The Jasper weekly courier. [volume] (Jasper, Ind.) 1858-1922, 1900-10-12
A sopHIsTRY EXPOSED.
Money Need Not Itself Fossess s"ss
to he % Measure Of Value
The Dollar.

In the New York sun OF Sunday, Au-
rust 20. Thomas Hitchcock. the imam
cial 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 70 measure
length. and a measure OF weight must nave
weight TO measure weight.
II a yardstick had no length we couid not
use II to measure cloth with. and II a pouhu
weight had no weight We could not weigh
anything with it. In the same way, IL
dollar had no value a million dollars would
be worth no more than one ana no one
would accept a million OF them IN paynent
for his commodity any more than ne wou.o
one.
The above quotation discloses a most
ingenious trap set for the unwary In
t~ellect. Comparison being the primi-
tive and original process of the mind,
and entering into the great bulk OF IN
tellectuai activity, error cunningly
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 ca
culated TO e.uGe detection. Length.
weight and value are represented as
being analogous so far as a system OF
measurement goes and each of being
equally suscentible 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 canno
be measured by anything that has no
length is self-e,ident, 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 Gemonstra-
ton.
But how shout value? Is value
analogous to length and weight and
capable of being similarly measured?
Is value a definite, determinate and
unyarying quantity such as length and
weight. and can a standard be estab-
lished 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 il an affirmative
answer cannot be given. and upon in
vestigation it Is found that 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 il 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 rec I'd accurately not only from day
to day, but from century to century an
u%nvarying length or weight.
The yard stick and the pound weight
measure length and weight without
any reference whatever to whether
there are in existence a single yard
stick or a single pound weight, o.
whether there be millions or billions O
each of them. The length Of the yarc
stick does not depend upon the number
Of yard sticks and the weight of tn
pound does not depend upon the mum
Der Of weights in existence.
How is it with value? Is value
definite, determinate and unvaryin!
quality in anything. and IL so. is j
susceptible of a standard Of measure
ment that will be the same to-day, TO
morrow and forever, as is true in tn
case of the standards for measuring
length and weight?
Some representative Of the intrinsi
. value school will reply, yes. gold Wi
, measure value as ~unerringiy as tn
/ pound weight or yard stick will meas
! ure weight or length. When called o
to prove the assertion, however, he
n able TO prove that one grain of gol
/" is always the equivalent Of anothe
g grain of gold, but is unable to prov
I that a given quantity OF gold is a
ways the equivalent Of a given quaint
q ty of any other substance in the un
verse.
Value is a relation and cannot be e,
| pressed in terms of one thing. Tw
things are always required to expires
a value. and it is expressed by show
ing the quantity of each that is til
e equivalent in exchange for the othe
4 The measurement thus made belong
to that moment. and is utterly des.
n tute Of the quality Of permanence. III
' power or gold to exchange for otht
a things depends upon the supply of an
demand for that metal, the same 9
the value Of all other commodities ar
property Is regulated by that law.
If gold were as abundant as the sane
/ en- the sea shore. or IL mountains Of