HON. JOHN P. JONES, (continued 2)

UNFULFILLED PROPHECIES.

During the debate on the limited coinage bill, not content with abuse of the advocates of the measure; with flimsy criticism of it and specious arguments against it, its opponents in and out of Congress indulged in diverse prophecies and predictions. They pictured forth the lamentable results that would follow its passage, and the direful consequences that would ensue from an increase of the circulating medium of the country. Among the results confidently predicted were the following: that the silver would not circulate at all, and again that it would circulate to the exclusion of gold, which metal, we were informed, would flow out of this country with a velocity and in a volume theretofore unknown; that we should be unable to redeem our paper money in gold; that we should be precipitated into a silver vortex; that an inflation of the currency would follow, which would ruinously raise prices of all commodities and that this inflation would result in an unprecedented contraction. We were charged with forcing upon the public creditors a dollar worth only ninety cents. We were warned that the passage of the bill would indefinitely postpone the refunding of the public debt, and would lower the price and impair the value of our national securities. It was charged that we were setting on foot a new and irrepressible conflict between two great sections of the country—the East and the West. We were charged with uttering a debased coin; with lowering the standard of American credit; with tarnishing the integrity and honor of our country before foreign nations, and with unprecedented moral turpitude in setting an example of flagrant and shameless national dishonesty.

The men of the far West, and of the Pacific slope especially, were the particular targets of this abuse. They were denounced by some as "lunatics," by others as dangerous and unworthy demagogues, because, as was charged, their constituents, if not themselves, were directly interested in the restoration of the ancient right of silver to full recognition as one of the money metals. For their benefit resort was had to every epithet which the English language afforded. In holding them up to public scorn the rich and varied vocabulary of odium and opprobrium was exhausted.

These prophecies of disaster were united in by the professors of political economy in all the Eastern colleges, by the President of the United States, by the Secretary of the Treasury, by the leading American newspapers, by the principal public men and journals of Great Britain, if not of all Europe; and, of course, by all bankers, money-lenders, and professional financiers the world over.

And now, Mr. President, how many of all those alarming prognostications by all these distinguished prophets have been fulfilled? Not one! On the contrary, it is not too much to say that the public credit of the United States is to-day the highest in the world. It does not stand merely in line with that of other first-rate powers; it stands at the head. Our gold, silver, and paper money stand at a parity with each other. If a full measure of relief was not realized by the passage of that bill it is because the coinage of $4,000,000 a month was left optional with the Secretary of the Treasury, instead of being made mandatory on him.

But it is hardly necessary to assert that the predicted inflation of prices has not been observed as a consequence of the coinage of $2,000,000 a month. While the issuance of that amount has not, with our rapidly increasing population and wealth, been sufficient to arrest the downward tendency of prices, it has undoubtedly prevented them from falling much lower. Without that coinage, we should have had industrial depression, chronic and somber, with consequences of untold disaster.

But the result which gave most apprehension to those who advocated the gold standard, the evil which they regarded as on the whole the most threatening and direful of all the evils that were to result from even so small an increase in the money volume as that bill provided for, was the outflow of gold. They ridiculously under-estimated the tremendous money-absorbing power of this great country. And as if to emphasize to all the world the complete absurdity of their alleged fears—this apprehension has been conspicuously and notoriously set at naught by the constant inflow of gold. On the 30th of June, 1878, the amount of gold coin and bullion in the Treasury and in monetary circulation in this country is officially reported to have been $213,199,977, and this amount is probably much over-estimated. On November 1, 1889, we had more than three times as much—the amount of gold in circulation and in the Treasury being reported as $689,000,000.

"Experience," says Dr. Johnson, "is the great test of truth, and is perpetually contradicting the theories of men," and the last experience, Mr. President, is the best.

If the professors of political economy, the Eastern newspaper editors, and the professional financiers were then so seriously mistaken ought they not to be a little modest now in making predictions, especially in renewing predictions that have been already discredited? They can not point to a single instance in which their prophesy has not been falsified by the event. So humiliating a failure on the part of the professors, in a realm of which they boastfully claimed to be masters, so complete an overthrow of these "experts" by men who were ridiculed and derided as rural financiers and crazy theorists, ought to put the advocates of the gold standard on their guard against a like defeat on this occasion. They are pressed for reasons to account for the utter miscarriage of their prophecies. They are left without a shadow of consolation except that the coinage of $2,000,000 worth of silver bullion each month has not succeeded in placing silver at a par with gold. They affect to believe that the advocates of silver in 1878 expected that that metal, under the very limited demand of $2,000,000 a month, would be brought to a level with gold, which, owing to the demonetization of silver, had risen abnormally and ruinously in value.

No such belief was ever entertained or expressed. On the contrary it was repeatedly asserted by the advocates of silver that so long as the entire yield of gold from all the mines of the world (in 1878, $119,000,000) was invested with the full money function and had free access to all mints to be transmuted into coin, it could not be expected that the conferring of the legal-tender function upon a sum so comparatively trifling as one-fourth the yield of silver (the yield in 1878 being $99,000,000) would have the effect of placing it on a level with gold.

It is, however, a significant fact that every silver dollar that has been coined under that act is at a parity with gold, and will to-day buy as much of all the objects of human desire as will the gold dollar. Nay, more, silver bullion—disparaged and discredited as it is by being shorn of the money function, and denied access to the mints, instead of decreasing in purchasing power, has maintained so steady a relation to commodities that 412½ grains of uncoined silver will exchange for as much to-day as would the coined dollar, whether of silver or gold, in 1873, when the full money function attached equally to both metals. If this be true—and I shall presently demonstrate it beyond refutation—what an utter perversion of terms it is to say that silver has fallen in value!

WILL REMONETIZATION PLACE US ALONGSIDE INDIA.

We are solemnly warned that the full remonetization of silver in the United States would place us alongside India and the other barbarous countries of the world. This brilliant piece of reasoning is advanced with great confidence, and is intended to be conclusive of the argument against silver. But, Mr. President, India is no more barbarous now than it was in 1873—before our silver dollar was demonetized. India is no more barbarous now than it was in 1857, when Germany demonetized gold and placed herself "alongside" India. Neither is Germany any more civilized now than then. We did not at that time hear any complaint, either in the United States or Europe, that the use of silver as money placed any one nation more than any other in dangerous affiliation with the civilization of India. We have never heard it charged against France that its civilization was brought any nearer that of India by the immense quantity of silver money in France. Neither did we hear it charged against the United States up to 1873 that we were "alongside," or dangerously close to the barbarous nations by our use of silver as money.

Up to 1834 we had no metallic money other than silver in our circulation, and up to 1850 we had much more silver in circulation than gold. Were we "alongside" India then? Where were the wise and patriotic men of our country at those periods? History fails to record any protest on their part that we were placing ourselves "alongside" India or any other of the barbarous nations of the world by our use of silver and our recognition of its full money power. All the nations of the earth used silver and accorded it full recognition as money equally with gold up to 1819. Was all Christendom at that time "alongside" India? When, in that year, Great Britain sundered the silver link that from time immemorial had kept her "alongside" India and the other barbarous nations and, for selfish reasons of her own, arising from her position as a creditor of all other nations, decided to recognize gold only as money, was any evidence afforded of a sudden advance in the civilization of Great Britain? Was the emergence of that nation from the benumbing companionship of India and the other barbaric countries into the glittering and refulgent light of the gold dispensation signalized, as would be expected, by a corresponding improvement in the condition of the people?

On the contrary, the history of the time informs us that as a consequence of the passage of the bill by Parliament in 1819, compelling payments in gold, prices rapidly fell, cotton in particular sinking in the short space of three months to one-half its former level. Within six months all prices had fallen one-half, and showed no signs of improvement for the next three years. By reason of the contraction of the currency the industry of the nation was congealed, as is a flowing stream by the severity of an arctic winter. Alarm became universal; confidence and activity ceased. Bankruptcies increased in 1819 more than 50 per cent. over the number of the previous year. Meetings were held throughout England in which the people called on the government to devise some means of redressing the situation. So universal was the distress that the owners of land in England, who in 1819 numbered 160,000 were in seven years, by forced sales and foreclosure of mortgages on the smaller farms, reduced to 30,000, and one in every seven of the population lived on organized charity. All this was but a part of the price which the people of England paid for a policy imposed on them by the creditor classes among their own number. The condition of industry and disorganization of labor led to frequent and serious conflicts between the people and the military. They also led to commercial crises without number, and England, by demonetizing silver and thus ceasing to be "alongside" India, became the seat of panics, as Egypt had long been of the plague and India of the cholera.

As a contrast to this I will merely cite the change in the condition of India within the past seventeen years. When the Western world discarded silver as money and, as a consequence, India received a larger supply of it than ever before, that barbarous nation, as is universally admitted, made progress by leaps and bounds. No country on earth has in the same time made such advances in material prosperity and in all the elements that conduce to the comfort and happiness of a people. Notwithstanding the alleged debasement of silver, no sooner had its increased inflow into India begun than the industries of a vast continent were established and set in motion, and a substantial part of the activity and prosperity that were wont to pervade some of the industries of the United States has, by that demonetization, been transferred to fields of wheat, and fields and factories of cotton 10,000 miles distant.

