The independent. [volume] (Lincoln, Neb.) 1902-1907, 1904-03-03


gambler and as person who took all
TIE money Charles could get for her,
tut none of them, except MIR. Del Mar,
see axis of her as the person, who did
as much as any other, and more, to
induce Charles to open the mint OF
England to free coinage OF silver and
gold.
In fact the other historians could
not speak Of her, In connection with
lIce coinage, at all because they DO
not mention the fact, that the mint OF
England was opened for free coinage
in the time of Barbara, or at any
cther time before or since. Indeed,
they are ignorant as to when free
G ,,jiage commenced in England and
the other countries.
Mr.. Del Mar specifies FIVE great
monetary crimes, as follows.
/. The crime of 1866.
2. The crime of 1742.
3. The crime of 1868.
A. The crime of 1870.
). The crime of 1873.
The crime of 1866 consisted in OPEN
ing the mint OF England to free coin
age Of silver ard gold.
1t is difficult to see how this can
be crime, unless it is crime TO take
from dissolute king the power OF
coming and issuing money and trans
fer it to few rich men. IL King
Charles had retained the power he
would not have used it for the good
of the nation.
He would have looked upon the
right of coinage as a means merely
of getting some money for his purse
He was incapable Of considering, that
the prerogative of coming and issu-
ing money might be the means Of
giving the nation an equitable meas
ure of value, besides furnishing con-
venient medium Of exchange and a
convenient method of paying debts in
GLIDING taxes.
He could not comprehend the mean
| ing of a measure of value, for the ma
ton. He could not understand that
the volume or quantity of money is
prices; that the price Of every COM
modify would be Influenced by the
quantity of money put into circula-
ton. He could not see that IL COM
modify should have tendency to
rise in price, on account OF its scarcity,
it would rise still more by greater
supply of money.
Nor could he understand that IL a
commodity should have tendency to
| fail in price, on account of its abund-
ance, this tendency might be over
come by a greater supply Of money.
In short, the philosophy OF price-level
was not at all comprehended by
| Charles III.
His crime, therefore, If it was a
crime, consisted in surrendering his
high prerogatige of coming and Tssu-
ing money simply because he was
paid by few rich men for doing 1T.
1t was corrupt, because his motive was
corrupt He ought not to have al
| lowed himself to be influenced, in leg
| islation, by what he himself made out
| of it. On the contrary, he should
have considered that the right Of
coinage should be held by himself
for the good of the nation. IL he had
taken this view he would Rave in.
sisted that he should not only keep
c0ntrOl over LDe' coinage, OUT Jnat De
would see to it that only so much
money was coined and issued as
would maintain an equitable measure
of value.
Instead of this. he sold his high
prerogative to few rich men (the
East India Coz; and they coined and
issr ed as much or little money as
suited their purpose of getting richer.
III II suited their interest to have low
prices in ENGLAND and high prices
abroad they not only coined but they
exported the coin. The power en-
ablod them TO take the money out OF
England. when England most needed
It, III Ii suited their purpose TO have
low prices abroad and high prices at
home. they could import silver. coin
+ II and make money plentiful In En-
gland and prices corresponuingly high
In England and equally low abroad.
II must be remembered that when
the rich merchants and bankers OF
England acquired the right 10 ccsn
am issue money-this was In i666
thee also acquired the right 10 export
silver coln aud bullion.