THE NEBRASKA INDEPENDENT.
FEBRUARY 12, 1D03.
and he shows that' the value of gold
and silver have not depended upon
the quantity of labor necessary to
' produce them from the mine. He
worked more than forty years on this
subject and his arguments and facts
'and opinions are entitled to great
weight.
In the time of Ricardo and Smith
one. ounce of gold exchanged for fif
teen of silver, from which they both
: concluded that it required fifteen times
1 as much labor to get an ounce of gold
tu an ounce of silver.
Now one ounce of gold exchanges
for forty of silver. Does it now re
quire forty times as much labor to
get an ounce of gold as an ounce of
silver? f
In' the time of Smith and Ricardo
gold and silver were both subject to
"free" coinage, and they were coined
freely, and without restriction, in the
ratio of one of gold to fifteen of sil
ver, or very near that ratio. Now,
only one of these metals (gold) is sub
ject, to free coinage. There is good
reason for believing that the altered
relation of gold to silver in exchange,
since the time of Smith and Ricardo,
i3 due to the fact that the mints of
the world have been closed to free
coinage of silver ana kept open to free
coinage of gold. Gold has been called
upon to do a great deal more work and
silver much less work, in the world
as money.
"If any one will look at the statistic
of production of both gold and silver
since the discovery of America he will
find that the two metals have come
from the mines in the ratio of about
one to nineteen (1:19). This indi
cates that the two metals ought to ex
change in the ratio of one of gold to
fifteen or nineteen of silver and would
do if they were treated in the same
way by society. Those Who think
that the fall of silver in price, not in
value, is due to a deluge of silver
from the mines had better look. at the
table of production of the two metals
as published in the annual reports of
the director of the mint. Here is con
clusive proof that the depreciation of
silver is not due to an excessive quan
tity from the mine. It is not gold
that has changed so much in produc
tion (since the discovery of America)
but silver. It is a fact that while the
production of gold has varied greatly
from time to time, the production of
silver has been much more uniform.
Mr. -Ricardo says: "Silver is much
more steady in its value, in conse
quence of its demand ar.d supply being
more regular; and as all foreign coun
tries regulate the value of their money
by the value of silver, there can be
no doubt that, on the whole, silver is
preferable to gold as a standard and
should be permanently, adopted for
that purpose."
I must quote a little more from Ri
cardo as follows: "During a long
period previous to 1797, the year of
the restriction of the bank payments
in coin, gold was so cheap, compared
with silver, that it suited the Bank
of England, and all other debtors, to
purchase gold in the market, and not
silver, for the purpose of carrying it
to the mint to be coined, as they
could, in that coined metal, more
cheaply discharge their debts."
If we look at the table of the rel
ative production of gold and silver we
find that about the year 1720 gold be
gan to come from the mines in much
greater quantities than previously and
that this excessive flow of gold con
tinued till about the year 1800; this
accounts for the cheapness of gold
"during a long period previous to
1797," as Ricardo states. Afterwards,
that is, from about the year 1800, gold
began to fall off and continued to come
In smaller quantities till about the
year 1820 or 1825. Silver fell off from
1810 to 1820. This was on account of
the Spanish war in South America,
Mexico and the West Indies. But in
all the years from the discovery of
America till the present time, there
has been no falling off in the supply
of silver from the mines, except from
1810 to 1820. This shows that silver
is a much better standard or meas
ure of value than gold.
Smith and Ricardo both speak of
the "mint" price of gold and silver.
They say the mint price of gold is
3 17s lOd per ounce; and that this
is so because an ounce of gold, when
taken to the mint, will be coined into
that much money. They do not call
this "free" coinage; they neglect to
say that any and everybody had a
"right to take gold to the mint and
have it coined into money at the rate
of 3 17s 10d per ounce.
In the time of Smith, and in the
early years of Ricardo, an ounce of
silver was coined into 5s 2d. This was
the "mint" price of silver per ounce,
as 3 17s lOd was the mint price of
gold per ounce.
