HON. JOHN P. JONES, (continued 4)

Whatever other quality gold may posses than as the bearer of the money function is inconsistent with the healthful and proper exercise of the task assigned it as such. Whenever any portion of the metal is used for any other purpose than money it destroys the money and thus changes the value of every unit of money in circulation, for, at already stated—other things remaining unchanged—the value of each dollar depends on the number of dollars that are out. Without forewarning, and with out knowledge on the part of the people, large amounts of the money volume, on which so infinite a number of equities rest, and on the basis of which all debts and time contracts have been entered into, are, as it were, surreptitiously abstracted and appropriated to other and always inferior uses, for by far the highest and noblest use of any material upon which the money function has been conferred, is the money use. No other use can possibly be so high or so noble as that of maintaining all equities undisturbed.

It seems unworthy a highly developed civilization which, as to all subjects other than money, regulates its affairs by the application of intelligence, and bases its policies upon exact data, scientifically ascertained and correctly applied, to depend for its money system upon the accidents, make-shifts, and expedients to which primitive society, by reason of the limitation of its powers and the undeveloped condition of the human mind and hand, was compelled to resort. If the quantitative theory of money be correct—if the money standard be, as I insist it is, a steady and duly proportioned numerical relation existing between the units of population and units of money—it is the duty of society and government to see that as far as practicable that principle is put into operation.

The history of the production of the precious metals from the remotest ages demonstrates that under the automatic system of money this can only be effected by the unrestricted coinage of, and conferring the full legal-tender function on, both metals.

THE PROPOSITION THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD LEND MONEY ON THE SECURITY OF REAL ESTATE.

If a change in the whole number of money units in circulation relatively to population and business do not affect the value of each unit, then no objection can be found to the proposition recently presented in the Senate by the distinguished Senator from California, which created some surprise among Senators. The resolution of that Senator contemplates a loan by the Government to holders of real estate based upon the security of the property; and the issue of a large amount of Treasury notes for that purpose. Certainly, if a dollar, in order to perform properly the money function, must have in it or back of it a dollar's worth of material, there can be no safer security found than that suggested by the Senator from California, namely, the arable land of the United States.

It is the most absolutely secure of all securities; it can neither run away nor be stolen, it can not be burnt up, lost, or destroyed.

Arable land is, in and of itself, capable of supplying all basic wants, and must be always in demand, while gold, so far as concerns any use to which it is, or can be applied, might be dispensed with altogether, with scarcely any inconvenience to society.

Certainly money based on land would seem to be better than money based on gold. Senators who are sticklers for so-called "intrinsic value" money, and "full-value" money, should be found supporting that proposition. But it must, on reflection, be obvious that, other things remaining unchanged, whenever the total number of units of money (or dollars) in the circulation of a country increases, the value of each unit will decrease. It is an axiom of political economy that no amount of increase in the number of units of money in a country increases the aggregate value of the money of that country.

The aggregate value of the money in circulation in a country, can, ceteris paribus, be increased only by an increase of population and business, that is to say, by an increase in the demand for it.

If, without increase of population, the money of a country be increased from, say, $1,000,000,000 to $2,000,000,000, the effect would be not to add to the aggregate value of the money of the country, but to decrease the value or purchasing power of each unit of the money, so that it would take ten dollars to buy what had before cost but five.

GOLD A FETICH—DEMAND FOR A STANDARD OF JUSTICE.

The history of the world affords no example of a money system regulated by human prescience and intelligent calculation. It is not too much to say that the money system of the world—the most important associative instrumentality of civilization, in so far as it is not controlled for their own advantage by the creditor classes—is practically the result of accident. We are even less logical than the ancients, for they availed themselves of the entire supply of money possible to their civilization and development. They used the full yield of both silver and gold, while we, in order to line the pockets of a privileged caste of money-lenders, reduce the money volume to the lowest possible minimum by discarding one of those metals and making all debts payable in the other.

Gold has been erected into a fetich by methods familiar to the pagan priesthood, who forbade investigation of the claims of their idol to the superstitious veneration of their followers. The quality of a universal standard claimed for gold has been set up by the classes which, like that priesthood, had interests to be served by the superstition. All things else may be subjected to the test of reason and argument, but the slightest approach to a scrutiny of the claims of gold as a much-vaunted universal standard of valuation has been repelled by interested casuists and sophists who constitute the sacred guard of the temple of the idol.

The people of this country, Mr. President, begin very seriously to doubt the sacredness of a so-called standard by which they have been robbed of thousands of millions of dollars—a standard that despoils and impoverishes the toiling masses, in order to swell the plethoric pockets of the privileged few. From all parts of the Republic we learn that the people have become aroused on this subject, that they have discovered gold to be a standard, not of valuation, but of spoliation and confiscation.

The world at large shares to a great extent in the doubts entertained by the people of this country as to the orthodoxy of the continuing worship of gold. Throughout all Europe the suspicion is beginning to make itself felt, among those who have no personal interest at stake, that the constantly appreciating value of this metal bodes no good to society, however advantageous it may be to the moneyed classes, and especially the money lenders. It begins to be feared that there may be too long a persistence in this artificial standard, and that the pressure upon the people, in the fall of prices and the increase of the burden of debt and of taxes, which multiply with time, may have serious consequences upon public order. The stock of gold, never half enough to meet the wants of the people anywhere, is year by year being drawn upon more and more for use in the arts, while the yield from the mines is decreasing, and giving no promise of any material increase from any quarter.

The pressing need of the time, the standard for which the people are calling, is a standard of equity, a standard of justice, a standard that shall measure fairly and impartially the rights of both parties to a contract, that will not wrongfully and stealthily add to the burden of the obligation on either side, that will not, under the guise of fair dealing, rob one of the parties for the benefit of the other. The first indispensable step to a realization of that standard is the full restoration of silver to its rightful position as a part of the money of the world.

In any discussion of the question, it would be uncharitable not to make allowance for the force, on many conscientious minds, of what, to the free and unprejudiced inquirer, can only be regarded as an absurd and meaningless superstition, which, notwithstanding the advance of thought in other directions, still persists in disarranging the industries and vexing the civilization of an enlightened age. It is to the strength of this obdurate superstition that we must ascribe the horror with which many minds contemplate the possible loss to the country of a part of its gold.

FEAR OF THE OUTFLOW OF GOLD.

Any prospect of the outflow of gold is regarded as the opening of a veritable Pandora's box, from which must issue forth all the evils that can afflict mankind.

It is to this fear, no doubt conscientiously entertained, that we must attribute the declaration of the President of the United States that we do not dare to tread on the edge of so dangerous a peril. It is not difficult to make the statement, but it will be very difficult to prove that we stand on the edge of any peril whatever, if most or even all our gold should go.

We heard this same apprehension expressed, and with equal, if not greater, force twelve years ago, when the silver question was before this body. We were then assured by the ablest of our so-called "financiers" that the country would be denuded of its gold and that all manner of dreadful catastrophies would result. The prospect was represented to be appalling, although I do not remember that any reasons were given to show how or why gold should leave the country, nor that any statement was made as to exactly how this country would suffer if it did leave.

For my own part, Mr. President, I regard it as a matter of very little consequence whether gold goes out or not. Certainly if, in order to retain gold, we must sacrifice justice, then I say let gold go.

It is not of so much consequence that we should retain gold for the benefit of a small coterie of importers as that we should preserve the equity of time contracts between the millions of our own people who import no foreign goods. It is monstrous to think of violating all equities in time transactions—and nine out of every ten of our domestic business transactions are of that character—for the absurd and inconsequent purpose of keeping in this country some particular commodity, whether it be designated as money or otherwise.

The hoarding or the outflow of gold is a hardship when, under the law, somebody is obliged to have it, as was the case during the war, when gold alone would pay duties on imports. Combinations to hoard gold at that time frequently involved great loss to the importer. But thanks to the silver legislation of 1878 and other legislation making our Treasury notes receivable for customs dues, no damage could now result from any attempted corner in gold.

The creditors of this country never can convince the enterprising and energetic people who form the debtor class that it is to our interest that a certain material shall be kept in the country as money, if the expense of keeping it is that the debtors shall continue to be despoiled as they have been for the past fifteen years.

If we can only retain gold at the expense of steady and unwavering prices, and at the expense of a steady and unchanging value in money, then the quicker gold goes out the better. The constantly increasing value of gold by reason of its increasing scarcity means the constantly increasing burden of all debt, and involves the final absorption of all the property of the country by the creditor classes. Under the operation of the present system, by which prices are constantly falling and money is constantly increasing in value, the surplus earnings of the people are flowing in a steady stream into the vaults of money-lending institutions, and into the pockets of creditors.

In a very intelligent article published in a late number of an influential magazine—the Political Science Quarterly—there is the significant statement, apparently derived from the best sources, that in the year 1879-'80, one-half of all the mortgages in the State of Indiana were foreclosed.

