HON. JOHN P. JONES,

OF NEVADA.

On the bill (S. 2350) authorizing the issue of Treasury notes on deposits of silver bullion.

Mr. JONES, of Nevada, said:

Mr. President: The question now about to be discussed by this body is in my judgment the most important that has attracted the attention of Congress or the country since the formation of the Constitution. It affects every interest, great and small, from the slightest concern of the individual to the largest and most comprehensive interest of the nation.

The measure under consideration was reported by me from the Committee on Finance. It is hardly necessary for me to say, however, that it does not fully reflect my individual views regarding the relation which silver should bear to the monetary circulation of the country or of the world. I am, at all times and in all places, a firm and unwavering advocate of the free and unlimited coinage of silver, not merely for the reason that silver is as ancient and honorable a money metal as gold, and equally well adapted for the money use, but for the further reason that, looking at the annual yield from the mines, the entire supply that can come to the mints will at no time be more than is needed to maintain at a steady level the prices of commodities among a constantly increasing population.

In view, however, of the great divergency of views prevailing on the subject, the length of time which it was believed might be consumed in the endeavor to secure that full and rightful measure of legislation to which the people are entitled, and the possibility that this session of Congress might terminate without affording the country some measure of substantial relief, I was willing, rather than have the country longer subjected to the baleful and benumbing influences set in motion by the demonetization act of 1873, to join with other members of the Finance Committee in reporting the bill now under consideration.

Under the circumstances I wish at the outset of the discussion to say that I hold myself free to vote for any amendment that may be offered that may tend to make the bill a more perfect measure of relief, and that may be more in consonance with my individual views.

THE CONDITION OF THE COUNTRY.

The condition of this country to-day, Mr. President, is well calculated to awaken the interest and arouse the attention of thinking men. It can be safely asserted that no period of the world's history can exhibit a people at once so numerous and homogeneous, living under one form of government, speaking a common language, enjoying the same degree of personal and political liberty, and sharing, in so equal a degree, the same civilization as the population of the United States. Eminently practical and ingenious, of indomitable will, untiring energy, and unfailing hope; favored by nature with a domain of imperial expanse, with soil and climate of unequaled variety and beneficence, with every natural condition that can conduce to individual prosperity and national glory, it might well be expected that among such a people industry, agriculture, commerce, art, and science would reach an extent and perfection of development surpassing anything ever known in the history of mankind.

In some respects this expectation would appear to have been well founded. For several years past our farmers have produced an annual average of 400,000,000 bushels of wheat. Our oat crop for 1888 was 700,000,000 bushels, our corn crop 2,000,000,000 bushels, our cotton crop 7,000,000 bales. In that year our coal mines yielded 170,000,000 tons of coal, our furnaces produced 6,500,000 tons of pig iron and 3,000,000 tons of steel. Our gold and silver mines add more than $100,000,000 a year to the world's stock of the precious metals. We print 16,000 newspapers and periodicals, have in operation 154,000 miles of railroad and 250,000 miles of telegraph. The value of our manufactured products at the date of the last census was $5,400,000,000. Our farm lands at the same time were estimated at $10,000,000,000, our cattle at $2,000,000,000, our railroads at $6,000,000,000, our houses at $14,000,000,000. It is not too much to say that there has been an increase of fully 50 per cent. in those values since the taking of the census of 1880. Our national wealth to-day is reasonably estimated at over $60,000,000,000.

Figures and facts such as these in the history of a young nation bespeak the presence not merely of great natural opportunities, but of a people marvelously apt and forceful. From such results should be anticipated the highest attainable prosperity and happiness. Our population is alert, aspiring, and buoyant, not given to needless repining or aimless endeavor, but, with fixity of purpose, presses ever eagerly on, utilizing every conception of the brain to supplement and multiply the possibilities of the hand, and at every turn subordinating the subtle forces of nature to the best and wisest purposes of man. No equal number of persons on the globe better deserve success, or are better adapted for its enjoyment.

But instead of finding, as we should find, happiness and contentment broadcast throughout our great domain, there are heard from all directions, even in this Republic, resounding cries of distress and dissatisfaction. Every trade and occupation exhibits symptoms of uneasiness and distrust. The farmer, the artisan, the merchant,—all share in the general complaint that times are hard, that business is "dull." The farmer is in debt, and is not realizing, on the products of his labor, the wherewithal to meet either his deferred or his current obligations; the artisan, when at work, finds himself compelled to share his earnings with some relative or friend who is out of employment; the merchant who buys his goods on time finds little profit in sales, and difficulty in making his payments.

WHAT IS THE DIFFICULTY?

What can it be, Mr. President, that has thus brought to naught all the careful estimates and painstaking computations, not of thousands, nor of hundreds of thousands, but of millions, of keen, shrewd, and far-seeing men? Our people take an intelligent interest in their business; they look ahead; they endeavor, as far as possible, to estimate correctly their assets and liabilities, so that on the day of reckoning they may be found ready. Why this universal failure of all classes to compute correctly in advance their situation on the coming pay-day? What potent and sinister drug has been secretly introduced into the veins of commerce that has caused the blood to flow so sluggishly—that has narcotized the commercial and industrial world?

All have been looking for the cause, and many think they have discovered it. With some it is "over-production," with others either a "high tariff" or a "tariff not sufficiently high." Some think it due to trusts and combinations, others to improved methods of production, or because the crops are overabundant or not abundant enough. Some ascribe the difficulty to speculation; others, to "strikes." All sorts of insufficient and contradictory causes are assigned for the same general and universal complaint. However inadequate in themselves, they serve to emphasize the universal recognition of a difficulty whose cause without close inquiry is likely to elude detection. But the evil is of such magnitude, it is so widespread and pervasive, that, without a knowledge of its cause, all effort at mitigation of its effects can but add to the confusion and intensify the difficulty.

It behooves us, therefore, as we value the prosperity and happiness of our people, to set ourselves diligently to the inquiry: What is the cause of the unrest and discontent now universally prevailing?

ONE SYMPTOM COMMON TO ALL INDUSTRIES.

In surveying the question broadly, to discover whether there is anything that affects the situation in common from the standpoint of varying occupations, we find one, and only one, uniform and unfailing characteristic; the prices of all commodities and of all property, except in money centers, have fallen, and continue falling. Such a phenomenon as a constant and progressive fall in the general range of prices has always exercised so baleful an influence on the prosperity of mankind that it never fails to arrest attention.

History gives evidence of no more prolific source of human misery than a persistent and long continued fall in the general range of prices. But, although exercising so pernicious an influence, it is not itself a cause, but an effect.

When a fall of prices is found operating, not on one article or class of articles alone, but on the products of all industries; when found to be not confined to any one climate, country, or race of people, but to diffuse itself over the civilized world; when it is found not to be a characteristic of any one year, but to go on progressively for a series of years, it becomes manifest that it does not and can not arise from local, temporary or subordinate causes, but must have its genesis and development in some principle of universal application.

WHAT PRODUCES A GENERAL FALL OF PRICES?

What, then, is it that produces a general decline of prices in any country? It is produced by a shrinkage in the volume of money relatively to population and business, which has never yet failed to cause an increase in the value of the money unit, and a consequent decrease in the price of the commodities for which such unit is exchanged. If the volume of money in circulation be made to bear a direct and steady ratio to population and business, prices will be maintained at a steady level, and, what is of supreme importance, money will be kept of unchanging value. With an advancing civilization, in which a large volume of business is conducted on a basis of credit extending over long periods, it is of the uttermost importance that money, which is the measure of all equities, should be kept unchanging in value through time.

EFFECT OF A REDUCTION IN THE MONEY-VOLUME.

A reduction in the volume of money relatively to population and business, or, (to state the proposition in another form) a volume which remains stationary while population and business are increasing, has the effect of increasing the value of each unit of money, by increasing its purchasing power.

It is only within a comparatively recent period that an increasing value in the money unit could produce such widespread disturbance of industry as it produces to-day. In the rude periods of society commerce was by barter; and even for thousands of years after the introduction of money, credit, where known at all, was extremely limited. Under such circumstances changes in the volume and in the value of money, while operating to the disadvantage of society as a whole, could not instantly or seriously affect any one individual. An increase of 25 per cent. in one year in the value of the money unit—a change which now, by reason of existing contracts or debts, would entail universal bankruptcy and ruin—would not be seriously felt by a community in which no such contracts or debts existed, in which payments were immediate or at short intervals, and each individual parted with his money almost as soon as he received it.

Such proportion of the annual increase in the value of the money unit as could attach to any one month, week, or day would be wholly insignificant, and as most transactions were closed on the spot, no appreciable loss could accrue to any individual. Such loss as did accrue was shared in and averaged among the whole community, making it the veriest trifle upon any individual. But how is it in our day?

THAT EFFECT INTENSIFIED AS CIVILIZATION ADVANCES.

The inventions of the past one hundred years have established a new order of the ages. The revolution of industry and commerce, effected by the adaptation of steam and other forces of nature to the uses of man, have given to civilization an impetus exceeding anything known in the former experience of mankind. Under the operation of the new system, the rapidity and intensity with which, within that period, civilization has developed, is due in great part to an economic feature unknown to ancient civilization and practically unknown even to civilized society until the present century. That feature is the time-contract, by which alone leading minds are enabled to project in advance enterprises of magnitude and moment. It is only through intelligent and far-seeing plans and projections that in a complex and minutely classified system of industry great bodies of men can be kept in uninterrupted employment.

