Some thirteen years ago, as Chairman of the Monetary Commission appointed by Congress to investigate the causes of the changes in the relative values of the precious metals, I submitted to this body a report, in which I took occasion to refer to the motives which evidently influenced the creditor classes of the western world in destroying the automatic system of money. From that Report I quote as follows:
The world has generally favored, theoretically if not practically, the automatic metallic system, and adjusted its business to it. Some nations adopted one metal as their standard, and some the other, and some adopted both. Those that adopted both metals served as a balance-wheel to steady with exactness their relative value. The practical effect of all of this was the same as if all nations had adopted both, because it secured the entire stock of both at a fixed equivalency for the transaction of the business of the world. While some nations have changed their money metal, or, having had paper money, have resumed specie payments in one metal, the policy of a general demonetization of one of the metals was first broached only about twenty years ago. About ten years later a formidable propaganda was organized to fasten that policy upon the commercial world.
This new school of financial theorists advocate the retention of metal as the material of money, but favor its subjection to governmental interference in every respect. Whenever new mines are discovered, or old ones yield or promise to yield more abundantly, instead of freely accepting their product in accordance with the automatic theory, they advocate its rejection through the restriction or the absolute prohibition of the coinage of either or both metals, or through the limitation or the abolition of the legal-tender function of one of them. Whenever the interests of the creditor and income classes seem to be in danger of being impaired by an increase in the volume and decrease in the value of money, or in other words, by a general rise in prices, these modern theorists are clamorous in double-standard countries for the demonetization of one of the money metals, and in single-standard countries for the shifting of the money function from the metal which promises the most to the one that promises the least abundant supply. They are extremely anxious for the retention of the material of which the money-standard is composed when such material is rising in value and prices are falling, and exceedingly apprehensive of the evil and inconvenience which they predict as sure to result from changing it.
Whenever a fall in prices occurs, through either a natural or artificial contraction in the volume of money, they maintain that it is due to antecedent inflation and extravagance, or to overproduction through persistent and reckless industry; if the contraction be natural, that it can not be helped, and if artificial, that though it may inflict great temporary losses on the masses of the people, it will be sure to result in their ultimate benefit, and they console the sufferers with the comforting assurance that such contraction is necessary in order to reach the lowest depths of that "hard pan" whose foundations they have previously undermined by demonetizing one of the metals, and upon which alone they claim that money, capital, and labor can securely and harmoniously rest. But when the material composing the standard is falling in value and prices are rising, they immediately discover that the maintenance of the value of the standard is the all-important consideration, and that its material is of no importance whatever and should be at once changed to "redress the situation." After having reduced one of the metals to a commodity by depriving it of the money function, these theorists complacently point to the resulting fluctuations in the value as a justification of the act producing them, and as a conclusive proof of the unfitness for money of the demonetized metal. * * *
Metallic money, on this theory, is no longer automatic, but is as completely subjected to governmental control for all injurious purposes as paper money. But, unlike paper money, the control over this kind of metallic money can only be exercised in the baneful direction of decreasing its volume, and thereby making property cheaper and money scarcer and dearer.
This is a one-sided system, which can operate only in the interest of the security creditor, the usurer, and pawnbroker, whom it enables, through the falling prices which itself occasions, to swallow up the shrunken resources of the debtor, but is impotent to protect the interests of the unsecured business creditor, the debtor, or society, when, from any cause, the supply of the money metals becomes deficient.
The world has expended a vast amount of labor in the production of the precious metals, and has made great sacrifices in upholding the automatic metallic system of money, and has a right to insist that it shall be consistently let alone to work out its own conclusions, or that it be abandoned.
The history of the subsequent struggle to remonetize silver only serves to illustrate and emphasize the correctness of that statement of the case.
Between 1810 and 1849, according to Tooke and Newmarch (recognized authorities on the subject), gold increased in value 145 per cent. which is equivalent to a fall in the general range of prices of 59 per cent. No movement was then made or suggestion offered by the debtors, or by any class of the community, to add any new money-metal to the metals already in use, with the view of increasing the volume of money, so that the equity of time contracts might be maintained, and the value of the unit of money kept at a steady and unchanging level.