What Smith and Ricardo call the
"mint" price of gold, was the legal
price in England; and what they call
the "mint" price of silver, was the
legal price of silver in England.
These mint prices grew out of
"free" coinage. If there had been no
free coinage In England,' there would
have been no mint prices in England.
This was overlooked by both Smith
and Ricardo, as well as by their pre
decessors. When the municipal law fixes the
price of gold, as it certainly did and
still does under a system of "free"
coinage, and the metal falls in value,
as gold did in the time of Smith and
Rk-ardn," then the falling metal is
used for money, and the dearer metal
is not coined, or if coined at all, very
little is coined. When this takes
place, the dearer money metal has a
market price, as contradistinguished
from its legal or mint price. That is
to say, it has a market price which
is higher than its legal price. When
this happens the dearer metal, though
potentially money, is not actually
money, but ordinary merchandise. If
we should open our mints to "free"
coinage of silver in the ratio of 16:1,
(the other nations still keeping their
mints closed to free coinage of silver),
it is probable that gold would cease
to be coined and silver would be
coined in its stead. Gold would not
be coined, because the bankers, when
they want more new money, would
buy silver rather than gold and take
it to the mint to be coined. This
would soon convert, the country from
a gold to a silver basis of currency.
The bankers always manufacture
money out of the cheaper metal; and
they never would make money out of
gold as long as it is dearer than sil
ver. This explains why it "suited the
Bank of England and all other debtors
to purchase gold in the market, and
not silver, for the purpose of carrying
it to the mint to be coined." Banks,
like other people, are debtors; and
they naturally go for the cheapest
metal, when they want money, with
which to discharge their debts. It is
on account of this selfishness and the
power of the banks that the cheaper
money metal always drives out the
dearer money metal. If it does not
drive the dearer metal out of the
country, it will drive it out of the
coinage and prevent it from being
used as money. This was noticed to
be the fact in England, under a sys
tem of free coinage of both metals. In
England they did not open the mint
to "free" coinage till 1666; and as
soon as it was found that the pri
vate owners of gold and silver rcould
take their bullion to the mint and
have it coined into money, they at
once began to show a preference for
the cheaper metal. This was ob
served, first, in the reign of William
III. (1689-1702) and a great argument
took place,, in which such men as
John Lock and other philosophers
participated. The argument continued
from time to time until Ricardo closed
it by indubitable "facts.
In 1 S3 4 we reduced the amount of
gold in the gold dollar so much, that
the gold dollar was worth less than
the silver dollar, both being subject
to free coinage. The'consequence was
that the banks and other debtors be
gan to seek gold for coinage, and to
leave silver alone.
In 1848-51, when the California and
Australian gold mines were discov
ered and the gold began to come
therefrom to market, gold itself fell
in value, and this caused the gold in
the gold dollar and the gold dollar
itself to be worth still less than the
silver dollar. This caused the banks
and other debtors to go to gold still
more for money and leave silver still
more alone. This was the way the
country went to a gold basis before
the civil war.
Previous to 1834 the country was on
a silver basis, although the mint was
open to free coinage of gold as well as
silver. Previous to 1834 the two
metals were coined in the ratio of 15
to 1. This made the silver in the sil
ver dollar worth a little less than the
gold in the gold dollar; and the debt
ors sought silver rather than gold for
money. The amount of gold in the
gold dollar (previous to 1834) was
27 3-4 grains; this amount of gold
was worth more than the silver dol
lar; and the dcDtors would not have
gold for money. But afterwards when
congress reduced the gold in the gold
dollar from 27 3-4 to 25 4-5 grains and
thereby made the ratio of coinage 16
to 1, instead of 16 to 1, then the
debtors wanted gold rather than sil
ver for coinage and money. Conse
quently after 1834 and especially af
ter 1848-50 nothing could prevent the
country from being on the gold basis,
as long as the mint stood open to free
coinage of both gold and silver.
