« 上一頁繼續 »
he wrote The Case against Bimetallism and The American Silver Bubble,' etc.
Now I have had for many years the pleasure of working with my most esteemed friends, the editors of the Evening Post, for Revenue Reform, Civil-Service Reform, and other good causes, and I well know they would not willingly permit their readers to mistake their real estimate of the general authority of Macleod, and I hope they will state plainly in their columns that this famous English champion of gold monometallism, who is noted for his fierce attacks on many of the greatest economists, is usually to be read with caution.
Macleod's motto sometimes appears to be “Wherever you see a head, hit,” and it is unfortunately a characteristic of silverphobia that the patient will sometimes attack everything that comes in his way.
The works of these two great writers, Macleod and Giffen, are very important and indispensable to every student of the money question. It would ill become an
1 See pages 89, 90, and 91.
amaterike myse'i to can to rival them in aby Gr research
Besides this I don't obiect when they overthrow those cascientisc binetalists who want a fixed empirical ratio.
Neither do I object to the masterly manner in which A. J. Balour and Archbishop Welsh belabor and overthrow the gold monometallists.
I say, more power to their elbows, good luck to their club, golf stick, shillalah, and crosier. The more the mutually destructive fight wages between the gold and the silver champions, the more the way will be prepared for joint-metallism.
In all this discussion, and in all the efforts put forth by our statesmen, capitalists, and great financial newspapers to maintain the diminishing Government gold reserve, the one thing that stands out clearly is the fact that there is not enough gold to form a sufficient basis for the currency, commerce, and credits of the world; and that if we don't want to see this country on a silver basis, it is necessary now to consider some way of o Convenient and Sufficient Basis. 183
using both the precious metals together, and always at their market values.'
I think joint-metallism presents a convenient and sufficient basis, and until this view is shown to be erroneous by facts and fair arguments, I must continue so to think
1 See page 66, etc., for an account of some dangers of the present situation.