Hutchinson gazette., 1897-08-19
A CREATION OF LAW.
SOME OLD STUMBLING BLOCKS
REMOVED.
The Editor OF the Medical World answers
Some OFT Repeated Questions Con.
corning Money and rs urchasing
Power and Value.

please answer 1ully ana succlnIIy Ihe
following questions?
1st. If, as you have repeatedly as
serted, money is a illegal creation, .
why could not the highest law-making
body we have, the Congress of the
United States, make enough money in
twenty-four hours by legal enactment
to pay off our national Indebtedness
and have enough left so that every
man, woman and child in the United
States would have one million dollars
in their pocket
end. How would 1t be possible to
attain the impossible, by having a
double standard for our'dollar, as ad-
vocated by the free silverites? To il
lustrate: Mathematical science has
decreed that one hundred cents should
constitute the dollar; thirty-six inches,
one yard; four pecks, one bushel, ETC.,
etc.
Now TO have double standard in
these measures we would have to have
something less or more than one hundred
cents for our dollar; something less or
mOre than thirty-six inches for our yard;
and something less or more than four
packs for our bushel
If all nations would agree as to these
several points the double standard
could be carried out; but we would
have always to specify which standard
was meant, and in every other way it
would occasion infinite trouble and an
noyance.
If we have one hundred cents in gold
silver, paper, or any other commodity,
to serve as our circulating medium, it
is dollar, single standard, and no
species of mental jugglery can make
any thing else out of it. If we have
several yard sticks to measure with, it
does not add to nor detract from the
fixed rule governing the number of
inches constituting the yard measure.
We may haYe number of peck meas
ures of different shapes and material,
but it does not affect the iron clad rule,
the single standard, that four pecks
make one bushel Therefore, wonld
like to know, how, in the very nature
of things, we can have a double stand.
ard dollar? L. B. Allen, M. d.
Humboldt, Neb.
Taking your second question first, to
define dollar as one hundred cents is
no definition at all unless we have q
definite definition of one cent; and that
we have never had excepting one hun
dredth part of one dollar. So that
throws us back on the legal definition
of one dollar. When one dollar was
first defined by our laws, in 1902, it
was ordained that it should be legal
coin of the United States containing
317l4 grains of pure silver. This def
nition stood until 1878. To say that a
dollar is one hundred cents leads to
nothing definite. The value of the
cents depends on the value of the dol-'
lar, and not the dollar on the value of
the cents, as the legal value or dofni-
tion of the cent, as such, has never
been established, and therefore could
never be an index TO the value of the
dollar, the reverse being true. Neither
in this respect, nor in any respect, does
the analogy between dollars and cents
on one hand, and yards and inches,
bushels aud pecks, etc, on the other,
hold. You might have thousands of
yard-sticks and not be able to get any
cloth with them, except possibly by
bartering many yard-sticlss for one
yard of cloth. Your measure for the
cloth would not command the cloth.
You might have thousands of bushel
measures and not have any wheat, and
not be able to get wheat with them ex-
cept by bartcring your measures, just
as you would barter so many chairs,
according to their commercial value,
for wheat On the other hand, with
one yard-sticls, you could measure hous-
dnds of yards of cloth, and still have
your measure left, practically as good
as before; aud with one bushel measure
you could measure as much wheat as
you would need in lifetime, and have
the measure left to pass down to pos
terity. Don't you see that there is no
analogy between these things and dol.
larsP Comparisons like these only add
confusion to the problem. But in
larger and very different Sensel
money is q measure of value. The
amount of wealth in country remain |
ing the same, the value of dollar will
depend upon the number OF dollars; if
the number of dollars decrease, the
value of each individual dollar will be
increased; if the amount of wealth is
increased, and the number of dollars
remain the same, the value of each in
dividual dollar is increased. This, and
its converse, is a well esta blished prin-
ciple. 1t is called the quantitative
theory of money, and it is recognized
4