Currency And Prices

Mr. Bryan, in his speeches, has á great deal to say about "the parity of mcmey and property." This is a new parase, and ít requires explanation. He fias not said what he means by it lt is nevertheless olear that it is one'way of expressing the idea that there is a ratio between all the money and all the property m the world, and that this ratio is the measure of prices For ínstanee, in his speech at Toledo, he sni? 'n snbstance: Wait íintil India and China and Japan and all the other silver-using nations are dviyen to a gold standard, and thcn what? "Then you hare a little chunk of gold twenty-two teet each way when molted into a 'cube and that little chunk of gold will measure all the property in the world." When it is said that one of the fnUotions of money is to measure values (wnicn is true), the idea is not in the bram of any sane man, that all the property in the world is to be measnred by money at one and the same lime, any more than all the wheat in the world is to be so measured, or all the distances on a map. We measure bushels in a box or basket. Mr. Bryan's idea seems to be that, in order to measure the wheat in the world, wc must have a basket or a box big pnough to hold it all at once, instead of measurmg it bushei by bushel. His complaint of the bushel-basket in ordinary use would be that it is not large enougii. He says that we cannot make a bnshelbasket (of money) big enough to measure the value of all property in the world, unless we make it of both gold and silver; there is not gold enough by itself, and there is not silver enough by itself; therofore he is in favor of the doublé Standard or of bimetallism, in his very peculiar sense of the word bimetalliam. He thiuks that the size of the bushelbasket would somehow add to the value of the wheat put into it. Or, to change the figure, he conceives of all the property in the world as in one pan of a pair of scales, and all the money in the world in the opposite pan. If the pan containing property goes down, ond that containing money goes up, prices are too low. If the pan containing money goes down, and that containing property goes up, prices are too high. In order that prices should be just right, the two pana must stand at a balance, or on a level with each other. A dollar which would have this effect would be an honest dollar, but any other dollar is a dishonest dollar. To be consistent, he should go further and say that the ordinary surveyors' cbain is not long enough; it ought to be long enough to measure all the miles that could possibly be measured on the surface of the earth's globe, at once. All this seems too trifling and childish for serious refutation, aud yet Mr. Bryan's conception of the meaning of the words "standard," "rnonometallism" and "bimetallism" is so ingrained lnto the thinking of the Populists, and is so vitally, fundamenta lly connected with the motive which lies at the basis of the movemeut for the free coinage of silver at 16 to 1, that the fallacy of this position requiros to be clearly and unniistakably shown. Very good. There are many ways in which it can be done. One answer to the argument implied in this definition of money as a measure of value is as follows: If Mr. Bryan will take the Statistical Abstract of the United States for 1895, and turn to page 37, he will there find a table numbered 14, in which the amount of money in circulation July 1, each year f rom 1872 to 1895, is stated, together with the official estímate of population on the lst of June. The amount of money in circulation July 1, 1873, was $751,881.809. On the lst of July, 1891, it was $407,440,707. The money in circulation had increased in eighteen years by 96 per cent. If now Mr. Bryan will turn to. the Abstract of the Eleventh Census, he will find a tabulated statement, on page 189, comparing the true valuation of all real and personal property in the ypars 1880 and 1890. The true valuation of property in the United States in 1880, after niaking the necessary corrections for erroneous assessments, was $43.642,000,000. In 1800 it was $65.037,091,197. The percentage of incroase in ten years is officially stated to have been 49.02. For the sake of more ready calculation we will assuine tiiat it was 50 per cent., o'r at the rate of 5 per cent. per annum. Let us dednet 35 per cent. from the valuation in 1SS0, in order to arrive at the valuation in 1873. By making the necessary calculatlons w find that it was $28,367,300,000. The money in circulation July 1, 1873, was $751,881,809. The ratio of uaouey in circulation to property in the United States, therefore, was at that date 1 to 37.7. Now let us add 5 per cent. to the valuation of property in 1890. By so doing we find the true valuation in 1891 to have been $71,540,800.317. The ratio of money in circulation to property in the United States in 1891, accordinjr to these figures, was 47.18. While money in cireulation had increased 9ti per cent., the true value of property had increased 125 per cent. The ratio of money to property was a little more than oue-fourth greater in 1873 than iu 1891. Aeoording to Mr. Bryan's theory (which is known to political economists as the quantitative theory of money), prices should have fallen 2 per cent., but a referenee to the Aldrich : port on prices, wages and transportation shows that they fel! 33 per cent. The year 1891 is the latest date for -which. prices have been culculated by Senator Aldrich. The fall in prices was 50 per cent. greater than it should have been, on this theory, which proves that other causes were operating to bring about a decline in prices than the one to which Mr. Bryan attributes it. The real cause in the decline of prices is the increased competition between farmers, manufacturers and merchants duo to imyroved methods of agriculture, manufacture and transportation, in consequence of the multlplication of human labor by the aid of machinery, and to the enlarged area of agricultura! production. The decline in prices has been chiefly in manufactured, not in agticultural protlncts. The volume of the currency iu its relation to property offered for sale had little, if anythine, to do with t.