The Dalles times-mountaineer. [volume] (The Dalles, Or.) 1882-1904, 1896-09-05
THE MIGRATION OF SILVER.

THE MIGRATION OF SILVER.
Coinage Ratio Does Not Drive 1t From
| one Place to Another.
Editor TINES -MoUNTAINEER:
In replying to the letter of "Sound
Money Democrat" in the WEEKLY
MoUNTANEER of.August 22d, desire
to say in the first place that while I res
pect the frankness and apparent
candor of your correspondent. and
wish to meet him upon the same plain
yet from my experience with GOLD
standard advocates, can hardly think
that he would be with US if we should
be able to convince him that the fret
coinage of silver would be for the bes
interest of our common country. MY
experience with gold standard advo
Gates has led me to believe that the!
are made up largely, if not entirely, O
persons whose personal interests are
favored by the gold standard, and
therefore they battle for it out of self
ish considerations, without regard tt
how it affects the great mass of citizens
1t is hoping for too much to hope
that these people would be with us
even if convinced: or rather, it i:
absolutely impossible to conyince their
upon the principle Of human nature
illustrated by the poet:
| Convince man against his will,
| He's of the SAME opinion still"
However, it may be that "Sound
Money Democrat" does not belong to
this class. I hope he does not; and in
deed, from the fact that he seems to be
willing to give the arguments of free
silver people patient consideration,
and to try to meet them, instead OF
ignoring and disregarding them, as
many gold standard people do, it seems
to me really possible that he is seek
| ing in good faith to reach the truth,
| and that, having reached that truth,
he will be willing to accept it. The
chance to discuss the question in a
kindly spirit with such a man is too
rare, as we'll as too valuable to be lost.
Now, taking up the argument of
"Sound Money Democrat" in kindly
spirit: Will it not be obvious to one
of so much general intelligence and
careful reading, as is evidenced by
your article, that your conclusion as to
the result of the disparity of the ratios
in France and England between 1717
and 1774, is a hasty one, and that the
effect in these two countries does not
initiate against the position taken in
my previous letter, but is further
proof of the correctness of that posi-
tion?
You say: "In the year I'LL England
adopted ratio of Is II to 1, and this
continued to be the ratio in that
country until 1774. According to your
theory, then, at any time from iii to
1774 an ounce of gold could be taken
from France and with it Is IT ounces
of silver could be bought in England,
of which 13 5-S would buy another
ounce of gold in France, and there
would be profit of 1856 ounces of
silver, slightly more of profit than in
the case you cite" Now this is ex-
actly a correct statement of my propo-
sition and contention, so far as it goes;
but you continue to say: " AS result
the accumulations of the yellow metal
in France should have been large and
increasing while England should have
used in its circulation almost ex-
clusively silver. AS a matter of his
tory, just the reverse of this is the
case" Now, this conclusion that the
process prescribed by you would re-
suit in the accumulation of the yellow
metal in France, and an increase in
circulation of silver in England, do
not understand. 1t seems too obvious
that it would have that effect, and 1
think it will so seem to you upon
further consideration.
If you take gold out of France to buy
silver in England, and take that silver
back to France and buy more gold, and
continue the process indefinitely, the
result would necessarily be to make
the yellow metal scarce in France, not
to accumulate it there. And again,
the effect would not be to enlarge the
circulation of silver in England. but
on the contrary, to enlarge the gold
circulation there, and this as you say,
is just what occurred.
Then it is not clear that the disparity
of the coinage ratio between En- gland
and France during this period tended
to make silver scarce and gold plenti-
full in England and visa versa in
France, and does not this page in his
tory tend to prove the position for
which contended, that it is the dis
parity between the coinage ratio of
different countries, and not any uni
form disparity between the coinage
and the commercial ratio which dis
turbs the relative supply of the two
metals in different countries?
AS to your proposition that the
effect of our early legislation cannot
be plainly traced in the financial his
tory Of France or England, have to
say that this may be true-that is, it
may be true that no clearly defined
effect can be traced in the history of
any other one country, corresponding
to our loss of gold between 1792jand
1884, or to our loss of silver after the
latter date. But if it is true that the
effect cannot be traced, it is not be-
cause our gold and silver did not go to
some other country when it left this,
but because itywas SO divided among
other countries and so counteracted by
other conditions as to leave no plain
and distinct mark upon the finances
Of any one country.
In considering this question, it must
be remarked that these occurrences
were in our earlier and weaker days,
nationally, commercially and fnan-
cially; and at that period in our his
tory, neither the commerce of! the
United States nor the quantity of gold
and silver entering into our circula-
tion, were by any means as consider
able as they now are. The drainage,
therefore, of certain amount of either
oo1d m. oi1vor from, Tho TIn;to5 Ct....