It were better for society that property should at once be confiscated than that the great masses of the people in every community should have to struggle through years of painful and exhausting effort in the face of constantly falling prices and then in a large percentage of cases to lose their property at last. But this can not be avoided so long as we attempt to keep up what is called the gold standard. It is a necessary consequence of the gold standard that we shall have the scale of prices that obtains in gold standard countries If the presence of gold in this country is to destroy our people, who doubts that it should go? If its presence is to result in the destruction of equity and justice, who doubts that it should go?

Nearly every witness who testified before the secret committee of the House of Commons in 1857 agreed that gold could only be held by paralysing the business of the country. It is estimated by witnesses who testified before that committee, that in the panic of 1847, in Great Britain, the property of the country, by reason of the measures rendered necessary to maintain the single gold standard, was depreciated $1,500,000,000. I commend that report to the careful and serious perusal of the advocates of the single gold standard in this country.

Among the witnesses before the committee were John Stuart Mill, Lord Overstone, and many other men distinguished in the world of letters and finance. I am informed by the Librarian of Congress that there is but one copy of the work in the United States. It would be well worth while for Congress to order a number of copies of it printed, for there is no work with which I am acquainted that contains so much practical information as to the working of the single gold standard. According to the testimony taken before that committee, the experience of Great Britain since 1819 shows that gold alone, even when re-enforced by paper money convertible exclusively into gold, instead of being a beneficent instrument of valuation, has proved a cruel instrument of injustice.

A brief consideration of the causes which affect the movement of gold will not be out of place in this connection.

RATIONALE OF THE MOVEMENT OF GOLD.

Why is it that gold leaves country and goes to another? For one reason only—the advantage of its owner. Whenever he can make a profit by sending it out, the gold goes; and the period when that profit can be made is indicated when the prices of goods that are internationally dealt in are either rising in the country which it leaves or falling in the country to which it goes. It is only to pay for importable goods that gold ever leaves the country in which the owner resides. Being an international money, and receivable everywhere at its full face value, gold loses nothing by transfer; hence it is sent wherever it will for the time being have the greatest purchasing power.

Whenever the general range of prices in this country of commodities internationally dealt in becomes than higher than the general range of the same commodities abroad, it is manifest that then gold can used to advantage by purchasing those articles abroad and selling them here. If the gold that goes out goes from stock that has been hoarded here, the outflow has no immediate or direct effect upon prices in this country, although, by increasing or "inflating" the volume of money abroad it assists in raising prices there, and thus tends to secure for our exported products a better price in the foreign market. But if the gold goes from the amount that is in active circulation here, and if the void created by this outflow is not filled with other forms of money, such as silver, or paper, it results in a reduction of the volume of money in actual use in this country, while at the same time increasing the volume of money abroad.

This increase in the foreign money stock causes a rise of prices abroad, while the corresponding reduction of our currency causes a proportionate fall of prices here, hence there is a constant tendency to an equilibrium of prices of all articles of international commerce.

No outflow of gold would follow a rise of prices here except in so far as that rise affected articles internationally dealt in. No rise of prices of such articles as we do not import would tend in any way to drive out gold. If, for example, raw cotton should increase in price in this country, that fact would not tend to drive out gold, because we do not import raw cotton. But should the prices of articles of manufactured cotton rise here above what those same articles could be bought for in any foreign country our merchants would send abroad for them, provided that, after paying the freight charges and customs dues, they could make a profit on them.

So, also, if crockery-ware were made in this country, and its price should rise to, say, double the present price, then, instead of buying the American, or home-made article, our crockery merchants, finding that they could buy in England, France, or Germany cheaper than they could buy in this country, would decline to buy the American crockery, and would send abroad for any article, provided that, after paying freight charges and customs dues, they could sell it here at a profit. That would tend to increase the shipments of gold to foreign countries.

That an outflow of gold does not follow from a rise of general prices, but only of prices of articles of international trade, is manifest from the fact that if land becomes cheap in other countries, gold does not leave this country to buy it. When real estate is cheap in Brazil, or Australia, or in Germany, France, or even England, the owners of gold in this country do not send it abroad to make purchases of real estate.

So wages of labor may rise in this country, or compensation for all manner of services that must be performed here, and gold would not leave as a consequence. But if cloth were cheaper—quality considered,—in England, France, or Germany, or at the remotest ends of the earth,—than in this country, our merchants would send gold for it in order to sell it here at a profit.

Altogether too much importance is attached to the possession of a large stock of gold, unless that stock form part of the active circulation of the country. So long as it remains in circulation it sustains prices and develops industry and internal commerce. But the tendency of gold being to find the most profitable field for operation, its continued presence in the country can never be relied upon.

When we take gold from other countries prices in those countries fall, owing to the reduction of the volume of money there; and owing also to the action of the foreign banks in immediately raising their rates of discount on commercial paper and suddenly calling loans. As there is less money left in such country with which to pay for commodities, we are obliged to accept lower prices for the products we ship to it.

The larger the stock of gold, therefore, accumulated by us the lower, necessarily, must be the price which we can receive for our surplus agricultural products.

In order to maintain parity between the metals, it is not necessary for us to have all the gold we now have; $200,000,000, or even $100,000,000 of gold, would maintain that parity. The parity between the metals can never be broken until all the gold leaves, and provided we retain one or two hundred million, the rest can not be placed more advantageously than where our languishing surplus products must be sold.

When gold leaves this country it is because prices here are rising. Prices are now lower than they have been since 1847. Must they continue declining in order that we may be able to retain all our gold? It is manifestly impossible for the people of this country to prosper with a constantly lowering range of prices. It is equally impossible for the present level of prices to be maintained with a constantly increasing demand for, and as constantly diminishing a supply of, gold. It is universally admitted that an increase in the money circulation of this country at the present time is an exigent necessity. The advocates of the single gold standard, while admitting that we must increase our money volume, the effect of which must be to maintain, if it does not raise, the level of prices here, insist that we shall let none of our gold go in order that prices abroad may rise.

Mr. BLAIR. May I ask the Senator a question?

Mr. JONES, of Nevada. Certainly.

Mr. BLAIR. Does the Senator mean to be understood that the falling of prices is an absolute demonstration of the increased value of the money without limitation?

Mr. JONES, of Nevada. I have already, in the early portion of my remarks, had occasion to state that when a fall in prices was brought about by a larger subordination of the forces of nature to the uses of man, as where the comforts and conveniences of life could be produced with less sacrifice than before, it was not an injury to society, but in advantage. In other words, if, by a certain amount of sacrifice seventeen year ago, only one pair of shoes could be produced, and if by the same sacrifice two pairs could be now produced, there would be a lowering of the price of shoes to about one-half of what it was seventeen years ago, which would be a very great benefaction to mankind.

But, as I then stated, there is one certain sign that that is not, except to the slightest extent, the cause of the present universal fall of prices. When prices fall owing to improvements in manufacture, business revives, the masses of the people are at work, those who toil find themselves possessed of more of the comforts, of the conveniences, and even of the luxuries of life than before. They are better contented with their condition, and more buoyant and hopeful than before. On such occasions money becomes more and more in demand than it was before, and instead of being hoarded is put into active and productive business where it will make a profit. But when interest falls, pari passu, with the fall of prices, it shows that the fall of prices is not due, except in the smallest degree, to improved methods of production, but to the increased value of money.

Mr. BLAIR. I was not controverting the Senator's theory as to the existing facts in this country, but I understood him to be laying down an absolute principle, applicable under all circumstances and in all times, that the fall of prices is a demonstration of the increased value of money. I supposed that the fall in prices resulting from a protective tariff was beneficial, and not an indication of an increase in the value of money, and that that fall of price was not owing to the increased value of money, but was by improved machinery and all that. So it is possible that some of the fall in prices in this country may be owing to increased facility in the matter of production and to the beneficial operations of the protective tariff.

Mr. JONES of Nevada. Mr. President——

Mr. REAGAN. If the Senator from Nevada will permit me, I wish to ask the Senator from New Hampshire if he means to be understood as assuming that a protective tariff reduces the value of the commodities produced?

Mr. BLAIR. I was simply asking for information of the Senator from Nevada, and he can answer that question much better than I; but the Senator from Texas understands very well that I do believe a protective tariff reduces prices.

