« 上一頁繼續 »
To the Editor of the “New York Times":
The publication of my letter on jointmetallism, which appeared in your issue of February 18th, has brought me numerous criticisms, some entirely favorable, others that think me right, but inopportune, and others that appear not to fully understand the results of the plan I have proposed.
Now that Congress has passed the Seigniorage bill, I again trespass upon your kind hospitality for a few further lines regarding this plan of joint-metallism, by which gold and silver together, at ratios always based on their relative market values, may be made the metallic basis of currency and afford a sound, honest, self-regulating, and permanent currency on the only possible safe and adequate final basis, the two precious metals together, limited by the quantities in existence and by the costs of production. The new silver coins I have proposed, especially those containing IOOO standards each, would, for the most part, at first, be deposited in the Treasury, together with an equal amount in value of gold coins, the two together forming the appropriate basis for the Government currency issued against them. Whenever more currency should be required, gold and silver together would be taken to the mint and the coined proceeds deposited in the Treasury. Whenever less currency should be required, gold and silver would be together withdrawn from the Treasury and used in the arts, and less would be mined. As to the present silver dollars and other silver tokens, when the ratio becomes settled and remains unchanged for a considerable period, if the silver dollars and
When the Ratio Becomes Settled 19
the smaller silver coins be found then to differ very much from the ratio, they should be recoined, so as to be made of nearly full intrinsic value. Prior to 1873 (under “free coinage”) for each 500 ounces of pure silver the mint delivered 646 silver dollars, less a charge of 3 cent on each piece. . $3.23 and for copper alloy about...... I. I. I
$4.34, or about two thirds of 1 per cent. The coin
age of much larger pieces would cost the mint a much smaller fraction of 1 per Cent. That the question of joint-metallism is an intricate one is no reason why it should not be studied, and discussed in the newspapers. That the ratio can only be approximately exact might be urged with equal force against navigation and other sciences. Until the general public, by special study, is better able to understand questions regarding the basis of currency, it may be injurious to have bimetallism