We have 22,000,000 workmen in this country. In order that they may be kept uninterruptedly employed it is absolutely necessary that business contracts and obligations be made long in advance. Accordingly, we read almost daily of the inception of industrial undertakings requiring years to fulfill. It is not too much to say that the suspension for one season of the making of time-contracts would close the factories, furnaces, and machine shops of all civilized countries.

The natural concomitant of such a system of industry is the elaborate system of debt and credit which has grown up with it, and is indispensable to it. Any serious enhancement in the value of the unit of money between the time of making a contract or incurring a debt and the date of fulfillment or maturity always works hardship and frequently ruin to the contractor or debtor.

Three-fourths of the business enterprises of this country are conducted on borrowed capital. Three-fourths of the homes and farms that stand in the name of the actual occupants have been bought on time, and a very large proportion of them are mortgaged for the payment of some part of the purchase-money.

Under the operation of a shrinkage in the volume of money this enormous mass of borrowers, at the maturity of their respective debts, though nominally paying no more than the amount borrowed, with interest, are, in reality, in the amount of the principal alone, returning a percentage of value greater than they received—more than in equity they contracted to pay and oftentimes more, in substance, than they profited by the loan. To the man of business this percentage in many cases constitutes the difference between success and failure. Thus a shrinkage in the volume of money is the prolific source of bankruptcy and ruin. It is the canker that, unperceived and unsuspected, is eating out the prosperity of our people. By reason of the almost universal inattention to the nature and functions of money this evil is permitted, unobserved, to work widespread ruin and disaster. So subtle is it in its operations that it eludes the vigilance of the most acute. It baffles all foresight and calculation; it sets at naught all industry, all energy, all enterprise.

CONTRAST OF EFFECTS PRODUCED BY AN INCREASING AND A DECREASING MONEY-VOLUME.

The difference in the effects produced by an increasing and a decreasing money-volume has not escaped the attention of observant writers.

David Hume, in his Essay on Money, says:

It is certain that since the discovery of the mines in America industry has increased in all the nations of Europe. * * We find that in every kingdom into which money begins to flow in greater abundance than formerly, everything takes a new face; labor and industry gain life; the merchant becomes more enterprising, the manufacturer more diligent and skillful, and even the farmer follows his plow with greater alacrity and attention. * * * It is of no manner of consequence with regard to the domestic happiness of a state whether money be in a greater or less quantity. The good policy of the magistrate consists only in keeping it, if possible, still increasing; because by that means he keeps alive a spirit of industry in the nation and increases the stock of labor, in which consists all real power and riches. A nation whose money decreases is actually at that time weaker and more miserable than another nation which possesses no more money, but is on the increasing hand.

William H. Crawford, Secretary of the Treasury, in a report to Congress, dated 12th February, 1820, says:

All intelligent writers on currency agree that when it is decreasing in amount poverty and misery must prevail.

Mr. R. M. T. Hunter, in a report to the United States Senate in 1852, says:

Of all the great effects produced upon human society by the discovery of America, there were probably none so marked as those brought about by the great influx of the precious metals from the New World to the Old. European industry had been declining under the decreasing stock of the precious metals and an appreciating standard of values; human ingenuity grew dull under the paralyzing influences of declining profits, and capital absorbed nearly all that should have been divided between it and labor. But an increase of the precious metals, in such quantity as to check this tendency, operated as a new motive power to the machinery of commerce. Production was stimulated by finding the advantages of a change in the standard on its side. Instead of being repressed by having to pay more than it had stipulated for the use of capital, it was stimulated by paying less. Capital, too, was benefited, for new demands were created for it by the new uses which a general movement in industrial pursuits had developed; so that if it lost a little by a change in the standard, it gained much more in the greater demand for its use, which added to its capacity for reproduction, and to its real value.

The mischief would be great, indeed, if all the world were to adopt but one of the precious metals as the standard of value. To adopt gold alone would diminish the specie currency more than one-half; and the reduction the other way, should silver be taken as the only standard, would be large enough to prove highly disastrous to the human race.

The Encyclopædia Britannica, 1859 (article Precious Metals, by J. R. McCulloch), says:

A fall in the value of the precious metals, caused by the greater facility of their production, or by the discovery of new sources of supply, depends in no degree on theories of philosophers or the decision of statesmen or legislators, but is the result of circumstances beyond human control; and although, like a fall of rain after a long course of dry weather, it may be prejudicial to certain classes, it is beneficial to an incomparably greater number, including all who are engaged in industrial pursuits, and is, speaking generally, of great public or national advantage.

Ernest Seyd, 1868 (Bullion, page 613), says:

Upon this one point all authorities on the subject are agreed, to wit, that the large increase in the supply of gold has given a universal impetus to trade, commerce, and industry, and to general social development and progress.

The American Review (1876) says:

Diminishing money and falling prices are not only oppressive upon debtors, of whom, in modern times, states are the greatest, but they cause stagnation in business, reduced production, and enforced idleness. Falling markets annihilate profits, and as it is only the expectation of gain which stimulates the investment of capital in operations, inadequate employment is found for labor, and those who are employed can only be so upon the condition of diminished wages. An increasing amount of money, and consequently augmenting prices, are attended by results precisely the contrary. Production is stimulated by the profits resulting from advancing prices; labor is consequently in demand and better paid, and the general activity and buoyancy insure to capital a wider demand and higher remuneration.

PRICE THE INDEX OF THE VALUE OF MONEY.

There can be no truer index of the value of money than the general range of prices. Price is the mercury by the rise and fall of which the heat and struggle of industrial and business life are daily measured and made plain. Where the tendency of this indicator continues downward, there is no more certain sign that money is increasing in value.

During a period of falling prices the fear of impending calamity hangs like a pall over the business of the country. Notwithstanding unremitting efforts, men feel themselves constantly on the edge of disaster. Gloomy foreboding and timidity take the place of confidence and courage.

A shrinking volume of money is the most insidious foe with which civilization has to contend.

It is my firm conviction that the inexpressible miseries inflicted upon mankind by war, pestilence, and famine have been less cruel, unpitying, and unrelenting than the persistent and remorseless exactions which this inexorable enemy has made upon society. As the volume of money contracts prices decline, and with the decline of prices comes stagnation of industry, and the relegation to idleness of thousands of willing workmen. Capitalists become unwilling to invest their money in enterprises that employ labor while the products of that labor are constantly decreasing in price. During all periods of falling prices therefore money capital is withdrawn from active industry and seeks investment in bonds and other forms of money-futures yielding fixed incomes. For although the rate of interest in many such cases may be low, the capitalist is compensated for this by the enhancement in the purchasing power of each dollar of the principal and by the necessarily greater command it secures over the products of labor.

Avoiding the very purpose for which it was devised, money at such times seeks seclusion and declines to circulate. Its owner finds that he can better afford to leave it idle in a vault or bury it in the earth, than subject it to the probability of diminution by investing it in business on a constantly falling market. Thus, contrary to all principles of progress and of natural justice, the man who keeps his money idle, and deprives society of its use, is rewarded by an unearned increment, while he who puts his money into active business, where industry and labor may profit by it is punished by unmerited loss.

Under such conditions it is impossible for a community to reach that degree of material progress which, under proper circumstances, it would readily attain. At every turn distress and discouragement stare the people in the face. In every town and village men, willing to work, stand idle. Even their misfortune does not end with themselves, for not only are they a tax upon their friends, lessening to some extent the meager income of those who give them temporary assistance, but their necessary and eager competition for the little work that offers, tends to reduce the compensation of those to whom they are thus indebted. Stores, workshops, and factories, unoccupied and unused, are found in every direction. Crime increases, bankruptcies multiply, and even though the aggregate of wealth augments, it is unjustly distributed, and consequently barren of beneficent results.

A GLANCE AT THE HISTORY OF MONEY.

The system of relying upon the precious metals as money has long been known as the Automatic system. Accurately, it should be called the Accidental system. It has been called "automatic" because, so long as money was made to depend solely upon the yield of the mines, the supply regulated itself by what was believed to be a natural method, namely, by the expenditure of labor in its production, and was limited only by the rude obstacles which nature opposes to the production of the metals. The necessity of expending this labor placed the money volume of any country beyond the control of the kings and conquerors who, in the primitive periods of society, exercised despotic sway over their subjects. It was undoubtedly better for the people of those early times to risk the accidents of production than the follies and sinister designs of rulers.

This automatic system grew out of barter. It is a survival from the period when articles were exchanged directly, not for gold and silver as money, but for gold and silver as commodities—on the basis of their cost of production—as in the case of the articles for which they were exchanged.

There have been the same evolutions of progress in money as in all other things. In the rude original of society no kind of money was possible. The first trade was by barter, after which, some one or more commodities attainable in the vicinage, and in general use and demand were selected as the common media through which all exchanges were filtered. The use for that purpose of various metals by weight followed next, and, at a succeeding stage, gold, silver, and copper by weight, and after this their use in the form of coins, the value of which coincided with the bullion-value, which must necessarily be the case when free coinage is permitted.

It may be not uninteresting in this connection to have a general view of the materials which, at different epochs of the world's history, have been used as money. I therefore present a tabular statement giving those particulars in chronological order.

Table showing some of the substances which have, at various periods and in various countries, been used as money.

Period.Country.Substance used as money.Authority.

B. C. 1900Palestine.Cattle, and gold and sliver, by weight.The Scriptures.

Arabia.Gold and silver coins.Jacob.

Phœnicia.Gold, silver, and copper coins.Anonymous.

Phœnician colony in Spain.Same (some still extant).Carter.

1200Phrygia.Coins, by Queen of Pelops.Julius Pollux.

1184Greece.Brass coins.Homer.

862Argos.Gold and silver coins, by Phidon.Dictionary of Dates.

70-500Rome.Brass, by weight.Jacob.