Mr. JONES, of Nevada. Mr. President, so far as a tariff has the effect of reducing prices in any country, it is not by reason of the levying of any certain percentage of duty on the imported goods. The first effect of the tariff certainly always must be to raise prices. The fundamental theory of the tariff is—whether it be correct or not I am not now discussing—that by that tariff you place the price of manufactured goods up to a range at which they can be produced in the country in which the tariff is levied, and upon the level of the range of wages and manner of living which obtain in that country. By so doing, if you have a proper volume of money, you set all your people at work, and keep them at work at a variety of occupations. In such case every forge, furnace, and factory becomes a school, every machine-shop an academy, and every cunning device and invention becomes a lesson, teaching the people how to deal with the subtle forces of the universe. So far as this country is concerned the theory of the tariff is that 65,000,000 people should have a varied and complete system of manufactures, which should supply practically all their own wants, instead of an abnormal proportion of them being driven into the single occupation of farming and relying on foreign manufacturers to supply such finished products as they need. To draw out and develop the aptitudes of a people a large variety of occupations is indispensable. When all men are employed at their aptitudes new inventions multiply, progress is accelerated, and the secrets of nature are more rapidly unfolded. Hence the McCormick reaper; hence the sewing-machine, that great instrument which clothes the world, because of the discovery that the eye of the needle should be at the point; hence the air-brake, the telegraph, the electric light, and thousands of other inventions that a protected people originate and develop, which would perhaps not have been originated or might have been long delayed if it had not been for the discouragement to imports caused by the tariff, and the encouragement to our people to go into manufactures by which their varied talents are drawn out and cultivated.

There is no doubt that eventually as our conditions improve, increasing numbers of our people will by degrees emerge from agricultural and enter manufacturing pursuits. A tariff, by stimulating the organization and development of industries, trains men to greater skill and perfection of workmanship in a variety of departments, and with greater skill comes greater efficiency of labor, and so greater economy of time. In that way the prices of certain products are in time reduced; but that is not a reduction of which any one complains.

The true cause of the present discontent will not be found in the protective tariff, but in the exactions of the single gold standard.

Fifteen years ago England was on the gold standard. It is on the gold standard to-day; yet prices in England are 35 per cent. lower than they were fifteen years ago. There being no reason why there should be any change in the trend of prices, so long as a fierce contest for the possession of gold shall be waged between England, France, Germany, and the United States, we are justified in assuming that a proportionate decline of prices will continue. That means a further decline of 30 or 35 per cent. in prices during the next fifteen years. Where is this tendency to stop? and if it does not stop, how long will it be before the masses of the people become the bond slaves of the creditors? It is shocking to the moral sense of mankind that a few money-lenders and bondholders should thus be able, silently and insidiously, to wreck the business of every country in the world by constantly increasing the value of the money unit.

While admitting the necessity of more monetary circulation, our gold standard friends fail to show us how it is possible for an increase in the volume of money to benefit our merchants, farmers, or mechanics if the prices that prevail in gold standard countries are to prevail here; for that is what the gold standard means for us, Mr. President. It means that the prices that rule in gold standard countries are to rule here.

The extreme indefiniteness with which the term "gold standard" is used has so befogged the relation which gold money bears to industry and commerce that people lose sight of the essential feature of that relation. It is impossible to have a clear conception of the gold standard without keeping in view exactly what is implied by the term. What men must mean in this country by "the gold standard" is not the touch of the metal, for they never touch it, and rarely, if ever, see it. The maintenance of the gold standard here simply means the maintenance here of the range of prices that prevail in gold-using countries; that is to say, that low and lowering range of prices rendered necessary by the attempt to measure the value of the constantly increasing mass of the products of industry in all the western world by the constantly diminishing volume of gold. No relief can come to the toiling masses of this country until we can lift our prices above those that now prevail in gold-using countries.

Even if our prices remain as they are and do not increase, gold will eventually leave the country if it continue to increase in value as it has been increasing during the past fifteen years. We have been enabled to maintain the gold standard here for the past twelve years notwithstanding a considerable addition of money other than gold to our currency, but we have been able to do so only because other countries have been using an equal or greater amount of money other than gold. We have been using no greater proportion of silver or paper money than other countries having the gold standard are using, hence we have been able to maintain their level of prices and still keep the metals together. But whenever we shall attempt to prevent a further fall or prices in this country, it will be impossible for us to retain our gold so long as prices in gold-using countries continue to decline as they have been declining. Gold will leave as quickly because of contraction abroad as of inflation here, if by "inflation" is meant a coinage of money sufficient to maintain prices at a steady level.

Should gold leave the country, then, in order to supply its place, in order to maintain the status quo in prices, and prevent a further fall from the present low range, we should need to have as many dollars of silver in circulation as there are now dollars of gold. Gold would go out only because our prices were rising, and as it went prices would cease to rise. That process might continue until three or four hundred million dollars of gold had gone. In all this, where would be the disadvantage to our people?

Considering the rapidly increasing population and wealth of this country, all the silver that can be procured from the mines will be necessary to maintain the level of prices and to keep pace with the increasing demands for money. If, however, it slightly exceeds—and it could not at the utmost more than slightly exceed—the amount actually demanded by increasing population and business, the over-plus of each year would take a great many years to drive gold out of the country, dollar for dollar. For, when prices here, of things internationally dealt in, are at an equilibrium with prices of the same articles abroad, gold can not go any faster than silver comes in.

IF $2,500,000 SILVER PER MONTH HAS NOT DRIVEN OUT GOLD, HOW MUCH WILL DO SO?

For twelve years past we have had a silver coinage of nearly $2,500,000 a month, yet no gold has been driven out. Having tested the capacity of that quantity of silver to drive out gold, we find that instead of driving it out its coinage has resulted rather in bringing gold in. For, to whatever cause the influx of gold may be ascribed, it is unquestionable that the gold has come, and it has needed all that gold, and all the silver that we have coined, to maintain international prices here.

It is admitted by all that gold can not go out except by reason of a rise in this country of the prices of articles of international commerce beyond the prices of the same articles prevailing abroad. It is only then that it becomes more profitable to send out gold in payment for our foreign purchases than to send out commodities—the products of our own country. Commodities will always be sent out in payment for other commodities so long as it is more profitable to send them than gold, and when, by reason of low prices prevailing abroad and high prices here, it is no longer profitable to send out commodities, purchasers send out gold, but only because it is to their advantage to do so.

Now, having seen that the coinage of $2,500,000 of silver each month was insufficient to so raise prices in this country as to induce gold to go abroad, but that on the contrary it resulted in an influx and accumulation of a large amount of gold, we may safely assume that only so much of the amount of silver which Congress shall now provide for as exceeds $2,500,000 a month will have any influence in raising prices in this country above international prices, and so providing a stimulus for gold to go abroad in payment for commodities imported into this country.

If the amount of silver which shall be now provided should be, say, $5,000,000 a month, the excess over the present coinage would be $2,500,000 a month. This, then, would be the amount that would drive out gold. As one dollar of silver would drive out no more than one dollar in gold, no more than $2,500,000 could go out monthly. That would leave in circulation the same amount of money that is in circulation now. There would still be no increase in the money volume of the country, and, with no increase in the volume of money, prices here would not rise above international prices. At the rate of $2,500,000 a month, it would take twenty years to drive out $600,000,000 of the $700,000,000 of gold now in this country. It would take even longer than that, because the $600,000,000 driven out would tend to raise international prices abroad, and so check the outflow of gold from here.

Mr. McPHERSON. Will the Senator yield to me for a question, or does he prefer to go on?

Mr. JONES, of Nevada. I am always ready to answer a question.

Mr. McPHERSON. I do not want to interfere with the Senator's line of argument, or with his speech in any form, but it does seem to me that there is something fallacious about the Senator's argument, or else my judgment and the experience of the world is all wrong. I wanted to ask the Senator this question: If it be known that the Government of the United States, if you please, by such an increase of the silver coinage in this country as will be produced by the free coinage of silver, to which theory, as I understand, the Senator is fully committed—if that be the theory of the Government hereafter by the command of Congress, I want to ask the Senator if he broadly and boldly asserts that no gold can be driven out of the country to a greater extent than dollar for dollar for the silver that comes in?

Mr. JONES, of Nevada. Absolutely; I say so.

Mr. McPHERSON. Then I want to ask the Senator another question, which seems to be pertinent. Does the Senator assert that if a 72-cent dollar, the value in bullion of a silver dollar during the year 1889, as has been furnished us by the Director of the Mint and the Secretary of the Treasury, were coined without limit (I say without limit, the limit being, of course, the amount of bullion that is brought to the Treasury to coined), and the people of this country who have been in favor of a safe and honest currency, a currency either gold or as good as gold, which the Treasury has been able to maintain, having forced no silver upon the people if they did not wish it, and in that way the silver dollar having been maintained equal to the gold dollar, I want to know, with the people of this country to-day the holders of $500,000,000 of gold, how it is possible for the Senator to believe that with a 72-cent dollar to take its place the gold coin would circulate for a single week, or a single day, or a single hour? If they have the gold will they not hold it?

Mr. JONES, of Nevada. The Senator has so involved his question with his argument that I can scarcely get at what he wants me to answer.

Mr. McPHERSON. The question I want the Senator to answer is this: Will the people of this country, the financiers of this country, the banks, the moneyed men holding $500,000,000 of gold, with a certainty of the free coinage of silver and going to a silver basis, for that is what it means, put their gold in circulation, or will they hoard it? Will it disappear?

