So, also, if crockery-ware were made in this country, and its price should rise to, say, double the present price, then, instead of buying the American, or home-made article, our crockery merchants, finding that they could buy in England, France, or Germany cheaper than they could buy in this country, would decline to buy the American crockery, and would send abroad for any article, provided that, after paying freight charges and customs dues, they could sell it here at a profit. That would tend to increase the shipments of gold to foreign countries.
That an outflow of gold does not follow from a rise of general prices, but only of prices of articles of international trade, is manifest from the fact that if land becomes cheap in other countries, gold does not leave this country to buy it. When real estate is cheap in Brazil, or Australia, or in Germany, France, or even England, the owners of gold in this country do not send it abroad to make purchases of real estate.
So wages of labor may rise in this country, or compensation for all manner of services that must be performed here, and gold would not leave as a consequence. But if cloth were cheaper—quality considered,—in England, France, or Germany, or at the remotest ends of the earth,—than in this country, our merchants would send gold for it in order to sell it here at a profit.
Altogether too much importance is attached to the possession of a large stock of gold, unless that stock form part of the active circulation of the country. So long as it remains in circulation it sustains prices and develops industry and internal commerce. But the tendency of gold being to find the most profitable field for operation, its continued presence in the country can never be relied upon.
When we take gold from other countries prices in those countries fall, owing to the reduction of the volume of money there; and owing also to the action of the foreign banks in immediately raising their rates of discount on commercial paper and suddenly calling loans. As there is less money left in such country with which to pay for commodities, we are obliged to accept lower prices for the products we ship to it.
The larger the stock of gold, therefore, accumulated by us the lower, necessarily, must be the price which we can receive for our surplus agricultural products.
In order to maintain parity between the metals, it is not necessary for us to have all the gold we now have; $200,000,000, or even $100,000,000 of gold, would maintain that parity. The parity between the metals can never be broken until all the gold leaves, and provided we retain one or two hundred million, the rest can not be placed more advantageously than where our languishing surplus products must be sold.
When gold leaves this country it is because prices here are rising. Prices are now lower than they have been since 1847. Must they continue declining in order that we may be able to retain all our gold? It is manifestly impossible for the people of this country to prosper with a constantly lowering range of prices. It is equally impossible for the present level of prices to be maintained with a constantly increasing demand for, and as constantly diminishing a supply of, gold. It is universally admitted that an increase in the money circulation of this country at the present time is an exigent necessity. The advocates of the single gold standard, while admitting that we must increase our money volume, the effect of which must be to maintain, if it does not raise, the level of prices here, insist that we shall let none of our gold go in order that prices abroad may rise.
Mr. BLAIR. May I ask the Senator a question?
Mr. JONES, of Nevada. Certainly.