38 



W. G. Langworthy Taylor 



Monopoly by 

 governments 

 of the manu- 

 facture of 

 money was 

 not meant, 

 originally, as 

 a benefit to 

 commerce. 



The question 

 now arises, 

 how far should 

 governments 

 stand between 

 debtor and 

 creditor? 



of the disuse of money as a means of exchange, gold being used 

 only for reserve in the banks. It became more convenient to 

 use gold than anything else, because it is that precious metal 

 which contains the most value in the smallest bulk. It can be 

 transported for least expense. It can be stored in the smallest 

 vault. Inquiry of the express companies discloses the fact that it 

 costs less to ship a hundred dollars in gold than in silver. Prob- 

 ably these are the chief reasons why the former is become the 

 standard of value. 



As to the interference of the government with that standard, 

 it is true that during almost all history, after nations became 

 organized territorial states, there have been mints, and the 

 authorities have issued the metallic money. In early times, there 

 was a selfish interest on their part. They hoarded large treasures, 

 as do oriental potentates today ; and for war especially, they 

 needed to have something that would buy supplies at once. They 

 found that the precious metals were best suited for that purpose ; 

 and it was a convenient thing for them to control the mintage. 



Another selfish motive was that, by jealously guarding the 

 monopoly of the mint, it was possible for them to debase the 

 coin. A pound of money was originally a pound avoirdupois of 

 silver. The French franc or the Italian lira was a pound of 

 silver. But that is become now a little coin worth about twenty 

 cents. The reason for the shrinkage is that unscrupulous rulers 

 have gradually decreased the quantity of metal in the coin. They 

 have borrowed of their subjects, and have then paid them back 

 in a piece of a less value, but bearing the same name. 



§ 7. That is bad enough ; but it is worse for the government to 

 decree that where a private debt is owed, the debtor is not re- 

 quired to pay the previously stipulated measure of usual or cus- 

 tomary concrete goods or metal, but may substitute another 

 designated thing or measure. That laxity is a necessary corollary 

 of debasement. Legal tender and bimetallic legislation involve 

 essentially the same exercise of questionable sovereignty by the 

 state. No government, probably, has ever gone so far as to say 

 that the debtor and creditor should not freely contract with each 

 other to repay in any unusual material they choose — in bushels 



152 