Neither Smith nor Ricardo made a
clear distinction between price and
value. Neither did their predeces
sors. This has contributed to making
the argument hard reading.
(To Be Continued.)
JNO. S. DE HART.
Jersey City, N. J.
PUBLIC OWNERSHIP
Mr. QnlBby Sc Nothing bat Fallar
Without th Single Tax-Land
Monopoly
Editor Independent: We all ad
mire the sincere man. We admire
George Fred Williams for his heroic
efforts in Massachusetts to compel the
democratic party to be true. It is
nevertheless a lamentable fact that
very few reformers are able to see
the most eswulial and fundamental
step that must be taken before any
permanent help can come to the peo
ple. Consider just a moment the pro
gram of George Fred Williams. He
does not even hint at the most fun
damental of all utilities the land. He
advocates the initiative and referen
dum, which is absolutely fundamental
so far as law-making goes, but so
far as the most fundamental require
ment for the production of wealth is
concerned he does not even hint at it.
Yet in the words of the prophet,
"Seek ye first the kingdom of God,
and these shall be added unto you."
We ought not to lead the people to
think that the public ownership of
public utilities can ever be of any
service to the people so long as the
private ownership of land values con
tinues unchecked. Let us examine
this just for a moment.
The example of Glasgow, Scotland,
has often been referred to as a proof
of the wisdom of public ownership of
public utilities. But what has been
the fruits of public ownership in
Glasgow? Has it lowered street car
fares? Yes. Has it increased wages?
Yes. Has it afforded better public
service? Yes. Then why not a good
thing? I will tell you. Because all
the values of these reduced fares, these
increased wages, these better public
services have gone into the landlords'
pockets. The people of Glasgow have
but shifted masters, that is all.
It seems to be a fact unseen by
many really intelligent people that
none of the advantages which public
ownership will surely bring can pos
sibly be advantageous to the people,
so long as the private ownership of
land values continues. What is the im
mediate effect of a three-cent car fare,
for instance? The people of congest
ed districts in the cities figure on mov
ing out a little distance. What re
sults? The land on which they hope
to live, rises in value and rents go up.
What is the result of increased wages?
Why a larger expenditure on the part
of wage earners for better food and
clothes and other accommodations.
This again is reflected in the value of
land. The landlord gets higher rents
for the store buildings, and the mer
chant is forced to collect the addi
tional rent from his customers the
wage-earners. What is the result of
better public utilities? Why the in
crease in the value of the land on
which the public live, which results
in increased revenue for the lan 1
holder, absorbing entirely the benefit
of public enterprise. The public can
not do anything that does not imme
diately reflect its value in the land.
Therefore the owner of the land gets
the benefit, and the people wonder why
poverty and distress still prevail
while progress still advances. The
cause is not far to seek, and that en
tire cause is land monopoly.
The editor of The Independent seems
to be tangled up on this question of
land monopoly. He seems to assume
that so long as there is no compact
between landholders to raise rents,
there is no monopoly. The fact re
mains, however, that so long as any
private party is able to dictate terms
upon which labor may use the pri
mary source of all wealth the land
there is absolute monopoly in that
land, just in proportion to the amount
of the tribute demanded. In the city
of New York there is a single lot
50x90 feet for the mere use of which,
without a single dollar of improve
ment put upon it by the landlord, the
owner is able to demand and. receive
the sum of $50,000 every year. Will
anybody deny that this owner's mo
nopoly of that little spot of God's
footstool enables him to live sumptu
ously all his life without ever turning
over a hand for the production of a
single ounce of wealth? Monopoly is
still monopoly, however it is brought
about.
I have said and repeat it that even
the benefit that we populists know
should come from the establishment
of a greenback currency system would
all reflect itself in the value of the
land. Rents would rise. Land would
become dear, and the idle holders of
idle land would reap all the benefit.
