Evening star., 1896-08-13


OF society demand a financial system which
Will add to the volume of the standard
money of the world and thus restore sta
bility TO prices.
The Charge of Reputation.
Perhaps the most persistent misrepre-
sentation that We have to meet is the
charge that We are advocating the pay
ment of debts in 5o-cent dollars At the
present time and under present laws a Sill
yer dollar, when melted loses nearly half
its value, but that will not be true when we
again establish mint price for silver and
leave no surplus silver upon the market to
drag down the price of bullion. Under bi-
metallism silver bullion will be worth as
much as silver coin, just as gold bullion ls
now worth as much as gold coin, and we
believe that a silver dollar will be worth
as much as a gold dollar.
The charge of repudiaticn comes with
poor grace from those who are seeking 10
add to the weight Of existing debts by leg
islation which makes money dearer, and
who conceal their designs against the gem
eral welfare under the euphon.ous pretense
that they are upholding public credit and
national honor.
In answer to the charge that gold will
go abroad, it must be remembered that no
gold can leave this country until the owner
of the gold receives something in return
for it which he would rather have In
other words, when gold leaves the country
those who formerly owned II win he bene-
fitted. There is no process by which We can
be compelled to part with our gold against
our Will, nor is there any process by which
silver be forced upon us without cur
consent. Exchanges are matters of agree
ment, and II silver comes to this country
under free coinage 1t will he at the invita-
ton of some one in this country VINO will
give something In exchange for it.
Parity Of the Two Metals.
Those who deny the ability of the Unit
g tn he herW
gold and silver at the present legal ratio
without foreign aid point to Mexico and as
sert that the opening Of cur mints wil re-
duce us to silver basis and raise gold to a
premium. 1t is no reflection upon our sis
ter republic to remind our people that the
United States is much greater than Mex
leo in area, in popula ton and In CONNER
cial strength. 1t is absurd to assert that
the United States is not able TO do any,
thing which Mexico has failed to accom-
plish. The one thing necessary in order
to maintain the parity is to furnish de-
mand great enough to utilize all the silver
which will come to the nlints. That Mex
leo has failed to do this is no proof that
the United States would also fail
1T is also argued that, since number
Of the nations have demonetized silver,
nothing can be dpre until all OF those ma
tions restore bimetallism. This is also IL
logical. 1t is immaterial how many or how
few nations have open mints, provided
there are sufficient open mints to furnish a
monetary demand for all the gold and sill
Yer available for coinage.
IN reply to the argument that improved
machinery has lessened the cost of produc-
ing silver, it is sufficient to say that the
same is true Of the production of gold. and
| yet, notwithstanding that gold has risen in
value. AS matter of fact, the cost of
production does not determine tie value of
the precious metals except as ii may affect
the supply. If, for instance, the cost Of
producing gold should be reduced ~ per
IN n. fralrf
the purchasing power of an ounce of gold
would not fall. So long there is none
tary demand sufficient TO take at fixed
mint price all the gold and silver produced.
the cost Of production need not be consid-
cred.
Prices of Gold and Silver.
ut is often objected that the prices Of
gold and silver cannot be fixed in relation
| to each other, because of the var.a ion in
the relative production of the metals. This
argument also overlooks the fact that if
the demand for both metals at a fixed price
is greater than the supply Of both, rolativs
production becomes immaterial In the
early part of the present century the
nual production of silver was worth at the
coinage ratio about three times much
as the annual production of gold; whereas,
soon after 1910 the annual production OF
gold became worth about three times
| much, at the coinage ratio, as the annual
| production of silver, and yet, owing to The
| these enormous changes in relative rroduc-
| tion had but slight effect upon the rela-
| tive values of the metals.
The Mime Owners Part.
"If it is asserted by our opponents that
the free coinage of silver is intended only
for the benefit of the mine owners il must
be remembered that free coinage cannot
| restore to the mine owners any more than
demonetization took away, and 1t must also
be remembered that the loss which the de-
mono tization Of silver has brough: TO the
| mine owners is Insignificant compared to
| the loss which this policy has brought TO
| the rest Of the people. The restoration Of
silver will bring TO the people genG rally
| many times much advantage as the
| mine owners can obtain from II. While 1t
| Is not the purpose of free coinage to espe-
| cially aid any particular class, yet those
who believe that the resi- toration of silver is
! needed by the whole people should not be
deferred because an incidental benefit will
| ccme to the mine owner. The erection of
forts, the deepening of harbore, the i'm
| provement OF rivers, the erection OF public
| buildings-all these confer incidental b.ne-
| fits upon individuals and communities. and
yet these incidental benefits do not deter
us from making appropriations fer these
| purposes whenever such appropri llions are
necessary for the public good.
! The argument that silver dollar is
! heavier than a gold dollar and that. there
| fore, silver is less convenient to carry in
1
| the silver certificate, which is as easily car
rled as the gold certificate, or any other
| kind of paper money.
| Objection to tho Present Ratio.
There are some who, while admitting
| the benefits Of bimetaiiism, object 20 the
| coinage at the present ratio. If any arc
! deceived by this objection, they ought 10
! remember that there are no bnctallists
who are earnestly endeavoring TO secure It
! at any other ratio than 10 TO 1. We are op-
! posed to any change in the ratio for TWO
rea sons:
| First because a change would produce
| Unjust ice: and second. because a change in
/ the ratio is not neceSS iry. change would
! produce injustice because, If effected IN The
| manner usGally suggested, ii would result
! in an enormous contraction IN the rH.a!He
! Cf standard money.
| III. for instance. il was decided ~ ilter-
| national agreement 20 raise the IA t'os
| Continued on Eleventh PageD