People's Pilot, Volume 4, Number 22, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 16 November 1894 — A GOLD-BUG PLEA. [ARTICLE]

A GOLD-BUG PLEA.

An Eastern Gold Standard Paper Aptly Answered. The New York Times, which more than any other American Journal represents English interests in the United States, has extravagant commendations for a new book on “bimetallism” by Henry Dunning MacLeod, the extraordinary views of W’hieh suggest the probability that it has been written to order for the London money power. The introductory remarks of the Times will sufficiently indicate the animus of that paper and the estimate it places upon the intelligence or credulity of its readers. “If we expect those persons who have proprietary and personal, and, therefore selfish, interests in the silver question,” says that journal, “there is no longer any support by intelligent men of the proposition that it is practicable for any country, acting by itself, to adopt what is known as bimetallism. There is, of course, in each country where the silver question is mooted a body of ill-informed, illogical and misguided persons, who are bimetallists because they do not know any better, but their opinions are of no importance, and nobody considers them in discussing the matter of metallic currency.” If it is true that only those having proprietary and personal interests in the silver question—those of the mining section—believe in the justice and practicability of bimetallism, how account for the fact that silver is fciie paramount issue in the nation and caus-

ing the old political parties more worry than all other causes combined? The Times concurs with MacLeod that not only would it be impossible for any nation to maintain bimetallism, but it would be impossible for any number of nations, by commoh agreement, tq,(Jo so. This is a foolish statement,‘whether tested by historic pience or the highest financial authorities. The people of the United States will never accept international bimetallism unless it be at the present American or European ratio. But to'say that international bimetallism at an agreed ratio would be impracticable is an absurdity, assuming that the insuperable obstacles to an agreement could be removed. Since English authority will hs o most weight with the Times, part third of the report of the royal commission is commended to its notice. That commission is assumed to have been composed of twelve of the most competent men in the kingdom. After two years of investigation into the changes in the relative value of the precious metals, six of the number signed .a report which is an earnest plea for the establishment of bimetallism by a congress of all the great commercial powers. At a later day, another member of the commission, Mr. Courtney, publicly announced his concurrence in that report, making a majority of the royal commission committed to a view that according to MacLeod and the Times is clearly untenable. The proceedings of the late annual meeting of the British Bimetallic association, the enrollment of which includes more than a hundred members of parliament, might be recalled, as likewise the fact that the English political economists of acknowled standing are substantially a unit in advocating bimetallism. Despite the fact that France maintained bimetallism for all Europe at the ratio of 15X to 1 for seventy years before silver was demonetized in the United States and Germany, and the fact that gold monometallism was a financial heresy outside of England until twenty-one years ago, MacLeod says: “There is not the slightest shadow of a shade of the ghost of the differential co-efficient of a pin’s point of evidence in favor of the contention of the bimetallists. It is absolutely zero.”

If MacLeod’s book is meant to be serious it would be a scandalous imposition upon such uninformed persons as may get hold of it. To illustrate hia treatment of the subject, his reference to the effect which it is claimed the reopening of the mints of Christendom would have on the respective mintage and commercial values of the precious metals may be cited. “What,” he asks, “would any one of common sense say if the law allowed a pound and one ounce to be equally called a pound and declared them to be of the same weight? What would any one of common sense say if the law allowed two standard measures of capacity to be used, one of which contained a quart and the other a pint, and declared them to be equal?” The difference between the mintage value of gold and silver and their commercial value is well understood to have arisen from the demonetization of silver and the placing of a double burden upon gold by giving it a monopoly as primary money. The appreciation in the value of gold, consequent upon closing the mints to silver and due to the increased demand for the yellow metal, marks the difference in prices since 1873. Silver has fallen only as measured by gold. Compared with staple farm products and essential manufactured commodities its relation is practically the same as it was twenty years ago. The variation in the prices of the two metals is the result of legislation, and the old parity can be restored by legislation, not by declaring that a quart and a pint are equal, but by restoring the old time relative equality between gold and silver by the simple process of creating a large demand for one and greatly diminished demand for the other.—Denver Newk