, 1898-10-07
MORE PLAIN c

facts therein contained were gathered
from the statistical abstract of the I'm
tied States, the same document to
which Mr.. Osborne is now pleased to
refer, II We now ask the people OF
Wyoming to turn to their financial sta
treasury department and verify for
themselves the figures heretofore given
by this paper. Circular 1913 issued by
the Hon. John G.. Carlisle, secretary OF
the treasury under President Grover
Cleveland, gives the total money in the
United States in 1865. coin, paper and
all, at $40, 1919, 1855. In order to secure
the actual amount in circulation, how
ever, we must deduct the amount held
in the treasury. $55. 426. go, leaving a
total circulation of STA, 102 1895. In
1865 the population Of the United
States was Bats, 600. The total money
per capita would therefore be s22.l6 and
the circulation per capita $20.57, not
S49.l75, as stated by the learned ply
stefan from RawllnS.
He introduces a lot of figures to prove
his position, but they are false and mis-
leading from beginning to end. For
instance, he says that in 1865 there was
in circulation s1S9, 000, 900 in gold. Now
everyone who has given the financial
Question the slightest study knows
that there was not a single dollar of
gold in circulation in the United States
except on the Pacific coast, where they
had about $25. 00O, 600. already account
ed for in the per capita circulation Civ
en-. Again, Mr.. Osborne says that in
1865 there was in circulation 50, 500, 900
of subsidiary silver. In 1865 there was
the currency of the nation, with the
exception Of the Pacific coast, being
entirely paper. Three more items
which Mr.. Osborne adds to the curren-
cy of the nation must be deducted be-
fore we can have an honest statement,
to-wit: The demand notes of 1865,
SAT-. sos; the compound interest notes
of 1868, S193, 756, OSO; the one and two
year notes of 1868, $42.33S. 40. None
of these notes were in actual circula-
ton and have never been figured so by
the treasury department. There is not
a mar living today who ever saw one
of these notes in circulation among the
people.
Another point overlooked by the as
tute doctor. In 1865 the notes of the
United States were worth 63.6 in gold.
Figured to the gold basis which we
have today the circulation in 1865 vas
s13, .OS per capita, a little more than half
of the S24.70 which we have at the pres
ent writing.
The doctor also gives us a little essay
on wheat and the national debt, max
ing the statement that it would take
more wheat to pay the national debt
at the present time than it would have
taken in 1866. In spite of the fact that
he has selected the year when wheat
touched the highest point at which it
has sold since 1860, the physician is Of
course wrong, and he is unfortunate in
his figures, because they are easily
proved false. He quotes the price of
wheat in 1866 at S1.90. Reducing this
to a gold basis (the currency was worth
II cents in 1860 we have $1.55 as the
price of wheat at that time. Or 35 cents
less per bushel han the price stated by
the assembling demagogue who is now
posing as a candidate for the United
States senate. At the price stated it
would have taken 1926, 076,747 bushels
of wheat to have paid the national debt
in 1866, the debt being So 2 SOS, 957.46.
Exclusive of the war bonds recently is
sued, the debt is s992, O22, 9OO.03, if Mr..
Osborne is correct, and the same pa
per that publishes his false statement,
in the very next column, gives he price
of wheat in New York at 72as, not e.,
as he says. But ~ is not the average
price for 1898. In order to be absolute
ly fair the average price for the W.
years must b. taken. During the first
few months of this yea- wheat was
above a dollar and went clear up to
$3.50 at the close of May. Taking $1.S0
as the highest price and ~ as the low-
est we would have as an average $1.26.
The national debt at the present time
being 1892 22, 5000 and the average
price of wheat for the year 1898 being
S1.26. the national debt could have
been paid in 1898 with 7S7,319,7 61 BUSH
els of wheat. In Other words, it would
have taken about Two and one-half
times as much wheat to have %discharg-
ed the national debt in 1866 as it would
in 1898. and at the present time the
cost of the production Of wheat is just
about half what it was in 1866.
Il The article which has given the
Learned physician SO much trouble, en-
Titled Some Plain Facts" carried the
argument a little farther than he is
disposed to do and showed how many
bushels of wheat it would have taken
to pay the interest on the national debt
at the close Of the civil war and at pres
ent. Why didn't the doctor take up
hat proposition? Because it didn't
exactly suit his purpose. He only uses
the figures and arguments of the politi-
cal trickster, II he had been honest in