What really placed us alongside such barbarous countries as India was the demonetization of silver. It was by that demonetization that the people of Europe were enabled, with gold, to buy silver at 30 per cent. discount, which, when shipped to India and coined into rupees, would buy as much wheat as could ever have been bought with that coin. There has been no decrease whatever in the purchasing power of the rupee in India. This was equivalent to buying wheat at 30 per cent. below the price theretofore paid for it, and thus the farmers of the United States were by demonetization placed "alongside" the barbarous people of India. Their wheat had to compete in the European markets with the wheat of India, and it is this competition that placed them "alongside" India. The farmer of this country, therefore, by demonetization of silver, was compelled to compete with under-paid and half-starved ryots. And so it was that our cotton planters, by the demonetization of silver, were placed alongside the barbarous people of India. It is this degrading competition that places a highly civilized people alongside a barbarous one.

The advocates of the single gold standard deem even silver money much better money than greenbacks. Does it then follow that when greenbacks were our only money—good enough money to carry the nation through the greatest war in all history—we were "alongside" or underneath the barbarous nations of the world? It is not the form, or the material of a nation's money that fixes its status relatively to other nations. That is accomplished by the vitality, the energy, the intellectuality and effective force of its people. The United States can never be placed "alongside" any barbarous nation, except by compelling our people to compete with barbarous peoples—compelling them to sell the products of American labor at prices regulated by the cost of labor and manner of living in barbarous countries. As well might it be said that we are alongside the barbarous people of India because we continue to produce wheat and cotton.

The distinguishing feature of all barbarous nations is the squalor of their working classes. The reward of their hard toil is barely enough to maintain animal existence. A civilized people are placed alongside a barbarous one when, in their means of livelihood, the foundation of their civilization, they are made to compete with the barbarians. That was the result accomplished for the farmers and planters of the United States when silver was demonetized.

CREDITORS AND DEBTORS.—A COMPARISON OF MOTIVES.

All movements for the increase of the monetary circulation are ascribed by the money-lenders and creditor classes to the unworthy desire on the part of the debtors to escape their just obligations. But if motives are to be brought in question, the rule should work both ways. No note is taken of the motive of the creditor classes in securing a contraction of the circulation. Whatever the apparent purpose of contraction, and however specious the arguments advanced in its justification, the real object has always been to increase the purchasing power of money. In all countries, and throughout all time, it is the cupidity of the creditor classes and annuitants, and their desire to increase the value of the money unit that has brought about a shrinkage in the money volume. Unlike the great masses of the people, who were ignorant of the effects to be naturally expected from such a shrinkage, the annuitants and moneyed men very well understood that the value of every pound or dollar depended on the number of pounds or dollars that were in circulation; the larger the total number out, the smaller the purchasing power of each; the smaller the total number out, the greater the purchasing power of each.

Loaners of capital are not usually those who entertain further hope of personal achievement. When men realize fortunes it is rarely that they conserve the faculty of initiative; they find no special delight in novelty; they look so carefully to security in the use of money that the spirit of adventure is restrained. The realization of a fortune is usually the labor of a life-time, and few men who reach the goal care to retrace their steps to enter again upon a struggle that demands all the strength, the momentum, and the intrepidity of youth. Men of assured incomes therefore are disposed to take their ease, and society must look, for its material progress and development, to those who have a career to make, with the ambition and the power to make it.

It is a remarkable circumstance, Mr. President, that throughout the entire range of economic discussion in gold-standard circles, it seems to be taken for granted that a change in the value of the money unit is a matter of no significance, and imports no mischief to society, so long as the change is in one direction. Who has ever heard from an Eastern journal any complaint against a contraction of our money volume; any admonition that in a shrinking volume of money lurk evils of the utmost magnitude? On the other hand we have been treated to lengthy homilies on the evils of "inflation," whenever the slightest prospect presented itself of a decrease in the value of money—not with the view of giving the debtor an advantage over the lender of money, but of preventing the unconscionable injustice of a further increasing value in the dollars which the debtor contracted to pay. Loud and resounding protests have been entered against the "dishonesty" of making payments in "depreciated dollars." The debtors are characterized as dishonest for desiring to keep money at a steady and unwavering value. If that object could be secured, it would undoubtedly be to the interest of the debtor, and could not possibly work any injustice to the creditor. It would simply assure to both debtor and creditor the exact measure for which they bargained. It would enable the debtor to pay his debt with exactly the amount of sacrifice to which, on the making of the debt, he undertook to submit, in order to pay it.

WHO ARE THE DEBTORS?

In all discussions of the subject the creditors attempt to brush aside the equities involved by sneering at the debtors. But, Mr. President, debt is the distinguishing characteristic of modern society. It is through debt that the marvelous developments of nineteenth century civilization have been effected. Who are the debtors in this country? Who are the borrowers of money? The men of enterprise, of energy, of skill, the men of industry, of foresight, of calculation, of daring. In the ranks of the debtors will be found a large preponderance of the constructive energy of every country. The debtors are the upbuilders of the national wealth and prosperity; they are the men of initiative, the men who conceive plans and set on foot enterprises. They are those who by borrowing money enrich the community. They are the dynamic force among the people. They are the busy, restless, moving throng whom you find in all walks of life in this country—the active, the vigorous, the strong, the undaunted.

These men are sustained in their efforts by the hope and belief that their labors will be crowned with success. Destroy that hope and you take away from society the most powerful of all the incentives to material development; you place in the pathway of progress an obstacle which it is impossible to surmount.

The men of whom I have spoken are undoubtedly the first who are likely to be affected by a shrinkage in the volume of money.

The highest prosperity of a nation is attained only when all its people are employed in avocations suited to their individual aptitudes, and when a just money system insures an equitable distribution of the products of their industry. With our present complex civilization, in order that men may have constant employment, it is indispensable that work be planned and undertakings projected years in advance. Without an intelligent forecast of enterprises large numbers of workmen must periodically be relegated to idleness. Enterprises that take years to complete must be contracted for in advance, and payments provided for.

A constant but unperceived rise in the value of the dollar with which those payments must be made, baffles all plans, thwarts all calculation, and destroys all equities between debtor and creditor. If we can not intelligently regulate our money volume so as to maintain unchanging the value of the money unit, if we can not preserve our people from the blighting effects which an increase in the measuring power of the money unit entails upon all industry, to what purpose is our boasted civilization?

By the increase of that measuring power all hopes are disappointed, all purposes baffled, all efforts thwarted, all calculations defied. This subtle enlargement in the measuring power of the unit of money (the dollar) affects every class of the working community. Like a poisonous drug in the human body, it permeates every vein, every artery, every fiber and filament of the industrial structure. The debtor is fighting for his life against an enemy he does not see, against an influence he does not understand. For, while his calculations were well and intelligently made, and the amount of his debts and the terms of his contracts remain the same, the weight of all his obligations has been increased by an insidious increase in the value of the money unit.

EFFECTS OF A SHRINKING VOLUME OF MONEY.

As to the benumbing consequences following a shrinkage in the volume of money, the testimony of history is briefly reviewed in the report of the Monetary Commission to which I have already referred, and from which I read the following:

At the Christian era the metallic money of the Roman Empire amounted to $1,800,000,000. By the end of the fifteenth century it had shrunk to less than $200,000,000. During this period a most extraordinary and baleful change took place in the condition of the world. Population dwindled and commerce, arts, wealth, and freedom all disappeared. The people were reduced by poverty and misery to the most degraded conditions of serfdom and slavery. The disintegration of society was almost complete. The conditions of life were so hard that individual selfishness was the only thing consistent with the instinct of self-preservation. All public spirit, all generous emotions, all the noble aspirations of man shriveled and disappeared as the volume of money shrunk and as prices fell.

History records no such disastrous transition as that from the Roman Empire to the Dark Ages. Various explanations have been given of this entire breaking down of the frame-work of society, but it was certainly coincident with a shrinkage in the volume of money, which was also without historical parallel. The crumbling of institutions kept even step and pace with the shrinkage in the stock of money and the falling of prices. All other attendant circumstances than these last have occurred in other historical periods unaccompanied and unfollowed by any such mighty disasters. It is a suggestive coincidence that the first glimmer of light only came with the invention of bills of exchange and paper substitutes, through which the scanty stock of the precious metals was increased in efficiency. But not less than the energizing influence of Potosi and all the argosies of treasure from the New World were needed to arouse the Old World from its comatose sleep, to quicken the torpid limbs of industry, and to plume the leaden wings of commerce. It needed the heroic treatment of rising prices to enable society to reunite its shattered links, to shake off the shackles of feudalism, to relight and uplift the almost extinguished torch of civilization. That the disasters of the Dark Ages were caused by decreasing money and falling prices, and that the recovery therefrom and the comparative prosperity which followed the discovery of America were due to an increasing supply of the precious metals and rising prices, will not seem surprising or unreasonable when the noble functions of money are considered. Money is the great instrument of association, the very fiber of social organism, the vitalizing force of industry, the protoplasm of civilization, and as essential to its existence as oxygen is to animal life. Without money civilization could not have had a beginning; with a diminishing supply it must languish, and, unless relieved, finally perish.