578Rome.Copper coins.Ibid.

UncertainCarthage.Leather or parchment money, first "paper bills" known.Socrates, Dial. on Riches, Journal des Economistes, 1874, p. 354.

B. C. 491Sicily.Gold coins, by Gelo some still extant).Jacob.

480Persia.Gold coin, by Darius (two still extant).Ibid.

478Sicily.Gold coin, by Hiero (some still extant).Ibid.

407Athena.Debased gold coins, foreign.MacLeod, 476.

400Sparta.Iron, overvalued.Bœckh.

360Macedonia.First gold coins coined in Greece, by Philip.Jacob.

266Rome.First silver coins coined in Rome.Ibid.

54Britain.Pieces of iron.Ibid.

50Rome.Tin and brass coin.Dic. of Dates.

UncertainArabia.Glass coins.N. Y. Tribune. July 2, 1872.

Period following the failure of the ancient mines.

Period.Country.Substance used as money.Authority.

A.D. 212Rome. (Caracalla.)Lead coins silvered, and copper coins gilded.Anonymous.

1066Britain.Living money, or human being made a legal tender for debts at about £2 16s. 3d., per capita.Henry's History of Great Britain, vol. iv, p. 243.

1160Italy.Paper invented; bills of exchange introduced by the Jews.Anderson.

1240Milan, Italy.Paper bills a legal tender.Arthur Young.

1275China.Paper bills a legal tender.Marco Polo.

Africa, part of."Machutes" (ideal money; this view doubted.)Montesquieu.

1470Granada, Spain.Paper bills a legal tender.Irving.

1574Holland.Pasteboard bills, representative. Dic. of Dates.

UncertainIceland.Dried fish.Anonymous.

UncertainNewfoundland.Codfish, dried.Anonymous.

UncertainNorway and Greenland.Seal skins and blubber.Anonymous.

UncertainHindostan and parts of Africa.Cowry shells.Jacob, 372.

UncertainNorth America Indian tribes.Agate, carnelian, jasper, lead, copper, gold, silver, terra-cotta, mica, pearl, lignite, coal, bone, shells, chalcedony, wampumpeag, etc.Anonymous.

UncertainOriental pastoral tribes.Cattle, grain, etc.Anonymous.

UncertainAbyssinia.Salt.Anonymous.

UncertainChina and India.Rice.Anonymous.

UncertainIndia.Paper bills.Patterson, p. 13.

UncertainChina.Pieces of silk cloth.Ibid.

UncertainAfrica.Strips of cotton cloth.Ibid.

Not stated.Wooden tallies or checks.Ibid.

Period following the discovery of the American mines.

Period.Country.Substance used as money.Authority.

A.D. 1631Massachusetts.Corn a legal-tender at market prices.Macgreggor.

1635Massachusetts.Musket-balls.Anonymous.

1690Massachusetts.Paper bills, colonial notes.Macgreggor.

1694England.Bank-notes.McCulloch.

1700Sweden.Copper and iron coins.Voltaire's Charles XII.

1702South Carolina.Colonial notes.Macgreggor.

1712South Carolina.Bank notes.Ibid.

1716France.Interconvertible paper bills a legal-tender.Murray.

1723Pennsylvania.Paper bills, colonial notes.Macgreggor.

1732Maryland.Indian corn a legal-tender at 23d. per bushel.Anonymous.

1732Maryland.Tobacco a legal-tender at 1d. per pound.Anonymous.

1776Scotland.Tenpenny nails for small change.Adam Smith.

1785Frankland, State of (now part of North Carolina).Linen at 3s. 6d. per yard, whisky at 2s. 6d. per gallon, and peltry as legal-tender.Wheeler's History of North Carolina, 94.

1810-1840All commercial countries.Great era of bank-paper bills.

1826Russia.Platinum coins (discontinued in 1845).App. Encyc.

1847Mexico, parts of.Cocoa beans; and at Castle of Perote, soap.Anonymous.

Period following the openings of California and Australia.

Period.Country.Substance used as money.Authority.

1849California.Gold dust by weight, also minute gold coins for small change, coined in private mints.

1855Australia.Gold dust by weight.

185-Communist settlement in Ohio, called "Utopia."Paper bills, each representing "one hour's labor."Private information.

1862United States.Paper bills a legal tender.Act of Feb. 25.

1863North Carolina.Tenpenny nails, at 5 cents each, for small change.Anonymous.

1863Camp at Florence, S. C.Potatoes for small change.Yorkville Enquirer.

1863United States.Postage-stamps for small change, temporary.

1865Philadelphia, Pa.Turnips for small change, temporary and local.Philadelphia Ledger, April.

1865United States.Nickel coins for small change, overvalued.Act of March 3.

An analysis of this table will show how carefully even the most primitive communities guarded against a too restricted money volume.

The materials chosen to serve the purpose of money in each country during the early history of society were, it will be observed, such as at the time and place would be of sufficient quantity or volume to insure against any sudden deprivation of supply. In countries where the chase was common, the skins of wild animals were used as money; in maritime communities, shells; in pastoral countries, cattle; in the early history of agriculture, grain; in early mining periods, base metal; in primitive manufacturing ages, nails, glass, musket-balls, strips of cotton, etc.

As communities developed, and commerce between them began, substances somewhat common to all countries, portable and indestructible, such as the precious metals, came to be more, and other substances less, resorted to. By reason of their great beauty those metals were always in demand, even among barbarous peoples, for purposes of ornament and decoration. Because of their universal use for such purposes they came to be recognized as things for which anything else could with safety be exchanged, and as society advanced, and it came to be recognized that some medium should be adopted in which to make all exchanges, those metals were naturally selected for the purpose, so that, together, they became, as it were, a common denominator of value. Their selection proved a convenient method of storing away wealth in a form that commanded at all times every other form of wealth. They had always passed by weight wherever used, but as society became better organized, and its methods more complex, it became necessary, in order to insure against fraud, to form them into pieces convenient for handling, and to invest them distinctly with the function of money, so that, by law, they became a universal solvent for debts and demands, the stamp of the government placed on the coin testifying to its weight and fineness.

Both metals, as shown by the table, have been concurrently used as money for thousands of years—not only since the dawn of history, but from a period anterior to any historical records. The oldest annals show that they had already been employed as circulating media and that their relative values, or the ratio of their exchange for one another, had already been established. Gold and silver were used as money in Palestine as early as the year 1900 B. C. We read in the Bible that Abraham weighed to Ephron the Hittite 400 shekels of silver, "current money with the merchant." An inscription on the temple of Karnak, of the date of 1600 B. C. mentions those metals as materials in which tribute was paid.

But long anterior even to these dates, both metals had been used, as, among the relics of the bronze age of the prehistoric era, ornaments of both gold and silver have been found. Gold, being the less abundant of the two metals, has had the higher value; but the ratio between the two has been marvelously steady, taking into account the great sweep of ages during which they have been used as money. This will be seen by reference to the following tables of ratios. I will first take their relative values during ancient times.

Table showing the ratio of gold and silver in various countries of the world up to the Christian era.

B. C.Ratio.Authorities.

1600 1 to 13.33 Inscriptions at Karnak; tribute lists of Thutmosis. (Brandis.)

708 1 to 13.33 Cuneiform inscriptions on plates found in foundation of Khorsabad.

1 to 13.33 Ancient Persian coins; gold darics at 8.3 grams = 20 silver siglos, at 5.5 grams.

500 1 to 13.00 Persia. Darius. Egyptian tribute. Herod. III,.95. (Bœckh, page 12.)

490 1 to 12.50 Sicily. Time of Gelon. "At least" 12.50. (Bœckh, page 44.)

470 1 to 10.00 Doubtful. Asia Minor. Xerxes's treasure. (Bœckh, page 11.)

440 1 to 13.00 Herodotus's account of Indian tributes. 360 gold talents = 4,680 silver.

420 1 to 10.00 Asia Minor. Pay of Xenophon's troops in silver darics. (Anab.; Bœckh, page 34.)

407 1 to —— Spurious and debased gold coins at Athens. (MacLeod, Polit. Econ., page 476; Bœckh, page 35.)

400 1 to 13.33 Standard in Asia, according to Xenophon.

400 1 to 12.00 Standard in Greece according to "Hipparchus"; attributed to Plato.

400 400 1 to 12.00 1 to 13.50 Various authorities adduced by Bœckh.

404-336 12.00 1 to 13.00 13.33 Values in Greece from the Peloponnesian war to the time of Alexander, according to hints in Greek writers. There were variations under special contracts—unit, the silver drachma.

340 1 to 14.00 Greece. Time of Demosthenese. (Bœckh, page 44.)

338-326 1 to 11.50 Special contracts in Greece.

343-323 1 to 12.50 Egypt under the Ptolemies.

300 1 to 10.00 Greece. Continued depression of gold, caused by great influx under Alexander.

207 1 to 13.70 Rome. (Bœckh, page 44.) Gold scriptulum arbitrarily fixed at 17.143 for 1.

100 1 to 11.91 Rome. General rate of gold pound to silver sesterces to date.

58-49 1 to 8.93 Rome. Continued depression of gold, caused by influx of Cæsar's spoil from Gaul. [N. B.—Cæsar's headquarters were at Aquileia, at the head of the Adriatic, where there was also a gold mine, which at this period became very prolific.]

50 1 to 11.90 Rome. "About the year U. C. 700," the rate was 11 19-21. (Bœckh, page 44.)

29 1 to 12.00 Rome. Normal rate in the last days of the republic.

