Year: 1878

1t may be assumed that no man willingly
parts with property or does labor until he
gets an equivalent for them. The farmer
who sells ton of hay sells it for something
he supposes to be of value equal to the hay.
The laborer who sells his services looks for
wages for days work equal, at least, to the
sum he could have earned by working for
himself. If the farmer sells two tons of hay
he wants twice as much value as he gets for
one. If the laborer works two days he wants
double the wages he gets for one days work.
II, for example, the farmer can get sixteen
gold dollars for one ton, he can get for two
tons just twice that weight of gold, sum
which will buy twice as much in any part of
the world-just the same as though he
"swapped' hay for wheat, getting twice the
number of bushels of grain for double the
quantity of hay. So the laborer who gets a
gold dollar for days work gets two gold
dollars tor two days. work-just as though he
took his pay in iron, in which case he would
demand twice as much iron if he worked
twice as long. That is, men want an equiva-
lent for their property or labor. They regard
all transactions of that nature as simply an
exchange of values.


How is it with the 'absolute' or "fiat"
money of the Greenbackers? The farmer
gets for two tons of hay slip of paper of
exactly the same size, and having the same
intrinsic value as he gets tor one ton. The
only diff erence is in the figures or characters
on the paper. The laborer gets for two days
work piece of paper of the same size as he
gets for one days work. That is, the farmer
gets no more for two tons of hay than he
gets for one, the laborer no more for twenty
hours work than for ten. There is no ex-
change of values. A man might labor for
whole year and get no more paper than he
could get by laboring one day. There is no
reason, if this system of "absolute" money
is adopted, why there should be any such
thing as dollars. 1t would be just as easy,
and would cost no more, to call piece of
paper thousand dollars as to call it one dol
lar. The paper marked thousand dollars
has no more intrinsic value than the paper
marked one dollar or ten dollars. The term
"dollar'' would no longer have any signifi-
canoe, and there would be no reason why
slip of paper marked "6fty dollars" should be
any more valuable than a slip of paper marked
''ive dollars" We might as well put four
pecks of corn into vessel marked zone
busheP,' apd four pecks into vessel marked
Give bushels" and four pecks into vessel
marked 'sone hundred bushels" and pretend
that there was difference in the quantity and
value of the corn contained in those vessels;
and we might as we'll say to the man who
had bushel of potatoes to exchange for
bushel of corn, "take the first MEASURE" and
to one who had five bushels stake the sec
ond, "and to one who had one hundred BUSH
els, "take the third" Men would soon find
out that there was but one bushel of corn
anyhow, and would exchange but one bushel
of potatoes for any of our measures.


If then, some one may ask, there is no
difference between pieces of paper of the
same quality, size and weight marked with
different figures, how is it that one piece will
now buy more than another piece? 1t is
because these pieces of paper dc not pretend
to be equivalents of value, but are promises
TO pay value. The issuer says to the people
II promise to pay one dollar for this piece of
paper, and ten dollars for that" If the
issuer be able and willing to fulfill that PROM


se, if he has the value to give, there will be
little hesitation in accepting his paper-pro-
viding the holder can collect in case of re-
fusal TO pay. If the holder of the paper can
on presenting it to the issuer get the dollar it
promises in gold or any other commodity of
equal value, he will have no objection to ac-
cepting that paper. He will sell one bushel
of corn for dollar note if he believes that
note will be paid and can command the equiv
alent in value of bushel of corn. He will
sell two bushels for two-dolar note if he
can get for that note the equivalent Of two
bushels. But he will not sell corn for note
that he knows is not to be paid or for piece
paper that has not hundredth part of the
value of his grain; nor will he see any reason
why he should at one time give bushel of
corn for bit or paper, and FIVE minutes after
give two bushels for another bit of paper of
the same intrinsic value-for in that case one
bushel would have no more worth, no more
exchangeable value than hundred


So much for the absurdity of 'absolute"
money. Now what the resumptionists pro-
pose-and all they propose-is this: the
Government shall fulfill its promises, thus
assuring all men who hold its paper that they
may get dollar in coin if they wish for
every note that promises dollar, or fifty
dollars in coin for every note that promises
fifty dolars-that is, if they take in exchange
for bushel of corn dollar note of the Gov
ernment the Government will give them for
that note something of intrinsic value equal
to the corn, so that they shall lose nothing.
That is all.


1t may be said that these notes always bore
the promise to pay. That is true, and the
only reason they have not been good for their
face is because of a doubt of the ability and
willingness of the Government to fulfill that
promise. Little doubt exists now, and the
notes are nearly at par. As soon as the Gov
ernment begins to pay out coin for them, as
it has promised to do in January, they will be