Symptoms of disasters similar to those which befell society during the Dark Ages were observable on every hand during the first half of this century. In 1809 the revolutionary troubles between Spain and her American colonies broke out. These troubles resulted in a great diminution in the production of the precious metals, which was quickly indicated by a fall in general prices. As already stated in this report, it is estimated that the purchasing power of the precious metals increased between 1809 and 1848 fully 145 per cent., or, in other words, that the general range of prices was 60 per cent. lower in 1848 than it was in 1809. During this period there was no general demonetization of either metal and no important fluctuation in the relative value of the metals, and the supply was sufficient to keep their stock good against losses by accident and abrasion. But it was insufficient to keep the stock up to the proper correspondence with the increasing demand of advancing populations.

The world has rarely passed through a more gloomy period than this one. Again do we find falling prices and misery and destitution inseparable companions. The poverty and distress of the industrial masses were intense and universal, and, since the discovery of the mines of America, without a parallel. In England the suffering of the people found expression in demands upon Parliament for relief, in bread riots, and in immense Chartist demonstrations. The military arm of the nation had to be strengthened to prevent the all-pervading discontent from ripening into open revolt. On the Continent the fires of revolution smoldered everywhere, and blazed out at many points, threatening the overthrow of states and the subversion of social institutions.

Whenever and wherever the mutterings of discontent were hushed by the fear of increased standing armies, the foundations of society were honey-combed by powerful secret political associations. The cause at work to produce this state of things was so subtle, and its advance so silent, that the masses were entirely ignorant of its nature. They had come to regard money as an institution fixed and immovable in value, and when the price of property and the wages of labor fell, they charged the fault, not to the money, but to the property and the employer. They were taught that the mischief was the result of overproduction. Never having observed that overproduction was complained of only when the money stock was decreasing, their prejudices were aroused against labor-saving machinery. They were angered at capital, because it either declined altogether to embark in industrial enterprises or would only embark in them upon the condition of employing labor at the most scanty remuneration. They forgot that falling prices compelled capital to avoid such enterprises on any other condition, and for the most part to avoid them entirely. They did not comprehend that money in shrinking volume was the prolific parent of enforced idleness and poverty, and that falling prices divorced money capital, from labor, but they none the less felt the paralyzing pressure of the shrinking metallic shroud that was closing around industry.

The increased yield of the Russian gold fields in 1846 gave some relief and served as a parachute to the fall in prices, which might otherwise have resulted in a great catastrophe. But the enormous metallic supplies of California and Australia were all needed to give substantial and adequate relief. Great as these supplies were, their influence in raising prices was moderate and soon entirely arrested by the increasing populations and commerce which followed them. In the twenty-five years between 1850 and 1876 the money stock of the world was more than doubled, and yet at no time during this period was the general level of prices raised more than 18 per cent. above the general level of 1848.

A comparison of this effect of an increasing volume of money after 1848 with the effect of a decreasing volume between 1809 and 1848 strikingly illustrates how largely different in degree is the influence upon prices of an increasing or decreasing volume of money. The decrease of the yield of the mines since about 1865, while population and commerce have been advancing, has already produced unmistakable symptoms of the same general distrust, non-employment of labor, and political and social disquiet, which have characterized all former periods of shrinking money.

The time that has elapsed since that report was written has but served to verify and emphasize its statements.

THE FALL OF PRICES SINCE 1873.

It is a fact not disputed anywhere but universally admitted, that for many years past the prices of all articles entering into general consumption among the people have been steadily falling. It is obvious that the industrial conditions prevailing since 1873 are but a repetition of those above described as following 1809—with falling prices, constant unrest, and universal discontent.

The following table, compiled from figures published by the Bureau of Statistics of the Treasury Department, shows the average range of export prices of the articles named for each year since 1873:

Annual average export prices of commodities of domestic production for each year from 1873 to 1889, inclusive.

Year ending June, 30— Corn per bushel. Wheat per bushel. Wheat flour per barrel. Cotton (upland) per pound. Leather per pound. Illuminating oils, refined, per gallon. Bacon and hams per pound. Lard per pound.

Dollars.Dollars.Dollars.Cents.Cents.Cents.Cents.Cents.

1873 .618 1.312 7.565 18.8 25.3 23.5 8.8 9.2

1874 .719 1.428 7.144 15.4 25.2 17.3 9.6 9.4

1875 .848 1.124 5.968 15.0 26.0 14.1 11.4 13.8

1876 .672 1.242 6.216 12.9 26.2 14.0 12.1 13.3

1877 .587 1.169 6.488 11.8 23.9 21.1 10.8 10.9

1878 .562 1.338 6.358 11.1 21.8 14.4 8.7 8.8

1879 .471 1.068 5.252 9.9 20.4 10.8 6.9 7.0

1880 .543 1.245 5.878 11.5 23.3 8.6 6.7 7.4

1881 .552 1.114 5.668 11.4 22.6 10.3 8.2 9.3

1882 .668 1.185 6.149 11.4 20.9 9.1 9.9 11.6

1883 .684 1.127 5.955 10.8 21.1 8.8 11.2 11.9

1884 .611 1.066 5.588 10.5 20.6 9.2 10.2 9.5

1885 .540 .862 4.897 10.6 19.8 8.7 9.2 7.9

1886 .498 .870 4.699 9.9 19.9 8.7 7.5 6.9

1887 .479 .890 4.510 9.5 18.7 7.8 7.9 7.1

1888 .550 .853 4.579 9.8 17.3 7.9 8.6 7.7

1889 .474 .897 4.832 9.9 16.6 7.8 8.6 8.6

Year ending June 30— Pork, salted, per pound. Beef, salted, per pound. Butter per pound. Cheese per pound. Eggs per dozen. Starch per pound. Sugar, refined, per pound. Tobacco, leaf, per pound.

Cents. Cents. Cents.Cents.Cents.Cents.Cents.Cents.

1873 7.8 7.7 21.1 13.1 26.6 5.3 11.6 10.7

1874 8.2 8.2 25.0 13.1 22.1 5.7 10.5 9.6

1875 10.1 8.7 23.7 13.5 25.6 6.0 10.8 11.3

1876 10.6 8.7 23.9 12.6 28.0 5.4 10.7 10.4

1877 9.0 7.5 20.6 11.8 25.9 5.2 11.6 10.2

1878 6.8 7.7 18.0 11.4 15.8 4.7 10.2 8.7

1879 5.7 6.3 14.2 8.9 15.5 4.2 8.5 7.8

1880 6.1 6.4 17.1 9.5 16.5 4.3 9.0 7.7

1881 7.7 6.5 19.8 11.1 17.2 4.7 9.2 8.3

1882 9.0 8.5 19.3 11.0 19.2 4.8 9.7 8.5

1883 9.9 8.9 18.6 11.2 20.9 4.6 9.2 8.6

1884 7.9 7.6 18.2 10.3 21.2 4.5 7.1 9.1

1885 7.2 7.5 16.8 9.3 21.5 4.0 6.4 9.9

1886 5.9 6.0 15.6 8.2 18.3 4.1 6.7 7.8

1887 6.6 5.4 15.8 9.3 16.3 3.8 6.0 8.7

1888 7.4 5.3 18.3 9.9 15.9 3.5 6.3 8.3

1889 7.4 5.5 16.5 9.3 13.9 3.8 7.6 8.8

To show from another source the same general fact of the decline of prices, I quote from an article published in the New York Tribune early in 1886.

The New York Tribune is pretty good authority. These figures are undoubtedly from the calculations and from the pen of Mr. Grosvenor, of the editorial staff of that able journal, formerly editor and proprietor of the "Public," whose estimates of prices have, in my judgment, been more correctly made than those of any other statistician in the world. The article is as follows:

Quotations of about two hundred articles are compared since 1860, and the amount of money is ascertained which would purchase, at different dates, of these various articles, quantities corresponding as closely as possible to their ascertained consumption in 1880, the date of the last census. Among the articles compared are wheat, corn, oats, rye, barley, beans and pease, mess pork, bacon, ham, live hogs, lard, fresh beef, tallow, live sheep, poultry, butter, cheese, eggs, milk, hay, potatoes, turnips, cabbage, onions, apples, raisins, sugar, brown and crushed; molasses, coffee, tea, tobacco, whisky, malt and hops, mackerel, codfish, salt, rice, nutmegs, cloves, pepper, cotton, print-cloths and standard sheeting, wool of different qualities, blankets, carpets, flannels, leather, boots, shoes, hides, silk, India rubber, iron (pig and bar), nails, steel rails, coal, oil (crude and refined), tin and tin plates, copper, lead, hemp, lumber, spruce and pine, oak, ash, walnut, and white wood, lath, brick, lime, turpentine, linseed oil, soap, glass, paper, white lead, and twelve other kinds of paints, fertilizers, and over fifty kinds of drugs and chemicals.

Cost of products at different dates.

Dates.Cost in currency.Price of gold.Cost in gold.