By reference to the foregoing table it will be observed that the increase in the supply of gold in Europe, consisting of the spoils of the Orient, gathered by Alexander the Great, and brought by him to Greece, had the effect of decreasing the value of that metal so that instead of being exchangeable at the ratio of 1 to about 13½ of silver, as formerly, gold became depressed, 1 ounce of it exchanging for only 10 ounces of silver. Later, when Julius Cæsar extended his conquering arms into Gaul, and sent to Rome the accumulations of treasure amassed by him, the value of gold by reason of the increased supply was again depressed, so that an ounce of it was exchangeable for only 8.93 ounces of silver. With these exceptions it may be said that the relation of silver to gold for sixteen hundred years before the time of Christ had varied only from the ratio of 1 to 12 to that of 1 to 13.33. Silver at no time during all this period fell below 13.50 to 1 of gold.

Looking, now, at the relative values of gold and silver from the time of Christ to the discovery of America, we find the ratio between the two metals to be as follows:

Table showing the ratio of gold and silver in various countries of the world from the opening of the Christian era to the discovery of America:

A. D.Ratio.Authorities.

1-37 1 to 10.97 Rome. Rate under Augustus and Tiberius.

37-41 1 to 12.17 Rome. Reign of Caligula. The silver coinage much debased, consequently the ratio of the metals pure was about 1 to 11.

54-68 1 to 11.80 Rome. Reign of Nero.

69-79 1 to 11.54 Rome. Reign of Vespasian.

81-96 1 to 11.30 Rome. Reign of Domitian.

138-161 1 to 11.98 Rome. Reign of Antoninus.

312 1 to 14.40 Byzantium. Reign of Constantine. Arbitrary.

438 1 to 14.40 Byzantium and Rome. Theodosian code. Arbitrary.

864 1 to 12.00 Probable ratio, as shown by the Edictum Pistense, under the Carlovingian dynasty.

1260 1 to 10.50 Average ratio in the commercial cities of Italy. Local or doubtful.

1344-1660 1 to —— England. Numerous mint indentures given in McLeod's Political Economy, page 475. The ratio, except when fixed arbitrarily and in violation of market price, varied between about 1.12 and 1.14 during the two hundred and fifty-seven years included in this period.

1351 1 to 12.30 Ratio in North Germany as shown by the very accurate rules of the Lubeck mint, corroborated in the main by the accounts of the Teutonic Order of Knights, averaged in periods of forty years.

1375 1 to 12.40

1403 1 to 12.80

1411 1 to 12.00

1451 1 to 11.70

1463 1 to 11.60

1453-1494 1 to 10.50 Ratio according to the accounts of the Teutonic knights. As the ratio fixed in England by numerous mint indentures from 1465 to 1509 was about 1.12 this German ratio is considered local or doubtful.

It will thus be observed that during the one thousand four hundred and ninety-two years from the coming of Christ to the discovery of America, silver never went below the ratio of 14.40 to one of gold.

The relations which the metals have borne to each other since the discovery of the New World will appear from the following:

Table showing the relative values of gold and silver in the various countries of the world from the discovery of America to 1680.

A. D.Ratio.Authorities.

1497 1 to 10.70 Spain. Reign of Isabella. Edict of Medina. Local.

1500 1 to 10.50 Germany. Adam Riese's Arithmetic. Local or doubtful.

1551 1 to 11.17 Germany. Imperial mint regulations. Arbitrary or local.

1559 1 to 11.44 German Imperial mint regulations.

1561 1 to 11.70 France. Mint regulations.

1575 1 to 11.68

1623 1 to 11.74 Upper Germany. Mint regulations.

1640 1 to 13.51 France. Mint regulations. Transition period.

1665 1 to 15.10 France. Mint regulations.

1667 1 to 14.15 Upper Germany. Mint regulations. Doubtful.

1669 1 to 15.11 Upper Germany. Mint regulations.

1679 1 to 15.00 France. Mint regulations.

1680 1 to 15.40

Table showing the ratio of silver to 1 of gold from 1687 to the demonetization of silver by Germany and the United States and the closing of the Mints to its free coinage.

[From the Report (1890) of the Director of the U. S. Mint on the Production of the Precious Metals in the United States.]

[Note.—From 1687 to 1832 the ratios are taken from Dr. A. Soetbeer; from 1833 to 1878 from Pixley and Abell's tables; and from 1879 to 1889 from daily cable-grams from London to the Bureau of the Mint.]

Year.Ratio.Year.Ratio.Year.Ratio.Year.Ratio.

1687 14.94 1721 15.05 1755 14.68 1789 14.75

1688 14.94 1722 15.17 1756 14.94 1790 15.04

1689 15.02 1723 15.20 1757 14.87 1791 15.05

1690 15.02 1724 15.11 1758 14.85 1792 15.17

1691 14.98 1725 15.11 1759 14.15 1793 15.00

1692 14.92 1726 15.15 1760 14.14 1794 15.37

1693 14.83 1727 15.24 1761 14.54 1795 15.55

1694 14.87 1728 15.11 1762 15.27 1796 15.65

1695 15.02 1729 14.92 1763 14.99 1797 15.41

1696 15.00 1730 14.81 1764 14.70 1798 15.59

1697 15.20 1731 14.94 1765 14.83 1799 15.74

1698 15.07 1732 15.09 1766 14.80 1800 15.68

1699 14.94 1733 15.18 1767 14.85 1801 15.46

1700 14.81 1734 15.39 1768 14.80 1802 15.26

1701 15.07 1735 15.41 1769 14.72 1803 15.41

1702 15.52 1736 15.18 1770 14.62 1804 15.41

1703 15.17 1737 15.02 1771 14.66 1805 15.79

1704 15.22 1738 14.91 1772 14.52 1806 15.52

1705 15.11 1739 14.91 1773 14.62 1807 15.43

1706 15.27 1740 14.94 1774 14.62 1808 16.08

1707 15.44 1741 14.92 1775 14.72 1809 15.96

1708 15.41 1742 14.85 1776 14.55 1810 15.77

1709 15.31 1743 14.85 1777 14.54 1811 15.53

1710 15.22 1744 14.87 1778 14.68 1812 16.11

1711 15.29 1745 14.98 1779 14.80 1813 16.25

1712 15.31 1746 15.13 1780 14.72 1814 15.04

1713 15.24 1747 15.26 1781 14.78 1815 15.26

1714 15.13 1748 15.11 1782 14.42 1816 15.28

1715 15.11 1749 14.80 1783 14.48 1817 15.11

1716 15.09 1750 14.55 1784 14.70 1818 15.35

1717 15.13 1751 14.39 1785 14.92 1819 15.33

1718 15.11 1752 14.54 1786 14.96 1820 15.62

1719 15.09 1753 14.54 1787 14.92 1821 15.95

1720 15.04 1754 14.48 1788 14.65 1822 15.80

Year.Ratio.Year.Ratio.Year.Ratio.Year.Ratio.

1823 15.84 1836 15.72 1849 15.78 1861 15.50

1824 15.82 1837 15.83 1850 15.70 1862 15.35

1825 15.70 1838 15.85 1851 15.46 1863 15.37

1826 15.76 1839 15.62 1852 15.59 1864 15.37

1827 15.74 1840 15.62 1853 15.33 1865 15.44

1828 15.78 1841 15.70 1854 15.33 1866 15.43

1829 15.78 1842 15.87 1855 15.38 1867 15.57

1830 15.82 1843 15.93 1856 15.38 1868 15.59

1831 15.72 1844 15.85 1857 15.27 1869 15.60

1832 15.73 1845 15.92 1858 15.38 1870 15.57

1833 15.93 1846 15.90 1859 15.19 1871 15.57

1834 15.73 1847 15.80 1860 15.29 1872 15.63

1835 15.80 1848 15.85

By the foregoing table it will be seen that in the three hundred and seventy-five years from 1497 to 1872 the maximum separation of the metals was only as 1 to 16.25—notwithstanding the widest divergencies during that long period in the yield of the two metals from the mines. It will be observed that all the later quotations are from the London market, but it is a significant fact that in France, where, by the law of 7 Germinal, An XI, (1803,) free coinage was permitted to both metals, at the ratio of 15½ of silver to 1 of gold, for a period of seventy years, and until the coinage of silver was limited, there was at no time the slightest variance from that relation.

When silver was deprived of the full money function, and all the money-work of society was placed on gold, the metals began to separate. The following table shows the degree of that separation from year to year:

Table showing the ratio of silver to 1 of gold since the demonetization of silver by Germany and the United States, and the closing of all mints of the western world to its free coinage:

1873 15.92 1882 18.19

1874 16.17 1883 18.64

1875 16.59 1884 18.57

1876 17.88 1885 19.41

1877 17.22 1886 20.78

1878 17.94 1887 21.13

1879 18.40 1888 21.99

1880 18.05 1889 22.10

1881 18.16

The foregoing figures show that it is only since the legislative proscription of silver by Germany and the United States, and the closing of all the European mints to its coinage, that any material change took place in the ratio between the two metals, which conclusively demonstrates that the present divergence in the relative values of the two metals is directly due to the legal outlawry of silver and not to natural causes.

Not only has the concurrent use of the two metals as money had the sanction of all time, but the approval of the greatest minds of history, and, when not blinded by self-interest, the approval of practical and experienced financial minds. So well recognized is this fact that I need only cite a few instances of such approval.

Alexander Hamilton said:

To annul the use of either of the metals as money is to abridge the quantity of circulating medium, and is liable to all the objections which arise from a comparison of the benefits of a full with the evils of a scanty circulation. (Report to Congress, 1791.)

Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Hamilton, indorsed this view, saying:

I return you the report on the mint. I concur with you that the unit must stand on both metals. (Letter to Hamilton, February, 1792.)

