2io POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



more to be said on the subject, The economic dogma of money, at 

 least, was supposed to be fairly complete. And yet — in my judg- 

 ment — the systematic treatment of the principles of money has re- 

 mained undeveloped almost to the present day. There is scarcely any 

 part of the field which can be regarded as thoroughly disposed of. 

 Indeed, the very definition of money itself is to-day under the most 

 critical examination; and with the definition goes the question as to 

 the functions performed by money. On these points — like investi- 

 gators in other sciences — we must frankly admit our lack of agree- 

 ment. 



First of all, it should be emphasized that the dispute about the 

 definition and functions of money is not merely a question of words; 

 it relates, in truth, to fundamental problems of great practical im- 

 port. Every day the statesman and man of affairs are confronted by 

 difficulties connected with the primary effect of ' money ' on prices in 

 general; but it is at once patent that the relation of the value, or 

 quantity, of ' money ' to prices can not be disposed of until we have 

 determined what we mean by ' money.' As at present used, ' money ' 

 has no scientific precision; it is often carelessly employed in many 

 different senses by one and the same author. 



Evidently, before a rational definition of money can be found, some 

 agreement based upon an analysis and description of the functions ac- 

 tually performed by money must be reached. If several dissimilar 

 services are rendered by monetary instruments; if each of these serv- 

 ices is associated by usage with ' money ' ; and if it happens that 

 different things are employed in these different services — then, while 

 authors may agree as to many of the functions of money, it may easily 

 happen that they may still disagree as to which shall be regarded as 

 essential to the definition of money. Money may have different mean- 

 ings according as it is made to include, or exclude, some or any un- 

 questioned services associated by usage with money. In such ways, 

 an important difference might arise between that which is money 

 in an economic, or true sense, and that which is money in a legal sense. 

 In fact, the economic relations of money ought to be scientifically as- 

 certained before legal functions should be assigned to it. If, for in- 

 stance, the state should apply the quality of legal tender loosely to some 

 instrument which does not completely fulfil all the functions of money, 

 then that money is not made thereby in the economic sense true money. 

 It thus often happens that incomplete forms of money exist, which give 

 the public much difficulty to classify and define. The expressions ' sub- 

 stitutes for money/ or ' surrogates,' or ' representative money,' have 

 arisen which depend for exactness upon the primary meaning assigned 

 to the money on which they depend. The very functions of money 

 need careful limitation. 