Can any one dispute this? I chal
lenge a denial from any source.
How could this be remedied? I will
tell you. This value which attaches
to land is the product of the growth of
population and public enterprise. It
is therefore not private property. If
the public had only sufficient wisdom
to take this value into the public
treasury instead of burdening all in
dustry by taxation and allowing thi3
immense value to go Into private
pockets, it would be sufficient to main
tain all governmental functions, and
then the public ownership, of public ,
utilities would not only be easily pos
sible, but having been established the
public, and not the land grabber,
would reap the benefit. Until you get
at the bottom of all social and econ
omic iniquities the private ownership
of land values your reform work in
establishing greenbacks, increasing
wages, buying public utilities, and
even establishing parks, libraries,
schools, hospitals and charitable in
stitutions, will result, even if you
succeed, in no permanent good to the
people. The people are even now pay
ing the single tax in addition to the
enormous other taxation and they do
not seem to realize it. The only dif
ference is, that what they pay goes
into the pockets of the land grabbers
in the form of rents, instead of into
the public treasury.
Let those who are interested in see
ing Nebraska take her position among
the front rank for a scientific reform
in taxation register their names with
Hon. E. B. Spackman, Fullerton, Ne
brasKa, or with the undersigned.
LAURIE J. QUINBY.
Omaha, Neb. J
Indiana Democrats
The Clark County Citizen, Ch'arles
town, Ind., is taking a poll of demo
cratic preference for president. The
result of one week's work is summed
up as follows:
It will be noticed that practically
all are in favor of tariff for revenue
only and for an assault upon the
trusts. A large number still advo
cate bimetallism, a few are opposed
to the Philippine policy, a few favor
a plank calling for the election of
United States senators by the people,
and one favors expansion.
The result as to presidential pref
erences shows Bryan still the favor
ite by long odds, the canvass being
as follows:
Bryan 30
Olney 11
Johnson 5
Hill 17
Parker 7
Gorman ... 3
Hearst, Kern, Shiveiy, Carter Har
rison and Fitzhugh-Lee each received -one
vote. , .
Henry Roeder, R. F. D. 3, Evans
ville, Ind.: The people I have come
in contact with never as a rule study
the quantity theory of money. It is
written, the things that are seen are
temporal, but the things that are not
seen are eternal. I am doing far
better than under the Cleveland gang,
but it seems to me as if the day of
redemption is at hand; the flood in
the future will recede.
I Will Cure You of
Rheumatism
Eise No Money is Wanted.
After 2,000 experiments, I have
learned how to cure Rheumatism. Not
to turn bony joints into flesh again;
that is impossible. But I can cure the
disease always, at any stage, and for
ever. I ask for no money. Simply writo
me a postal and I will send you an or
der on your nearest oruggist for six
bottles Dr. Shoop's Kheumatic Cure,
for every druggist keeps it. Use it
for a month and, if it succeeds, the
cost is only $5.50. If it falls, I will
pay the druggist myself.
I have no sam: es, because any med
icine that can affec Rheumatism
quickly must be drugged to the verge
of danger. I use no such drugs, and
it is folly to take them. You must
get the disease out of the blood.
My remedy does that, even in the
most difficult obstinate cases. No
matter how impossible this seems to
you, I know it and take the risk. I
have cured tens of thousands of cases
in this way, and my records show that
39 out of 40 who get "six bottles pay
gladly. I have learned that people in
general are honest with a physician
who cures them. That is all I ask
If I fail I don't expsct a penny from
you.
Simply write me a postal card or a
letter. I will send you my book about
Rheumatism, and an order for the
medicine. Take it for a mouth, as it
won'i harm you anyway. If it fails,
it is free, and I leave t3 dprision
with you. Address Dr. Shoop, Box 940,
Racine, Wis.
Mild cases, not chronic, are often
cured by one or two bottles. At all
druggists.