In his "Recherches sur l'or et sur l'argent," 1843, Léon Fanchet said:

If all the nations of Europe adopted the system of Great Britain, the price of gold would be raised beyond measure, and we should see produced in Europe a most lamentable result. The Government can not decree that legal tender shall be only gold, in place of silver, for that would be to decree a revolution, and the most dangerous of all, because it would be a revolution leading to unknown results (qui marcherait vers l'inconnu).

In a memoir read before the French Institute in 1868, M. Wolowski said:

The suppression of silver would bring on a veritable revolution. Gold would augment in value with a rapid and constant progress, which would break the faith of contracts and aggravate the situation of all debtors, including the nation. It would add at one stroke of the pen at least three milliards to the twelve milliards of the public debt.

In a debate in the French Senate on January 28, 1870, Senator Dumas eloquently pleaded for caution in dealing with a subject of such farreaching importance as the demonetization of one of the money metals. He said:

Those who approach these questions for the first time decide them at once. Those who study them with care hesitate. Those who are obliged practically to decide doubt and stop, overwhelmed with the weight of the enormous responsibility.

The quantities of the precious metals which are now sufficient may become insufficient, and we should proceed with great prudence before we diminish that which constitutes a part of the riches of the human race. Sometimes gold takes the place of silver. Sometimes silver takes the place of gold. This keeps up the general equilibrium. Nobody can guaranty that the present vast production of gold will continue. The placers are found on the surface of the earth, and may be exhausted by the very facility of working them. Silver presents itself in the form of subterranean veins. Science may contribute to accelerate its extraction. In presence of the unknown, which dominates the future, we should practice a prudent reserve.

Before a French monetary convention in 1869 testimony was given by M. Wolowski, by Baron Rothschild, and by M. Rouland, governor of the Bank of France.

M. Wolowski said:

The sum total of the precious metals is reckoned at fifty milliards, one-half gold and one-half silver. If, by a stroke of the pen, they suppress one of these metals in the monetary service, they double the demand for the other metal, to the ruin of all debtors.

M. Rouland, governor of the Bank of France, said:

We have not to do with ideal theories. The two moneys have actually co-existed since the origin of human society. They co-exist because the two together are necessary, by their quantity, to meet the needs of circulation. This necessity of the two metals, has it ceased to exist? Is it established that the quantity of actual and prospective gold is such that we can now renounce the use of silver without disaster?

Baron Rothschild said:

The simultaneous employment of the two precious metals is satisfactory and gives rise to no complaint. Whether gold or silver dominates for the time being, it is always true that the two metals concur together in forming the monetary circulation of the world, and it is the general mass of the two metals combined which serves as the measure of the value of things. The suppression of silver would amount to a veritable destruction of values without any compensation.

At the session (October 30, 1873) of the Belgian Monetary Commission, Professor Laveleye, one of the most luminous writers on economic subjects, said:

Debtors, and among them the state, have the right to pay in gold or silver, and this right can not be taken away without disturbing the relation of debtors and creditors, to the prejudice of debtors, to the extent of perhaps one-half, certainly of one-third. To increase all debts at a blow (brusquement) is a measure so violent, so revolutionary, that I can not believe that the Government will propose it or that the Chambers will vote it.

WHY WAS THE AUTOMATIC SYSTEM INTERFERED WITH?

Some thirteen years ago, as Chairman of the Monetary Commission appointed by Congress to investigate the causes of the changes in the relative values of the precious metals, I submitted to this body a report, in which I took occasion to refer to the motives which evidently influenced the creditor classes of the western world in destroying the automatic system of money. From that Report I quote as follows:

The world has generally favored, theoretically if not practically, the automatic metallic system, and adjusted its business to it. Some nations adopted one metal as their standard, and some the other, and some adopted both. Those that adopted both metals served as a balance-wheel to steady with exactness their relative value. The practical effect of all of this was the same as if all nations had adopted both, because it secured the entire stock of both at a fixed equivalency for the transaction of the business of the world. While some nations have changed their money metal, or, having had paper money, have resumed specie payments in one metal, the policy of a general demonetization of one of the metals was first broached only about twenty years ago. About ten years later a formidable propaganda was organized to fasten that policy upon the commercial world.

This new school of financial theorists advocate the retention of metal as the material of money, but favor its subjection to governmental interference in every respect. Whenever new mines are discovered, or old ones yield or promise to yield more abundantly, instead of freely accepting their product in accordance with the automatic theory, they advocate its rejection through the restriction or the absolute prohibition of the coinage of either or both metals, or through the limitation or the abolition of the legal-tender function of one of them. Whenever the interests of the creditor and income classes seem to be in danger of being impaired by an increase in the volume and decrease in the value of money, or in other words, by a general rise in prices, these modern theorists are clamorous in double-standard countries for the demonetization of one of the money metals, and in single-standard countries for the shifting of the money function from the metal which promises the most to the one that promises the least abundant supply. They are extremely anxious for the retention of the material of which the money-standard is composed when such material is rising in value and prices are falling, and exceedingly apprehensive of the evil and inconvenience which they predict as sure to result from changing it.

Whenever a fall in prices occurs, through either a natural or artificial contraction in the volume of money, they maintain that it is due to antecedent inflation and extravagance, or to overproduction through persistent and reckless industry; if the contraction be natural, that it can not be helped, and if artificial, that though it may inflict great temporary losses on the masses of the people, it will be sure to result in their ultimate benefit, and they console the sufferers with the comforting assurance that such contraction is necessary in order to reach the lowest depths of that "hard pan" whose foundations they have previously undermined by demonetizing one of the metals, and upon which alone they claim that money, capital, and labor can securely and harmoniously rest. But when the material composing the standard is falling in value and prices are rising, they immediately discover that the maintenance of the value of the standard is the all-important consideration, and that its material is of no importance whatever and should be at once changed to "redress the situation." After having reduced one of the metals to a commodity by depriving it of the money function, these theorists complacently point to the resulting fluctuations in the value as a justification of the act producing them, and as a conclusive proof of the unfitness for money of the demonetized metal. * * *

Metallic money, on this theory, is no longer automatic, but is as completely subjected to governmental control for all injurious purposes as paper money. But, unlike paper money, the control over this kind of metallic money can only be exercised in the baneful direction of decreasing its volume, and thereby making property cheaper and money scarcer and dearer.

This is a one-sided system, which can operate only in the interest of the security creditor, the usurer, and pawnbroker, whom it enables, through the falling prices which itself occasions, to swallow up the shrunken resources of the debtor, but is impotent to protect the interests of the unsecured business creditor, the debtor, or society, when, from any cause, the supply of the money metals becomes deficient.

The world has expended a vast amount of labor in the production of the precious metals, and has made great sacrifices in upholding the automatic metallic system of money, and has a right to insist that it shall be consistently let alone to work out its own conclusions, or that it be abandoned.

The history of the subsequent struggle to remonetize silver only serves to illustrate and emphasize the correctness of that statement of the case.

Between 1810 and 1849, according to Tooke and Newmarch (recognized authorities on the subject), gold increased in value 145 per cent. which is equivalent to a fall in the general range of prices of 59 per cent. No movement was then made or suggestion offered by the debtors, or by any class of the community, to add any new money-metal to the metals already in use, with the view of increasing the volume of money, so that the equity of time contracts might be maintained, and the value of the unit of money kept at a steady and unchanging level.

But as soon as the discoveries of gold were made in the alluvial deposits of California and Australia, or rather as soon as it was suspected that money would thereby become considerably increased in volume, the annuitants and income classes, the creditors everywhere, took steps to avert what they characterized as a great calamity. They openly declared their purpose, by every means in their power, to prevent a decline in the value of money, so that the purchasing power of their incomes might not be reduced. They determined to go to any length in order to prevent the rise of prices which their aggressive instincts led them to fear would follow the additions to the money volume of the world by the natural and much needed yield of the mines.

The fiat therefore went forth that one of the metals must be discarded.

THE PROPOSITION FIRST MADE TO DEMONETIZE GOLD.

If anything were needed to demonstrate that the reason for the demonetization of silver was the cupidity of the creditor classes—the money-lenders, annuitants, and those in receipt of fixed incomes—and that it was not any defect inhering in the metal silver, nor any change in its adaptability to subserve the purposes of money, it is to be found in the significant fact that the metal first selected for demonetization was not silver but gold—that metal which has since become the idol of the money-changers, and which is now declared to be the only "natural" money. The openly-avowed determination was to increase the value of money, and in order to accomplish that purpose the metal which promised the largest yield was to be condemned and stripped of its ancient monetary function. So strongly was this determination set forth, so earnestly was it presented, and so urgently pressed on the ground of duty that its achievement came to be regarded as the fulfillment of a high moral purpose.

It was with gold then as it came to be with silver afterward, and as it always is with whatever interferes with the interests of privileged classes, intrenched in power and prerogative,—the determination to destroy it being arrived at, measures were taken to prove that the public good required its destruction. While the purpose was to discard the metal, whether gold or silver, which threatened most immediately and seriously to reduce the purchasing power of money, the argument was that a decrease in the purchasing power of money was a calamity against the happening of which every energy should be directed.

The privileged classes found then, as they find now, able and ingenious advocates and defenders among the literary and educated guilds of the period. The celebrated De Quincy, in England, attempted to prove, and to his own satisfaction did prove upon figures drawn from his fears and a brilliant imagination, that the least yield of gold to be expected from the mines of California and Australia for an indefinite period in the future, was the yearly sum of $350,000,000.

