The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1896-08-27

legal ratio without foreign aid point 20
Nexieo and assert that the opening OF
our miuss will reduce ~ TO . SILVER
basis and raise gold to premium. II
In no reflection upon our SISTER Nc
public To remind our people that the
United States In much greater tnaa
Mexico in area. in population anu In
strength. IL IL aosuru 10
assert that the United States Il not .
BILE to do anything which Mexico mas
failed 10 accomplish. The one aning
necessary in order TO maintain the
parity is to furnish demand great
enough to utilize all the silver wnich
will come to the minis. That Mexico
ha. failed to do this is not proof that
the United States would also fail.
WHY WAIT FOR OTHER NATIONS?
~It Is also argued that, since number
of nations have demonetized silver,
nothing can be done until all Of those
nations restore bi-metallism. This is
also illogical. It is immaterial how
many or how few nations have open
minis, provided there are Sufficient
open minis to furnish a monetary de-
Ind for all the gold and silver availa-
b!e for coinage.
"ln reply to the argument that inn
proved machinery has lessened the
cost Of producing silver, 1t IL SUFFICIENT
to state tina, the same is true OF the
production Of gold and nothwithstand-
ing that gold has risen in value.
"As a matter Of fact, the cost OF pro-
duction does not determine the value
of the precious metals, except as it
may affect the supply. If, for instance.
the cost of producing gold should be
reduced 90 per cent without any in
crease in the output, the purchasing
power of an ounce of gold would not
fall. So long as there is a monetary
demand sufficient to take at fixed
mint price all of the gold and silver
| produced, the cost of production need
not be considered.
ut is often objected that the prices of
| gold and silver cannot be fixed in rela-
| ton to each other, because of the varia-
ton in the relative production of the
| metals. This argument also Overlooks
the fact that, if the demand for both
metals at fixed price is greater than
the supply of both, relative produc-
ton becomes immaterial. In the early
part of the present century the annual
production of silver was worth. at the
coinage ratio, about three times as
much as the annual production OF
gold; whereas, soon after 1S49, the an
nual production of gold became worth
| about three times as much at the coin
age ratio, as the annual production
of silver; and yet, owing to the main
! tenance of the bi-metall;c standard.
these enormous changes in relat
production had but slight effect upon
the relative values of the metals.
eff it is asserted by our opponents
that the free coinage of silver is intend
ed only for the benefit OF the mine
owners it must be remembered that
: free coinage cannot restore to the
mine owners any more than demOneti
cation took away, and it must alst
be remembered that the loss which
, the demonstration of silver ha
brought to the mine owners is insight
fcant compared with the loss which
. this policy has brought to the rest o
, sne world.
: The restoration Of silver will brin
to the people generally many times a
. much advantage as the mine owner
, can obtain from it. While it is not tn
| purpose of free coinage to specially al
any particular class, yet those VIII
believe that the restoration of silve
is needed by the whole people shoul
not be deferred because an incidents
} benefit will come to the mine owner
1 The erection of forts, the deepenin
OF harbors, the improvement of river
{ the erection of public buildings-a
these confer incidental benefits upo
individuals and communities, and W
q these incidental benefits do not dete
! us from making appropriations fl
q these purposes whenever such Apr,
l. priations are necessary for the publ
t good.
"The argument that a silver DOLE
E is heavier than a gold dollar, and tina
r therefore, silver is less convenient 1
carry in large quantities, is completed
4 answered by the silver certificat
> which is as easily carried as the go]
; certificate or any other kind of pap.
money.
8 THE ONLY PROPER RATIO.
b There are some who, while admi
t, ting the benefits of bi-metallism. o7
= Ject to coinage at the present ratio.
T any are deceived by this objection, the
n ought to remember that there are 4
8 Dl-metalllsts who are earnestly e,
n deavoring to secure it at any oth&
r ratio than 16 to 1. We are opposed
- any change in the ratio for two re-
J, sons-hrst, because a change wou]
a produce great injustice and, secon
e because a change in the ratio is n,
e necessary. A change would produ,
o injustice because, if effected in "a
manner usually suggested, it wou]
result In an enormous contraction
the volume of standard money.
+ III, for instance,it, was decided bv !,
2 ternational agreement to raise the :,
+ tlos throughout the world to 80 to
r the change might be effected in an
: one OF three ways:
: THE silver dollar could be doubled
, size so that the new silver dollar won
weigh thirty-two times as much .
y the present gold dollar; or the preser
), gold dollar could be reduced one-ha
!. IN weight, so that the present silv<
! dollar would weigh thirty-two tim.
as much as the new gold dollar: Or -
. change could be made by increas;n
the size OF the silver dollar and deere
. ing the size Of the gold dollar until II
. new silver dollar would weigh thirt,
, we times as much as the new gold do