Mr. Merchant: I am more than satisfied and pleased that I asked you that question, for I knew it would be constantly bobbing up and bothering us, as we went along. When I interrupted you, you were speaking of gold and its functions as money.
Mr. Banker: Yes, and I assert that no other substance or thing possesses these functions, qualifications or characteristics, at least in no such degree as gold. Does anyone here deny that?
Mr. Lawyer: I think we must all agree to that, and further I would say that anything that did not possess all these functions, qualifications or characteristics in combination cannot very well be called money. To illustrate, if anything was used as a medium of exchange but depended upon its relation to gold for its acceptance it could not be called money.
I am fully aware that we speak of "cash" and "money," as anything we get in exchange for property, but this language does not mean anything definite, except as to the transaction.
I want to lay this down as an absolute rule, and something that no one of us should forget or overlook during our conversations.
"We should be careful to avoid calling any kind of credit instrument money, no matter how much used as a medium of exchange."
Let me read that again.
Uncle Sam: Now, let me see just what you mean by that. If I understand you, I think that is an attack upon me, upon my credit. For if my recollection serves me right, the United States Notes, or Greenbacks, have been called money, and treated as money ever since I issued them during the war, way back in 1862, I think it was.
Mr. Banker: Well, Uncle Sam, do you think calling a thing something which it is not makes it that thing? To say that the moon is made of green cheese does not make it so. Now, here's one of your United States Notes, or Greenbacks. Do you recollect what you printed on that at the time you issued it, and have been printing on it ever since? This is what it says:
"The United States will pay the bearer $5.00."