Daily capital journal. (Salem, Or.) 1896-1899, 1896-09-22
r,Ip ouANTITATIvE THEORY.
4, Eoistle Dedicated to Those Who De-
- That We Need More Money.

rois,Ie Dedicated to Those Who De
~ That We Need More Money.
rorroR .JouRNAL:-Priyate Secre
,orv Willis Dunniway was at AnkneJ
..,ool house Saturday evening. He
ohused THE JOURNAL a great deal fol
showing that I-l6th ounce OF gold
wonld now buy two bushels of wheat
or two ounces of silver in New York,
while an ounce of silver bullion would
hrv one bushel of wheat, each being
worth 66J cents. In 1873 an ounce of
silver. bushel of wheat or 1-16th
ounce of gold were all worth $l.29
each. He could not dispute your facts
bpt seemed to want to prove that we
had money enough, and no matter
whether we ever had any more or not.
OF all the inSufferable idiots that
were ever allowed to afflict our ears
with their din, surely, the most insult
ferably idiotic is the campaigner
when he undertakes to prove that the
worlds volume Of money has nothing
to do with the prices Of commodities.
The devil himself would go into
histories at sight Of one of these in
fnitisimally small. bore politicians
solemly trying to disprove one of the
fundamental truths which have been
recognized and enunciated by every
great thinker who has ever written on
economic subjects, and one of the
truths on which rests the whole
fabric. of our business system. This
is the truth that the laws of supply
and demand govern the exchangeable
values of all commodities, including
money. Men like Mckinley and Sher-
man do not seriously attempt to dis
pute this. They dodge it. They jump,
crawl, Slide-any way to get over it
safely. 1t remains for the small fry
to boldly dispute the whole PROPOSE
tiOn. Have they never heard that
"fOOlS rush in where angels fear to
tread?"
They vociferOusly avow that the
supply of money has nothing to do
with prices; that is to say, the law
Of supply and demand can not affect
the exchangeable' value of money.
And they prove it in this way:
"a dollar in gold is now worth
dollar in gold, a dollar in gold has
always been worth dollar in gold,
and dollar in gold always will be
worth a dollar in gold" That is
their proof and the only proof that
they deign to offer. In strict aceor-
dance with their assertions it would
make no difference if the worlds
stock of gold were reduced to one
tenth OF its present volume; 1000
bushels of wheat would still exchange
ior just as many ounces of gold as
how' No difference whether the
worlds supply of money was sc or sl,-
VOO per capita; horse that would
sell Tor 800 in the latter case would
sell for 800 just as easily in the for
mer Ii it were possible to reduce
Tue STOCK OF money in the world to 1,
wv dallars, other conditions being
''ie same, farmer could still sell a
years product from one good big farm
ior $1,000 and haul the worlds whole
supply OF money home in his wagon.
fOf Increase or decrease of the volume
VI money can not affect prices, you
understand. Isn't there a whole lot
Olsood sound common sense in thatp
IL really seems as though a chatter
lus cnlmpanzee, hanging head down
"@'u from a limb, ought to be able to
N"uerstand that if you reduce the
auuioer OF dollars without reducing
'He volume Of business to be done by
means OF dollar, or if you increace the
'Oiume OF business without increas-
De Tue number Of dollars to cores
s', 'nen you are increasing the de-
ior dollars in proportion to the
supply and the exchangeable value
power) of the dollar must
rise. "It's a dead open
smut" 1t is not a question on