The subsequent figures are equally convincing. In 1861-65 the gold products were 72.1 per cent. of the total, the silver 27.9 per cent., the variation in ratio from 15.26 to 15.44. In 1866-70 the production stood 69.4 to 30.6, the variation in ratio 15.43 to 15.60. In 1871-75 production was still 58.5 to 41.5, but the variation in coin value was from 15.57 to 16.62. That something had happened quite aside in its effects from relative production was evident, but the people did not find out what it was till late in 1875. At the time the demonetization act was passed, the ratio was still 15.55 to 1, and one of the reasons given for the act of February 12,1873, was that the silver dollar was worth $1.03 in gold; yet before the close of that year, and before it was known that there was to be any great increase in the product of silver, its relative value ran down till it was below that of gold. Can any one doubt the cause? Surely not if he observes the additional fact that the relative decline of silver continued despite the greater value production of gold, and that 1882, ten years after demonetization, was actually the first year since 1849 in which the world’s production of silver exceeded that of gold. What one hundred and ninety years of continuous and often enormous relative overproduction of silver had not done, ten years of demonetization had accomplished, and that while the relative supply of gold was still the greater. Is it possible to miss the real cause? Is there in Euclid a demonstration more conclusive?
The above diagram shows the relative annual production of gold and silver from 1870 to 1893, and ratio of values.
Monometallists have exhausted the resources of verbal gymnastics to make these figures fit their theories. Determined not to admit that demonetization was the cause, they have given so many explanations that, expressed in the briefest words, they would cover many pages like this. The first was that the opening of the “Big Bonanza” on the Comstock lode had given notice that silver was coming in a flood; but that was only for popular use in this country. Scientific men knew that to be a rare find indeed, not likely to occur again for centuries. The next explanation was that China and India, so long the reservoir into which the surplus flowed, had ceased to absorb it; and the next, demonetization of silver by Germany and her throwing her old silver on the market. And with this the people began to get at the true reason—the general demonetization by so many nations.
The following table gives the annual production of gold and silver from the discovery of America to and including the year 1892; and the highest and lowest ratio of silver to gold from 1681 to and including the year in which silver ceased to be in this country primary money:
| YEARS. | GOLD. | SILVER. | RATIO. |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1493-1520 | $3,855,000 | $1,953,000 | |
| 1521-1544 | 4,759,000 | 3,749,000 | |
| 1545-1560 | 5,657,000 | 12,950,000 | |
| 1561-1580 | 4,546,000 | 12,447,000 | |
| 1581-1600 | 4,905,000 | 17,409,000 | |
| 1601-1620 | 5,662,000 | 17,538,000 | |
| 1621-1640 | 5,516,000 | 16,358,000 | |
| 1641-1660 | 5,829,000 | 15,223,000 | |
| 1661-1680 | 6,154,000 | 14,006,000 | |
| 1681-1700 | 7,154,000 | 14,209,000 | 14.81-15.20 |
| 1701-1720 | 8,520,000 | 14,779,000 | 15.04-15.52 |
| 1721-1740 | 12,681,000 | 17,921,000 | 14.81-15.41 |
| 1741-1760 | 16,356,000 | 22,158,000 | 14.14-15.26 |
| 1761-1780 | 13,761,000 | 27,128,000 | 14.52-15.27 |
| 1781-1800 | 11,823,000 | 36,534,000 | 14.42-15.74 |
| 1801-1810 | 11,815,000 | 37,161,000 | 15.26-16.08 |
| 1811-1820 | 7,606,000 | 22,474,000 | 15.04-16.25 |
| 1821-1830 | 9,448,000 | 19,141,000 | 15.70-15.95 |
| 1831-1840 | 13,484,000 | 24,788,000 | 15.62-15.93 |
| 1841-1850 | 36,393,000 | 32,434,000 | 15.70-15.93 |
| 1851-1855 | 131,268,000 | 36,827,000 | 15.33-15.59 |
| 1856-1860 | 136,946,000 | 37,611,000 | 15.19-15.38 |
| 1861-1865 | 131,728,000 | 45,764,000 | 15.26-15.44 |
| 1866-1870 | 127,537,000 | 55,652,000 | 15.43-15.60 |
| 1871-1872 | 113,431,000 | 81,849,000 | 15.57-15.65 |
| 1873 | 96,200,000 | 81,800,000 | |
| 1874 | 90,750,000 | 71,500,000 | |
| 1875 | 97,500,000 | 80,500,000 | |
| 1876 | 103,700,000 | 87,600,000 | |
| 1877 | 114,000,000 | 81,000,000 | |