Mr. JONES, of Nevada. I scarcely know what the Senator means by a "silver basis." He talks about a 72-cent dollar. We have never seen a 72-cent dollar. The papers in the East have told us that the silver dollar was worth 72 cents. I recollect talking on that subject once with some Senators in the cloak-room. During the conversation one of the Senate pages brought me a telegram, on which he said the telegraph messenger had told him there were 50 cents due. I give the page a silver dollar and said to him: "I have been informed by some very respectable and intellectual gentlemen in here, some of them now candidates for the Presidency even, that this dollar is worth only 75 cents. I do not want to cheat a little boy. Take this out, and if the boy thinks it worth only 75 cents he can send me back 25 cents, and if he thinks it is worth a dollar he can send me back 50 cents. I will leave it to him." The page brought back 50 cents and said the telegraph boy told him he did not know what those old "duffers" in there might say, but it was as good a dollar as he wanted and was very hard to get. [Laughter.]

The Senator talks about the bullion value as though that had anything whatever to do with the value of the dollar. I have attempted to demonstrate that the material that was in the dollar has nothing whatever to do with it. Let me illustrate. Suppose the entire supply of silver of the world to-day were $60,000,000. Suppose the law limited the coinage of it to $58,000,000, and every dollar coined was at par with gold. Suppose there were a demand for half a million dollars of silver, to be used in the arts, and that the remainder ($1,500,000) of uncoined silver were barred from the imperial money use. That supposes a supply of $2,000,000 left after satisfying the requirements for coinage, and supposes only half a million dollars' demand for use in all the arts. In that case there would be a $2,000,000 supply bearing down a half million dollars' art demand, or a proportion between supply and demand of 4 to 1. Suppose that under those circumstances silver bullion went to 50 cents an ounce. Would the Senator then say that 50 cents an ounce was the value of the $58,000,000, and all the rest of the coined silver of the western world, while by coining another million and a half, which would be nothing to a country like this, all the silver would be at par with gold? Every ounce of silver coined in Europe and the United States is at par with gold, a thousand or twelve hundred million dollars of it to-day in France, $200,000,000 in Germany, $370,000,000 of it here. We are not dealing with the price of silver bullion, that portion of silver that is deprived of its immemorial use as money. We do not say what the commodity demand for silver may make that worth. Such a consideration has no bearing whatever on the value of money.

I will suppose that in some one county of the United States a law were passed that the wheat grown in that particular county should have no right to go through the grist-mill, and that that wheat, as it might very naturally do, being deprived of use, fell to one-half the price of the wheat grown elsewhere in the country. Would the price of the wheat of that one county thus under interdiction and denied the grist be a fair gauge by which to measure the value of the entire wheat crop of the country? Manifestly not. All we have to do is to take up the little "slack" of silver, and all of it will at once be at par with gold; then we shall hear no more about the "commodity value" of silver. That is the contention that the bimetallists make.

Mr. HEARST. It will be $1.29.

Mr. JONES, of Nevada. It will be $1.29 an ounce in one week—in three days—in fact the very moment you give it back its ancient right of coinage and restore to it its full money power. You coin of gold all that is brought to the mint, and you deny to a certain portion of silver that same long-established privilege, and then you measure the value of the whole supply of silver by that of the little fraction that is not coined, and which therefore has to find a market as a commodity.

Mr. McPHERSON. Then, if the Senator will permit me, he necessarily proposes that the Government of the United States shall take up all this "slack," as he calls it, in the surplus quantity of silver and shall use it in the coinage. The mints of Europe being closed against the coinage of silver, there is no other place where it will be coined. Now, if the Government of the United States should use all the surplus silver in the country, which has simply forced the price down since we remonetized silver in 1878 more than 20 per cent.——

Mr. JONES, of Nevada. Gold has risen 35 per cent.

Mr. McPHERSON. Then I think the Senator's argument is upon this idea and upon this plan, that after we are upon a silver basis, as we should be most assuredly, there would be no inequality in the money, because it would be all silver.

Mr. JONES, of Nevada. And no inequality between it and gold.

Mr. McPHERSON. Certainly not, because there would be no gold in circulation. But let me ask the Senator another question. While he can use his short-legged silver dollar for the payment of debts, when he comes to make a new obligation would not the price of the goods assume a price equal to the difference between gold and silver? In other words, while you can use a debased currency for the payment of debts, if a legislative decree requires that you shall accept it, you can not use it for any other purpose.

Mr. JONES, of Nevada. I can not understand the Senator. We have not provided any "short-legged" dollar. The Senator is assuming a good many facts and attempting to adjust me to them. I ask the Senator to wait until he has heard my argument, and I invite the Senator then to make reply to it.

Mr. McPHERSON. I am sorry that I interfered with the Senator.

Mr. JONES, of Nevada. It was no interference on the part of the Senator, except that I can not separate the Senator's questions from the argument and assumptions that he makes. As to the outflow of gold, as I have said, it would take a long time for even $400,000,000 of it go. The amount of gold driven out would tend to raise prices abroad by making money more plentiful there, and so check the outflow of gold from here. When Senators speak about $600,000,000 of gold being withdrawn from circulation here a question that is a little curious arises. What are these people who own it going to do with that gold after they have withdrawn it from circulation? Are they going to invest it in Great Britain? Are they going to invest it in France? Are they going to the Cape of Good Hope to invest it? If they are they will reverse the policy that English capitalists are pursuing now and have been pursuing for years—bringing their gold over here for investment. The Senator tells us that gold is to disappear from circulation. What will the owners do with it? Where and in what are they going to invest it?

Mr. McPHERSON. It will be held for a premium.

Mr. JONES, of Nevada. But who will buy it at a premium? Who needs it at all? For what purpose is it needed? Who is going to pay any premium for it? Nobody is "short" on it, and there is no law which forces anybody to have it.

Mr. President, nobody wants it enough to give a premium for it. It is only worth what is daily paid in the markets of the world and nobody is going to pay a premium for it. It is a bogie with which to frighten the people who demand reform in the currency of this country. Let them withdraw their gold.

I tell the Senator it is not the men who hoard the gold in vaults who maintain or promote the prosperity of this country, but the toilers in the wheat-fields and on the farms of the country, the men who work in the planing mills, the forges, the furnaces, the factories, and in all our institutions of industry. It is they that bring us our prosperity, and not these people who are gambling for premiums on gold.

Let them gamble among themselves; let who lose and let who win, the people care nothing. The people of the United States are going to institute a money that shall install and maintain justice as between the citizens of this country, and they will not be impeded. I can tell the Senator that neither his party nor the Republican party will ever impede the march that this great country is about to make—the first in the world, I am glad to say—in adjusting to the demands of industry and commerce, that great instrument, money, the non-adjustment of which, as I have already stated, has, in my belief, caused more misery than was ever caused by war, pestilence, and famine.

But to resume at the point where I was interrupted:

The gold going out would tend constantly to restore the equilibrium between our prices and those of the gold-using countries, making the proportion of the gold outflow each year less than that of the year before. If there be included in this computation the remaining $100,000,000 of gold, which would remain after the outflow of the $600,000,000, we shall be compelled to come to the conclusion that the time when our stock of gold can be driven out will be almost indefinitely postponed.

But even should all our gold go by reason of the remonetization of silver, it will not be to the injury of the gold standard, but to its great advantage, and to the equally great advantage of the masses of the people, as well of this country, which the gold may leave, as of all countries to which it may go. It will make the "gold standard" consistent with the prosperity of the countries maintaining it. But instead of preserving the gold standard of to-day, which is a standard of wrong, it will inaugurate a gold standard that will approximate to a standard of justice.

The new "gold standard" that would be established by the outflow of our gold would be a standard of prices resulting from the influx into England, France, and Germany, the principal gold-using countries of Europe, of more than $600,000,000 of money.

So considerable an addition to their money-stock would raise prices in those countries, and by remaining there, would, with the current production, which we could spare to them, tend to maintain prices at a steady level. Such a condition would be an inestimable boon to the overburdened masses of Europe, and their prosperity would not be attained at the expense of the people of the United States. We could well afford to let gold go, since, by the coinage of silver, our own money volume would not be reduced. The rise of prices which it would effect in Europe would not only, as I have stated, secure better prices for our exported goods, but would undoubtedly enable us to maintain prices here at a substantial parity with those of Europe—that is to say, with those of the new, more rational and more beneficent gold standard which would be established by the full remonetization of silver in this country.

PRACTICALLY NO GOLD MONEY IN THE UNITED STATES.

