commodities is not denied by any. Compared with commodities silver has been much more stable. The depreciation of silver is pointed to to prove its unfitness as a measure of values, but it is only by comparing with gold that its depreciation is apparent. And may it not be that the divergence between the two is due fully as much to the abnormal appreciation of gold? It is often claimed that the depreciation of silver since 1870 is due to the enormous quantity mined. That such is not the case is abundantly proved by the following table :

[Reprinted from the Coinage Laws of the United States, 1792 to 1894. See United States Senate Report No. 235, page 442. The figures for 1661-1882, both years inclusive, are Soetbeer's; those of 1882-1891 are from the reports of the director of the mint.]

[The ratio here given is the commercial ratio, not the coinage ratio.]

It is thus seen that for 190 years, from 1660 to 1850, we produced about thirty tons of silver to one of gold, or 3,485,470 kilos of gold to 103,335,750 of silver, or in value two dollars in silver to one of gold, while the ratio remained nearly constant. Then for twenty years, from 1850 to 1870, we produced three dollars in gold to one in silver, or by weight 3,826,105 kilos of gold to 21,156,700 of silver, only five and one half to one in weight, and still no marked fluctuation in their ratio of value. While since 1870 in twenty-one years we have produced of gold 3,531,732 kilos and of silver 57,832,209, i. e., by weight sixteen and one third times more of silver, but by bullion value a little more of gold than of silver, while their ratio of value has changed as never before and now stands at about 32 to 1.

Can any one doubt that this is due primarily to the demonetization of silver, and to the fact that the leading nations have ceased to coin it, thus putting a double burden upon gold, increasing the demand for it, and doubling its value as compared with silver or other commodities?

BIMETALLISM ON A SILVER BASIS.

Thousands demand that our laws shall offer free coinage to both gold and silver at the ratio of 16 to 1, making both full legal tender, and call this bimetallism, although the more intelligent of them are aware that it would result in deporting our gold and leaving us upon a par with Mexico with a silver basis only. They know that no man would take $10,000 in gold bullion to the mint to have it coined if he could sell it and buy silver to coin more than 10,000 legal tender dollars, or having it already coined, they know no man would use his gold as money if he could sell it for more than its money value. They ignore the fact that all recent indebtedness is contracted upon the present basis and they would work the grossest injustice by making legal payment with dollars which they habitually boast shall be the equivalent of but a bushel of wheat. Laboring men clamor for it, forgetting that their labor contracts now call for the best of dollars, and under the new régime their money would buy but half as much. Insured men and savings-bank and building and

loan depositors ask for the change, forgetting that every dollar they collect will be less valuable than now. Farmers demand it because it will advance prices, but they forget that all other prices advance long before farm products take an upward turn, forgetting that when all values become finally adjusted they gained nothing but the handling of two inconvenient dollars where they now handle one. Men owing mortgages past due clamor for it, thinking they can more easily make payment, forgetting that thereby they offer the strongest possible provocation to the immediate foreclosure before the cheaper money shall be forthcoming. Thoughtless men ask it, saying we call for both gold and silver, forgetting we tried it for eighty years and never had but one metal at a time and that always the cheapest. Inflationists demand it, thinking thereby we shall have two dollars where we now have one, forgetting that its first effect will be to contract our currency by the whole amount of our present gold and gold certificates, a larger amount than the present capacity of our mints could coin of silver in fifteen years. Silver men demand it, saying "if gold can't take care of itself let it go," forgetting that wealthy men will take care of the gold and leave us with naught to care for. Debtors ask for it to give them an unfair advantage, forgetting that nearly every law ever enacted to give advantage to debtors has been turned against them, having an opposite effect from that intended. Small tradesmen ask for it, knowing it will work rapid fluctuations in prices, but forgetting that with fluctuations in price, if they are not the first to suffer, they are the first to go to the wall. Wrong men ask for it, saying, "they have taken the advantage of us for twenty-five years, and now we want a chance to get even," forgetting that they who have been in position to take advantage of them from fluctuations in currency are still in position to take a double advantage of them again. Poor men ask for it, forgetting Daniel Webster's assurance that of all devices for cheating the poor and the laboring men there is none so efficient as a fluctuating currency. Others demand it, knowing that a silver basis will nominally give us twice as much money for all we sell as now, but for

getting the inevitable contraction that must first precipitate such a panic as America has never yet known.

Where then is the escape from a constantly appreciating basis working constant injustice or a rapid unsettling of values with violent injustice? May it not be found, where truth is ever found, midway between the extremes? Is it not to be found in a REAL BIMETALLISM,

which may be established by our nation without waiting for any other? Why not make gold and silver jointly the basis of all values, treating both metals alike, discriminating against neither, and insuring the use of both at all times, as both together are subject to less fluctuations at all times than either separately! Coin both upon precisely the same conditions for whosoever brings both to the mint. Let the government lead in the policy of paying both, half and half, on all her obligations to pay "coin of present weight and fineness," and whenever she receives coin receive both metals, half and half. Enact that the legal tender in the payment of all debts shall be gold and silver, half and half (allowing for little variations from this in making change), or United States notes or certificates which are themselves redeemable in coin, half and half.

EQUITY

would be more nearly established by this than by any other plan yet suggested. A large proportion of our indebtedness, national, municipal, or individual, was incurred upon a basis of value vastly below that in which we would pay. All obligations in "coin of present weight and fineness" were understood to be paid in the cheaper metal at our option. It has been the invariable practice of individuals and of nations to pay in the cheaper. We did pay in the cheaper while gold remained the cheaper and would without doubt have changed to silver when it became cheaper in 1876 if it had not been that, in some way, the silver dollar was unknown to our laws for five years, from 1873 to 1878. So eminent a goldite as Secretary Carlisle is reported to have said he believed it would have been a better policy from the first to pay in the cheaper metal, although he

thinks it would be disastrous to make that change at this time. Abundant equity, in fact, great liberality, will be shown those early creditors if the balance of those long-time obligations are paid half in each metal or its equivalent. Millions of other obligations have been incurred upon a gold basis of nearly its present value, but not with the pledge or agreement that the basis shall be forever appreciating and the obligation forever increasing. Fluctuations in value from the adoption of the new scheme can be neither great nor rapid, and it is believed it will offer a more equitable payment than any other yet suggested. Not the least merit of the proposed scheme is its

PRACTICABILITY.

Its adoption could occasion not a flutter or ripple in our business transactions. No recoinage or calling in of money is necessary, and no hoarding of gold or paying with a cheaper money is possible. Every dollar in circulation would continue in circulation and still be "good as any other dollar." Gold and silver certificates could be received as their equivalents in coin and cancelled and coin certificates issued in their stead. Any one taking bullion to the mint could receive certificates therefor and government could coin and retain the coin, holding for ultimate redemption as large a percentage as is thought necessary. We now have in this country and in the world, and are producing annually about sixteen times as much silver as gold by weight or by value, half and half. The adoption of this scheme would occasion a less demand for gold bullion and a greater demand for silver and tend to bring their bullion value to a parity, but for this we care but little. When coined their parity is absolute and by requiring the bullion dealer to bring half of each to the mint, justice is done alike to all producers. Has not this scheme all the advantages claimed for either the gold basis or the alternating basis without the disadvantages and inequities of either?

DANIEL STRANGE.