1860, May 1 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00

1865, November 1 174.77 145.87 119.81

1866, May 1 157.60 125.12 126.04

1866, November 1 170.31 146.25 117.82

1871, November 1 122.03 112.00 108.95

1872, May 1 137.13 112.50 121.81

1873, November 1 115.14 108.50 106.01

1874, May 1 122.77 112.87 108.77

1875, January 1 113.01 112.37 100.37

1876, October 1 97.30 110.00 88.45

1877, May 1 99.29 106.75 93.01

1878, May 1 82.09 100.37 81.81

1878, October 18 77.94 100.37 77.65

1879, November 1 93.48 — —

1880, January 1 103.42 — —

1881, January 1 95.98 — —

1882, May 16 106.59 — —

1883, March 13 97.82 — —

1883, November 1 88.71 — —

1884, January 1 88.37 — —

1884, November 21 78.47 — —

1885, January 1 79.66 — —

1885, May 9 80.22 — —

1885, August 22 74.56 — —

1885, November 1 75.35 — —

1885, Close 78.53 — —

It is not only clear from this comparison that the prices of 1885 have been the lowest in our history for twenty-five years, but that there has been a general tendency toward lower prices. From 1866 to 1871, and again from 1872 until 1885, prices fell quite steadily. Indeed, had not the short crop of 1881 caused a temporary advance in the spring of 1882, the range of January, 1880, would have been the highest of the later period, and it might have been said that the present era of declining prices had continued with little intermission for six years. None will fail to observe how swift and sharp the advances have been—about 12 per cent. from November, 1871, to May, 1872, and 25½ per cent. from October, 1878, to January, 1880. But these spasmodic advances, by which the general tendency downward is interrupted, only serve to make it more clear that prices have been tending irresistibly toward a lower level than that of 1860, not only during the period of paper depreciation, but since gold has been the measure of value.

In order to show that the United States are not alone in their complaint of falling prices, but that the complaint is universal, and in order that we may have before us a broad view of the field of general prices, I submit a table showing the relation to each other of the range of prices from 1809 to 1849, by decades, based on the prices of fifty leading articles of commerce, prepared by the distinguished Professor Jevons and published in the London Economist for May 8, 1869.

Taking the range of prices of 1849 as a datum line (the range for that year being the lowest of the century) Mr. Jevons works backward to 1809, when the revolt of the South American colonies against the authority of Spain shut off at a blow the supplies of the precious metals, and set on foot a money famine from which the world knew no relief till the discovery of the mines of California and Australia.

Professor Jevons's figures are as follows, the prices of 1849 being represented by 100:

Relation of prices, 1809 to 1849, by decades, those for 1849 being rated at 100.

1809245

1819175

1829124

1839144

1849100

From these figures it will be observed that the fall from 1809 to 1849, a period of forty years, was as 245 to 100, or 59 per cent.

By the next table which I submit, that of Dr. Soetbeer, it will be seen that the general range of prices rose gradually from 1849 to 1873, in the last of which years the figures bore to those of 1849 the relation of 138 to 100. It has never been denied that this rise was due to the increase in the world's money supply by the yield of the precious metals from the mines of California and Australia, the effects of which, however, as will be seen by the table, were not felt on prices till 1853—five years after John Marshall's discovery of the yellow metal in the tail-race at Sutter's mills. Yet, because it interferes with the pecuniary interests of a large and influential class, it is vehemently denied that the fall of prices since 1873 is due to a decrease in the volume of the money caused by the demonetization of silver in that year throughout the western world.

From and after that year, as will be perceived by an examination of the figures; in other words, from the year when one-half the world's money supply was deprived of the money function, we find an almost uninterrupted decline of prices. The figures of 1873 and 1885 will be seen to bear to one another the relation of 138 to 108, or a fall of 22 per cent. in twelve years. Should the fall continue at that rate without interruption—and there is no reason apparent why it should not, we shall in forty years have witnessed a decline of 72 per cent. in the general range of prices—a decline considerably greater than that from 1809 to 1849. And these are not the figures of bimetallists or silver "theorists," but of pronounced advocates of the single standard of gold. Where, I would inquire, is the fall of prices to stop?

Dr. Soetbeer's table represents the general average price of one-hundred leading articles of commerce each year for a period of nearly forty years. He takes as a basis the general range of gold prices prevailing between 1847 and 1850, and calling that range 100, shows the relative standing toward it of the general range of prices for subsequent years, up to 1885.

Relation of prices by years from 1849 to 1885, the general range of prices of 1849 being rated at 100.

1849100.00

1851100.21

1852101.69

1853113.69

1854121.25

1855124.23

1856123.27

1857130.11

1858113.52

1859116.34

1860120.98

1861118.10

1862122.65

1863125.49

1864129.28

1865122.63

1866125.85

1867124.44

1868121.99

1869123.38

1870122.87

1871127.03

1872135.62

1873138.28

1874136.20

1875129.85

1876128.33

1877127.70

1878120.60

1879117.10

1880121.89

1881121.07

1882122.14

1883122.24

1884114.25

1885108.27

Mr. Sauerbeck, also an advocate of the gold standard, and whose work has the approval of the Statistical Society, takes as a datum line the prices ruling from 1867 to 1870. Rating those at 100 he finds that by 1873 prices had risen to 111, by 1886 they had fallen to 69, and by September, 1887, to 68.7. He declares the average prices for the first nine months of 1887 to have been the lowest reached for a hundred years.

BOTH GOLD AND SILVER VARIABLE IN VALUE.

The fact that the metals have separated considerably since 1873, and that silver bullion now sells at less than par value of $1.29 per ounce, is taken to signify that silver has fallen—not that gold has risen. This proceeds from the assumption that whenever a change takes place in the relation between gold and any other article the change must necessarily be in the other article. This assumption, in turn, is based on the absurd idea that calling gold a "standard" will insure it against change.

Among political economists it is a well-recognized principle that neither gold or silver is exempt from the universal application of the law of supply and demand. That law governs gold and silver, not only as commodities, but as money, and governs as well all other kinds of money that may be used. And while the advocate of the single gold standard is at all times ready to concede the truth of this assertion as to silver, he is confident that it does not and can not apply to gold; that the economic law which makes supply and demand a regulator of value is suspended as to gold.

That a metallic money, whether of gold or silver, is very far from being stable is admitted by innumerable authorities, of whom I will cite only a few.

Dr. Adam Smith, in his "Wealth of Nations," book 1, chapter 5, says:

Gold and silver, like every other commodity, vary in their value. The discovery of the abundant mines of America reduced in the sixteenth century the value of gold and silver in Europe to about a third of what it had been before. This revolution in their value, though perhaps the greatest, is by no means the only one of which history gives some account.

And again:

Increase the scarcity of gold to a certain degree and the smallest bit of it may be more precious than a diamond.

John Locke, "Considerations, etc., in relation to money" (published in 1691), says:

The greater scarcity of money enhances its price and increases the scramble; there being nothing that does supply the want of it; the lessening of its quantity, therefore, always increases its price and makes an equal portion of it exchange for a greater of any other thing.

Prof. Francis A. Walker, "Money," etc., page 210, says:

Gold and silver do, over long periods, undergo great changes of value and become in a high degree deceptive as a measure of the obligation of the debtor of the claim of the creditor. Thus Professor Jevons estimates that the value of gold fell between 1789 and 1809, 46 per cent., that from 1809 to 1849 it rose 145 per cent., while in twenty years after 1849 it fell again at least 20 per cent.

Jevons, "Money and Exchange," chapter 6, says:

In respect to steadiness of value the metals are probably less satisfactory, regarded as a standard of value, than many other commodities, such as corn.

And again, in chapter 24 of the same work, he says:

We are too much accustomed to look upon the value of gold as a fixed datum line in commerce; but in reality it is a very variable thing.

Sir Archibald Alison (England, in 1815 and 1845), says:

The coining of gold and silver, which is universal in all civilised nations, and affixing to them one definite and permanent value by authority of law, has no effect whatever in preventing the fluctuations in the real value of the current coin of the realm.

Professor Laughlin, of Harvard, in his work on Political Economy (page 72), says:

It is quite evident that the name dollar does not always have the same value, although people often think it does. We get into the habit of using names without thinking what they really mean. The 23.22 grains in a gold dollar may be exchanged sometimes for more, sometimes for less, of other commodities. When it is exchanged for less, its value has fallen relatively to all other commodities, and, even if the name dollar remains the same, its value has fallen. One must then offer more dollars than before for the same commodities. That is, when money falls in value, prices rise; when money rises in value, prices fall.

Now, we shall say a few words in regard to another function, a means of paying long contracts, or debts which run over a long term of years.

Suppose that I loaned you in 1880, $1,000 for twenty years. In that year the $1,000 bought a certain quantity of corn, wheat, sugar, salt, wood, hats, and shoes. In 1900, when you are to pay me back the $1,000 in money, if prices have changed, you may give me back the same amount of money, but you will not return to me the same purchasing power over other things. If for some reason prices have fallen between 1880 and 1900, it will take less money to buy the same quantity as before of corn, wheat, etc. If so, the $1,000 you return me in 1900 will be of more value than the $1,000 I gave you, and it would be unjust to oblige you to give me more than you borrowed. If, on the other hand, prices have risen, then the $1,000 in money would buy me less than before, so that I should lose. * * * Hence, the value of money (gold or silver) does not remain the same for any length of time; and the precious metals, while they are very satisfactory for exchanges which do not take very long to complete, can not serve as a proper measure of value during a long term or years.