But, aside altogether from this consideration, the gold that we already have is really a surplus—it is practically a dead and useless article. Gold, Mr. President, can not with entire truth be said at the present time to form any part of the money of this country. Who but a bank clerk ever sees a gold piece? With the exception of a few million dollars on the Pacific coast, gold is not really in circulation in this country. It is performing no useful function whatsoever. While I am engaged in delivering these remarks I venture to say no Senator within the sound of my voice has in his pocket a single gold coin of any denomination whatever, or any paper representative of one.

This is the answer to the fear expressed by some Senators that when those who hold gold shall observe the enlargement of the money circulation by the issue of the proposed Treasury notes they will be likely to hoard it. They are already hoarding it. Every body knows that that is about all that gold is used for in this country. It is hardly possible for it to be hoarded to any greater extent than it is at the present time. So little is this metal in circulation that I do not deem it any exaggeration to say that there are millions of people in the United States, "native here, and to the manner born," who have never in all their lives seen a gold coin.

How absurd, then, is the claim that any loss is to be suffered by the alleged future hoarding of gold, or that any calamity can occur to 65,000,000 people by the disappearance of that which has long since disappeared.

THE ARGUMENT BASED ON OUR BALANCE OF TRADE.

One of the staple arguments of the advocates of the single gold standard is, that if our stock of gold were greatly reduced we should be unable to make payments to foreign countries in case the balance of trade turned against us. It is only through an excess of imports over exports that gold could go, and this country now produces of nearly all articles almost all that it consumes. With the exception of two years there has not been a balance of trade against us for fourteen years, as the following table will show:

Value of merchandise imported into, and exported from, the United States, from 1876 to 1889, inclusive; also annual excess of imports or of exports—specie values.

Year ending June 30— Total exports. Total imports. Total exports and imports. Excess of exports over imports. Excess of imports over exports.

Dollars. Dollars. Dollars. Dollars. Dollars.

1876 540,384,671 460,741,190 1,001,125,861 79,643,481 —

1877 602,475,220 451,823,126 1,053,798,346 151,152,094 —

1878 694,865,766 437,051,532 1,131,917,298 257,814,234 —

1879 710,439,441 445,777,775 1,156,217,216 264,661,666 —

1880 835,638,658 667,954,746 1,503,593,404 167,683,912 —

1881 903,377,346 642,664,628 1,545,041,974 259,712,718 —

1882 750,542,257 724,639,574 1,476,181.831 25,902,683 —

1883 823,839,402 723,180,914 1,547,020,316 100,658,488 —

1884 740,513,609 667,697,693 1,408,211,302 72,815,916 —

1885 742,189,755 577,527,329 1,319,717,084 164,662,426 —

1886 679,524,830 635,436,136 1,314,960,966 44,088,694 —

1887 716,183,211 692,319,768 1,408,502,977 23,863,443 —

1888 695,954,507 723,957,114 1,419,911,621 — 28,002,607

1890 742,401,375 745,131,652 1,487,533,027 — 2,730,277

This table shows that while for last year there was a balance against us of $2,730,277, and the year before of $28,002,607, for all former years from 1887 back to 1874 the balances were in our favor—all the way from $23,000,000 in 1887 to $265,000,000 in 1881. But the total want of significance so far as the movement of gold is concerned attaching to any figures showing a balance of trade against the United States will be seen by an analysis of the figures for any one year. Let us take for example the imports and exports for 1889 and analyze them by countries.

I now present a table in which I place in one group the gold-using countries, and in another the silver and paper-using countries.

Exports and imports of the United States to and from the various gold-using and silver-using or paper-using countries of the world for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1889.

Countries.Exports.Imports.

Gold-using countries:

Canada $42,141,156 $43,009,473

Belgium 23,345,219 9,816,435

Denmark 3,903,937 846,904

France 46,120,041 69,566,618

Germany 68,002,594 81,742,546

Great Britain 382,981,674 178,269,067

Greece 165,079 988,923

Italy 12,604,848 17,992,149

Netherlands 15,062,939 10,950,843

Portugal and its possessions 3,266,814 1,282,556

Spain 11,946,348 4,636,661

Sweden and Norway 2,615,569 2,983,319

Turkey — 4,687,731

British possessions in Africa 2,936,213 895,344

British possessions in Australia 12,321,980 5,998,211

Silver and paper using countries:

Austria-Hungary 726,156 7,642,297

Russia 8,364,545 2,985,631

Mexico 11,486,896 21,253,601

Central America 4,325,923 8,414,019

Hawaii 3,375,661 12,847,740

Argentine Republic 9,293,856 5,454,618

Brazil 9,351,081 60,403,804

Chili 2,972,794 2,622,625

Peru 780,835 314,032

Colombia 3,821,017 4,263,519

Uruguay 2,192,848 2,986,964

Venezuela 3,738,961 10,392,569

Cuba 11,691,311 52,130,623

Hayti 5,340,270 5,211,704

Porto Rico 2,224,931 3,707,373

British West Indies 10,453,973 20,723,268

Dutch West Indies 887,778 654,320

China 6,477,512 18,508,678

India, British 4,330,413 20,029,601

India, Dutch 2,249,604 5,207,254

Japan 4,619,985 16,687,992

By this table it is seen that the only gold-using countries having a balance of trade against us are Canada, $868,317; France, $23,446,577; Greece, $823,824; Germany, $13,739,952; Italy, $5,387,301; Sweden and Norway, $367,850; Turkey, $4,687,731—making a total balance against us in gold-using countries, $49,321,452—against which we have a balance in our favor with Great Britain alone of over $200,000,000.

The balance against us in favor of all the silver using countries could of course be readily settled in silver; and by carefully noting the figures of the table last given it will be seen that it is in the last degree improbable that there will ever be a balance of trade against us in the gold using countries, taken as a whole.

Hence it is clear that if we had no gold at all we could readily settle all foreign balances that might be against us.

Nations, however, ultimately, and on the whole, square their accounts with commodities. Every nation must buy what it wants with its own products. In this country especially have we nothing to fear, because any temporary balance against us could always be met by the yield from our own mines. No country has any difficulty by reason of my difference in money systems in buying what any other nation has to sell.

This view is supported by all writers on political economy. I need quote but one. Professor Cairnes, professor of political economy in the University College of London, in his able work on "Some unsettled questions in political economy" (1874), says:

It appears to me that the influence attributed by many able writers in the United States to the depreciation of the paper currency as regards its effects on the foreign trade of the country is, in a great degree, purely imaginary. An advance in the scale of prices, measured in gold, in a country, if not shared by other countries, will at once affect its foreign trade, giving an impulse to importations and checking the exportation of all commodities other than gold. A similar effect is very generally attributed by American writers to the action on prices of the greenback inconvertible currency.

But it may easily be shown that this is a complete illusion. Foreigners do not send their products to the United States to take back greenbacks in exchange. The return which they look for is either gold or the commodities of the country; and if these have risen in price in proportion as the paper money has been depreciated, how should the advance in paper prices constitute an inducement for them to send their goods thither? The nominal gain in greenbacks on the importation is exactly balanced by the nominal loss when those greenbacks came to be converted into gold or commodities. The gain may, in particular cases, exceed the loss, but, if it does, the loss will also, in other cases, exceed the gain. On the whole, and on an average, they can not but be the equivalents of each other.

Mr. President, the best place in the world where we can have gold is not in the Treasury of the United States, not in any sub-treasury, but in circulation, if not in our own country, then, in the foreign countries where our surplus products are sold. That is where gold would do us the most good by making money plentiful and prices correspondingly high. It does us no good here whatever, locked up as it always is, and doing none of the work of money, but simply reduces to the minimum the tax-paying and debt-paying power of our wheat- and cotton-growing communities.

An unjust money should not be tolerated, whatever the material of which it may be composed, and the people of this country will not tolerate it. They do not fear the outflow of gold. If, in order to retain it, they must continue to lose as they have been losing for the past fifteen years, they will favor its going, and raise a shout of joy when it does go. With a perfect money system in our own country the range of our domestic prices would continue stable and equitable without regard to the prices of foreign countries. Our foreign trade would take care of itself, and whatever the balances might be, they would be much oftener in our favor than against us, and in reality concern only the importing merchant and not the Government or the people of the United States. The difficulty of gold-using countries to get our money, in which to pay us the balances they would owe us, would be much greater than our difficulty in getting their money, in which to pay them the occasional balances we might owe them.

Much the more serious question, (if it be a serious question at all, which I deny) is how they shall get our money, not how we shall get theirs. As the balances would be for the most part in our favor, it is for them to take such steps as may be necessary in order to pay us. But there is no just reason to apprehend difficulty in either case. A great country like the United States will have no trouble in buying the money of any other country at equitable rates—at rates regulated by the purchasing powers of the moneys of the two countries, respectively.

No country in the history of the world, having a money local to itself, has ever found the slightest difficulty in buying, upon ratios determined by the relative purchasing powers of the two kinds of money, a sufficient amount of foreign exchange (which simply means the money of another country) to meet all adverse balances of trade.

