Iron County register., 1898-03-10
NO STANDARD OF VALUE.
Except the Volume of Money in Cir
culati0n.


Mr.. Ewing, in his criticism upon ex-
Senator Edmunds, brings out some
truths that lie at the foundation of the
money question-truths which I have
long felt should be frequently and
clearly brought to the attention of the
people.
We hear much about the gold stand
ard, when, properly speaking, there is
no such thing as gold standard or a
silver standard. Neither gold, silver,
paper, leather, lumber, nor any other
substance, can be standard of value.
The real standard of value-that force
or power that controls the general
range of prices in any country-is the
volume of money, and it is immaterial
as to what substance the money is
made of, so long as it is legal tender and
passes from hand to hand among the
people as money. Way back from the
dim past comes the testimony of the
Eoman jurisconsul Paulus, 1900 years
ago, who says, speaking of money:
This material, stamped in the corner
by the state, circulated with power
which it derives, not from the sub
stance, but from the quantity
This was indorsed 300 years later by
being incorporated in the paudects
Qaws) of Justinian. In later years
that greatest authority on the gold side,
Ricardo, himself a London stock
broker, says (reply to Bosanquet):
'"The value of money in any country is
determined by the amount existing.
That commodities would rise or fall in
price in proportion to the increase or
diminution of money, 1 assume as a
fact that is incontrovertible. Again,
speaking of money, he says: eff we
diminish the quantity of currency, we
give an additional value to it." The
great money lenders of the world have
Intentionally contracted the worlds
money through demonetizing silver
practically one-half, and cut down the
value of the peoples products and prop
erty one-half, and that is just what they
intended.
Senator Edmunds' claim that we have
had double standard established by
law, but never in fact, is utterly un-
true, and reply that there never has
been a double standard of value estab-
lished by anybody or any nation, and
never can be, for the same reason that
there cannot be a round square. The
real standard of value is, and always
must be, the volume of money; and it
cannot be anything else in the very ma
ture of things, unless the Creators laws
are changed.
The money system of the civilized
world for thousands of years past has
been:
First. 4 fund of metallic money,
termed primary money-money that
would pay any debt.
Second. A fund of secondary money
-paper-(and now silver also) and not
exceeding in volume, an amount that
could be redeemed by the metallic
money.
1t was provided that any person hav-
ing gold or silver could take it to the
mint and have it coined into primary
money, at a given ratio, and this ratio
varied in different nations. Thus our
government coined as many dollars
from 16 pounds of silver as it would
from one pound of gold. But Europe
would coin as many dollars from
1h pounds of silver as we did from
16, and India coined as many dollars,
etc., from Is pounds of silver as we did
from 16. In brief we coined at sixteen
to one, Europe at fifteen and one-half
to one, and India fifteen to one. Is it
any wonder then that men having sill
yer bullion would send it to India or
European mints rather than ours? And
thus silver circulated for more in India
and Europe than here, and an United
three per cent. more than the gold dol
lar, simply because they could be sent
to European or Indian mints and get
more than their face value.
But did this invalidate the system?
Not at all, for there is no necessity of
maintaining parity between the bull
lion and the coined money, although
practically a parity was maintained.
Did it make any difference whether
nine-tentbs, or indeed all of Europe and
India's metallic money (primary
money! was silver and ours all gold
or if the worlds metallic money was
all gold or all silver? Not a particle,
so long as enough was coined to main
tain an equitable range of prices, for
as the gold mems own great authority,
Ricardo, says:
The value of money in any country
is determined by "the amount exist
ing
1t was not the gold-nor yet the silver
that was the standard of value, and
hence when Senator Edmunds talks of
a double standard, he talks nonsense,
just as he does when he claims in sub
stance that gold does not f1uctuate in
value.
The real power that controlled the
values of property and commodities
the real standard of value-was, and is,
the total amount of gold, silver and
paper money-the total volume of pri-
mary and secondary money, and all
kinds OF money in circulation. There
fore, we did not have what Senator Ed
munds is so opposed to-a double stand
ard of value. We had just what he
claims to long for, single standard,
and that was and is, the volume of
money. This persistent-claim that gold
in itself is a standard of value is one of
the worst heresies we have to contend
with, and it should be stamped out, |
just as we have stamped out the claim
that gold possessed intrinsic value, and |
that paper money issued direct by the |
government without the intervention |
of the banks. is not good because it is |
''fiat" money, when all money includ- |
ing gold is fiat" money. All money |
is created by law-edict-''fiat"o of gov
ernment.
Suppose Alaska and the K1ondikc
Il / L or