Ricardo, the greatest authority on the gold standard, the financial writer, more highly regarded throughout the world than any other that has ever appeared in Great Britain, whose logical utterances have never failed to attract the attention of mankind, stated the true condition of things in 1810, and advocated the true policy for Great Britain.

In his "Proposals for an Economical and Secure Currency," Ricardo makes the following statement, which I commend to the careful attention of the advocates of the single gold standard:

While a standard is used, we are subject to only such a variation in the value of money as the standard itself is subject to; but against such variation there is no possible remedy, and late events have proved that, during periods of war, when gold and silver are used for the payment of large armies distant from home, those variations are much more considerable than has been generally allowed. This admission only proves that gold and silver are not so good a standard as they have been hitherto supposed—that they are themselves subject to greater variations than it is desirable a standard should be subject to. They are, however, the best with which we acquainted.

If any other commodity less variable could be found, it might very properly be adopted as the future standard of our money, provided it had all the other qualities which fitted it for that purpose; but while these metals are the standard the currency should conform in value to them, and whenever it does not, and the market price of bullion is above the mint price, the currency is depreciated. This proposition is unanswered and is unanswerable. Much inconvenience arises from using two metals as a standard of our money; and it has long been a disputed point whether gold or silver should by law be made the principal or sole standard of money. In favor of gold it may be said, that its greater value under a small bulk eminently qualifies for a standard in an opulent country.

And I may here remark that it requires an opulent country to maintain the single gold standard, and the country does maintain it at very great expense. I do not wonder that he thought an opulent country, a creditor country, the only one that ought to adopt it, for no other country can afford to adopt it. But, like many people who in attempting to improve their condition in society attempt luxuries and extravagances which they can not maintain and which force them back into the ranks from which they came, so nations in attempting to establish the gold standard may find themselves reduced from opulence to poverty.

Ricardo continues:

But this very quality subjects to greater variations of value during periods of war or extensive commercial discredit, when it is often collected and hoarded, and may be urged as an argument against its use. The only objection to the use of silver as the standard is its bulk, which renders it unfit for the large payments required in a wealthy country; but this objection is entirely removed by the substituting of paper money as the general circulation medium of the country. Silver, too, is much more steady in its value in consequence of its demand and supply being more regular; and, as all foreign countries regulate the value of their money by the value of silver, there can be no doubt that on the whole silver is preferable to gold as a standard, and should be permanently adopted for that purpose.

Innumerable additional citations from authors of repute could be adduced to fortify this position.

It will thus be seen that the fluctuations in the value or purchasing power of both gold and silver have always been admitted by scientific writers. They were so well understood three centuries ago that in Queen Elizabeth's reign (1576) the British Parliament directed that the rents reserved in the long leases of certain college lands should be payable, not in money, but in wheat. And at various times during the past seventy years propositions have been formulated to substitute for gold and silver as a standard of value for deferred payments, a tabular statement of the prices of the principal articles of commerce, to be made by official authority and published from time to time, by the average of which the fluctuations of gold could be ascertained and proper allowance made for them in the settlement of time transactions. Professor Jevons, Prof. Francis A. Walker, and other political economists of note have expressed approval of such a tabular standard for long-time contracts, as securing greater equity than would gold as a measure of values.

Those who now assert that silver has fallen and that gold has not risen in value arrive at this conclusion by a very safe process of reasoning. First, to show that silver has fallen they measure it by gold alone, without reference to the general range of prices; and then to prove that gold has not risen they make it the measure of itself. An increase or decrease of the value of either can not be ascertained by reference to the other, and certainly not by constituting either of them a standard by which to judge itself. It would of course be forever impossible to show any change in the value of gold or silver, or of anything else, measuring it by itself. It is only by looking at the relations which both metals bear respectively to a considerable range of commodities generally dealt in as well as to each other, that it can be ascertained with certainty what has happened.

Not only upon consideration of all the facts I have given, but upon the logic of the situation, it must be obvious that gold has risen and will continue to rise in value as long as its volume decreases and the demand for it increases. Since 1860, when 77 per cent. of the combined yield of the two metals, it has diminished not only in relative proportion to the yield of silver, but it has diminished absolutely. For the five years ending with 1860 the yield of gold throughout the world was $137,000,000 a year; for the five years ending 1889 the yield was but $110,000,000 a year. If, as claimed by the advocates of the single gold standard, an increase in the yield of silver decreases the value of silver, by what system of logic can they deny that a decrease in the supply of gold increases the value of gold?

In a late issue of the London Economist, that of April 26, 1890, I find an editorial article relating to the recent discussion on bimetallism in the British House of Commons. That article comments somewhat sharply on Mr. Smith's assertion that "a conspiracy had been formed among the financial class in Europe and America to get rid of silver as full-valued money in order to increase the value of gold, in which their revenues are paid." In the course of his comments the editor, by "confession and avoidance," admits our whole contention as to the rise of gold and the fall, as a natural consequence, of the prices of commodities. He says:

It may not be amiss, however, to point out that the increase in the exchangeable value of gold has been by no means such a gain to the financial class as he in common with many others suppose; for advantage has been very largely taken of it to cut down the return upon the capital which the financial classes have invested. It has favored debt conversion schemes, and it has been one of the influences that have caused the rate of interest in general to decline so decidedly, that, all round, the yield of investments is now very appreciably lower than it was fifteen years ago. The idea that the creditor class have realized unmixed gains and the debtor class have suffered unmitigated losses by the alteration in the purchasing power of gold is thus altogether fallacious. There has in their case, as in all others, been a species of compulsory give and take. Each has gained and each has lost something, and now that the process of readjustment has been carried so far it would be unwise to the last degree to unsettle everything again by such legislation as the bimetallists propose.

The editor of the Economist is to be commended for at least one thing. He does not quibble as to the most important point in the bimetallic controversy. He frankly admits that gold has risen, and does not, as some others do, attribute the fall of prices to improvements in methods of production.

He also admits that coincidently with and caused by the rise in gold there has been a great decline in the rates of interest, and, strangely, claims that the debtor is compensated for the rise in the value of money by the ability to convert the debt into one bearing a lower rate of interest, or, as he calls it, resorting to "debt-conversion schemes."

He does not inform us how any compensation can be made to the the debtor for the time the debt has been running, as to which it can not be converted, nor for the enhanced amount exacted from the current earnings of labor by the rise in the value of money to pay taxes and the expenses of Government, nor for the loss entailed on the debtor whose property is mortgaged on long time, where the holder of the mortgage refuses to convert it into an obligation bearing a lower rate of interest than originally contracted for. He suggests no method by which to make whole those who have lost their property through sheriff's sale by reason of falling prices and the rise in the value of money. Neither does he state how long it will be before the next confiscation is to take place, by reason of the continued operation of the cause that produced the first. But he has been frank enough to concede (what is never disputed except when the money question is under discussion) that there has been a rise in the exchangeable value of gold, and conceded its natural sequence, a fall in the rates of interest.

IMPROVED METHODS OF PRODUCTION.

In order to justify their position it becomes necessary for the advocates of continued demonetization of silver to insist that the fall of prices is not due to the rise in the value of gold but to improved methods of production.

Whatever the cause to which it is to be ascribed, the undoubted fact is that a fall of prices throughout the western world set in concurrently with the reduction of the world's money volume by the demonetization of silver. It was well understood at the time by those who had given consideration to the subject that demonetization alone would effect that result. This is manifest from an article in the London Daily News, a paper of exceedingly large circulation, quoted in the Journal of the Statistical Society of England for 1873, page 395. Referring to the adoption of the single gold standard by Germany the Daily News said:

As the annual new supply of gold throughout the world is reckoned at little more than £20,000,000 ($100,000,000), and the usual demand for miscellaneous purposes is very large, it follows that, if the German Government perseveres in its policy, the strain upon the existing stocks and currencies of gold will be most severe. For a time, at least, unless the annual production of gold should suddenly increase, the money markets of the world are likely to be perturbed by this bullion scarcity, and the fall in the value of gold——

which means the rise in prices that for some time had prevailed;

of which so much has been heard, will be checked or reversed.

The yield of gold did not "suddenly increase," and the intelligent prophecy of the Daily News was fully realized, not merely to the extent of a check to the rising prices; (or, as it is styled by the Daily News, a check to the "fall in the value of gold,") but to the extent of an immediate rise in the value of that metal, and a persistent and deplorable fall in the general range of prices.

This prophecy that the "fall in the value of gold" would be checked by the demonetization of silver; or, better, reversed by it, was welcome reading to the creditor and income classes of England and of the world.

That it was "reversed," and the value of gold appreciated, is as plain as that; one being subtracted from two, there is but one for a remainder.

The immediate fall in prices of commodities was the natural, the anticipated, and the deliberately intended result of that movement.

But we are now assured that this fall is not due to any monetary cause, but to the greater efficiency of machinery in the production of commodities.

