The independent., 1903-03-26
CHAPTER XIII.
All Rights Reserved.

CHAPTER XIII.
Before there was ''coin" on earth;
before any device existed of the
nature of the symbol which is mon
ey," it could not avoid happening
among men, developing under the con-
dition of private ownership, and a
selfish struggle for exclusive posses
sion, restrained from violence by law,
even though those men were naked
and savage, that more or less def
mite quantity Of one commodity would
be given in exchange for a more or
less definite quantity of some other
commodity. Before any system Of
weights and measures was established,
1t would necessarily happen that one
savage would give one haunch of veni-
son, for example, in exchange for five
pheasants. The ability to count even
as high as ten would render easy such
exchange.
Such transactions. like every other
exchange under every system, would
be consummated because-and solely
because--of the agreement of the par
ties to it. Neither in those ancient
acts of barter, nor in our modern pur-
chase and sale, can any exchange Of
any nature take place, except as
the result of the agreement of the
parties in each particular case.
The essential conditions of exchange
between commodities must always
have been the same under every sys-
tenn. and always rest Upon agreement
of the parties in. each specific trans
action. 1t is only as to details that
the process has been changed. 1t was
barter between savases who had
neither "coin" nor money" and it
is still barter among is of today, who
possess both money" and "coin."
The fundamental conditions of ex-
change of commodities for each other
must always remain the same, and
rest upon agreement II each transac-
ton. All articles endowed with util-
ity, susceptible to exclusive possess
sion. must of necessity have borne
from of old some sort of relation of
exchange equivalent" to each other
in the estimation of savages even. It
was a necessity under any system of
barter, no matter how primitive, that
som e more or less definite fixed
quantity or fixed number of any one
commodity must have been at a given
place and time recognized as the lex
change equivalent of a more or less
definite fixed quantity or fixed number
of other commodities, and agreement
to swap" would fix that equivalence
in each specific case.
1t is true that this relation of ex-
change equivalence could find no
cans Of expres ession before
the adoption OF money term" But
means of expressing the relation of
equivalence in exchange was never a
necessity to actual exchange, which
depends upon nothing but actual
agreement. Such a device is always a
great nyeniencc and "facili-
tates exchanges of commodities for
each other. Nevertheless it was al
ways possible, even for savages, by
agreement to exchange, for example,
one dozen eggs for one wild duck
and without agreement no such ex-
change is possible today.
1t is clear that if at any given time
and place the quantity of the force of
demand for one wild duck was esti-
mated to be exactly equal to the guam
tity of the force of demand for one
dozen eggs, they would be the ex-
change equivalent of each other,
| whether a money system" exists or
not Still no actual exchange of the
articles could take place, either with
or without money" except as the
result of agreement in the particular
case. In matters of exchange, there
fore, there is no authority and no com
pulsion, except insofar as the needs
OF the parties coerce KEN to come to
an agreement.
| The relative quantity of the force OF
demand at given time and place
might cause one bushel of wheat, for
example, to be the exchange eauiya-
lent of five bushels of corn; and this
relation would be as well perceived
without any "coin," and even with
fE NkkNfNN hNd