as a unit of measure, and our commercial relations with them are so intimate that gold is certain to remain the unit in the United States even if it is driven out of circulation. Such was the fact during the Civil War.

The practical effect of the free and unlimited coinage of silver at the ratio of 16 to I therefore will be not bimetallism but silver monometallism, and this no one has the hardihood or temerity to advocate, for it degrades us as a nation to the commercial level of China, India, Japan, Mexico and the other silver countries.

IF ONE DOUBTS THIS

let him verify it in this way. Gresham's law stands unquestioned, that "with unlimited coinage of both metals at a fixed ratio, the metal that is overvalued at the mint will go to the mint and will circulate as money, while the metal that is undervalued at the mint will retire from circulation." This law has been found to be fundamental and absolutely true in the history of finance. If a farmer can pay a debt in apples or turnips he will pay it in what is cheaper and keep the better. Enlightened self-interest and not selfishness regulates this. For the former trait is commendable and the latter unworthy. The laws of commercial life assume this as axiomatic and the world's markets are founded upon it. Only fanatics, whether in religion or finance, decry selfinterest as a proper motive of action. The attempt to increase the volume of our currency, therefore, by going to a silver monometallic basis is simply suicidal, for, in the end, it increases quantity at the expense of quality. Its effect will be to disturb our financial affairs to such an extent that four years will be all too short to recover from such a radical change, and the party that with brass bands and booming cannon is ushered into power on such a philosophy would go out of power at the end of its first term "to the music of hisses."

CHANGING THE UNIT OF MEASURE

has no effect on the value or on the quantity of the goods measured. The amount of cloth in the United States is not increased or diminished one inch by making six inches a foot. The size of the farm is the same if a rod is eight feet; and a cart load of apples has no more nor less apples in it whether a bushel is 32 or 16 quarts. The boy's conundrum was: "How many legs has a dog if you call his tail a leg?" The answer was: "Four, for calling the tail a leg does not make it a leg." The farmer does not get more real value for his crops, nor the wage-earner more for a day's labor, by changing the unit of measure or by making 371 grains of silver the standard instead of 23.22 grains of gold. It will simply take twice as much bullion to buy goods or pay debts, but its purchasing power will remain unchanged.

WHAT IS MONEY?

It is simply a medium of exchange, and to increase the volume of the medium will not in the least increase the real value or the bulk of the commodities to be exchanged. The volume of money must be large enough to do the business of the country with ease, and its stability must be sufficient to do it with confidence. The present volume of our currency is sufficiently large, and the confidence in it we are fighting to maintain.

The desire to enter into a compact with other nations to give universal currency to silver at some agreed ratio is commendable, but the United States must work in harmony with other nations in order to accomplish it. It will increase the demand for silver and thus enhance its value somewhat, and will find a foreign market for our silver bullion. But it will not add one cent to the purchasing power of our silver dollar, for it passes now at a parity with gold. It will enlist the sympathy and help of other nations to restore silver to its place of dignity and power, not in the United States, for

it has never been dethroned, but foreign countries will make greater use of it.

MONEY IS SIMPLY A BRIDGE

that the farmer drives over in going to market. The bridge must be large enough and strong enough to cross over with convenience and safety. The volume of our currency is sufficient in size and strength to carry over the products of the country. It does not add one cent to the value of a farmer's load to build two bridges instead of one. If an army must cross a bridge to get into battle, the bridge might be too small to carry it over in time; but, if it were large enough, not one man is added to the army by increasing the number of bridges or size. To enlarge the bridge at the expense of its stability, is the height of folly, for a hundred weak bridges are not as good as one strong one. We must have implicit confidence in a bridge or the people will not use it. To increase the volume of our circulating medium at the expense of its stability is unwise, for it is simply watering the milk. The ethics of the case we do not here discuss but only the expediency.

TO DESTROY CONFIDENCE

in our currency will bring on financial ruin and distress such as the country has never seen. Money will be difficult to borrow or buy; prices will fluctuate daily to keep pace with the markets of the world and to keep pace with the varying prices of gold. With confidence gone, which is now the equilibrium, money will not be lured forth from its hiding places and poured into the channels of trade because of its timidity and the fear of a falling market; another four years of our national life will be squandered in a futile attempt to fight the eternal laws of nature which are the laws of God. We shall become the laughing stock and a by-word among the civilized nations of the earth. Let us vote that the town pump shall give milk; that veal shall be mutton; that a

horse shall drink beer and a dog shall drink whisky, for such laws will be construed simply as American humor; but let us not enact laws that shall attempt to regulate the world's markets when the laws of supply and demand are doing it regardless of the laws of any nation. And especially when we proceed forthwith to destroy the only ground upon which gold and silver can be maintained at a parity, namely, confidence in the integrity and stability of the American Republic. The surest and quickest way to destroy that confidence is to determine upon the free and unlimited coinage of gold and silver at the ratio of 16 to 1.

A boy asked the doctor how to distinguish a toadstool from a mushroom; he replied; "Eat it; if you die it is a toadstool." But the American people do not need to swallow the free silver idea to learn that it is a toadstool, for other nations have tried it and we have their experience from which to learn lessons of wisdom. The wisdom of the

farmer can be relied upon, in going to market, not to exchange his cart with its two wheels of equal size, gold and silver, for an old-fashioned wheelbarrow with its one wheel of silver, simply because that wheel is larger. To learn eternal verities and build thereon is the only duty of man.. The wise man will build his house upon a rock.

ARTICLE VIII.

THE QUESTION OF THE FREE COINAGE OF SILVER.

BY EDWARD W. BEMIS.

ALTHOUGH the subject of this article was selected at the request of the other editors, the writer desires to state that, because of his absence in the East while writing it, he does not know how far his views may be in harmony with those of the other editors, so that any fault that may be found with the positions here taken should be visited upon the writer only. It is not the aim, however, in this necessarily brief discussion to take any dogmatic stand upon questions that few are prepared to reason on at this time of political passion. Rather the aim will be to give some basis for independent judgment on the part of those that are still in doubt.

It is hardly necessary to say that, where the American people are almost equally divided, it is very unwise as well as unjust to use the harsh epithets that are in such common use in this campaign. It ought to be entirely possible for one to act on his honest convictions, whether favorable to gold or to silver, without being considered either a Wall street conspirator or an anarchist.

But, coming to the main issues, it is to be noted, in the first place, that, contrary to the expectations of a few weeks ago, the tariff is not the main question. If Mr. Bryan is elected, the need of more revenue will almost necessitate the increase of the tariff, until, at least, the slow process of change in the Supreme Court renders that body more favor