No advocate of an increased volume of money denies that in a few departments of manufacture there have since 1873 been improvements tending to economize labor and cheapen products; but they emphatically deny and challenge proof that improvements of mere detail in the manufacture of some articles will account for the extraordinary fall of price since that time in almost every product of industry. We are also told that the development of the system of transportation, both by land and sea, have tended to lower the price of commodities to the consumers. I grant it. But we had those improvements before 1873.

The inventions made between 1873 and 1890, the period of falling prices, were no more important or radical in their effect on industry,—tended no more to cheapen commodities, than did those from 1850 to 1873, the period of rising prices. Indeed the inventions which preceded 1873 were as a whole much greater in scope, more far-reaching in result, and more revolutionary in their effects on industry, than those of the later period. All the great basic improvements had been invented, and had been incorporated with the industrial system of all civilized countries long before 1873, if we except the electric light and the telephone. We have had the steam engine, the cotton gin, and the spinning-jenny since the last century; the railroad and the steam-ship since the '30's; the telegraph, the mechanical reaper, steam-plow, and other agricultural labor-saving devices since the '40's; the sewing machine since 1854, and the Bessemer process and steel rail since 1857.

The forced construction into which their position drives the advocates of the gold standard is well illustrated in a recent number of a magazine of high standing in this country, in which I find the following:

But if it be demurred, does not a debt incurred, say, ten years ago require to-day more wheat or iron for its satisfaction than the sum could have bought when first borrowed? Certainly, but the wheat or iron represents no more labor now then it did ten years ago, and its increase in quantity stands for the new efficiency which applied science has bestowed on toil.

Observe how deftly the writer places iron, in the manufacture of which there have admittedly been some improvements, in the same category with wheat, in the production of which the improvements within any recent period have been of the most trifling character. It will be exceedingly difficult to convince the farmers of this country, whose mortgages are eating up the proceeds of their labor, that the enormous decrease in the debt-paying power of their products is made up to them in "the new efficiency which applied science has bestowed on toil."

As well might it be maintained that the rise of prices and the concurrent wave of universal prosperity, experienced after 1849, was not due to the increase of the world's money stock from the mines of California and Australia, but to some sudden, unaccountable, and complete loss of all improvements theretofore attained in the arts and industries of the world.

EFFECT OF CHECKS AND CLEARING-HOUSES.

But it is said that checks, notes, drafts, bills of exchange, and the facilities afforded by clearing-houses effect such economy in the use of money that it goes farther now than formerly, and that therefore so large a volume of money as was formerly needed is not needed at present. It is sought thus to escape the conclusion that the fall of prices is the result of a shrinkage of the volume of money, or at least to imply that if the money volume has been shrinking the agencies mentioned have served to mitigate, if not entirely to counteract, the effects of such shrinkage. This is in substance to claim that however contracted the money volume of a country may become, the system of checks and clearing-houses—on the principle of the compensating balance—will expand in a proportion directly corresponding to the contraction of the currency; that the greater the reduction of the volume of money in the country the greater the increase in the transactions of the clearing-house.

Nothing more absurd could be conceived. If this view were correct, it would make no difference whether the amount of money in circulation were large or small; a million dollars would be as efficacious as $100,000,000, and even one dollar as effective as a million dollars; and if we suppose the last dollar to have disappeared from circulation, then, according to the sweeping and pretentious claims set up for the clearing-house system, we could dispense altogether with the use of money and rely exclusively on checks, drafts, and bills of exchange.

That checks and clearing-houses are a great convenience to commerce is not denied. They serve to a certain extent to make more effective the money volume of a country. By the clearing house system of off-setting the demands of the several banks, one against the other, and requiring payment in cash of the balances only, large amounts of loans may remain undisturbed and greater stability of industrial conditions be secured.

Clearing-houses, however, were not established primarily for the convenience of commerce, but for the profit of bankers. Whatever amounts of money are economized by means of those institutions bring compensation, by way of interest, to the banks. We may, therefore, rely upon their being utilized to the utmost under all circumstances.

But, however much checks and clearing-houses may economize the use of money, they are no novel devices. They are not some untried and newly-invented instrumentalities. Checks have been in use ever since the invention of banks. The clearing-house system was established in this country in 1853. Contributing, as it does contribute, to the pecuniary profit of the banks by making possible an economy in the use of invested money, which the banks have loaned out, and on which they are drawing interest, the system has grown with the growth of the business of the country. It will undoubtedly continue to grow, but with no greater acceleration than population and business will warrant.

As it has been a part of the banking machinery of the country for nearly forty years, and during that period has been utilized to the utmost, the conditions of its existence and utilization have long since become static conditions. The demands for currency have borne relation to the needs of business, with clearing-house facilities in full sight and operation; and at all seasons, in the adjustment of prices, those facilities have had full force and effect. Assuming that at any given period the business of the country were conducted with a given volume of money, plus a certain volume of clearing house exchanges, then, at a later period, an increase of business would demand an increase in the volume of money, plus a proportionate increase in the volume of clearing-house exchanges; having had this system in full and effective use for forty years, it is as absurd to ascribe the fall of prices in the last half of that period to any economy in the use of money effected by the clearing-house system as it would be to ascribe to the same cause the directly opposite effect—the rise of prices—that took place in the first half of the same period.

THE PROOF AFFORDED BY THE FALL OF INTEREST.

If further proof were needed that gold has risen in value, it is, as I maintain, to be found in the coincident fact of a decrease of rates of interest on first-class securities. That decrease has kept even step and pace with the rise in the value of money.

The rise in the value of gold, as shown by comparison with large numbers of articles of commerce, has been between 35 and 40 per cent. The rate of interest on gilt-edged securities shows a corresponding decline. But unfortunately for the struggling people of the country, the fall in the rate of interest on farm mortgages and on property remote from money centers has been nothing like so great, nor has it been so great as the fall in the price of agricultural lands, and in the products of labor.

I hold, therefore, that a new axiom should be added to the science of political economy; namely, that as the purchasing power of money increases, its income producing power decreases, and in about the same ratio; and conversely, when the purchasing power of money decreases, its income-producing power increases. In other words, when prices rise interest rises; when prices fall interest falls. When money is increasing in volume and decreasing in value, prices rise, and its investment in productive enterprises becomes more profitable, and as a consequence interest rises. When it is decreasing in volume and consequently increasing in value, prices fall, investment in property and productive enterprises become precarious and unprofitable, and, as a consequence, it avoids them, and seeks investment in bonds and gilt-edged securities, aptly termed "money-futures," which for years have been increasing and continue to increase.

Some thirteen years ago I indulged in a little prophecy concerning the rates of interest. I take no great credit to myself for it, but in 1877—four years after the demonetization of silver—before the rates of interest had materially fallen, and when the same contention was made that is made now, namely, that money was cheap because interest was low, and that the policies of the country were wise because our credit stood on such a high plane, I submitted to Congress the report of the Monetary Commission, from which I quote:

Money can be borrowed readily only upon such securities as bonds which are based on the unlimited tax-levying power of the Government, or upon the bonds and stocks of first-class trunk-lines of railroad corporations, whose freight and fare rates are practically a tax upon the entire population and resources of the regions which they traverse and supply. The competition among capitalists to loan money on these more ample securities has become very keen, and such securities command money at unprecedentedly low rates. These low and lowering rates of interest, instead of denoting financial strength and industrial prosperity, are a gauge of increasing prostration. Large accumulations of money in financial centers, instead of being caused by the overflow of a healthful circulation, or even a proof of a sufficient circulation, are unmistakable evidence of a congested condition caused by a decreasing and insufficient circulation. The readiness with which Government bonds bearing a very low rate of interest are taken, instead of showing that the credit of the Government has improved, is melancholy evidence of the prostrated condition to which industry and trade have been reduced.

There need be no haste in refunding the public debt at the rates now proposed and considered low. Unless the progress of the commercial world in the policy of contracting money by demonetizing silver is checked, bonds bearing a much lower rate of interest than any yet offered will be gladly accepted by capitalists here and in Europe. When the money stock is diminishing and prices are falling, the lender not only receives interest, but finds a profit in the greatly increased value of the principal when it is returned to him. A loan of money made in 1809, if repaid in 1848, would have been repaid with an addition of 145 per cent. in the purchasing power of principal and interest, besides all the interest paid. Those who have loaned money to this Government since 1861 have already received nearly as much in the increased value of their principal as in interest, and all the probabilities are, in respect to the four per cent. thirty-year national bonds now being negotiated, if they are redeemed in gold, that more profit will be made by the augmentation in the value of principal through interest. Indeed the signs of the times are, that the bonds of a country possessing the unbounded resources and stable institutions of the United States, payable in gold at the end of thirty years without any interest whatever, would, through the increase of the value of that metal, prove a most profitable investment.

All the facts of the situation to-day fully bear out the statements I then made.

So determined are the advocates of the single gold standard in defending the wisdom of its maintenance that facts whose existence would at ordinary times be readily admitted, are, during a discussion of the money question, pointedly denied. For example, within the past few weeks we have seen in various eastern newspaper contributions from prominent writers taking direct issue with the advocates of silver as to the prevalence of general distress throughout the country. They declare that there is no such distress, assert that they have looked for it in vain, and derisively inquire where it is.

