Mr. J. W. Isbael read a paper showing that he was in agreement 

 with what Mr. Johnston had advanced. He read a paper on the 

 Subject eight years ago and then came to similar conclusions. He then 

 went into economic principles to show the evidence of the same. 



Mr. Thos. Taylor urged there was another law besides the cost of 

 production which regulated prices. From the fifties to 1870 prices 

 Went up, notwithstanding the cheapening of the cost of production. 

 _ Mr. A. J. Taylob thought speakers had not paid sufficient atten- 

 tion to Mr, Johnston's paper and diagrams. Dr. Benjafield and others 

 had spoken of conditions of things which Mr. Johnston excluded. 

 He thought Mr. Johnston had successfully set out to prove that the 

 law of value or price regulated and determined the ratios and values 

 °f precious metals, and all other commodities, and was to be found in 

 the economic cost of production. He thought Mr. Johnston had 

 Established that the primary law of value had to do with the cost of 

 production. 



Hon. Nicholas J. Bbown, M.B C, said : Taking a broad view of 

 the subject, all over the world it seemed to him inevitable that the 

 average prices realised for commodities must bear a distinct relation 

 to the cost of production, and he could not understand why such 

 elaborate calculations and diagrams .vere so necessary to prove it. He 

 Was, however, unable to see what practical value these assertions of 

 Mr. Johnston were. He suppossd the object was to prove that those 

 Who agitated for bimetallism were entirely in error. On that question 

 he was not prepared to definitely commit himself ; but he ttiought, 

 from that point of view, Mr. Johnston seemed to have the right end of 

 the stick, for he could not understand how giving a fictitious value to 

 silver could have any effect whatever, unless there was an agreement 

 to use it as such on the part of the whole of the nations of the world. 



Mr. Rule did not think Mr. Johnston had demonstrated his thesis. 

 No one would dispute that cost of production was an important 

 factor ; but on the question of supply and demand a lot was left 

 unproved. 



Mr. Johnston, in reply, complained that his paper had been largely 

 Misunderstood by some of the speakers. His paper went to show 

 that the economic cost of production, not supply and deimnd, was 

 the initial element in the control of prices. He had confined himself to 

 economic cost. He showed how the intellect of men and capitalists 

 had lessened labour. He did not ignore capital as having helped. The 

 dominant law was the cost of production. There must be a pivot 

 'Or supply and demand to work upon — the equilibrium price ; economic 

 cost of production was the major law in controlling price. Gold could 

 never measure itself. He denied that he had shown that cost of 

 production meant a general decline of prices. When they took 

 lengthened periods in their investigations they saw how the influence 

 °f supply and demand fell short. Cost of production included carriage 

 and distribution. As to bimetallism, there was no local market for 

 gold or silver. The world was the market. If the quantity of 

 jnoney determined the matter, prices of commodities should have risen, 

 because gold had become more plentiful, and not have fallen. 



A hearty vote of thanks to Mr. Johnston was passed on the motion of 

 the Hon. P. 0. Fysh. 



