Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

GOLD NOT NECESSARY FOR FOREIGN TRADE.

[graphic]

HE REFORM CLUB of New York and the gold press assume that our foreign commerce depends upon the gold standard, and that low prices benefit alike all classes of the community. Each of these assumptions is so manifestly false that it seems a waste of time to refute them. But as they constitute the stock in trade of the goldites, you will pardon me for calling attention to facts showing the absurdity of such contentions.

Legitimate international trade, or commerce, consists in the exchange of the commodities of one country for those of another, and such exchanges ought to balance each other without the use of domestic money.

The American importer buys goods in England with English money and the English importer buys wheat and other farm products in this country with United States money. The money in each case is procured by bills of exchange drawn against the exports of the two countries respectively. If neither country buys more than it sells, the accounts balance, and the trade is beneficial to both. The country whose aggregate imports are more than its aggregate exports goes into debt and creates what is termed an unfavorable balance of trade, which means disaster.

No country should, by currency regu

lations or otherwise, encourage an adverse balance of trade. Every excess of imports over exports should be prevented if possible. To provide a currency especially fitted for the payment of an unfavorable balance of trade would be a ruinous policy, and if it resulted in the export of money such export would disturb business, contract the volume of money, produce falling prices, and create hard times.

The United States is not engaged in foreign commerce. Exporters and importers do that business. If John Doe and Richard Roe buy more goods in foreign countries to sell in this country than can be paid for with the commodities we send abroad, they are engaged in an illegitimate and injurious traffic. Let them find the means of payment, and let them cease asking for legislation which will enable them to export United States money and thereby deprive the people of a stable volume of money for domestic purposes.

Comparatively few individuals are engaged in foreign commerce and they can take care of themselves without regard to the character of the currency in this or in any other country. While they are engaged in exchanging our commodities for the commodities of other countries, their business is legitimate and beneficial; but when they attempt to interfere with the currency of this country to accommodate excessive importations, they are public enemies and should be restrained by the legislation and administration of the government.

If we should admit that gold, for ex

ample, would answer the purposes of foreign trade better than silver or paper, and that the coin money of this country was actually used in foreign trade, it would by no means follow that the people of this country should be deprived of an adequate volume of money for the convenience of the few who are engaged in international trade. The domestic trade and commerce of the United States is at least ninety-five per cent of the entire trade of the country. Why should ninety-five per cent of the business of the country be sacrificed for the convenience of the other five per cent? When and where did the money of any country prevent such country from buying and selling in any part of the world? What difference does it make to the shopkeeper of Paris, or the wheat grower of America, what kind of money the people use where the French goods are manufactured, or where the wheat is grown? The money of different countries frequently fluctuates in value or purchasing power, but that does not prevent international trade.

It is true that the country having the larger volume of money compared to its population and business has some advantage in trading with a country which has a more contracted volume of circulating medium. This was fully demonstrated by the discussions of the Royal Commissions of England from 1884 to 1888, in considering the trade relations between England and India. England was on the gold basis and India was on the silver basis, with her mints open to unlimited coinage of that metal. It abundantly appeared in those investigations that England was at great disadvantage, and that India was greatly benefited by the difference of exchange; so much so that English manufacturers appealed to Parliament for relief, declaring that the difference of exchange was more

prohibitory than the McKinley tariff; that their trade with India fell off while it increased with the United States, notwithstanding the McKinley bill. The productions of the farms and factories of India and the exports from that country increased so rapidly under unlimited coinage of silver as to produce distress and alarm in England.

The year before the suspension of sìlver coinage in India, which took place in June, 1893, that country supplied her people with textile fabrics and exported of such fabrics more than fifty million dollars in value. She also exported over sixty million bushels of wheat, besides jute, raw cotton, opium, and other products, in like increased proportion. The avowed object for suspending silver coinage in India was to take away these advantages and restore them to the mother country, and give England not only the trade of India, but that of the East which India was acquiring. The change was most disastrous to India. While her mints were open to the free coinage of silver, she paid annually $80,000,000 in gold for interest to English bondholders. The cutting off of the supply of new money by the suspension of silver coinage so embarrassed the business of India that she was forced to issue in the following year fifty millions of bonds to pay current interest.

