
Ion that there Is a perfect analogy be-
tween the case OF two yard sticks and
the case OF the two varying standards of
value.
OF the many strange propositions
Judge Hughes has contended for in this
silver controversy. we think his idea
that there can be no standard of value
st all. the strangest. We feel confident
We can say 'the best thought OF the
world" is against him here. Our laws
have determined that e s-lO grains OF
FOLD shah be the gold dollar. Why can
not that gold dollar be the standard by
which We may measure the value Of
pile Of wheat7 We shall suppose that
there Is universal desire for goli dol
lars and universal desire for wheat.
That being the case. II It takes a days
labor to dig a gold dollar out Of the
ground and 4 days labor to raise a
bushel Of wheat we Win certainly say
that q bush,i Of wheat Is worth a dol
wheat. In this case we teke the dollar
for the standard and we say that the
pile Of wheat containing one hundred
bushels II worth one hundred dollars
What dif1culty Is there. then. about this
dollar being the standard by which we
win determine what the pile OF wheat
10 worth? And what dificulty In It's be-
Ing the standard by which we deter
mine what anything else Is worth? The
desire for the thing being taken for
granted we determine what an article 10
worth in doiiars-the standard OF value
By inQuiring how nearly the labor An