The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1896-07-18

oDieot advocate OF 1ree coinage IN tne
United States, has prepared. In cate
chismal form, Q plain statement Of the
fundamental facts on which silver men
claim that silver should be remonet-
ised." For general information we re-
produce below this statement and add
some remarks OF our own:
I. Q. What Is the primary reason why
silver men insist on the restoration OF stl-
VERT
A. Because all prices are regulated by
the volume Of standard money in a coun-
cry or In the world.
9. Q. Can you make this idea plain?
A. Yes. II the world had 5000, ,000, 900
of standard money, and wheat was worth
81 O bushel, to reduce the volume to
q, 500, 900 900 would have the effect TO
reduce wheat to 80 cents q bushel; to dou-
BILE IL would have the effect to make wheat
worth e bushel
3. Q. What Is meant by standard
money?
A. It 10 when a nation makes = certain
amount Of any metal represent = unit Of
values. When one metal IL used II Is
called q single standard; when two metals
are used It 10 called a double standard.
Thus. before 1873 our country made 2s.s
grains Of standard gold represent our unit
which was a dollar They also made 4l2.5
grains Of standard silver represent the
SAME thing. France likewise had Il double
standard. Germany had q single silver
standard; Great Britain had a single gold
standard. But all the money, gold and sill
yer, among the nations was practically OF
the same value. because all was In use.
and from the whole volume Of both metals
prices were established.
I. q. What was the special harm Of de-
1noneti1ing silver by our country. by Ger.
many, by Austria, and most of the ma
tions Of Europe?
A. It had the effect to reduce the stand
ard money OF the world one-half. with a
consequent reduction VI prices, amounting
w to date TO 5o Der cent.
s. Q. Suppose prices were reduced one
half, what harm would II do?
A. We will take the case of the farmer
TO illustrate. Suppose the crop on which
ne obtained money was wheat. and he
raised a thousand bushels, receiving sl.0JO.
Even then his profit could not be more
than 10 per cent. Now, to reduce the
price Of that thousand bushels one-half, 1t
leaves him only $500. and that IL not suffl.
cient to pay the expenses of the farm.
Again. supposing his farm TO be worth
$1,000, and supposing he was In debt 81, ,0Uu
as prices began to fall. In q while he
found It impossible to pay the interest
on the debt and now, after twenty years.
he finds that he owes at least five years
interest amounting to $3.50 and the princi-
pal, $3.50, and he finds that his farm.
which was worth 5000 to begin with. is
only worth $500 now, against which there
Is a lien Of 1880. II he owed 81. 900 he finds
that whereas he began with property
worth 5000 twenty years. he Is today not
only bankrupt but in debt.
g. What other harm, II any, has the de-
monetization Of silver wrought?
A.. At the time of reconciliation, the
public and private debts OF the country
amounted to at least $5.O0O0O0.OO0. The
producers are the men who are in debt.
They made a brave struggle working year
after year, and paid all they could in in
terest. That interest gravitated mostly to
the creditor classes In the eastern cities.
and the result now is that those men have
all the money. and as property Is worth
less every year than 1t was the year before,
they dare not invest the money, and hence
It is nearly all in banks and safe deposits
in the extreme east. while the producing
classes cannot get the necessary money to
use.
Z. Q. But is It not true that very large
amounts Of silver have been coined since
1878. very much larger amounts tom were
coined or.or to that time?
A. Certainly. but that Is not any more
primary money. Our standard is gold
When silver was demonetized its dollar
ceased to be unit Of values; 1t ceased tt
be primary money; the oniy legitimate
money left In the country Is gold. and
hence no matter how much silver under
present arrangements may be coined, II
all has to lean upon gold and has no effect
whatever upon fixing prices. Hence 1t
would have been just as we'll II, instead OF
coming silver, the government had issued
more gresnbacks. because both alike are
made subsidiary to gold, and have to
lean upon gold for value.
:. q. What would be necessary to
bring about full restoration of silver?
A. It would be for the government to
undo the work Of 1873: to say that hence
forth the dollar Of 4l2iz grains should, Ike
the gold dollar Of 25.S grains, be unit or
values. and that the government should
take all silver offered at the market price
up to 81, 1929 per ounce, coin II into dollars
and make 1t a perfect legal tender for all
liabilities Of the government or the citi-
Gen. absolute primary money as II former
ly was.
Q.-But II the United States should un-
dertake this alone, would not the result be
that all the silver in the world would
gravitate here until we WOULD be swamped
by the amount?
A. Where would the silver come from?
There is only about $500 millions in silver
in the world. 1t is all in use as money; In
England at Is to l; on the continent OF Eu-
rope At 15la to /. In Asia silver is the ori-
ginAl money and is all In use Where
could It come from? Again, II all that has
%n1v ~ int
could be dumped upon Us. It would give US
but $50 per capita.
10. q. Would not the reconciliation
work q hardship. for instance, upon PEN
sioners who draw regular amounts from
the government every year?
"A. 1t would have the effct to reduce
the purchasing power Of gold materially.
But such pensioners have little homes and
have business outside out of the mere
amount that they draw from the goverr-
ment. and their property would advance
more than they would lose BY the fall in
the purchasing power of the money they
receive.
II. Q. Would it not work a hardship on
the depositors In savings banks?
A. 1t would for little while work a
hardship upon them II they left their
money in the banks. II, however, they
we're to take 1t out and invest 1t in prop
erty, they would make more in a year by
the advance In property than they would
BY leaving their money In the banks for
ten years.
II. Q. Would It not be hardship on
waSe-earners. as wages do not increase
~ swiftly as property under such circum-
stances?
A. To those who have secure places and
fixed incomes It would work little hard.
ship, but II would open fields for every one
to obtain employment; men who are work.
ing on half time now would be working on
full time. Hundreds Of thousands of men
who can get nothing to do and have to be
supported by the earnings OF others would
obtain employment at fair wages, and
with the increase Of money, the wages of
wage-earnsrs would very swiftly advance.
Is. Q. Can you give any example to
prove that what you say il reasonable?