The repeal of the purchasing clause of the Sherman act in this country has been followed by like results. Since that repeal $162,000,000 of interest-bearing bonds have been sold for gold to carry on the government and maintain the gold standard. It is now the established policy of the Administration and the Republican leaders to borrow money to maintain the gold standard. The only matter now discussed is as to the character of the bonds to be issued, what rate of interest they shall bear, and other mere

matters of detail.

There is no difference as to principle between the leaders of both of the old parties. Both regard the issuance of interest-bearing bonds as the legitimate business of the country, if the rulings and recommendations of the Administration and the votes in Congress of Republican and Democratic leaders are any indication of their political or economic views. They are logical. logical.

They are goldites, and the only way to maintain the gold standard is by a perpetual increase of the national debt. Our fixed obligations to foreign countries are enormous. They are estimated at $150,000,000 or $200,000,000 for our carrying trade in foreign bottoms; $100,000,000 annually expended by tourists in foreign lands; $250,000,000 annually paid to foreigners for interest and dividends on their investments in this country; aggregating the enormous sum of about $500,000,000 each year which this country must pay to Europe, and all must be paid in gold. When these facts are presented, the parrots who echo the lingo which the goldites have prepared for public consumption exclaim:-"This is a bad state of things; how can we help it? The United States cannot remonetize silver alone; our creditors in Europe must help us break the chains of financial bondage by which they make us their financial slaves; we must wait until the gold syndicate of banks and bankers, with the Rothschilds at the head, will act with us and aid us to overcome the combination which they have formed against us."

The United States unable to coin both gold and silver as provided by the Constitution! What nonsense! Why is Mexico able to maintain free coinage of silver alone without the aid of Europe? Why is Japan able to maintain the free coinage of both gold and silver alone without the aid of the Rothschilds or any

other power? Why was India able to maintain free coinage alone until it be-. came necessary for England to stop it, not for the benefit of India, but for the benefit of England? Does anybody doubt that these and other free coinage countries are more prosperous and happy than ever before in their history, while every gold standard country in the world is more miserable than at any other time for the last 200 years? If unrestricted coinage of the two metals makes every country which adopts it prosperous, and a single gold standard makes every country which maintains it miserable, why should not the United States reopen her mints to the unrestricted coinage of both metals and enjoy a new era of prosperity? The combination which wickedly, dishonestly, and clandestinely demonetized silver and destroyed one half of the metallic money of the world dare not admit why they did it and for whose benefit it was done. The plain truth is that it was done for the sole and exclusive benefit of dealers in money, owners of bonds, and hoarders of gold. The reason for it, and the only reason for it, was to reduce the volume of money and thereby enhance the pur-. chasing power of each remaining dollar.

The one hundred thousand millions of indebtedness existing at the time this transaction took place was payable in either gold or silver at the option of the debtor. By destroying silver, gold was made the sole money of ultimate payment. The value of gold rose more than one hundred per cent. The obligations of every debtor were doubled. Prices commenced falling and still continue to fall; enterprises were wrecked and are continuing to be wrecked. The money of the combination controls everything and absorbs the wrecked fortunes of those who have been destroyed by the iniquity of the conspirators. This

[ocr errors]

conspiracy against civilization benefits only those who by stealth and cunning have placed themselves in a position which enables them to say to the nations of the world, "Stand and deliver, or we will ruin you." It enables them to say to every monarch in the civilized world, "Divide the substance of the people with us or we will destroy your government," and to say to Mr. Cleveland, "Give us ten millions of the people's money and buy protection for the country for nine months."

The power to command and extort, which the gold conspiracy has acquired by reducing the money of ultimate payment to gold alone, ought to satisfy the greed of Shylock and the ambition of Lucifer. With no motives but ambition and greed, it is natural for the conspirators to invent hypocritical, equivocal, and dishonest phrases and put them in the mouths of subservient politicians and echo them through the commercial press, which they own and control.

"Parity of the two metals" is another cheap-John catchpenny phrase. What do they mean by it? If they mean anything they mean that silver shall remain demonetized until the market value of silver bullion, with silver so demonetized, shall rise to the market value of gold bullion with gold continued monetized. This impossibility they require before the mints are opened to silver. They know full well that if silver had the same right of mintage with gold, the parity between the two metals would be restored and maintained as it was for thousands of years previous to the crime of 1873. But what do we want with parity of one metal with another? What the people want is parity of money with labor and the products of labor, so that money, which is only a measure of value, shall be an honest measure between the rich and the poor, the debtor and the creditor.