Perhaps the best authority I can cite in response to this inquiry is the principal commercial daily journal of the east, the New York Journal of Commerce, itself one of the most ardent and uncompromising advocates of the gold standard. In an editorial article in its issue of January 11, 1890, that journal said:

FAILURES IN BUSINESS.

The public have been startled by the announcement that during the year 1889 there were 11,719 business failures in the United States, against 10,587 in 1888 and 9,740 in 1887. The estimated liabilities of last year's insolvents were $140,359,000 and the assets were $70,599,000, against $120,242,000 liabilities and $61,999,000 assets for the failures of the previous year. Thus the failures in 1889 were more in number and far greater in liabilities than for 1888, and the proportion of assets to the obligations shows that the total insolvency was more disastrous. Why in a season of profound peace, with no blighting frosts or withering droughts, and the most abundant yield from the field, forest, and mine so many in business have gone to the wall, no one seems able to answer. Many have tried their hand at a solution of the problem, and not one, as far as we can discover, has satisfied even himself with the result of his investigations.

HAS SILVER FALLEN?

In order to ascertain whether silver really has or has not fallen in value, it is necessary that all the facts be taken into account and the situation looked at from a correct point of view. If a person be seated in a boat that is headed to the stream and wishes to test whether or not he is making headway he must keep in view not the stream, but the shore. The occupant of a railroad car who observes a moving train on a contiguous and parallel track, frequently thinks his own train at a stand-still, when in fact it may be in motion.

Whenever a rise or fall appears to take place in the price of any one article or commodity, that is to say whenever a difference takes place in the relation which that article bears to money—all other commodities remaining unchanged—such difference must naturally and properly be attributed to changed conditions affecting the commodity, and not to a change in the value of money. But wherever there is a fall in prices throughout the whole range of commodities then it is clear that this change is mainly due to a change in the value of money. Such however is the force of education and habit that the masses of the people are slow to suspect any change in the standard by which they have been accustomed to gauge or measure all values. Indeed they find it difficult to understand how under any circumstances any change can take place in it. Having their eyes fixed on the standard, and on that alone, they naturally attribute to the articles measured, and not to the standard, any difference that may seem to arise in the relation they bear to each other.

But the apparent is not always the real. Nothing seems more warranted by the evidence of our senses than that the earth is a stationary object, while the sun revolves around it. For thousands of years the world was convinced of the truth of the geocentric theory of the universe, and millions of men have lived and died in the confident belief that this planet was immovably fixed in space, while the sun was a rolling and ever-shifting body. Even yet, among the mass of mankind, so ever-present is this impression, derived from ocular demonstration, that in spite of the declarations of science, the world continues in common use the phrases which originally described the process that took place, as men understood it; hence we speak of the "rising" and the "setting" of the sun. In the same way we speak of the rise or fall in the value of commodities, without being particular to note whether the change that has taken place is strictly a change in the value of the article itself or a change in the money with which its value is measured. Perhaps I can best illustrate my meaning by an allegory:

THE BATTLE OF THE STANDARDS. THE ALLEGORY OF THE CLOCKS.

In an ancient village there once stood a gold clock, which, ever since the invention of clocks had been the measure of time for the people of that village. They were proud of its beauty, its workmanship, its musical stroke, and the unfailing regularity with which it heralded the passing hours. This clock had been endeared to all the inhabitants of the village by the hallowed associations with which it was identified. Generation after generation it had called the children from far and wide to attend the village school, its fresh morning peal had set the honest villagers to labor; its noon-day notes had called them to refreshment; its welcome evening chime had summoned them to rest. From time immemorial, on all festive occasions, it had rung out its merry tones to assemble the young people on the green; and on the Sabbath it had advertised to all the countryside the hour of worship in the village church. So perfect was its mechanism that it never needed repair. So proud were the people of this wonderful clock that it became the standard for all the country round about, and the time which it kept came to be known as the gold standard of time, which was universally admitted to be correct and unchanging.

In the course of time there wandered that way a queer character, a clockmaker, who being fully instructed in the inner workings of time-tellers, and not having inherited the traditions of that village, did not regard this clock with the veneration accorded to it by the natives. To their astonishment he denied that there was really any such thing as a gold standard of time; and in order to prove that the material, gold, did not monopolize all the qualities characteristic of clocks, he placed alongside the gold clock, another clock, of silver, and set both clocks at 12 noon. For a long time the clocks ran along in almost perfect accord, their only disagreement being that of an occasional second or two, and even that disagreement only at rare intervals, such as might naturally occur with the best of clocks. But the Council of the village, in their admiration for the gold clock, passed an ordinance requiring that all the weights (the motive power) of the silver clock, except one, be removed from it, and attached to those of the gold clock. Instantly the clocks began to fall apart, and one day, as the sun was passing the meridian, the hands of the gold clock were observed to indicate the hour of 1, while those of the silver clock indicated 12.15. At this everybody in the village ridiculed the silver clock, derided the silver standard, and hurled epithets at the individual who had had the temerity to doubt the infallibility of the gold standard.

Finally, the divergence between the clocks went so far that it was noon by the gold standard when it was only 6 a. m. by the silver standard, so that those who were guided by the gold standard, not withstanding that it was yet the gray of the morning, insisted on eating their mid-day meal, because the gold standard indicated that it must be noon. And when the sun was high in the heavens, and its light was shining warm and refulgent on the dusty streets of the village, those who observed the gold standard had already eaten supper and were preparing for bed.

But this state of things could not last. It was clear that the difference between the standards must be reconciled, or all industry would be disarranged and the village ruined.

Discussion was rife among the villagers as to the cause of the difference. Some said the silver clock had lost time; others that both clocks had lost time, but the silver clock more than the gold; while others again asserted that both clocks had gained time, but that the gold clock had gained more than the silver clock.

While this discussion was at its height a philosopher came along and observing the excitement on the subject remarked, "By measuring two things, one against the other, you can never arrive at any determination as to which has changed. Instead of disputing as to whether one clock has lost or another gained would it not be well to consult the sun and the stars and ascertain exactly what has happened."

Some demurred to this because, as they asserted, the gold standard was unchanging and was always right no matter how much it might seem to be wrong; others agreed that the philosopher's advice should be taken. Upon consulting the sun and the stars it was discovered that what had happened was that both clocks had gained in time but that the gain of the silver clock had been very slight, while that of the gold clock had been so great as to disturb all industry and destroy all correct sense of time.

Notwithstanding this demonstration, there were many who adhered to the belief that the gold standard was correct and unchanging, and insisted that what appeared to be its aberrations were not in reality due to any fault of the gold clock, but to some convulsion of nature by which the solar system had been disarranged and the planets made to move irregularly in their orbits.

Some of the people also remembered having heard at the village inn, from travellers returning from the East, that silver clocks were the standard of time in India and other barbarous countries, while in countries of a more advanced civilization gold clocks were the standard. They therefore feared that the use of the silver clock might have the effect of degrading the civilization of the village by placing it alongside India and other barbarous countries. And although the great mass of the people really believed, from the demonstration made, that the silver standard of time was the better one, yet this objection was so momentous that they were puzzled what course to pursue, and at last advices were consulting the manufacturers of gold clocks as to what was best to be done.

Now our gold standard men are in the position of those who first refuse to look at anything beyond the two things, gold and silver, to see what has happened, and who, when it is finally demonstrated that all other things retain their former relations to silver, still persist that the law which makes gold an unchanging standard of measure is more immutable than that which holds the stars in their courses. If they will compare gold and silver with commodities in general, to see how the metals have maintained their relations, not to one another but to all other things, they will find that instead of a fall having taken place in the value of silver, the change that has really taken place is a rise in the value of both gold and silver, the rise in silver being relatively slight while that of gold has been ruinously great. And those who do not shut their eyes to the truth must see that the change of relation between the metals has been effected by depriving silver of its legal-tender function, as the want of accord between the clocks was brought about by depriving the silver clock of a portion of its motive power—the weights. The only thing that has prevented a greater divergency between the metals is the limited coinage by the United States—the single weight that, withheld from the gold clock, prevented its more ruinous gain.

THE PURCHASING POWER OF SILVER IN 1873 AND 1889.

If I can show that for a period of seventeen years, since its demonetization in 1873, silver has lost none of its purchasing power, none of its command over commodities; that is to say, if I can show that 412½ grains of silver to-day, uncoined, and shorn by hostile legislation of its principal element of value—the money use—will buy as much as would 412½ grains of silver in 1873 (when our silver dollar bore a premium over gold) of all the articles that enter into the daily consumption of the people, it must be manifest that silver has not fallen in value.

I present a table which I shall ask to have inserted in the Record as part of my remarks, showing the purchasing power of 412½ grains of silver, nine-tenths fine, in 1873 and 1890, respectively, so far as concerns several leading articles of daily consumption.

The table is as follows:

Comparative purchasing power of 412½ grains silver, nine-tenths fine, in 1873 and 1890, respectively.

412½ grains silver would buy—1873.1890.