While earnestly advocating the full remonetization of silver and the maintenance in this country of a money volume sufficient to insure a steady level of prices and an unchanging value in the money unit, I entirely disclaim any desire for an inflation of the currency. My contention is that without silver we can not keep prices from further decline, and can not have enough money to serve the growing needs of population, industry, and commerce.

At the same time I can not refrain from expressing the conviction that, as between inflation and contraction, no careful student of history and of economic science can for a moment hesitate in deciding that the evils inflicted on society by contraction have been longer in duration and infinitely greater in degree than any that have ever resulted from inflation. During all periods in which there has been a generous increase in the money-volume of a country or of the world, activity and prosperity have been its accompaniment. I challenge the citation of an instance to the contrary.

With a volume of money increasing at a rate sufficient to meet the demands of a growing population, and especially if the money be such as will not leave the country, but, under all circumstances, will remain in it, to sustain prices, preserve equities, and reward labor, no country with a proper coördination of its industries can be otherwise than prosperous.

The property of mobility—of fluidity—which is so much lauded in gold, is precisely the property least to be desired in the money of a country, if that property of mobility or fluidity is to keep alternately bringing money into and taking it out of the country, disturbing prices and disarranging equities. When it comes, if it enters into circulation, prices rise; when it goes, prices fall, and thus, instead of having a steady and level platform of prices on which the trade and industry of the Republic may rest, like the firm and level platform of liberty upon which all our citizens stand, we whose business it is to "see that the Republic take no harm," furnish our people with an "inclined plane" of finance on which all their business must be conducted. Men buying this month at the elevated end of the platform find themselves selling next month at the depressed end.

Whenever in the history of a country there has been least reliance on international money (gold) and more reliance on merely national money (even of paper when reasonable limits were placed upon its quantity), prosperity has been everywhere present. I need not recall to the minds of Senators the wave of prosperity that swept over this country when it was without any international money and resorted to the "greenback" currency.

When, as a result of the Franco-German war, France was deprived of international money, suspended specie payments, and resorted to a properly limited paper currency, her progress was unbounded.

No period in the history of Great Britain can compare for activity, prosperity, or achievement, with the twenty years preceding 1816, when specie payments were suspended, and during which period, as testified to by witnesses before the secret committee of Parliament, the discount rate of the Bank of England did not buffer a single change; whereas from that period to 1847 the rate was changed sixteen times, and from 1847 to 1874 as many as 274 times, the fluctuations being sometime of the most violent character.

When gold threatens to leave Great Britain the rate of discount at the Bank of England is raised, with the view of discouraging, if not preventing, the outflow. Raising the rate of discount is like putting the brakes on a railroad train; lowering the rate is like letting off the brakes.

These changes were not due to any greater demand for money but to the movements of gold. There was frequently, in the condition of business, no warrant whatever for a rise in the rate of discount. The only reason for it was to prevent gold from performing what "our most conservative financiers" denominate its "noble" function of "mobility"—of "fluidity"—namely, the function of going "where it was wanted." This function of going "where it is wanted" is described as the great "mission" of gold, and it is assumed that it will never be wanted at more than one place at a time. Yet hear what the chancellor of the exchequer of Great Britain said a few days ago in the House of Commons:

I admit that, as interested in the commerce and monetary system of this country I feel a kind of shame that on the occasion of £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 of gold being taken from this country to Brazil, or any other country, it should immediately have the effect of causing a monetary alarm throughout the country. (Speech of the chancellor of the exchequer in the House of Commons, April 18, 1890.)

This is a suggestive admission, from so well-informed a source, as to the operation of the single gold standard. I commend it to those who would circumscribe and hamper the prosperity of this country by making gold alone the standard of all values.

I have thought it necessary, Mr. President, to state what I conceive to be the true principles of the science of money, the principles that, with the progress of time and growth of intelligence, must prevail the world over; because, without a clear understanding of the relation which the quantity of money in a country bears to the prosperity and happiness of its people, there would be no justification for an addition of either silver, gold, or any other form of money to the quantity already in circulation. If the value of money depends on quantity, then, as long as the world adheres to the automatic theory of money, my contention is that all the silver produced from all the mines of the world should be transmuted into coin; and even then, if the wants of the world continue to increase as they have been increasing, it is only a question of time, and that not far distant, when the combined supply of both metals will be insufficient to maintain the equities in time transactions.

The world having decreed to stand by the automatic system we are now dealing with the question as a practical one.

The only relief that can be had is to adhere strictly to that system, and give it full scope. Remove all legislative restrictions and let the world have the full benefit of all the precious metals that are yielded by the mines.

THE WORLD'S SUPPLY OF GOLD AND SILVER.

Since for thousands of years the world recognized both silver and gold as money, can anybody tell what has happened to render one of them unfitted for the money use?

No argument based on fluctuations in the current supplies of either of the metals can militate against the use of both as money. The fluctuation in the annual yield of both, taken together, is much less violent and less frequent than the fluctuation of either taken separately. By the use of both, society has much greater security against the evil of an insufficient money volume. While a large yield, now of one, and again of the other, has taken place, there is no instance in the history of the world of an extraordinary yield of both occurring simultaneously, except in the single instance of the first discovery of the mines of America. When the gold mines have been yielding largely, there has been no special increase of silver, and during the period when silver has been produced in comparatively large quantities the gold mines have been less productive.

This will be illustrated by the following table showing the yield of both gold and silver, from the discovery of America to the present time.

Annual average production of the precious metals throughout the world from the discovery of America to 1872.

[From Director of United States Mint.]

Periods.Gold.Silver.

1493-1520, average for each year $3,855,000 $1,953,000

1521-1544 do 4,759,000 3,749,000

1545-1560 do 5,657,000 12,950,000

1561-1580 do 4,546,000 12,447,000

1581-1600 do 4,905,000 17,409,000

1601-1620 do 5,662,000 17,538,000

1621-1640 do 5,516,000 16,358,000

1641-1660 do 5,829,000 15,223,000

1661-1680 do 6,154,000 14,006,000

1681-1700 do 7,154,000 14,209,000

1701-1720, average for each year 8,520,000 14,779,000

1721-1740 do 12,681,000 17,921,000

1741-1760 do 16,356,000 22,158,000

1761-1780 do 13,761,000 27,128,000

1781-1800 do 11,823,000 36,534,000

1801-1810 do 11,815,000 37,161,000

1811-1820 do 7,606,000 22,474,000

1821-1830 do 9,448,000 19,141,000

1831-1840 do 13,484,000 24,788,000

1841-1850 do 36,393,000 32,434,000

1851-1855 do 131,268,000 36,827,000

1856-1860 do 136,946,000 37,611,000

1861-1865 do 131,728,000 45,764,000

1866-1870 do 127,537,000 55,652,000

1871-1872 do 113,431,000 81,849,000

World's production of gold and silver for the calendar years 1873 to 1889, inclusive.

Calendar years.Gold.Silver.

Value.Fine ounces.Market value.Coining value.

1873 $96,200,000 63,267,000 $82,120,000 $81,800,000

1874 90,750,000 55,300,000 70,673,000 71,500,000

1875 97,500,000 62,263,000 77,578,000 80,500,000

1876 103,700 000 67,753,000 78,322,000 87,600,000

1877 114,000,000 62,648,000 75,240,000 81,000,000

1878 119,000,000 73,476,000 84,644,000 95,000,000

1879 109,000,000 74,250,000 83,383,000 96,000,000

1880 106,500,000 74,791,000 85,636,000 96,700,000

1881 103,000,000 78,890,000 89,777,000 102,000,000

1882 102,000,000 86,470,000 98,230,000 111,800,000

1883 95,400,000 89,177,000 98,986,000 115,300,000

1884 101,700,000 81,597,000 90,817,000 105,500,000

1885 108,400,000 91,652,000 97,564,000 118,500,000

1886 106,000,000 93,276,000 92,772,000 120,600,000

1887 105,300,000 96,189,000 94,265,000 124,366,000

1888 109,900,000 109,911,000 103,316,000 142,107,000

1889 118,800,000 125,830,000 117,651,000 162,690,000

From this table it will be seen that from 1801 to 1820 the average yearly yield of gold was $9,710,500; of silver, $36,847,500—four of silver to one of gold.

From 1821 to 1840 the average yearly yield of gold was $11,466,000; of silver, $21,964,000—two of silver to one of gold.

From 1841 to 1860 the average yearly yield of gold was $85,150,000; of silver, $34,826,500—two and a half of gold to one of silver.

From 1861 to 1880 the yearly average yield of gold was $117,991,850; of silver, $68,043,900—nearly two of gold for one of silver.

From 1881 to 1889 the yearly average yield of gold was $105,500,000: of silver, $122,540,388—one-sixth more silver than gold.

