« 上一頁繼續 »
Legal-Tender Joint Certificates.
nearly as could be generally estimated with the knowledge that both precious metals were about to have substantially equal access to our mints. So by January I, 1896, or soon thereafter, the relative market values of gold and silver would become settled, and the Government ratio would then probably not change for many years.
It is also to be remembered that while the law would provide for payment in gold standards and silver standards jointly, the actual transactions would be in legaltender joint certificates. The buyer or seller would not be affected to any considerable extent by any change in the ratio, except that the security pledged for the Government legal-tender joint certificates might possibly be affected to the extent of about one and one half per cent. at any time of altering ratio, but this is too remote to have any practical bearing on the question so far as the buyer and seller are concerned. The Government would assume a small risk for * See page 6.
which the minting charge (seigneurage) might be made to pay.
It is also to be noted that joint-metallism permits the continued use of dollars and cents as the terms to be used in contracts and in accounts, and permits the continued use of our present subsidiary coins.
Silver standard coins need not be used at all as small change, although they might be so used conveniently, in some circumstances, as, for example, in case the gold standard coin should be the $5 gold piece, and the ratio should become fixed at i to 20, the silver standard would be worth exactly 25 cents, or at i to 25, it would be 20 cents, at i to 30, one sixth of a dollar, or at 3 to 100, 15 cents, etc., etc.
It is probable that by January 1, 1896, or soon thereafter, other nations would follow our example and open their mints to silver on a similar basis.
1 See pages 7 and 123. In Australia the Government makes a profit out of permanently guaranteeing land titles for a charge of one eighth per cent. ? See page 122.
Faying off Government Debt.
I do not feel called upon to refute some objections which show plainly that the writers have not carefully considered what I have fully explained in preceding pages. As to those who object that joint-metallism is bimetallism, I must refer them to pages 118, 121, 125, 134, 147, etc.
I do not attempt to deny that I am a bullionist in the sense of holding that all Government money should be coin, or readily convertible into coin.
The enormous business, finances, and credit of England are on a bullionist basis, for the uncovered Bank of England notes, limited to £15,000,000, are comparatively inconsiderable.
The United States have set an example to the world in paying off a large part of a Government debt. This was a prepayment. If we paid off the greenbacks, which are a demand debt, we could place our finances in a position which no other nation could attain.
Now that we can export largely iron and other manufactures, as well as grain, cotton, and other produce, we have the opportunity to take the foremost financial position, with all the advantage and profit which this implies.
1 See page 137.
But to accomplish this our national money must be based strictly on the only possible sound and sufficient basis, the two precious metals together, limited by the quantities in existence and the costs of production.
Credit can then have its full legitimate development.
But credit money cannot be suitable money with which to do the world's business.
Joint-metallism would be most suitable for the world's business, aud contracts under it would be more safe as well as more just.
Mr. Carlisle came to New York and declared for sound money—specie or paper based on specie,-a just and true measure of value, etc. His words are quoted on page 84. But as soon as he had induced New York bankers to take his bonds, he declares for credit money. Under the
plea of war necessity, our people have acquiesced in Government credit money, as a temporary expedient. Mr. Carlisle's distinct purpose is, now, to make credit money a permanent institution.
Momentous results now hang upon the decision of Congress and of a President elected upon the distinct pledge contained in his letter of acceptance dated September 28, 1892, as follows:
“Every dollar put into the hands of the people should be of the same intrinsic value or purchasing power. With this condition absolutely guaranteed, both gold and silver can be utilized upon equal terms in the adjustment of our currency.”.
The last Democratic National Convention declared: “We hold to the use of both gold and silver as the standard money of the country, and to the coinage of both without discrimination against either metal,” etc.!; and the last Republican National Convention demanded “the use of both gold and silver as standard money."
1 See page 81.