The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1896-08-23

Mexico in area, in population and in
commercial strength. 1t is absurd TO
assert that the United States is not a
BILE to do anything which Mexico has
failed TO accomplish. The ore thing
necessary in order to maintain the
parity is to furnish 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.
WHY WAIT FOR OTHER NATIONS?
"It is also argued that, since number
of nations have demonetized silver,
nothing can be done until all OF those
nations restore bi-metallism. This is
also illogical 1t is immaterial how
many or how few nations have open
minis, provided there are sufficient
open minis to furnish a monetary de-
mand for all the gold and silver availa-
BILE for coinage.
''In reply to the argument that inn
proved machinery has lessened the
cost Of producing silver, it is sufficient
to state that the same is true of the
production of gold and nothwithstand-
ing that gold has risen in value.
''As matter of fact, the cost of pro-
duction 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 in
crease in the output, 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 of the gold and silver
produced, the cost of production need
not be considered.
at is often objected that the prices of
gold and silver cannot be fixed in rela-
ton to each other, because Of the varia-
ton in the relative production of the
metals. This argument also overlooks
the fact that, If the demand for both
metals at fixed price is greater than
the supply of both, relative produc
ton becomes immaterial. In the early
part of the present century the annual
production of silver was worth, at the
coinage ratio, about three times as
much as the annual production of
gold; whereas, soon after 1s4e, the an
nual production of gold became worth
about three times as much at the coin
age ratio, as the annual production
of silver; and yet, owing to the main
tenance of the bi-metallc standard,
these enormous changes in relative
production had but slight effect upon
the relative values of the metals.
IF it is asserted by our opponents
that the free coinage of silver is intend
ed only for the benefit of the mine
owners it must be remembered that
free coinage cannot restore to the
mine owners any more than demoneti-
cation took away, and it must also
be remembered that the loss which
the demonstration Of silver has
brought to the mine owners is insight
fcant compared with the loss which
this policy has brought to the rest of
ne world.
The restora ton Of silver viii bring
to the people generally many times as
much advantage as the mine owners
can obtain from it. While it is not the
purpose of free coinage 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
benefit will come TO the mine owners.
The erection of forts, the deepening
OF harbors, the improvement of rivers,
the erection of public buildings-all
these confer incidental benefits upon
individuals and communities, and yet
these incidental benefits do not deter
us from making appropriations for
these purposes whenever such appro-
priations are necessary for the pubic
good.
"The argument that a silver dollar
is heavier than gold dollar, and that,
therefore, silver is less convenient to
carry in large quantities, is completely
answered by the silver certificate,
which is as easily carried as the gold
certificate or any other kind of paper
money.
THE ONLY PROPER RATIO. .
There are some who, while admit
ting the benefits of bi-metallism. OBJ
ject to coinage at the present ratio. If
any are deceived by this objection, they
ought to remember that there are no
bi-metallists who are earnestly en-
deavoring to secure it at any other
ratio than 16 TO 1. We are opposed to
any change in the ratio for two rea-
sons-frst, because change would
produce great injustice and, second,
because a change in the ratio is not
necessary. A change would produce
injustice because, if effected in the
manner usually suggested, it would
result IN an enormous contraction in
the volume of standard money.
I'll, for instance,it was decided by in
terRationar agreement to raise the ra-
tics throughout the world to 80 to /,
the change might be effected in any
one of three ways:
"The silver dollar could be doubled in
size so that the new silver dollar would
weigh thirty-two times as much as
the present gold dollar; or the present
gold dollar could be reduced one-half
In weight, so that the present silver
dollar would weigh thirty-two times
as much as the new gold dollar; or the
change could be made by increasing
the size of the silver dollar and decreas-
ing the size of the gold dollar until the
new silver dollar would weigh thirty
two times as much as the new gold dol
1ar.Those who have advised achange in
the ratio have usually suggested that
silver dollars be doubled. If this change
were made it would necessitate the re-