A Dollar That Is A Dollar

Xhere are some people mto whose head you couldn't drive an idea with a sledge hammer. The confedérate money was no money at all, because it was never authorized by a nation or a government. So íar as the confederacy could authorize the confedérate bilis, or contract debts, the confedérate dollar would pay 100 cents of debt to the confederacy. The United States greenback was money. It paid debts. It was issued by a nation that had the taxing jower, to complete the redemption. The greenback was the nation's debt, yet it was money, and the only money used for twenty years. It was the basis of values. It paid soldiers. It took care of the widows. . . . The fiat of the government made the greenbacks, money. . . . Let the mints be open. Give is silver, and all that can be coined. ,he more the better. Let it be so cheap.that it can be borrowed for three )er cent.- Adrián Press. As to the correctness of the first assertion in the above clipping the Press man has unquestionably established his contention. His article proves beyond cavil that there are such people, for he is one of thera. That appears, however, to be the only whole truth in the article. The assertion that the confederacy was not a government or nation is mere )lay upon words. It was a defaéto government and nation and for several years exercised all the functions of both. However, it is not necesary to hang the proof of the evils of cheap money on the issue as to whether the confederacy was a naion or not. The history of theoriginal colonies s full of instruction on this point. 'he same evils were glaringly ap" jarent in the cheap money of the 'athers under the revolutionary rnment and indeed these were resent in all their hideousness uner the constitutional government n the very period of the rebellion. 'ime was when a real dollar would )uy nearly or quite three of the overnment's promises to pay. gain, the Argentine Republic is oday a bright and shining example f these evils. Three revolutions ïave already swept over that unïappy country as a direct result of ooding it with cheap money. In fact, all history is f uil of illustrations. The Argus is not and never lias been disposed to question the statement that this cheap money would pay a a dollar of debt already concontracted. But debt paying power is not the only use we have for money. It must have purchasing power as well, and to be an honest dollar these two functions must be equal. It is true that this cheap money was used to pay soldiers and take care of their widows during the war, but no one claimed that the nation's debt to the soldier was fully or adequately paid when his monthiy stipend of thirteen dollars was given him in cheap or depreciated promises to pay. The government has been engaged ever since in righting that wrong by giving the veterans a pension. But even this cheap paper money was better than a cheap or fifty cent dollar would be, because it contained the pledge of the government to redeem its obligations at a more favorable day in hundred cent dollars. The fiat of the government in a sense made it money, but did not give to it its purchasing power. Of course this fiat might give such money some value by making it receivable for government dues, but most of its value depends upon the promise of the government to pay which is back of it and the faith of the people in that promise. Even with this promise the volume had to be restricted to keep it from becoming worthless. But the cheap 16 to i silver dollar is quite another thing. The advocates of unlimited coinage do not intend that it shall be a credit currency but money of ultímate redemption and on such a basis it would be worth but fifty cents. Lacking as it would the fullness of natural or intrinsic value it would not be worth its face in the commercial world, except in the payment of debts already contracted. Real money, like everything else, can have value only because of the fact that it costs something. It must possess stored up labor. Such money is worth its face everywhere and would have pracftically the same value, stamp or no stamp. The farther idea that money should be made so cheap that it can be had for three per cent. interest is pure nonsense. Cheap money and low rates of interest never go together. We had during the war, as the Press acknowleges, cheap money and plenty of it, but neither the government or private individuals could borrow for three per cent. Cheap money never begets low interest, but the opposite. That which brings down the rate of interest is a sound and stable currency, free from danger of violent fluctuations, thereby begetting confidence and overcoming the timidity of money and causing it to come out from its ïiding and seek investment.