The broad ax., 1896-09-05

der which there shall be worlds coin
made Of silver under another name
whoever names either in any contract
or bill of exchange to be called upon
to pay that coin and not to substitute
one for another. That would be a true
system Of bimetallism. and to secure
that the international conference ought
TO be held Edward Atkinson in The
Chicago Record, April &c.
This is a new and untried theory for
two kinds of metal money pieces. Hith-
erto metal money has been national
mainly, not universal. Metal between
countries is taken by weight, not at its
face value.
Custom makes the strongest OF
laws" and gold and silver for money
! are Of ancient origin. Silver dates back
for thousands of years and has been
popular with the people-more popular,
perhaps, than gold. Why advocacy Of
silver should be called a craze" and
| the advocates Of its restoration should
be called fools" is difficult to under
stand. Mr.. Atkinson's theory, as quoted
above, tends to place money contracts
on a level with commodity contracts
within the national domain and a pri-
vate contract higher than the public
policy which the law is supposed to rep
resent The theory tends to keep gold
and silver separate, thus defeating
equal bimetallism Of long years stand
ting. In other words, it would be two
kinds Of separate monometallisn on
the theory Of commodity contracts.
Before 1873 we had free coinage and
bimetallism pure and simple at a ratio
OF l6 to 1, the two metals equal in le-
gal powers II A had executed his
note OF hand TO B for, say, 800, and had
specified gold in the note and when the
note was due had rendered silver dol
lars, or vice versa, the courts of this
country would have sanctioned the
tender and would not enforce a specific
performance. Full legal-tender dol
lars were sufficient in law for a money
contract II ounces of metal had been
named 1t would have been a commodi-
" contract, quite another thing. The
doctrine Of common law would not al
low any discrimination in the kinds of
iega-tender money, for otherwise the
snarp creditor, knowing the depend
ence OF the borrower, could exact and
nave nominated in the bond" or con-
tract the highest-priced money and
mus wedge the two kinds of money
asunder. Hence it was unnecessary to
mention one Of the two kinds of metal
oolIars IN the money contract; the law
maintained their equality by equal DOW
ers and equal mint privileges. This
DEBTORS option was balance. for when
one metal advanced trifie the cheaper
one would be in demand, and that
demand would raise the lower one.
But when silver was (partly) remope-
dzed in 1873 they sought to stab this
doctrine Of full legal tender. public and
private, with that fatal dagger "ex-
cept," the exception clause, EXCEPT
where otherwise expressly stipulated in
the contract" So to-day l take it that
silver note of hand can be paid with
gold dollars, but a gold note of hand
cannot be paid with silver dollars.
plainly inequality of legal powers of
money. This exception clause and pri-
vate contract theory disintegrates BIZ
metallism, cripples the legal-tender
function Of silver and helps to keep
silver subsidiary and subordinate 10
the monopoly of gold.
1t seems "the wish is father to the
thought" to make silver lame some way
"a bolt drawn to clog the machinery
to keep silver cheap" and thus have
an excuse to condemn it because 1t is
cheap. That does not look honest II
is not fair to denounce silver in its GRIN
pied and unequal condition and not en-
tighten the people that it is so crippled.
Ii there is superior honesty" in all this
"honest-money" talk, first make the
conditions OF the two metals equal be-
fore you compare them. EQUAL terms
is the foundation of all comparative
logic-equal both as to legal powers
and mint privileges. Then, after a fair
trial, If any difference exists between
the two metals it can be adjusted.
Ii a silver miner can take his silver
to a mint and have 1t coined into fuII
legal-tender 10O-cent absolute dollars
would he part with the bullion for any
less? This country being a large pro-
Queer Of silver and European nations
being dependent and non-producers- Il
would be right for US to set the price.
and II they will not agree we can 20
1t alone and let them follow.
Right here / must inject a little mill
osophy that Is little understood and
must analyze this intrinsic" yalue
"hammer-test" theory. Rogers in his
Political Economy" admits that II
either gold and silver were demonetized
and reduced to merchandise in the arts
alone it Is doubtful whether they
would command one-half of their pres
emit value or price. Very well: then
what is the last half value ON toni
Why, 1t Is money value-functiona
value or utility value in it's chief use.
Gold owes its chief value to its CHIEF
use, which is money use, and where
gold has to do ALI the uork ~ h~.h