Part 6

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 resume 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--