Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1896-06-18
..HonEsr. MONEY.


has just about doubled in value, that
is, in purchasing power Com pared
with the gold dollar of 1873, the gold
dollar of 1896 is worth nearly 200 cents.
Men do not manufacture dollars for
themselves; they produce other things,
and the things thus produced they ex-
change for dollars" In other words,
they buy dollars with commodities,
and they now have to give twice as
many commodities in exchange for a
dollar as they did in 1873. On the other
hand, silver has maintained practical
stability of purchasing power. and an
ounce of it will exchange for very
nearly the same quantity of commodi-
ties as it would in the year last named.
Briefly stated, gold has doubled in
value, while silver has remained very
nearly the same. And yet the hon.
est money people, claiming to repre-
sent the financial intelligence and in
tegrity of the age, stand up in the
broad light of day and in defiance of
every principle of natural justice, as
we'll as of common sense, vociferously
claiming that the 20O-cent dollar is the
''honest" dollar. and that the silver
dollar is only worth so cents.
How long will the American people
permit themselves to be fooled By such
rot? If the gold dollar had quadrupled
in value, or had increased ten-fold, the,
champions of that swollen, distorted
and eXtortiouate dollar could and
would be making the same preposter-
Gus claim.
We are perfectly familiar with the
goldite's answer to this. With endless
reiteration he declares that no harm is
done, because if a man must sell for
less, he can also buy for less, and thus
keep even. Can he? How much has
Mr.. Cleveland's salary been reduced?
Or Mr.. Carlisle's? Or United States
senator's? Or the salary of any other
public official? How much less does it
cost to run the United States govern
ment, saying nothing about bond
issues to maintain gold reserve? How
much have taxes been reduced? How
much have the notes and bonds of the
country been discounted because of
the greater value of the money in
which they must now be paid?
If the man who raises wheat or cot
ton, or produces iron Or wool, can
keep even on his losses by making
his purchases more cheaply, how about
the man who loaned dollar worth
100 cents and Eow collects one worth
twice as much? Does he not a great
deal more than keep even? Does he
not in fact double his money? And ii
so, does he not necessarily do it to the
detriment of somebody else?
If money grows in value is it not as
plain as light that the man who owns
or controls a great deal of it has an
advantage over those who have but
little of it, or none at all? Will it be
seriously claimed that to double the
wealth of a man who has 81, 600, 900 in
money, by doub bling it's purchasing
power, will add anything to the worlds
real wealth? Surely not. Then if
mans wealth be doubled in that way
others must certainly lose by the same
process
The argument of the gold monomet-
allist on this point bears upon its face
the evidence of insiucerity and even
dishonesty. If to make money ''dearer"
does no harm, why are they so certain
that cheaper money will ruin the
country? If it be sound argument to
say that dear" money Injuries nobody
because the person who sells for a low
price can also buy for low price, why
is not the converse equally true? 1t
money be made cheaper, and as re-
suit one has to pay higher price for
what he buys, ne can also get higher
price tor what he sells, and thus keep
sven" That is the memorable logic of
the gold defenders position, but he
either cannot or will not see it. Deac
money is all right-the dearer the bet
ter. But ''cheap" money is dishonest
and ruinous The moment cheap
money is mentioned he begins to paint
pictures Of people paying double price
for what they buy, and getting moth
ing for what they have to sell, over
looking what ought to be self-evident,
that when prices rise they go up for
both buyer and seller. The kernel of
prices will benefit the producer and
debtor; lower prices will be to the adj
vantage of the non-producer and cred
itor, and the champion of honest ~
money is always for the rich idler and
against the impoverished toiler, for
the millionaire money lender and
against the hard-pressed, struggling
debtor.
But the gold advocate says, neither
will the remonetizing of silver, making
dollars more abundant, add anything
to the worlds real wealth." Right
here his philosophy is at fault In the
first place, a just and equitable cheap
ening of money will deprive the strictly
moneyed classes of the unholy advan-
tage which they now possess, and de
vide wealth more equally by giving
the debtors and producers larger
share of it than they are now getting.
In the second place. by raising prices
and increasing profits it will encour-
age and stimulate production, thus
adding enormously to its aggregate
and making the world. as a whole,
vastly richer. The gold champion in-
sists that overproduction is the cause
of the troub ole, and all sorts of scheme
are proposed by which production may
be limited. Just how production can
be limited without checking the in
crease Of the worlds wealth, no GOLD
standard economist has ever yet under
taken to explain. And yet it is the
only remedy suggested by the friends
Of that system.-National Bimetallist
"Dlsposed Of Them In Short Ord En-"
Speaking of the merits" of the gold
standard arguments, Secretary Smith
1iSnoSod nf them n short order San