M. Chevalier, in France, vehemently proclaimed the necessity of discarding one of the money metals, and that one not silver but gold. In his work upon the "Fall of Gold" M. Chevalier, in 1856, said:

The quantity of gold annually thrown on the general market approaches in round numbers a milliard of francs ($200,000,000). Those two countries (California and Australia) must yet for a long series of years produce gold in such quantities and on such conditions as to render a marked decline in its value inevitable.

It is absolutely certain that so vast a production should be accompanied with a great reduction in value.

In no direction can a new outlet be seen sufficiently large to absorb the extraordinary production of gold which we are now witnessing, so as to prevent a fall in its value.

Unless, then, we possess a very robust faith in the immobility of human affairs, we must regard the fall in the value of gold as an event for which we should prepare without loss of time.

The "preparation" which Chevalier advocated was the discarding of that metal which gave promise of the greatest abundance. He did not attempt to hide his purpose. He boldly stated that his object was to enhance the value of money. This object was also clearly expressed on a later occasion by another distinguished advocate of dear money, Mr. Victor Bonnet, of France, in the Journal des Economistes. He said:

The world is now saturated with the precious metals, and if there is any danger against which it is necessary to guard, it is that this saturation should become greater. * * *

If the annual production of gold is now reduced to 500,000,000 francs, let us thank Heaven for it, and let us wish that it may not be too rapidly increased, whereby we should be embarrassed. It is the too great abundance and not the scarcity of metallic money which is to be apprehended.

GOLD DEMONETIZED.

In 1857 the German states and Austria demonetized gold; and had it not been for the opposition of France, which insisted on retaining the double standard, the movement might have become general on the continent. With England, however, nothing could be done. More than a generation had passed since it had declared for the single standard of gold, and its creditors and income classes—the shrewdest, most adept, and watchful of financiers—did not believe that the large yields of gold would long continue.

The creditor classes of the continent, finding England immovable and realizing that the object sought by the English creditors was identical with their own, namely, the increase in the value of money and the depression of prices, concluded that the common purpose could be as well served by the demonetization of one as by that of the other. This conclusion was emphasized by developments on the Comstock lode whose bountiful and beneficent yield of silver was the fitting supplement to the great discoveries of gold on the Pacific coast. The danger of a decline in the value of money was more imminent than ever. The annuitants became alarmed. Commissions were sent from Europe to the Pacific coast to investigate the subject. The United States, too, sent a commissioner to examine into the condition and prospects of the Comstock, and, imbued with many of the characteristics of De Quincey and Chevalier, the United States commissioner, in 1868, reported that if all other mines were worked with the machinery used on the Comstock "their yield would flood the world."

Like many of the present opponents of silver he was endowed with the gift of prophecy, and accordingly we find him confidently predicting that other and innumerable rich lodes of silver would be found on the Pacific coast which would be worked with great profit. The attack on gold was immediately changed to a combined attack on silver. From that period till the present no means have been left untried to belittle and degrade that metal, and also to disparage those who are in favor of continuing it as one of the money metals of the world.

It was then announced with all the dogmatism of authority that silver was unfit to be used as money. Defects were suddenly discovered in it that the scrutiny of three thousand years had failed to disclose. Its weight and bulk were found to be insuperable obstacles to its use as money. Yet the specific gravity of silver is no greater now than it has been for all the ages during which it has been used as money by all mankind, nor is it any heavier or more bulky than it was in 1851 or 1857, when Belgium, Germany, and Austria demonetized gold and made the "heavy," "bulky," and "inconvenient" metal, silver, their only money metal. Silver can now be transported from place to place with less risk and at no greater expense than gold, and at much less cost than at any previous period in the history of the world.

The objection that silver is too heavy for the pocket is an objection common to all metallic money. We see hardly any gold in circulation in this country—infinitely less than of silver. When our people have a choice as to the form in which they will take money they prefer paper representatives as being the most convenient. The extraordinary perfection to which the arts of the engraver and paper maker have been brought gives paper money a security against counterfeiting and imitation far superior to any immunity which can be claimed for the metals. The marvellous inventions of modern times in the form of safes and vault-locks render it a matter of practically no risk to store the metals, both silver and gold, so that paper representatives of them may be issued. These representatives are preferred by the general mass of the people, and have almost entirely occupied the channels of circulation to the exclusion of both metals. A silver certificate for $1,000 weighs no more than a gold certificate for the same amount.

THE MOTIVE FOR DEMONETIZING SILVER.

The motive for the demonetization of silver was precisely the same that had previously inspired the demonetization of gold. The object was to demonetize one of the metals—that metal which promised the greatest abundance, and which would contribute most largely to maintaining at an equitable level the general range of prices. The motive in both cases was to aggrandize the privileged classes—the income and the creditor classes of the world—and by means of a subtle and sinister manipulation of the money volume, whose effects it is not always easy to trace to their true cause, to practically confiscate the reward of the hard toil of the masses. To all intent and purpose the design was to establish a new system of slavery for the western world, of which the debtor classes among the white races should be the victims.

When demonetization was determined on there was no pretense that there was any difficulty in maintaining a parity between the two metals at the established ratio.

In the official résumé of the doings of the French monetary commission of 1869 the arguments upon both sides were summed up.

In behalf of the gold standard it was said:

The rise in price which has taken place within twenty years in a great number of articles of merchandise is evidently due to many causes, such as war, bad harvests, and increase in consumption; but it is very probable that the depreciation of the precious metals has contributed to it, since there has been a striking coincidence between the rise of prices and the production of the new mines of gold and silver. The annual production of the two metals, which was only $80,000,000 in 1847, exceeds now $200,000,000. It has nearly tripled, and it is easy to see that the real value of the metals has diminished. It is difficult to estimate exactly what the diminution is, but whatever it may be it demands the attention of governments, because it affects unfavorably all that portion of the population whose income, remaining nominally the same, undergoes a yearly diminution of purchasing power. As governments control the weight and standard of money, they ought so far as possible to assure its value. And as it is admitted that the tendency of the metals is to depreciate, this tendency should be arrested by demonetizing one of them.

In behalf of the double standard it was replied as follows:

Many economists argue that the precious metals, having become very abundant, have lost 10 or 15 per cent. of their value, and that the situation must be redressed by making money scarcer by demonetizing silver. To this it may be answered that the great discoveries of gold of the last twenty years have injured nobody. The new mass of gold, spreading over the whole world, has found employment in stimulating all forms of business, and, as a consequence, the value of gold has fallen very little. According to Mr. Newmarch, the mass of gold and silver has augmented 3 per cent. per annum, while the mass of exchanges has augmented more than 3 per cent. per annum, so that the equilibrium has been maintained. And the present is an especially inopportune time to demonetize silver, because the annual production of gold has been falling off for several years. It was $200,000,000 in 1853, and it is now not more than $140,000,000. What will happen to the civilized world if silver is demonetized and if gold shall then fail?

THE MOTIVE OF ENGLAND.

England did not adopt the gold standard until she was in a position to become the principal creditor nation. When her forges, furnaces, spindles, and looms were ready to supply manufactured goods to all the world, she saw that all countries and peoples would be compelled to pour their treasures into her lap. Her insular position and great navy guarantied her against external assault. Released from the anxieties and labors incident to the Napoleonic wars, with a sturdy population of trained mechanics, and with fields of coal and iron in abundance, she was well adapted to become the "workshop of the world." With colonial possessions in every sea, and with Continental Europe in ceaseless unrest, England could rely on customers who could themselves produce nothing but raw material and would be obliged to buy her finished products.

The field of industry had been recently broadened by basic inventions of unparalleled importance—the steam-engine, the power loom, the spinning-jenny, and a multiplicity of other devices that increased a hundred fold the efficiency of artisan labor. England knew that her trade would in the main be a foreign trade and her financial dealings largely with foreign governments. She knew that from the people of the continent, impoverished by years of struggle for existence against the attacks of Napoleon, she could not expect immediate payments in cash, or in commodities. Time bonds and other deferred obligations were the media in which for the most part she received pay, she made interest and principal payable in gold alone, and if before the date of payment the value of money should increase it would not be to the disadvantage of the creditor. Whatever we may think of the ethics of this policy, we can have no difficulty in understanding its motive.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE MOTIVE.

As to the object which England had in view in demonetizing silver we are left in no sort of doubt. It has been candidly admitted by many of her financiers and publicists. The reason for her stolid adherence to the gold standard now is the same for which she originally demonetized silver. Her income and creditor classes are daily in receipt of an unearned increment to their wealth by reason of that demonetization. More candid than the advocates in this country of the single gold standard, the writers and press of Great Britain openly avow the object. No better testimony to the fact can be adduced than that supplied by the royal commission appointed in 1886 to inquire into the changes in the relative values of the precious metals.

At page 90, Part II, of the final report of that body, section 128, the commission say:

It must be remembered, too, that this country is largely a creditor country, of debts payable in gold, and any change which entails a rise in the price of commodities generally; that is to say, a diminution of the purchasing power of gold would be to our disadvantage.

Before the British Royal Commission of 1868 on International Coinage, Mr. Jacob Behren, an eminent British merchant and member of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, after answering special and technical questions, was asked, in conclusion, "if there was anything else he wished to state." His reply was (p. 13):

I would only state that, in my opinion, the general introduction of gold all over the world has been one of the greatest possible blessings to England. I believe that England would be now the very poorest country in the world if the silver standard abroad had been kept up, and gold had not been generally introduced. Gold would otherwise have been very much reduced in value, and we should have had all the gold poured into England. All the debts owing to us would have been paid in the depreciated currency; and, therefore, I believe that England ought to have taken the lead in the introduction of a gold currency abroad. We ought to be very thankful that it has been introduced, and we ought to give every facility to its circulation.

