People's Pilot, Volume 4, Number 16, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 5 October 1894 — ABOUT PARITY. [ARTICLE]

ABOUT PARITY.

U It Cannot Be Maintained at 16 to 1 How Can It Be at Any Greater Ratio? A correspondent writes in regard to the silver question: “What would be pained by changing the present ratio? Would we have any standard at all if we follow the rise and fall of gold and silver bullion? Is not the term ‘parity’ j used to confuse the mind of the average voter?” Our correspondent touches on a question that is both interesting and iinportant. There is an element in Georgia—a very small one, to be sure — that wjmts silver coined at its present commercial value. Congressman Turner suggested as a compromise a ratio of 20 to 1, but he admitted that such a ratio would not be the correct one. But if the mints were opened t d the coinage of silver at the present commercial value of the white metal, how long would it be maintained? If “parity” cannot be maintained at a ratio of 16 to 1, how can it be maintained at 20 to 1, or 30 to 1, or any other ratio? There are nuts in these inquiries that none of the ignoramuses who affect to be so anxious about parity has presumed to crack. We present them briefly to the “parity” brethren to show them that they have fallen into a trap of their own construction.

It must >e clear to any sensible person that ij the mints of the United States wer*s opened to the free coinage of silver at a ratio based on its present commercial value, its price Wbuld immediately rise. The calls for between sixty .and:ninety millions of ounces a year, and-ihjs demand, supplemented by the demand at the mints, would enhance its price. Then what would become of “parity?” It is remarkable that at least a few of those who have been overcome by the importance of the term “parity” have not found the means of discovering that it is not technically applicable to commodity values. It is remarkable, too, that the fact has never dawned on their mints that the commercial price of the metals is of comparatively little'importance to the governments in fixing a ratio between them. A Georgia journalist gravely announced that, a phrase' used by the Constitution —“the parity of prices and money values”—was nonsense. But the truth is the fixing of .a ratio between the two money metals is always for the purpose of maintaining a just level of prices. The object of bimetallism is to compel the two money metals to act as balance wheels to each other, so that if one metal shows a tendency to become more valuable, the other metal is ready to take its place, and keep prices and debts at the level prescribed by justice and fair dealing. On the part of the element which has been demanding an international agreement, the idea seems to be to fall back behind the term “parity,” and from that position to juggle with the whole question and obscure the minds of the average voter who cares less for details than he does for results. This course can have no possible effect on the ultimate success or failure of the demand for the free coinage of silver. No sensible voter can be made to believe that the use of the word “parity” is for the purpose of enabling the party leaders to violate its silver pledge. The platform itself shows clearly that the coined and paper dollar are to be kept at a parity.—Atlanta Constitution.