| 1878 | 119,000,000 | 95,000,000 | |
| 1879 | 109,000,000 | 96,000,000 | |
| 1880 | 106,500,000 | 96,700,000 | |
| 1881 | 103,000,000 | 102,000,000 | |
| 1882 | 102,000,000 | 111,800,000 | |
| 1883 | 95,400,000 | 115,300,000 | |
| 1884 | 101,700,000 | 105,500,000 | |
| 1885 | 108,400,000 | 118,500,000 | |
| 1886 | 106,000,000 | 120,600,000 | |
| 1887 | 105,000,000 | 124,366,000 | |
| 1888 | 109,900,000 | 142,107,000 | |
| 1889 | 118,800,000 | 162,690,000 | |
| 1890 | 118,848,700 | 172,234,500 | |
| 1891 | 126,183,500 | 186,446,880 | |
| 1892 | 138,861,000 | 196,458,800 |
Thus we see that, for twenty-seven years after the discovery of America, the gold production was double that of silver; for the next eighty years the production of silver was considerably more than double that of gold; for the next one hundred years the production of silver was more than 2½ times that of gold, and for the next century and a half, to wit, from 1701 to 1850, inclusive, despite the fact of the tremendous gain of gold in the last few years, the production of silver fell but little short of twice that of gold. And yet, the variations in coin value were of the trifling character previously stated. When taken by shorter periods, the argument is still more startling. Thus in 1801-20 the production was almost exactly 4 of silver to 1 of gold; for the next twenty years a minute fraction less than 2 of silver to 1 of gold; for the next twenty 2½ of gold for 1 of silver; and for the next twenty nearly 2 of gold for 1 of silver, while during these awful years since 1873, in which there has been so much said about the “flood of silver,” its production has never once been twice that of gold, and for the entire period has exceeded it by the merest trifle. Is it any wonder that Dr. Eduard Suess, the great German authority on the metals, and Professor of Geology at the University of Vienna, concluded his recent work with these strong statements:
“Present legislative institutions are at variance with the conditions established by nature. Even now agriculture and in part industry in Europe are sorely at a disadvantage against silver countries such as India and Mexico. The advantage of this situation accrues in England to the holders of interest-bearing notes, the productive value of which increases with the growing scarcity of gold…. As soon as the figure 23.75 shall have been reached, all gold obligations will have increased in value one-half; but nothing prevents that figure from rising to 31. [It has since risen even above that.] … You say a regulation cannot be international, but you overlook how long the ratio of 1 to 15½ was upheld and worked beneficently. We wish, say the London bankers, to receive our interest in gold and not in depreciated silver; but silver would not be depreciated the moment an agreement went into effect. Why, you ask, shall we cast such profit into the hands of the owners of silver mines? Remember that you are now casting the same profit into the hands of the owners of gold mines and washings. No man would lose by rehabilitation, and the whole world would be richer…. Europe is laboring under a grave delusion. The economy of the world cannot be arbitrarily carried on in the hope that somewhere a new California, and at the same time a new Australia, will be found whose alluvial lands will give relief for a decade. … The question is no longer whether silver will again become a full value coinage metal over the whole earth, but what are to be the trials through which Europe is to reach that point.”
At this point it seems to me well to present the figures of relative production for the last century in a more compact shape, with a view to bringing out the contrast:
| Silver produced 1792-1850 | $1,690,217,000 |
| Gold produced | 848,186,000 |
| Excess of silver production | 842,031,000 |
| Gold produced1850-73 | $2,724,825,000 |
| Silver produced | 1,150,025,000 |
| Excess of gold | 1,574,800,000 |
| Gold produced 1873-92,inclusive | $2,060,897,000 |
| Silver produced | 2,264,419,000 |
| Excess of silver | 203,522,000 |
| Gold produced 1850-92,inclusive | $4,785,722,000 |
| Silver produced | 3,414,444,000 |
| Excess of gold | 1,371,278,000 |
| Gold produced1792-1892, inclusive | $5,633,908,000 |
| Silver produced | 5,104,961,000 |
| Excess of gold | 528,947,000 |