Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1896-08-21

that the United states IS much grcater
than Mexico in area, in population and in
commercial strength. 1t is absurd to rs
sort that the United States is not able to
do anything which Mexico has failed to
accomplish. The one thing necessary in
order to maintain the parity is TO furnish
a demand great enough to utilize all the
silver which will come to the minis That
Mexico has failed to do this is not proof
that the United states would also fail.
II is also argued that, since number of
the nations have demonetizcd silver, moth
ing can he done until all of those nations
restore bimetalism. This is also illogical
1t is immaterial how many or how few
nations have OPEN minis, provided there
are sufficient open minis to furnish mon
etary demand for all the gold aud silver
available for coinage
In reply to the argument that improved
machinery has lcsscncd the cost of produc-
ing silver, it is sufficient to say that the
same is true of the production of gold, and
vet, notwithstanding that, gold has risen
! in value AS n matter of fact, the cost of
production 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 increase in the out
put, 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 the gold and silver
produced the cost of production need not
be considered
Prices of Gold and Silver.
1t is often objected that the prices of
gold and silver cannot be fixed in relation
to each other because Of the variation in
the relative production of the metals This
argument also ovorlooks the fact that, If
| the demand for both metals at n fixed price
Is greater than the supply Of both, relative
l production lCcomCs iSluterial. In the
early part of the pres Alt century the an
nual production Of silver IVES worth, at
the coinage ratio about three times az
much as t c annual production Of gold,
whereas, soon after 1S4Q, the annual pro-
duction of gold became worth about thrco
times as much, at the coinage ratio. as the
annual production Of silver and yet, ow-
ing to the mairtcnan OF the timetable
! standard, these cnCrmous changes in rela-
tive production had bus u slight effect up
ON the relative values Of the metals
I If it is asserted y our opponents that
/ the free coinage Ct silver is intended only
/ for the benefit of the mine owners, it must
| be remembered that free coinage cannot
restore to the mino owners any more than
/ demonstration took away, and it must
| also he remembered that the loss which
the dcmoncti2ation Of silver has brought
/ to the mine owners is insignificant com
pared to the loss which this policy has
brought to the rest Of tho people. The res
toration of silver will bring to the people
generally many times as much advantage
as the mino owners can obtain from it.
III . -. 81
to specially aid any particular class, yet
those who believe that the restoration of
silver is needed by the whole people should
not be deferred because an incidental ben
eft will come to the mine owner The cree
ton of forts, tho deepening Of harbors,
the improvement of rivers, the erection of
public buildings, all these confer Incl
dental benefits upon individuals and COM
munities, and yet these incidental benefits
do not deter us from making appropria-
tons for these purposes whenever such APP
preparations are necessary for tho public
good.
The argument that silver dollar is
heavier than gold dollar, and that there
fore silver is less convenient to carry in
large quantities, is completely answered
by the silver certificate, which is as easily
carried rs the gold certificate or any other
kind of paper money.
As to the Present Ratio.
There arc some who, while admitting
the benefits of bimetallism, object to coin
age at the present ratio. If any are deceiv-
ed by this objection, they ought to remem-
Der that there are no bimctallists who are
earnestly cndeavorng to secure it at any
other ratio than rs to /. We are opposed
to any change in the ratio for two reasons
first, because change would produce
great injustice, and, second, because q
change in the ratio is not necessary. A
change would produce injustice because,
if effected in the manner usually suggest.
ed, it would result in an enormous con-
traction in the volume of standard money.
If, for instance, it was decided by inter
national agreement to raise the ratios
throughout the world to 50 to /, the change
might lie effected in any one of three
| ways.
The silver dollar could be doubled in
size, so that the new silver dollar would
weigh 80 times rs much as the present gold
dollar, or the present gold dollar could be
reduced onc-half in weight, so that the
present silver dollar would weigh 30 times
as much as the new gold dollar, or the
change could he made by increasing the
size of the silver dollar and decreasing the
size of the gold dollar until the new silver
dollar would weigh 32 times as much as
the new gold dollar Those who have ad-
vised change in the ratio have usually
suggested that the silver dollar be doubled
If this change were made, it would neces-
state the recoinage of 1000, 000, 900 of sill
yer into 81, 1000 000 600. There would be-
an immediate loss of 1000, 900, 900 either
to individuals or to the government, but
this would be the least of the injury. A
shrinkage Of One-half in the silver money
of the world would mean a shrinkage of
one-fourth in the total volume of metallic
money. This contraction, by increasing
the value of the dollar would virtually
increase the debts of the world billions Of
dollars and decrease still more the value of
the property of the world as measured by
dollars. Besides this immediate result
such "a change in the ratio would permA-
| Dpntlv dpcreaSa tho animal addition IN tho