Year: 1878

One of the loudest complaints of the Green


hackers is that resumption is great hard
ship to debtors. That is true, but the first


cause of that hardship was suspension and


the imitation of paper currency that followed.


The hardship is this: the debtor has bor-
rowed money or bought some commodity at
time when the paper dollar was worth


but seventy or eighty or ninety cents, and be
must pay when it Is worth one hundred
cents. That is, he is compelled to return
more than the equivalent of what he bor-
rowed. And this hardship comes upon him
because the value Of the paper dollar has
changed. Had he borrowed gold dollars or
bought commodities at gold valuation he
would have paid in the same, and had no
cause for complaint. The hardship is brought
upon him then by the use of currency of
fuctuating value. How do the Greenback-
ers propose to help bis case? By the adopt
tion Of stable currency? By the making of
contracts in denominations of money that
undergo no change? No. They propose to
perpetuate the evil, to continue the system of
a currency of varying value, and thus render
possible the continued existence of the yery
state of affairs of which they complain.


Suppose we had ''busheP' of varying capa-
city, as we have 'dollar'' of varying value.
Suppose that some western f8rmer has con-
tracted to deliver six months hence ten thous-
and ''bushels" of wheat at stated price. Sup.
pose at this time the "bushel' contains but
three pecks. At the end of six months, the
time the debt of wheat comes due, the capa-
city of the "bushep' has changed to four
pecks. The debtor is forced to give in dis
charge of his wheat fourth more wheat
than he has received any pay for. This
would be unjust. What would be the reme-
dy? The remedy would be to insist that the
measure of capacity should be unvaryipg,
that the "busheP' should invariably contain
four pecks. In that way, and in that way
only could the farmer be assured of the guam
tity of wheat he would be called upon to fur
nish in fulfllment of his contract. The prin-
ciple to which resumptionists hold is exactly
the same. They want dollar that shall
always be worth exactly one hundred cents.
They want state of affairs in which there
shall be no hardship to debtor or creditor
consequent upon change in the value of the
''dollars" in which contracts are made. They
want a stability in the value of the currency
so that man who binds himself to pay ten
dollars shall be obliged to pay in every case
just one thousand cents, and not forced to
pay eleven hundred, nor permitted to COM
pei his creditor to take nine hundred. They
want security of contracts. The farmer
would be put to great disadvantage il he did
not know whether he would be compelled to
deliver next fall in fulfllment of bargain
this spring i've or three pecks of wheat to the
bushel. So every man is put to disadvan-
tage il he does not know whether the debt
coming due next month or next year must
be paid in dollars worth fifty or hundred
cents. The farmer would insist upon BUSH
Ell Of unvarying capacity. The resumptionist
insists upon dollar of unvarying value.


1t is true that the debtor Of to-day would
be relieved by the depreciation of the curren-
cy. But. there arealways debtors, and the next
man who sought to borrow would never be
sure how much he might be called upon to
pay. So the farmer in the case supposed
would be relieved if the bushel was reduced
to three pecks when payday came. But he
would suffer from the same uncertainty in
regard to his next contract.