Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1900-10-11
A SOPHISTRY EXPOSED.
Money Need Not Itself Possess Value
to BE "a Measure of Value
The Dollar.

In the New York Sun of Sunday, Au-
ciai expert of that paper who writes
under the nom de pune of Matthew
Marshall. presents a column of mat
ter that is being circulated by the re-
publicans as a campaign document.
from which the following paragraphs
are an extract:
To be a measure of value money must
/ itself possess value, just as a measure OF
length must itself have length to measure
| length, and a measure of weight must nave
weight to measure weight.
If a yardstick had no length we could not
use it to measure cloth with, and II a pound
weight had no weight we could not weigh
anything with it. In the same way, If a
dollar had no value a million dollars would
be worth no more than one and no one
would accept a million of them in payment
for his commodity any more than he would
one.
The above quotation discloses a most
ingenious trap set for the unwary in
tellect. Comparison being the primi-
tive and original process of the mind,
and entering into the great bulk of in
tellectual activity, error c%unningly
concealed beneath the garments of a
plausible comparison is so destitute
of any element of suspicion that it
passes unchallenged in the market
place at high noon. The comparison
suggested in the above paragraph is
cunning and insidious and well cal
culated to elude detection. Length,
weight and value are represented as
being analogous so far as a system of
measurement goes and each of being
equally susceptible of a standard of
measurement equally unvarying that
may be depended upon to give like re-
suits in measurement to-day. to-mor-
row and forever. This is true of the
first two, namely. length and weight,
but the analogy stops with these two
and has no application whatever to
that of value.
The statement that length cannot
be measured by anything that has no
length is self-evident, and needs no
demonstration. The statement that
weight cannot be measured by that
which has no weight is likewise self
evident and does not need demonstra-
ton.
But how about value? Is value
analogous to length and weight and
capable of being similarly measured d?
Is value a definite, determinate and
~unvarying quantity such as length and
weight. and al a standard be estab-
Eshed for its measurement in the same
manner? If the answer to this inter-
rogatory can be affirmatively made,
the argument above set forth is legiti-
mate and honest. But if an affirmative
answer cannot be given, and upon in
vestigation it is found thai value is in
no wise analogous to length and
weight, and is incapable of being meas
ured by a standard that will be the
same to-day, tomorrow and forever. as
in the case of the two former, then the
argument is dishonest and the men
who make it are either ignorant of
what they are talking about, or are dis
honest and are seeking to deceive the
people.
In the capitals of the various nations
and states are found standards of
length and weight which are supposed
to record accurately not only from day
to day, but from century to century an
~unvarying length or weight.
The yard stick and the pound weight
measure length and weight without
any reference whatever to whether
here are in existence a single yard
stick or a single pound weight, or
whether there be millions or billions of
each of them. The length of the yard
stick does not depend upon the number
of yard sticks and the weight of the
pound does not depend upon the num-
Der of weights in existence.
How is it with value? Is value a
definite, determinate and unvarying
quality in anything, and if so, is it
susceptible of a standard of measure
ment that will be the same to-day, to-
morrow and forever, as is true in the
case of the standards for measuring
length and weight?
Some representative of the intrinsic
value school will reply, yes, gold will
measure value as u%nerringly as the
pound weight or yard stick will meas
ure weight or length. When called on
to o the assertion, however, he is
able to prove hat one grain of gold
is always the equivalent of another