March 19, 1886.1 



SCIENCE. 



267 



and from which the gold doctors persuaded the 

 world to depart at that time, with the unsatis- 

 factory result now before us. 



2. The attempt is also made to make the advo- 

 cates of bimetallism in this country appear as 

 favoring a breach of faith. This is, of course, a 

 serious charge, and is deserving of careful con- 

 sideration. We began in this country with the 

 system of so-called double standard under which 

 a man might pay his debts, either in gold at the 

 rate of 24.75 grains of pure gold to the dollar, or 

 in silver at the rate of 371.25 grains of pure silver 

 to the dollar. This plan continued until 1834, 

 when the amount of pure gold was changed to 

 23.20, and in 1837 to 23.22, silver remaining un- 

 changed. It was expected, of course, that under 

 this system the debtor would use the cheapest 

 metal, and would pay in gold or silver, according 

 as it was easier for him to get 23.22 grains of gold 

 or 371.25 grains of silver in the form of dollars. 

 This device was deliberately adopted in 1794, after 

 full discussion, as being calculated to further the 

 monetary and industrial interests of the country 

 by keeping up the supply of money. It was con- 

 tinued without change until 1873. As a result of 

 the change in valuation of the gold coin in 1834, 

 it was cheaper for the debtor to pay his obliga- 

 tions in gold than in silver ; and the latter metal 

 disappeared from circulation, leaving a currency, 

 so far as it was metallic, of gold alone, if we 

 except the token-silver currency, which was a 

 legal tender only to five dollars. 



In 1873 this option of paying either in gold or 

 silver was taken from the debtor by a modification 

 of our coinage laws. About the same time the 

 value of silver began to fall. Under a metallic 

 currency, this would have led to the payment of 

 debts in silver, if the law conferring the option of 

 paying debts in either silver or gold had not been 

 repealed in 1873. All debts contracted prior to 

 1873 had been contracted under this option. This 

 option was a part of the contract ; and the debtor 

 had a perfect right to complain if the law inter- 

 fered to take it away, and thereby practically 

 increase the burden of his obligation. Legally 

 speaking, then, the debtor had the right to insist 

 that he should have the option of paying in silver ; 

 and all talk about the debtor trying to evade his 

 obligations, or taking refuge behind the law, and 

 therefore deserving reprobation, is not to the 

 point. He is simply trying to do what our laws 

 encouraged him to do up to 1873, with the idea 

 that his taking advantage of the law would fur- 

 ther all interests in the country by forcing a re- 

 course to the cheaper metal when one of them 

 became too dear. 



The case is still further complicated by the fact 



that the general demonetization of sil ver hastened 

 its fall in price, thus widening the distance be- 

 tween the value of gold and silver. The creditor 

 class pointed to this great disparity, which they 

 had themselves increased by their influence in 

 government, as a proof of the great injustice 

 which would be dene by continuing the option of 

 paying in silver. The debtors answered, that, if 

 they had been allowed to exercise the option which 

 existed when the debt was contracted, this would 

 have been done as soon as silver was the least bit 

 lower than gold, and the consequent use of silver 

 would have prevented its fall. The argument, so far 

 as the case of creditor vs. debtor is concerned, may 

 be considered about even. The creditor is always 

 trying to induce the government to adopt a policy 

 (i.e., to try' experiments) which will increase the 

 burden of existing obligations ; and when any 

 attempt is made to force the government to give 

 up such a policy once adopted, the creditor in- 

 dulges in much loud talk about the danger of 

 experimenting with the currency, and interfering 

 with vested interests, and frightening away capital, 

 etc. The debtor takes the opposite ground ex- 

 actly ; and one may be set over against the other 

 with the remark that the money-lending class has 

 never been so distinguished for truth-loving or 

 disinterestedness, that we are justified in accept- 

 ing their statement of the case to the extent which 

 is characteristic of our industrial society. 



3. Looking at the question from the stand-point 

 of the permanent interest of society as distin- 

 guished from the immediate relation of debtor 

 and creditor, it is certainly not by any means 

 proven that we have yet reached such a stage of 

 economic development as would enable us to get 

 along with gold alone in our currency. A per- 

 sistent and continued fall in prices is the same 

 disturbing influence in our social and industrial 

 economy, whether it come from a scarcity of 

 gold or a contraction of credit ; to which latter 

 cause some monometallists ascribe the late fall in 

 prices. The attempt is made to cast a slur upon 

 the ' silverites 5 by calling them inflationists, as if 

 to be an inflationist were the greatest of monetary 

 sins. It would seem to be a sin of the same kind, 

 and of even greater magnitude, to be a contrac- 

 tionist, since a policy of slow contraction in the 

 world's currency is certainly productive of far 

 more harm to the world's economy than the pro- 

 cess of slow inflation which might occur under 

 the action of a so-called double standard. 



It is agreed by most economists that the ideal 

 money will be stable in value. Many economists 

 think that by a double standard a greater fixity of 

 value may be attained than by a single standard. 

 The fluctuations may be more numerous, but will 



