Part 27

Mr. JONES, of Nevada. Certainly.

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

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

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

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

Mr. JONES of Nevada. Mr. President----

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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