People's Pilot, Volume 4, Number 6, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 27 July 1894 — TRUE BIMETALLISM. [ARTICLE]

TRUE BIMETALLISM.

The System of France and Mexico Contrasted—The Concurrent Circulation of Both Metals a Necessity. To understand the meaning- of the term bimetallism we must get its essential idea, that without which it would not be bimetallism, but something else. To get at this let us examine the money system of France as it existed for seventy years before 1873. To this system the term bimetallism has been chiefly applied. Every one admits that system to be true bimetallism. Most all the, praise given to bimetallism has been given to the system existing there. Now, in the bimetallism of France there were four marked features: First. Free and unlimited coinage of gold and silver. Second. Both metals unlimited legal tender. Third. A ratio of valuation at which gold and silver were coined. Fourth. Concurrent circulation of the two metals. No one can deny that all these features were present. The question is, were they all essential to bimetallism? Will the first three conditions give true bimetallism? If the last question put be answered in the affirmative, then Mexico has bimetalism to-day. The first three mentioned features of bimetallism, as it existed in France, exist in Mexico to-day. It is true that gold may be coined in Mexico, but it is not. Silver alone is coined. This brings us to the question: Is a single standard compatible with bimetallism? There is a marked difference between the influence that the bimetallism of France had and the influence of the bimetallism that Mexico has. While bimetallism existed in France stability was given to the ratio of the two metals throughout the world. The bimetallism of Mexico has absolutely no influence on the ratio. This difference in influence is a marked one and certainly one of importance. It, to my mind, differentiates the bimetallism of France from that of Mexico. The marked difference between the systems of France and of Mexico is the result of a fundamental difference in their standards. In Mexioo the st&nd-

j ard is dependent on one metal —silver. 1 In France the standard was not dependent on either gold or silver, but on both. It was a bimetal lie standard. It was not two standards, but one standard of two metals. This standard was formed by binding together the two metals in bonds which could not be broken except by the general refusal to continue the common rights and privileges to one of the metals. This bond uniting the metals must exist if the bimetalic standard is to exist. i As long as the bimetallic standard continues to exist, it controls the ratio of value of the two metals throughout the world. It was the existence of the bimetallic standard in France that prevented a greater fluctuation than three per cent, between the value of our coins during the changes of standard in the United States. It was not the so-called bimetallism of this country that prevented greater changes. If such bimetallism as the United States had because of its own laws prevented greater fluctuations, why does not the similar bimetallism of Mexico prevent this? The idea of the bimetallic standard was the essence of the bimetallism of France. The praises given to bimetallism are merely given conditional upon the continuance of the bimetallic i standard. Mr. Buchanan, in his book, praises this idea in his illustration of the varying yardsticks combined into one, so that the expansion of the one is balanced by the snrinKage oi Uic other, thus forming an unvarying mpannw But. if th® bimetallic standard is the distinguishing feature of the bimetallism of France, which is always set up as a model for bimetallists, and if this standard be the feature which gives , the valuable qualities of bimetallism, it seems to me that it ought to form the distinguishing feature of the definition of bimetallism. I do not see how any system which dpes not possess the bimetallic standard can be rightly called true bimetallism. But if I am right so far, then it follows as a necessary consequence that the concurrent circulation of both metals is necessary to have bimetallism. Without concurrent circulation of the two metals there can be no bimetallic standard. Where one metal circulates at its bullion value, there that metal is the standard. This standard may, under such a condition, be gold or it may be silver, but it never can be a bimetallic standard. It must be understood that I do not for onte moment claim that concurrent circulation of gold and silver alone gives bimetallism. Concurrent circulation of the two metals exists nearly everywhere, but nowhere is there concurrent circulation of two metals at their bullion values. But if there be concurrent circulation of the two metals, and also the other three conditions for bimetallism which have been mentioned above, then there will exist a bimetallic standard and we will again have bimetallism.—Telluride (Col.) Cor. Denver News.