From those figures it is plain that no continuous, extraordinary yield of silver, such as might warrant the slightest fear of an unnecessary addition to the money volume, is to be expected. On the other hand the continuous drain of gold for use in the arts, as dentistry, gold plate, jewelry, gilding, and articles of decoration generally, is seriously encroaching upon the annual supply.

Both metals possess in common, and neither in any different degree from the other, all the qualities which are recognized as necessary in a commodity money. Silver enjoys in an equal degree with gold the quality of indestructibility, of divisibility, of malleability, and of resistance to chemical changes. The stock of both existing in the world (the product of all time) is estimated to be about equal, the production of the past 500 years being set down as—

Gold$7,240,000,000

Silver7,435,000,000

That silver mining has not proved exceptionally profitable in this country is proved by the comparatively small number that have engaged in the business. This country has been thoroughly explored in the search for additional mines without any of great value being discovered. The allurements of the business lie in its uncertainty; and for the occasional prize that is drawn thousands of blanks are found. There is always enough hope of results to induce continued effort, but there is also sufficient doubt and discouragement to deter an undue number from engaging in the business.

The mines of Mexico have been worked for hundreds of years; and up to 1873 the business of silver mining in that country had all the stimulus that a parity at 15½ to 1 could give to it. It is not, therefore, probable that any material increase of output can be expected from that quarter.

Conceding, for the sake of the argument, the eventual possibility of so superabundant a yield of silver as to work injury and inequity to the interests of creditors, is it not manifest that it is in the power of society at all times to remedy the evil by a limitation of the coinage? And on the other hand, is it not equally manifest that for an insufficient supply there is no remedy?

If great mountains of silver should be discovered, does not Congress meet constantly? If there should seem to be too much, could not the coinage be readily limited to prevent depreciation? But, on the other hand, when we dedicate the monetary function solely to one metal, of which there is manifestly and admittedly the world over an insufficient supply, where is the remedy? What can Congress do to enlarge that supply? Absolutely nothing.

THE GOLD USED IN THE ARTS.

The Director of the United States Mint a few years ago estimated that of the $100,000,000 gold annually produced from the mines of the world $46,000,000 are consumed in the manufacture of jewelry, gold plate, plated ware, gold-leaf, etc., and in various processes of dentistry.

The single standard of gold, therefore, is maintained by the creditor nations in the face of the admitted fact that but $50,000,000 of that metal are annually added to the money stocks.

Not only is this encroachment of the commodity demand on the money supply becoming greater year by year, with the growth of population, but the supply of gold from the mines is itself becoming less, having declined from an average of $137,000,000 between 1856 and 1860 (the period of greatest yield from California and Australia), to an average of $107,000,000 for the past ten years. Of the entire gold supply of the world, nine-tenths of it have come from placer mines, readily discoverable and easily worked, because requiring little or no capital. All known fields of those are practically exhausted, and there is no reasonable prospect of the discovery of others. Hardy, adventurous, and skillful miners from the United States, and capitalists from all countries, have ransacked the world in vain for new fields of gold. Why, then, with the knowledge of those facts before us, should we discard from the full money use and function the only metal that gives to the world any prospect of relief from the money famine from which civilization is now suffering and from which, if silver be not speedily restored to its ancient use and function, the world is destined to suffer much more?

If it be conceivable that the demonetization of either metal were necessary, why demonetize that which promises the greater and more steady yield? If for any reason society should decide that one of the metals should be discarded, should it not rather be that one which promises the smaller future yield, than that which promises the larger?

Silver is the money-metal best suited to the mass of the people, and to the variety and character of transactions that constitute the interchanges of daily life. The supplies of both metals if united by law, in the full money function, would have a steadiness of value which can not be attained by either separately.

TREASURY NOTES SHOULD NOT BE REDEEMED IN BULLION

The proposition to redeem the proposed treasury notes in silver bullion or in anything but lawful money of the United States will never meet the approval of the people.

What the people of this country want is money, and what they should have is money. These notes will represent full value received, the evidence of which is the bullion in possession of the Government. When issued, they will enter into circulation. They will have to do the work of money among the people. They will go to make up the volume of the currency. On the basis of that volume each dollar acquires a certain value, and represents a given amount of sacrifice. On that volume, and on those conditions, bargains will be made, prices established, debts contracted, values adjusted, and equities created. If any portion of that money be withdrawn from circulation (for that is what "redemption" means) without an equivalent amount of money in some other form being issued to take its place, the circulation will to that extent be contracted, every dollar in circulation will increase in value, prices will fall, property-values established on the basis of the larger circulation will shrink, and equities will be destroyed.

The redemption of any number of those notes in silver bullion means the withdrawal of many dollars of money from circulation and the destruction of so much of the money of the country. Money is not a thing that can be destroyed with impunity. It should be kept in use among the people. It is to industry what the blood is to the human body; it is the life-giving and life-sustaining medium. The money volume of a country should not be subject to frequent and violent changes. In a new and growing country, it should be characterized by that steady accretion that characterizes the increase in the quantity of blood in the human body as it progresses from infancy to maturity. It is no more unreasoning, empirical, or unscientific to be alternately withdrawing blood from, and injecting blood into, a human body than to be constantly contracting and expanding the money volume of the country. And as activity of circulation of the blood is essential to the health of the body, so activity of circulation in money is indispensable to the well-being of society. The possession of no mere commodity, whatever its value, will compensate a country for the destruction of any considerable portion of its money, upon the entire volume of which vast equities rest.

MONEY SHOULD BE REDEEMABLE IN ALL THINGS.

Money should be redeemed in all things; not in one thing alone. The peculiar characteristic of true money, that which distinguishes it from all other things whatsoever and constitutes it a prime factor in civilization, is that it is at all times redeemable in any thing that is on sale. Being an order for property, it should be redeemed in any form of disposable property which the holder may desire.

A guinea—

said Adam Smith—

may be considered as a bill for a certain quantity of necessaries and conveniences upon all the tradesmen in the neighborhood.

Any form of money, the condition of whose existence depends on redeemability in one thing alone, can not be money in the full sense, and whenever an urgent demand for real money springs up the other ceases altogether to be money.

The redemption of money should be reciprocal between the Government and the people and between and among all individuals in the community. It should not only be redeemable by the Government by acceptance for taxes but also redeemable by and among the people for all property for sale and services for hire. Its quantity should be so regulated as that its unit (the dollar) should neither increase nor diminish in value, and it should be kept constantly in circulation, and not be permitted to lie uselessly in the Treasury. Any other money than this is to a certain extent counterfeit; it is false money, because when most needed it fails to be money and has to be "redeemed" in something else (gold) which can not be got except at ruinous sacrifice.

It is of the very essence of money—its pith and marrow and protoplasm—that it should be a legal tender, a universal solvent, the ultimate of payment, and redeemable, at the prices ruling, in everything that is on sale. If the volume of such money be properly regulated, while there may from time to time be variations in the prices of particular articles, the general range of prices will be maintained practically undisturbed.

What an absurdity it is for the Government to put its stamp on one thing in order to make it redeemable in another thing imprinted with the same stamp, but which nobody wants except for the purpose of getting a third thing that could have been got just as well without the intervention of the second. As well might he who, wanting water, is given a silver cup wherewith to get it, but on going to the spring is forbidden to drink until he exchanges his silver cup for a gold one.

The real reason why it is insisted that all other things than gold shall be exchangeable into gold is that gold is getting dearer by reason of decreasing supply and increasing populations. The necessity for convertibility into gold implies that, in ordinary times, a range of prices higher than the gold range will prevail, and when, by reason perhaps of increased activity of business, redemption comes to be demanded prices are at once precipitated to those of the gold standard and below, to the great advantage of the creditor classes, who, as owners of bonds, may be considered in the language of the stock exchange "long" on money, and to the equally great injury of the producing class, who, being in debt, may be considered as having sold money "short."

The supreme consideration is that the money of a country shall be so regulated as that prices may not fall from any cause inhering in the money system. The value of money—in other words, the sacrifice necessary to obtain it—should be no greater at one time than at another. In order to effect that object of prime consequence, to maintain the value of money unchanging, there should be no hesitancy whatever in changing the material of which it is made.

Nobody who has reflected on the subject for a moment doubts that what gave "value" or exchangeable power to the greenback was not the promise made on its face, without date, to pay a dollar, but the inscription on its back which declared it a legal tender for all dues and demands, public and private, except duties on imports. It was a misfortune to mankind that the words "promise to pay" were printed on it, because by it millions were led to believe that the "value" or exchangeable power resided in the promise instead of in the legal-tender power conferred upon it.

There is no object in redeeming in gold, except to maintain gold prices, that is to say, the range of prices prevailing in gold-using countries, and as those prices are constantly trending downward, any country that insists on maintaining the gold standard must accept the consequences in a corresponding fall of prices. The advocates of the gold standard, in effect, maintain that no matter to what extreme prices may fall, we must be content—we must bow in humble submission to the inevitable, since, in their view, it is more necessary to maintain the sacredness of the gold standard than to establish justice, promote prosperity, or to maintain equity in all time transactions.