Sir Lyon Playfair, in a speech delivered in the English Parliament on April 18, 1890, according to the report in the London Times of the day following, said that—

The true policy of England as the chief creditor nation of the world was to keep perfect independence, and to refuse participation in any entangling conference on our monetary system.

And, according to the same report, Sir Lyon Playfair, referring to the holding of the metals together by law, said that—

It was quite true that, if you yoked a cart-horse to a racer, the strength of both would be increased but the speed of the racer would be sacrificed.

Gold is the "racer" whose "speed" must not be sacrificed, no matter how much injury may be effected by its tendency to greater and greater gain.

The weight of the enormous burden which is imposed on gold can not be better illustrated than by a statement of this same Sir Lyon Playfair, made in the same speech. According to the London Times of April 19, he said that—

The liabilities of the banks of Great Britain to the public amounted to £621,000,000, or about the amount of the national debt of England; but the amount of coin or bullion to meet this liability was only £35,000,000; or, deducting from each side of the account £8,000,000 locked up in the Notes Department of the Bank of England, it was £27,000,000; or only 4½ per cent. of liabilities.

On the same occasion Mr. Goschen, Chancellor of the Exchequer, delivered an able speech, in which he gave his facts, his eloquence, and his logic to the struggling masses of his countrymen by maintaining the wisdom of remonetization of silver, but gave his conclusions and his policy to the creditor classes by recommending no disturbance of present conditions.

I have contended—

said the Chancellor of the Exchequer—

and am prepared still to contend, that I should prefer the currency of the world to depend upon two metals rather than upon one metal. To those views I gave expression in 1878. * * * I have always looked upon silver and gold not as antagonistic to each other; not as being metals the price of one of which would necessarily fall when the other rose, but I have looked upon them as partners who together were doing the work of the currency of the world.

The English creditor classes have not been without able coadjutors in this country. We have noticed for the last twelve or fourteen years that zealous advocates of the gold standard, the advantages of which are not confined to Great Britain, are to be found among the creditor classes of the United States.

If the toilers of this country, from the proceeds of whose labor these exactions have to be paid, had as little influence on the legislation of the United States as the toilers of England have on the legislation of that country, the creditor classes and financiers of the United States might be as frank as those of Great Britain in admitting the object of maintaining the single gold standard.

How graphically, though unintentionally, does the English poet, Waller, in the following verse, express the advantage which the gold standard gives to creditors everywhere, and the self-satisfaction with which they contemplate life:

THE MOTIVE OF GERMANY.

When Germany, intoxicated by her victory over France, and in order to further cripple a fallen foe from whom she had exacted $1,000,000,000 in gold, demonetized silver, she inflicted on her people by the fall of prices consequent on the increase in the value of money, more misery than all her armies of horse and foot had been able to inflict on France. France, on the contrary, notwithstanding this unprecedented war tribute, by keeping a sufficient volume of money in circulation to maintain, and even advance, her range of prices, emerged in a few years from the consequences of the greatest disaster in her history, conscious of a triumph more complete than Germany had achieved by all the military splendor of the war. The ransom exacted of France was received back by her almost as soon as paid, in exchange for the products of her industry. It is not a sign of prosperity, Mr. President, when hundreds of thousands of people, the best bone and sinew of a nation, are found annually emigrating; and it is a coincidence which I merely mention, in passing, that as soon as the effects of demonetization of silver had had time to make themselves felt in Germany, a veritable hegira of its people took place.

From 1873 to 1889, the emigration from Germany numbered 1,546,000 persons.

Students of social science everywhere recognize the statistics of illegitimacy and of suicides as among the most powerful evidences of monetary distress. By reference to those statistics we find that notwithstanding the large emigration during that period the number of illegitimate births in Germany increased from 161,294 in 1883 to 169,645 in 1888. The suicides in Prussia, Bavaria, Saxony, and Baden—the leading states of the German Empire—increased from 179 for each million of population in 1868 to 196 for each million of the population in 1876 and to 218 for each million of the population in 1882. In Prussia alone the number of suicides in 1876 was 151 per million, while in 1882 it was 191 per million.

This is part of the price which the toiling masses of Germany are paying for the gold standard experiment, which, without their consent their imperial government foisted upon them.

Bismarck made the mistake that many able men in all countries of the western world have made and continue to make, namely, that of attributing the commanding position of Great Britain in the commercial and industrial world to her adoption of the gold standard. Bismarck mistook for cause and effect what was a mere coincidence, the result of exceptional conditions, as did those of our legislators in 1873, who happened to know anything whatever of the nature of the act demonetizing silver. The belief of some of the most far-sighted statesmen of Great Britain has been that she secured her position, not by reason of the gold standard, but in spite of it.

In a speech delivered at Glasgow, in November, 1873, after the alteration by Germany in her monetary standard, Mr. Disraeli said:

The monetary disturbance which has occurred, and is now to a certain extent acting very injuriously upon trade, I attribute to the great changes which the Governments of Europe are making in reference to their standard of value. Our gold standard is not the cause of our commercial prosperity, but the consequence of that prosperity. It is quite evident that we must prepare ourselves for great convulsions in the money market, not occasioned by speculation or any of the old causes which have been alleged, but by a new cause with which we are not sufficiently acquainted.

And again in March, 1879, when the effects of the decreasing volume of money were making themselves more and more felt, Mr. Disraeli, then Lord Beaconsfield, said:

All this time the produce of the gold mines of Australia and California has been regularly diminishing, and the consequence is that, while these great alterations on the continent in favor of a gold currency have been made, notwithstanding that increase of population which alone requires a considerable increase of currency to carry on its transactions, the amount of the currency itself is yearly diminishing, until a state of affairs has been brought about by gold production exactly the reverse of that which it produced at first. Gold is every day appreciating in value, and as it appreciates the lower become prices. It is not impossible that, as affairs develop, the country may require that some formal investigation should be made of the causes which are affecting the value of the precious metals, and the effect which the change in the value of the precious metals has upon the industries of the country, and upon the continual fall of prices.

In reaching their conclusions, Bismarck and others ignored the fundamental principle that a gold supply that might be sufficient for one country with a gold standard, and might even result in a measure of prosperity to that country, would be wholly insufficient if other countries should adopt the same standard and should enter upon a keen competition and rivalry for the acquisition of gold.

The adoption of that standard by Germany and France was therefore not only destructive of their own prosperity, but was a stunning blow at the prosperity of England and all other gold-using countries. In taking England for his model, Bismarck had not the condition of the toiling masses before his mind, but the glamour of prosperity which surrounded the creditor-barons.

The unprejudiced observer can not fail to perceive that the $370,000,000 coined under the Limited Coinage Act of the United States of 1878, supplementing the gold stock of the western world, postponed great industrial and financial crises. But the elements of these crises are gathering, and, unless relief be soon forthcoming, will burst upon the world with crushing severity.

DEMONETIZATION IN THE UNITED STATES.

If we are surprised that the sordid selfishness of the privileged classes of Europe should have induced them to perpetrate so gross an act of injustice, we are reminded that the legislation of monarchical countries has usually been controlled in the interest of the privileged classes. But what shall be said in defense of the demonetization of silver by the United States? No such stupendous act of folly and injustice was ever before perpetrated by the representatives of a free people.

Our position differed materially from that of Great Britain. This was not a creditor nation. Our people did not, and do not, own thousands of millions of dollars of foreign bonds, on which to receive semi-annual interest in a constantly appreciating money, which would have to be paid from the current earnings of foreign labor. Instead, therefore, of our demonetization unjustly enriching our creditor-classes at the expense of foreigners, it enabled the creditors at home here to rob and despoil the debtors among their own countrymen. Instead of despoiling the Canadian, the Australian, the East Indian, the Egyptian, or the Turk, the spoliation arranged for by our adoption of the gold standard was a spoliation of the debtors in our own communities. In so far, however, as our debt was held abroad, it provided for a spoliation of our citizens by the foreign bondholders also. And as nearly all our public debt was so held, we had presented to us in 1873 the extraordinary spectacle of representatives, sent here to enact laws for the welfare and advancement of our own people, devoting all their energies, whether aware of it or not, to the upbuilding of the fortunes of the moneyed aristocracies of other countries, at the expense of the producers of the United States.

CONDITION OF THE COUNTRY AT THE TIME.

Consider for a moment the condition of this country at the time when this amazing piece of legislation was enacted.

The Republic was but just recovering from an exhausting war, which loaded it with a national debt approaching $3,000,000,000. There were also State, county, city, and town debts aggregating many more thousands of millions, with railroad and other corporate bonds and debts aggregating yet other thousands of millions and private debts of indefinite and unascertainable amount, represented largely by mortgages on real estate. This constituted an aggregate whose burden might naturally be presumed to be sufficient to tax all the resources of the people. Although some portion of those debts has been liquidated and the national bonds have been refunded at lower rates of interest, yet we all know that in this age all municipal and corporate debts, if not national debts, are practically perpetual. No sooner is one form of bond liquidated than another takes its place; no sooner is one public improvement completed than another is begun.

At the time silver was demonetized it might well have been supposed that a sufficiently large unearned increment had already been realized by the foreign and domestic holders of United States bonds. The greater portion of the debt of the Government was, when incurred, made payable simply in "lawful money"—the interest alone being payable in coin. Yet in March, 1869, the bond-holders secured the passage of an act of Congress, entitled "An act to strengthen the public credit," containing a pledge to pay in coin or its equivalent not merely the interest, but the principal of all national obligations not specially provided to be paid otherwise.

THE COURSE OF THE CREDITORS.