Wheat bushels 0.87 0.88

Corn do 1.84 1.97

Cotton pounds 5.32 6.71

Beef, mess barrels 0.05 0.05

Pork, mess do 0.07 0.06

Lard pounds 12.89 11.75

Butter do 5.40 4.63

Cheese do 8.69 6.94

Sugar do 9.80 10.34

Eggs dozen 4.27 5.38

From this table it conclusively appears that while in 1873 the standard silver dollar of 412½ grains, which then bore a premium over the gold dollar, would purchase four-fifths of a bushel of wheat; to-day the same quantity of silver, without the advantage of coinage and merely as bullion, will also buy four-fifths of a bushel of wheat—the only difference between the figures for the two years being that at the present time 412½ grains of silver bullion, as will be seen by the table, will buy a fraction of a bushel more than would 412½ grains of coined silver in 1873.

If, then, silver has fallen, it is manifestly not in its relation to wheat.

By the same table it is shown that the silver dollar of 1873, containing 412½ grains of silver, nine-tenths fine, would purchase one and eight-tenths bushels of corn; in 1890, a like number of grains of silver, uncoined and estimated at its gold value, will purchase one and nine-tenths bushels of corn. Here again the advantage is slightly in favor of the 412½ grains of silver bullion of 1890. This shows conclusively that silver has not fallen in its relation to corn.

The figures of the same table show that in 1873 a coined silver dollar of 412½ grains would buy 5¹⁄₃ pounds of cotton; to-day 412½ grains of uncoined silver will buy 6¾ pounds of cotton. From this it appears that silver has not fallen relatively to cotton, the great staple of universal use, but that, on the contrary, it has advanced somewhat in its purchasing power when compared with that article.

In order to present the question from another point of view I submit another table showing the number of grains of silver that are required in 1890 and the number which were required in 1873 to buy a bushel of wheat, a bushel of corn, &c., by which it will even more clearly appear that silver has not fallen in value in respect to commodities.

Comparative purchasing power of silver bullion, in grains nine-tenths fine, in 1873 and 1890, respectively.

Articles.1873. Legal tender.1890. Commodity.

Grains silver.Grains silver.

Wheat per bushel 474.3 468

Corn do 223.9 209.25

Cotton per pound 77.55 61.42

Beef, mess per barrel 8,662.5 7,560

Pork, mess do 5,465.62 6,750

Lard per pound 31.97 35.1

Butter do 76.31 89.1

Cheese do 47.44 59.4

Sugar, refined do 42.07 39.82

Eggs per dozen 96.52 76.68

From this table it will be seen that in 1873 it required 474 grains of standard silver, in the form of coined dollars, to buy one bushel of wheat; in 1890, only 468 grains of standard silver (and that merely in bullion form, or in other words, at its market value) are required to buy a bushel of wheat. This does not show that silver has fallen in value, in its relation to wheat, but, on the contrary, that it has risen in value.

In 1873 it required 224 grains of silver to buy a bushel of corn; to-day only 209 grains of silver are required to buy the same quantity. These figures fail to prove that silver has fallen in value, in its relation to corn. On the contrary, again, it has risen.

In 1873 a pound of cotton could not be had for less than 77½ grains of silver; to-day the same pound of cotton can be bought for 61 grains of silver. Silver, therefore, has not fallen, but risen in value in its relation to cotton.

In 1873 96 grains of silver were required to buy one dozen eggs; to-day only 76 grains of silver are required to buy the same quantity of eggs. Silver therefore has not fallen but risen in value, in its relation to eggs.

These comparisons might be continued with the same results as to a great majority of the articles entering into general use.

These figures demonstrate that in its relation to all commodities that enter into the daily consumption, silver has not fallen in value, but, as is clearly seen, while holding a remarkably steady ratio to commodities, has slightly increased in value, as is shown by the fact that a less number of grains of the metal are to-day required to purchase the same quantity of the commodities mentioned than were required in 1873.

In relation to what, then, is it that silver has fallen? As it has not fallen in relation to commodities, there remains but one thing in relation to which it can be said to have fallen, and that one thing is gold. The phrase "the fall of silver" is the ingenious and cunning invention by which it is sought to cast on that metal the discredit of depreciation rather than subject gold to the suspicion of any change whatever. The term to correctly describe what has taken place would be "the rise of gold;" but that term is scrupulously avoided, as implying that gold does not remain immovably fixed. That gold has risen, however, admits of no doubt, except to those who willfully shut their eyes to facts of common observation. The true test of the increasing or decreasing value of any one thing is not to compare it with any other one thing, but with a large range of commodities generally dealt in. It is not of so much importance to know how much gold can be bought with a given amount of silver, as it is to know how much bread, how much meat, and how much clothing can be bought, and how much of all the things that are necessary to the comfort and well-being of the people can be bought with that amount of silver.

PROOF THAT GOLD HAS RISEN.

In order to demonstrate that gold has risen, I will bring side by side the gold prices of a number of leading commodities of commerce in 1873 and 1889, respectively, and the amount in silver bullion that in 1889 would purchase an equal quantity of the same commodities, by a table prepared at my request by the Bureau of Statistics of the Treasury Department.

Average export prices of the following named domestic commodities for the years ending June 30, 1873 and 1889.

Commodities.Unit of quantity.Average price of the year ending June 30 —

1873.1889.

In currency.In gold.In gold.In silver bullion.

Bacon and hams Pounds $0.088 $0.077 $0.084 $0.108

Butter do .211 .184 .166 .212

Cheese do .130 .113 .092 .118

Corn Bushels .617 .539 .508 .650

Cotton:

Unmanufactured, not sea Island Pounds .188 .164 .099 .127

Cloth, colored Yards .166 .145 .065 .083

Cloth, uncolored do .162 .142 .068 .087

Iron and steel:

Bar-iron Cwt 5.480 4.784 3.183 4.074

Pig-iron do 2.498 2.181 .953 1.220

Railroad-bars do 4.114 3.592 2.169 2.776

Lard Pounds .092 .080 .076 .097

Leather do .253 .221 .185 .237

Rice do .071 .062 .055 .070

Sugar:

Brown Pounds .092 .080 .056 .072

Refined do .116 .101 .066 .084

Wheat Bushels 1.312 1.145 .874 1.119

Wheat-flour Barrels 7.565 6.604 4.703 6.020

What does an examination of this table show? It shows beyond dispute that gold has risen in value.

A bushel of wheat that, according to the figures of the Bureau of Statistics cost $1.14 in gold or silver in 1873, and which, as will be seen by the table, still commands $1.12 in silver bullion, will to-day bring only 87 cents in gold.

A pound of cotton that in 1873 cost the purchaser, in gold or silver, 16 cents, and which still commands 13 cents in silver bullion, will bring only 10 cents in gold.

A pound of cheese that in 1873 cost the purchaser 11¹⁄₃ cents in gold or silver, and which now brings 12 cents in silver bullion, will bring only 9 cents in gold.

A barrel of flour which in 1873 cost the purchaser $6.60 in gold or silver, and which to-day commands $6.02 in silver bullion, will bring but $4.70 in gold.

A pound of butter that in 1873 brought 18.4 cents in gold or silver, and now commands 20.8 cents in silver bullion, will bring but 16.6 cents in gold.

Notwithstanding that 412½ grains of uncoined silver will to-day buy as much of the leading articles of commerce as the coined gold dollar would buy in 1873, yet the advocates of the gold standard characterize it as a 72-cent dollar. Then the gold dollar of 1873 was a 72-cent dollar. If the gold dollar of to-day be an honest and equitable dollar, that of 1873, which was worth much less, was a swindling and dishonest one; and if gold continues to advance as it has been advancing, and with the declining output of that metal there is no reason why it should not, it will be but a short time before any other kind of dollar whose value may be equal to that of the present gold dollar will be stigmatized as a swindling 72-cent dollar. There never was a dollar coined that did not legally and practically contain 100 cents. But the creditors stigmatize a dollar of the value of the gold and silver dollar of 1873 as a 72-cent dollar. May not the debtors, with much more propriety, denounce the gold dollar of to-day as a 140-cent dollar?

According to the admissions of the royal commission of England, the gold dollar of to-day is to the producers of this country, measured by their products, already at a premium of between 30 and 40 per cent. over the gold dollar of 1873. The advocates of the gold standard have no sympathy with our farmers and manufacturers who have to pay, in commodities, a premium of 30 to 40 per cent. on gold, to meet their engagements, but express extreme anxiety at the bare possibility that a few importers might have to pay even a small premium in any form. They insist that the money system of a population of 65,000,000, shall, like an inverted pyramid, be made to rest upon its apex in order to enable a few importers, most of whom are residents of foreign countries, to make their payments abroad in gold.

Verily, Mr. President, the single gold standard is an expensive luxury for our people to maintain.

Those who deride silver as a money-metal indulge in feeble attempts at sarcasm by inquiring why we do not advocate the use of tin and brass as money. They speak and write as though the idea of using silver as money were a recent discovery or invention of people engaged in silver mining. They also ignore the fact that the standard silver dollar of the United States, which, with much satisfaction, they stigmatize as a 72-cent dollar, requires a gold dollar to obtain it. It is worth a gold dollar in London, in Berlin, in Vienna, in Saint Petersburg, in Madrid, in Havana, and in all countries having commercial relations with the United States. It can at once be exchanged into the money of any country with only the slight deduction of cost of shipment to this country—as is the case in the United States with notes of the Bank of England, which are redeemable in gold.