There is another suggestion of the goldites which the gold press and hungry office-seekers frequently iterate and reiterate. They say if the price of property which the people sell is low, the price of property which they buy is also cheap, and the poor wages paid to labor is compensated by cheap living. In short, cheapness is beneficial and benefits everybody alike.

The absurdity of this stale argument is illustrated by the object-lesson presented by China. There everything is cheap; wages are from three to ten cents a day, and the people live on less than it costs to feed American chickens. All the wealth in the country is owned by a few nabobs and mandarins. Do the people of the United States want such cheapness? If they do they want Asiatic civilization. Besides, falling prices are more disastrous than the stationary cheapness of Asia. Every investment in any kind of business or enterprise is seriously embarrassed by continuously falling prices. The farmer, the manufacturer, the merchant, or any other man engaged in business, feels the loss when his property depreciates in price. Profits are reduced, and if business is continued loss and ruin follow. Enterprises are stopped and labor is thrown out of employment. The result is universal stagnation in business and enforced idleness throughout the land. But falling prices are not only disastrous but absolutely ruinous to the debtor class. The aggregate indebtedness of the people of the United States, public and private, is estimated at about thirty thousand millions, drawing an annual interest of about two thousand millions. Five hundred millions is exacted by the general government through taxation, and the taxes for State and municipal purposes are estimated to be double that amount. The people engaged in productive enterprises must sell much more than they

buy. They must sell enough to pay taxes and interest, educate their children, support the church to which they belong, and meet many incidental expenses before they buy at all. The fact is that the fixed charges upon the people of the United States absorb the proceeds of all they can sell, leaving only a meager and parsimonious support for themselves and their families. This is true of the most enterprising wealth producers, while millions are suffering for the necessaries of life. What a mockery to say to them that the cheapness of the few articles which necessity compels them to buy compensates them for low wages and low prices for what they are compelled to sell to keep the red flag from the door and the sheriff from ejecting them from their homes!

It is easily understood why Mr. Cleveland regards the gold standard as sound money. It took on an average 33,333 bushels of wheat per annum to pay President Grant's salary. It now takes 83,333 bushels of wheat to pay President Cleveland's salary for one year. In other words, if the salary of President Cleveland were paid in wheat, he would receive 50,000 bushels a year more than President Grant would have received. Is it not preposterous in Mr. Cleveland to contend that the farmers who raise 50,000 bushels of wheat more to pay him than they did to pay President Grant are as much benefited by low prices as he is? Mr. Cleveland's case is the case of all officers and persons having a fixed income or drawing interest on time contracts. The case of the farmers who raise the additional 50,000 bushels of wheat is the case of every wealth producer in the land. None but officeholders, annuitants, and coupon-cutters, and those whom they control, argue that a shrinking volume of money is "sound money" and "safe currency," and the

reason why they do it is well illustrated by Mr. Cleveland's own case.

The country now sees the effect of falling prices, and it seems idle to be compelled to tell the people that it is not a good thing. No country has ever prospered or advanced in civilization while prices were falling. Every country which has made any progress in civilization has been able to do so through an increasing volume of money. Reason and experience teach us that falling prices lead to bankruptcy, ruin, slavery, and barbarism; that rising prices lead to wealth, prosperity, and higher civilization. Times were good when Solomon built his temple, because gold from the land of Ophir was abundant. Times were bad when the Roman legion occupied Jerusalem and the money of Judea was transferred to Rome. Times were good in Greece when Athens was the university of the world and the armies of Greece were invincible, because the mountains of Thrace were furnishing an abundant supply of the precious metals. Times were bad in Greece when the mines were exhausted. mines were exhausted. The people, being impoverished and without money to defend their country, became a province of Rome. Times were good in Rome when her conquering heroes had robbed the world of gold and silver, and were enslaving their conquered enemies to mine in Spain and Italy, because there was nearly two thousand millions of gold and silver in circulation in the empire. Times were bad when the barbarians of the North overran and conquered Rome, because her mines had failed and her coin had disappeared by wear and loss, and Rome was conquered by poverty and want before the foot of a Northern barbarian entered upon her soil. Fourteen hundred years of contraction of the money volume are called the Dark Ages, and people wonder why it was so called,

« AnteriorContinuar »