And again, when in 1870 Congress was about to provide for a refunding of the public debt, these clamorous creditors, not satisfied with having got the bonds at rates much below their face value, and not satisfied with the pledge to pay in coin—a pledge made long after the contract was made and the debt incurred—insisted that not only should the new bonds be payable in coin, but in order to guard against any possible interpretation which might work to their detriment they did what has rarely been done in the history of monetary legislation, insisted that even the very standard of that coin should be fixed and nominated in the bond. They were willing to take no chances. They were not willing to place confidence in the sense of equity and fair dealing of the people of the United States. They held before Congress the covert threat that if the new issue of bonds did not provide for payment in "coin," instead of "lawful money," and did not prescribe the precise standard of coin in which they were to be payable, it would be difficult if not impossible to place the bonds on the market.

So, by the refunding act of July 14, 1870, Congress provided for the payment in "coin of the present standard value," that is to say, in either gold dollars of 25.8 grains of gold, nine-tenths fine, or in silver dollars of 412½ grains of silver, nine-tenths fine, at the option of the United States. But even this extreme advantage to the creditors over payment in "lawful money" of the United States, in which the bonds were bought, and in which they were legally payable, was insufficient. All but the most ingenious would imagine that having thus provided for payment in coin then bearing a considerable premium over the current money of the Republic, and having the very standard of that coin fixed in the act, the highest point of vantage had been reached. One device, however, and only one, remained by which the money of the payment could be still further increased in value, and this device did not escape the watchful eye or cunning hand of the public creditors.

They clearly saw that if by legislative enactment they could secure the rejection of one of the money-metals they would succeed in enormously increasing the value of the metal retained. This they accomplished by the demonetization of silver, and thus by striking down one-half the automatic money of the world and devolving the money function exclusively on the other half, added thousands of millions of dollars to the burden of the debt.

THE PRETENSE TO "STRENGTHEN THE PUBLIC CREDIT."

It will be observed that this anxiety to strengthen the public credit was evinced by the bondholders after and not before the bonds were in their possession. No anxiety for the public credit was manifested by them at a time when the Government might be able to reap advantage from it. The Government having parted with the bonds at a heavy discount, their selling price in the market became a matter of no direct pecuniary importance to the people of the United States.

The "strengthening of the public credit" that was to be effected by the act of March 16, 1869, consisted of a rise in the price of the bonds for the benefit of the holder, at a time when they were no longer the property of the Government but of private individuals. The real effect of the act, therefore, was not in any way to benefit the Government but greatly to enrich, by an increment unearned and unbargained for, a few men who had already been greatly enriched by their dealings with the United States. The title of the act should have read "An act to strengthen the bank account and credit of the holders of United States bonds."

The excuse and apology for the act was that by its passage the refunding process then contemplated, and afterward provided for by the refunding act of 1870 might be rendered more certain of success; but if any advantage accrued from that cause, it was lost, and much more with it, by the increase which the act of 1869 effected in the burden of the bonded obligation, by pledging the nation to a payment in a medium much more valuable than the medium provided for in the contract. And, again, in 1873 when all the bonds provided for by the refunding act of 1870 had been sold and had passed out of the hands of the Government, another act was passed, intended by the money-lenders again to strengthen the public credit, and again to the disadvantage of the people and to the exclusive and enormous advantage of the bondholders. It bore the innocent title of "An act revising and amending the laws relative to the mints, assay offices, and coinage of the United States." This act, bearing on its face no suggestion of any change more serious than that of regulating the petty details of mint management, has proved to be an act of momentous consequence to the people of this country. This is the act that demonetized the silver dollar, which it did by merely omitting that coin from the enumeration of the coins of the United States.

DEMONETIZATION WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIABLE.

Among all the explanations that have been made to account for that demonetization by a Congress of the United States, I have never heard any reason advanced which constituted a justification for it. To my mind, in view of all the circumstances—in the face of the herculean difficulties by which the nation was surrounded, in the face of the sacrifices which our citizens had made to preserve the Republic, and in the face of all that had already been done by an over-generous people, proud of their national strength, and jealous of their national honor, to satisfy the rapacious demands of the money-lenders—in view, I say, of all these facts, the demonetization of silver by the United States must be regarded as one of those historic blunders that are worse than crimes. It was the child of Ignorance and Avarice, and is already the prolific parent of enforced idleness, poverty, and misery.

It is to undo as far as possible the effects of the blunder of 1873 that new legislation is now imperatively demanded by the people. While the past can not be recalled, the present is ours, and the pressing duty of to-day is to provide for the future. The demand comes from all sections of the country that a remedy for the depressed industrial conditions caused by the legislation of 1873, be applied at the earliest moment. And what better remedy could be applied than absolutely to reverse that legislation and to put the monetary position of this country back to exactly where it was when that wrong was committed?

Some twelve years ago an attempt was made to apply a remedy, but the attempt was only partially successful. Instead of resulting in free coinage, it resulted in the passage of the bill which authorized the coinage of not less than two nor more than four million dollars' worth of silver per month. On that occasion a financial debate of great interest and importance was had in this Chamber and in the other House of Congress. The proposition to remonetize silver or to increase the silver coinage was vigorously opposed, but the arguments then presented by the advocates of remonetization never have been, and never can be, refuted.

In fact, but rarely has there been any attempt made to answer those arguments. Puerile attempts at wit, and diatribes of abuse are all that the silver men have heard in sixteen years in answer to the contentions they have made in favor of the remonetization of silver.

EDUCATIONAL EFFECT OF DISCUSSION.

With that debate, Mr. President, long pending and eagerly maintained on both sides, there began in this country an educational movement among the masses, that is destined to have far-reaching consequence. The public attention was fastened, as it had never been fastened before, on the subject of money, and on the forces which govern its value, and up to this time that attention has never flagged. As a result we find the great body of our people to-day—the farmers and artisans of the country—after years of reflection and discussion in their lyceums and trade organizations, adopting to a large extent the views then presented by the advocates of an increased money volume—views which at the time were contemptuously derided by the advocates of contraction and of gold.

The cry for relief appropriately now comes from the farmers, the artisans, and the laboring classes, as well as from the young, the enterprising, the thoughtful, of all classes, who have not inherited wealth, but are hewing out for themselves the rugged path to success. It is they who have had to bear the exactions of the system which has prevailed. It is from the proceeds of their labor that the extortions have been paid. If objection be made that the character of relief proposed is not indorsed in financial circles, or by the literary guild or professional political economists that surround them, the sufficient reply is that the world can not wait for the correction of abuses by those who are profiting by them. In the nature of things, all movements for reform must be initiated by those who can not lose by the installation of justice.

But there are others besides the laboring masses who are working in the cause of humanity. There are noble, unselfish, and altruistic men in all the countries of civilization, who see the wrong and are indefatigable in their efforts to set it right.

I will read a cable dispatch recently addressed to me by Mr. Henry H. Gibbs, formerly governor of the Bank of England, and now president of the Bimetallic League of Great Britain:

London, May 6.—The friends of silver deeply regret the death of Senator Beck, whose services in the cause of monetary reform are warmly appreciated on this side of the Atlantic. The bimetallist party of the United Kingdom, now including over one hundred members of the House of Commons, attach the greatest value to the debate about to commence in your illustrious chamber. We fully recognize not only that the support afforded to silver by your legislation during the last twelve years has helped the protect the industrial world from an acute monetary crisis, but also that the debates in Congress have served more than all else to educate our people to recognition of the important issues involved. We believe also that the increase and coinage of silver contemplated by Congress will restore, wholly or considerably, your coinage rates, and will thus make international settlement of this complex question comparatively easy. We anticipate further and with much confidence, that the advance in the price of silver which must follow your action will stimulate both the export and the other trades of your country, and, while tending to the prosperity of your agricultural classes, will also assist the manufacturing industries of the United Kingdom and the whole body of our wage-earners.

Mr. Moreton Frewen, of London, an able writer on economic subjects, whose recent work on the "The Economic Crisis" I commend to the careful perusal of Senators, says:

It may, indeed, be affirmed, without fear of contradiction, that legislation arranged in the interest of a certain class, first by Lord Liverpool in this country, and again by Sir Robert Peel at the instigation of Mr. Jones Loyd and other wealthy bankers, which was supplemented recently by simultaneous anti-silver legislation in Berlin and Washington at the instance of the great financial houses—this legislation has about doubled the burden of all national debts by an artificial enhancement of the value of money.

The fall of all prices induced by this cause has been on such a scale that while in twenty years the National debt of the United States quoted in dollars has been reduced by nearly two-thirds, yet the value of the remaining one-third, measured in wheat, in bar iron, or bales of cotton, is considerably greater—is a greater demand draft on the labor and industry of the nation than was the whole debt at the time it was contracted. The aggravation of the burdens of taxation induced by this so-called "appreciation of gold," which is no natural appreciation, but has been brought about by class legislation to increase the value of the gold which is in a few hands, requires but to be explained to an enfranchised democracy, which will know how to protect itself against further attempts to contract the currency and to force down prices to the confusion of every existing contract.

Of all classes of middle-men, bankers have been by far the most successful in intercepting and appropriating an undue share of produced wealth. While the modern system of banking and credit may be said to be even yet in its infancy, that portion of the assets of the community which is to-day in the strong boxes of the bankers would, if declared, be an astounding revelation of the recent profits of this particular business; and not only has the business itself become a most profitable monopoly, but its interests in a very few hands are diametrically opposed to the general interests of the majority. By legislation intended to contract the currency and force down all prices, including wages, the price paid for labor, the money owner has been able to increase the purchase power of his sovereign or dollar by the direct diminution of the price of every kind of property measured in money.