New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1896-10-14
COUNTY. 1INN, wednesday, OCT - lse

il tmonetlZafl0n In reducing the value ol
silver now let us zee how orr opponents
Iexplain this Depreciation. They, pretty
unanimo mously, say that It is owing to the
overprod ductlon of silver. While 1t il
true that the tables show that y compar.
alive oyerprod duction prior TO 1873 ef.
fected the ratio. the ratio never varied
more than 2 or per cent, and very soon
found its level; While after 1873 there
was q steady fall in price Of silver with
the exception of the years 1890 and '91.
On the other hand, even before 1873, the
Increased production did not always pro-
duce decrease in the value. For in
Stance in 1871 there was an increased
productio of 93 millions over 1870, yet
the ratio remained the same, while In
1872 there was an increased production
of q millions and the ratio rose .O6. In
1869 there was increased production of
$500, 900 while IFS ratio was reduced. Is.
In 1870, there was an increased prodnc-
ton. of.4 millions and yet the ratio fell
.O3.
Our opponents say that in 1895 we
produced four times as much silver as
in 1865 and call attention to that i'm
mense difference in production, by which
they seek to explain the change in ratio
from 16 to to 80 to 1. But in 1865 we
pruduced nearly three times as
much silver per annum from 1921 to
1880 and yet the price of silver was high;
er in 1865 by .36 than in 1880. And in
1878 we produced more than four times
as much silver as the average production
fRm 1921 to 1880 and yet the ratio only
changed from 1880 to 1890, an almost
1mperceptible difference in the price. So
it at least seems extraordinary that prior
to 1878 we could within forty years in.
crease the silver production four-fold
without perceptibly changing Its value,
while after 1878 like increase in pro-
duction should cut the price of silver
A similar investigation as to increased
production of gold prior to 1872 leads to
same result-that is to say the increased
or decreased production aHec'"d she val
ue but imperceptibly. And Ia, s,.me is
true if we consider the conl,,.:,cd in
creased or diminished production of both
gold and silver.
When our opponents say that in 1895
we produced four times as much silver
as in 1865 they leave the impression that
III '95 the supply Of silver is four times
as great as in 1865, just as 1t would be
in the case of the production of wheat or
corn. But we must remember that gold
and silver are practically indestructable,
and that we have on hand stock of 4,
900 millions of silver and that each an
nual production is but a slight addition
to the entire stock, so that if we produce
so millions Of silver in one year and 200
millions in the next year the production
has increased 300 per cent, but when you
figure it out, you will see that the sup
ply of silver which always governs the
the price has only increased 81 per cent
In other words, when we have 1900
millions of silver and we produce so mil
lions, we have 1850 millions; and if we
produce 200 millions the next year we
have 4, $50 millions Of silver. Deduct
ing the average of so millions per veal
the increase of the total supply is. only
$50 millions; that is to say about 81 pei
cent. These figures clearly demonstrate
how it is that even an immense prcduc.
ton Of silver in short period cannot
make very great difference in its mar
ket value compared with gold and espe.
cially SO when gold is being produced il
its usual Or ordinary quantities per an
num- or increased quantities. The fac
IS that since 1878 at the ratio Of Is to
we have produced more dollars in golt
than we have produced, dollars in silver
And when we consider the cry of over