It is in no way necessary, on account of any intrinsic or inherent quality of gold, that should have that particular metal, and that alone, for money.

It is boasted that gold is a universal measure. Why is it universal? Why is gold accepted in every country of the world? Not because the gold is wanted for any quality inherent in the metal, but because it is an order for property in gold-using countries, such as England, France, and Germany, whose trade is largely a foreign trade. At whatever rate gold will exchange in England, it will exchange in all countries having trade relations with England, because it is an order for goods in a country with which they are dealing. Will not the money of this country equally, and for like reasons, whether gold or silver, have acceptability in every country with which the United States have trade relations? Not for any quality inherent in the metal, but because it is an order for property in the United States. Will it not be willingly accepted by those who wish to buy in this country?

POSSIBLE EFFECT OF REDEMPTION IN BULLION.

In order to see the effect of the redemption of these Treasury notes in bullion, we have but to look at the possibilities of the situation. Suppose there were in the Treasury $300,000,000 worth of that bullion, which, by the taking up, little by little, and month by month, of the amount not used in the arts, would be taken by the Treasury at or about par. Then, suppose that for any reason, such as fear of approaching panic or otherwise, $100,000,000 of the Treasury notes were suddenly presented for redemption, and canceled, and the bullion as suddenly put on the market, what would it be worth? What would gold bullion be worth if it had not the privilege of coinage, and if $100,000,000 of it, deprived of the money use, was suddenly put on the market? Can there be a doubt that the abrupt output of so large a quantity would have the effect of immediately and enormously depreciating its value? In the case under consideration, the result would be that the silver remaining in the Treasury would not bring one-fourth the sum necessary to redeem the outstanding Treasury notes, so that not only would a heavy loss result to the Government, but, by reason of the sudden and serious contraction of the money volume, an infinitely greater loss would result to all the people.

But if it be deemed a remote contingency that any extraordinary amount would in that manner be suddenly taken from the Treasury, there is another danger which can not be put aside as improbable, but which, on the contrary, is to be looked for with almost absolute certainty, and to my mind, constitutes an irremovable and insurmountable objection to any system of bullion redemption.

A large number of merchants in London need, monthly, millions of dollars worth of silver to make payments in India. They will naturally want to get it at the lowest price, and it is not to their advantage to intensify the competition for it. On the contrary, it is to their direct advantage to depress the price to the lowest possible point.

As the Treasury of the United States would buy silver at the lowest price, the London merchants would refuse to enter the open market in competition with our Government for its purchase. But no sooner could the silver be stored in the vaults of the Treasury, than the agents of the London merchants would appear, and before any opportunity had offered for a favorable change in the price of the bullion, could present as many millions of these notes as might suit their purpose, and receive bullion therefor. A Secretary of the Treasury who conscientiously believed that it was his duty to maintain the gold standard at all hazards, would naturally feel compelled—certainly it would be in his power—to put out whatever amount of bullion he might deem necessary to accomplish that purpose, even if it all had to go.

Thus the United States Treasury would become the convenient and capacious conduit through which silver should immediately flow from this country to England, depriving our people, notwithstanding the legislative measures for their relief, of practically all use of silver as money, inasmuch as the four and a half-million dollars of Treasury notes would be withdrawn and canceled about as soon as issued.

Thus would our Treasury Department be made practically the purchasing agent in this country of any syndicate or combination of English merchants who might desire silver for the East India trade.

If it be said that no Secretary of the Treasury would attempt thus to defeat the will of the people as expressed in the law, the sufficient reply is that a conscientious man who believes that the honor of the United States is pledged to the maintenance of the gold standard, and that it is indispensable to the prosperity of the people, will exercise all the power vested in him by law to prevent a departure from that standard, and will regard himself as for the time being the savior of the Republic by keeping it from "the edge of so dangerous a peril" as the execution of the people's will.

Certainly no man will deny to the present Secretary of the Treasury entire rectitude of motive in all his conduct. From the well-known fact that since the passage of the limited coinage act of 1878 all our Secretaries have refrained from purchasing more silver than they were compelled to do by the mandatory provision of that law, it is reasonable to infer that none of them, if called upon to execute a law containing a silver bullion redemption clause, such as is suggested, would feel called upon to make a net purchase of more than $2,000,000 worth in each month; and that none of them would hesitate to exchange for Treasury notes all the monthly purchases of bullion in excess of that amount.

A PLANK FROM THE REPUBLICAN PLATFORM.

I must be pardoned for directing the attention of Senators on this side of the Chamber to a short declaration of the last Republican National Convention:

The Republican party is in favor of the use of both gold and silver as money.

If party platforms mean anything that clause meant that the Republican party went before the country pledged to the use and to the equal and non-discriminating use of both silver and gold as money. It was well known that throughout the entire West the question of the remonetization of silver was deemed of vital importance, and party orators and the party press, throughout that entire section were severe in their denunciation of the prior administration of its unfriendly attitude toward silver.

I wish in all solicitude and sincerity to advise my Republican friends of the East that this plank in the party platform was construed by the Republicans of the West to mean precisely what it says. They are looking with confidence to this Congress for such action as will fittingly embody in the statutes the principle laid down by the party now in the responsible direction of the Government.

SHALL WE BE FLOODED WITH SILVER?

We are told that if silver is given free access to the mints we shall be flooded with it from all parts of the world. Does anybody show where the flood of silver is to come from? Where are the reservoirs that contain it? Not in England, where it is difficult for the people even to get a sufficiency of it for small change to transact the business of the country: not in Germany, where the scarcity of money was so pressing that the government had to abandon the idea of selling silver. Though the stock in France is large her people will never give it up. Silver has been the "shield and buckler" of the French Republic. All she has is coined at the ratio of 15½ ounces of silver to 1 of gold, and its shipment to this country would involve a loss to France, not only of the 3 per cent. difference between the French relation (15½ to 1) and ours (which is 16 to 1), but of 3 per cent. additional in the cost of gathering and shipping it. And after that could only exchange them for Treasury notes. The silver stock in India and the Orient is performing indispensable duty as money, and no "flood" of it can be expected from that quarter. From time immemorial India has been absorbing all the surplus silver of the world. She has never got so much as to appease her appetite for more. So insatiable is her desire for that metal that she has long been known as the "Sink of Silver." China has not a piece of the metal that she can dispose of. Mexico has no stock whatever of silver on hand, except the limited number of coined pieces forming her moderate money circulation, and not a dollar of it can be spared. No country of Central or South America has any surplus silver. Every piece of coined silver in every country in the world is part of the monetary circulation of that country, and even when of short weight and classified as a mere "token" is passing at par as full valued money. No gain could possibly accrue, therefore, to the owners of coined silver anywhere by shipping it to this country for any purpose, and there is no surplus stock of bullion anywhere.

If anybody doubts this statement let him make the attempt in all the money centers of the world to buy from accumulated stock even $5,000,000 worth of it. He will fail to get it in London, Paris, Berlin, Calcutta, New York, or San Francisco, or in all combined. There is no source from which to get silver except the current supply from the mines, and whatever that is now it is not likely ever greatly to increase. The occupation of mining is not attractive to many, and in the nature of the case the number who follow it will always be comparatively few. The Argonauts of old were but a small band of hardy adventurers; those of the new era are destined to bear no larger proportion to the population. But even were this not so, nature herself draws the line. To the eye of the experienced prospector silver mines are as discernible on the surface of the earth as are mountains, and the world has been explored in vain for further "finds." Those who talk, therefore, of "floods" of silver coming here for coinage simply show their ignorance of existing conditions.

I may add that of all the shafts that have been sunk for silver mines in the world where they have found silver croppings on top in ninety-nine out of every hundred, and I think I am stating it moderately, the veins have not penetrated the earth, mineralized, fertilized, to the depth of 50 feet, rarely have they penetrated the earth to a depth exceeding 1,200 feet, and the most prolific yield of silver mines has been from a depth not exceeding 800 feet.

The very fact, Mr. President, that, with all the world searching for gold and silver mines—a search that has continued throughout all history—the amount of the two metals yielded by the mines is about equal, shows that the historical relation existing between them is the relation at which they can be profitably produced.

It is apparent that if there were a great advantage in the production of silver over gold, at the relation of 15½ to 1, that advantage would be seen in the largely preponderant production of silver; but instead we find that the result of thousands of years of mining has given us about equal quantities of both metals.

CAN THE UNITED STATES ALONE HOLD THE METALS AT A PARITY?

We are told that the United States, unaided, can not, if it would, restore silver to a parity with gold—that no one nation acting alone can achieve so difficult a feat. But it is incapable of denial that throughout all vicissitudes of production of gold and silver from 1803 to 1873 the law of France—one nation alone—accomplished it.