Part 11

But, aside from the effect on the individual, what benumbing consequences are entailed upon the nation by the idleness of so large a number of its people. The loss of the wealth which the labor of those men might have created is a loss never to be retrieved. When the money volume of a country is sufficient to keep prices from falling, and thus to encourage capital to seek productive enterprises, in which labor is employed, every willing man is kept at work, and no country can enjoy any higher degree of prosperity than when all its people are employed, and the products of their labor equitably distributed.

Much, I believe, of the prejudice against silver money arises from an idea, conscientiously entertained, by many, that gold money has the greater "intrinsic value." I shall, therefore, Mr. President, at the risk of being a little abstruse, discuss that point.

THE MEANING OF VALUE.

No discussion of the subject of money can be intelligently conducted without a correct conception of the meanings attaching to the terms employed. For a misconception of those meanings is the root of much of the confusion and difficulty by which the subject is surrounded.

"Value" is a word which, of necessity, is more frequently used--and, I will add, more frequently misused and misunderstood--than any other employed in the discussion of economic science. Volumes have been written upon it, and yet, from the daily misapplication of the word in leading magazines and newspapers, it is evident that its meaning is very imperfectly understood.

The idea involved in the word "Value" is so broad and pervasive that within the limits of a speech it would be impossible to discuss it in all its bearings. I shall not, therefore, at this time, do more than present what I conceive to be a basic definition of it.

Value is human estimation placed upon desirable objects whose quantity is limited, and whose acquisition involves sacrifice. In order that an object may have value it must not only be the subject of human desire, but there must be a limitation of its quantity, and its acquisition must demand a sacrifice from him who would obtain it. The term "intrinsic value" is used by many writers with a total disregard of the idea involved in the word _value_. An article may have estimable qualities that are intrinsic, but no article whatever can have intrinsic value. Its "value" is the mental estimation of its qualities, as modified by the limitations of its quantity and the amount of sacrifice necessary to obtain it. In other words, value is subjective, not objective. In economic discussion, however, value is treated as though it resided in the object, rather than in the mind, and while, for convenience, I may occasionally use it in that sense, it is important to bear in mind the distinction.

In that acceptation, value is usually divided into value-in-use, and value-in-exchange. Certain esteemed qualities of an object may make it of great value-in-use; but unless its acquisition demand sacrifice, it can have no value-in-exchange. It is only with this class of value that economists deal. No matter how important the intrinsic qualities of any article may be, if there be no limitation of its quantity and its acquisition requires no sacrifice, it can have no value in the sense in which the word "value" is used in political economy. The air has qualities inestimable to mankind; it must be regarded as incomparably the most useful of all the objects of human desire; yet it has no value because there is no limitation of its quantity. By reason of its universality and accessibility, air requires no sacrifice to get it. If, however, circumstances should render air limited in quantity it is conceivable that it might become of surpassing value. A man confined in the "Black Hole" of Calcutta would give a fortune for free access to air. So water, where freely obtainable, without sacrifice, although indispensable to life, has no value in the economic sense--no value in exchange. But when not so obtainable, as in populous cities, where sacrifice of time and labor would be necessary to obtain it from river, lake, or spring, people pay for the convenience of having it in their homes. The indispensable prerequisites of value in all objects are utility--either actual or attributed--combined with limitation of quantity and the sacrifice necessary to be made in order to obtain it.

But value is not a property inhering in any article itself. It is not intrinsic. If the value were inherent or intrinsic it could not be taken away.

To illustrate: A generation ago the cradle with which wheat was harvested was said to possess intrinsic value. It was undoubtedly one of the most useful of all the articles needed by man. All that was then in that machine is in it still, yet the value is gone. Had the value been something that was intrinsic, had it resided in the object, and not in the mind, that cradle would still be worth all that it ever was. So, on the other hand, an article may possess most estimable qualities, but if those qualities are not known or recognized by the human mind the article will have no value.

A few years ago cotton seed had no value as an article of general commerce. To-day it is exceedingly valuable, because it has been found to possess estimable qualities not before suspected.

Indeed so strongly does the idea of value rest upon the estimation of the mind that it is not even necessary for an article to possess in reality any desirable quality whatever in order to have value. It will be sufficient if such quality is popularly attributed to it. Numbers of instances could be cited in which there was present no element of value except limitation of quantity, added to a mere belief, or conception of the mind, that the article had desirable qualities. Many will remember that a few years ago a herb called "Cundurango" was introduced into this country from Central America. It was generally believed to possess healing qualities in cases of cancer, and so came to have great value. As soon as this popular illusion was dispelled the article ceased to have even the slightest value.

Land being indestructible and irremovable, is believed to be the embodiment of the idea of intrinsic value. Take, then, a lot on Madison Avenue, New York; it is worth perhaps a thousand times as much as a lot of equal size in a village remote from the city. What proportion of its high price is derived from what is called its greater "intrinsic" value? A lot on that fashionable thoroughfare has no intrinsic attribute, or quality, that is not equally the attribute or quality of the village lot. The difference in its value, or, more correctly, the difference in the estimation in which it is held, as compared with that attaching to the village lot, is derived wholly from circumstances that are extrinsic, not from qualities that are intrinsic.

The action of society in utilizing land in the neighborhood of the city lot by building up around it gives that lot a value greater than one of equal size elsewhere.

But in order that a thing may subserve a useful or beneficent purpose it is not necessary that the quality which enables it to subserve that purpose should be intrinsic or inherent in the thing itself.

To apply this reasoning to the subject under discussion--whatever intrinsic qualities the metal, gold, may possess, they confer no force whatever on gold-money.

WHAT IS MONEY?

The money of a country is that thing, whatever it may be, which is commonly accepted in exchange for labor or property and in payment of debts, whether so accepted by force of law, or by universal consent. Its value does not arise from the intrinsic qualities which the material of which it is made may possess, but depends entirely on the extrinsic qualities which law, or general consent, may confer.

Money is of transcendent importance to civilization. It is the physical agency to which society has assigned the function of measuring all equities, and it is the sole agency upon which that incomparable function has been conferred. It is in terms of money that society computes the material value of all human sacrifice, alike the highest effort of genius and the daily toil and sweat of the millions who labor.

In order to measure equitably the natural and inevitable mutations in the value of other things, money should itself be of unchanging value. That is to say, any given amount of money should, so far as human foresight can regulate it, require at all times an equal amount of sacrifice for its acquisition. Thus, in the case of a contract made to-day, requiring the payment of a dollar twelve months hence, that dollar when due should exact from the debtor precisely that amount of sacrifice, and no more, which would be required had he paid the debt the day after contracting it.

No one will deny that the most important quality that money can possess is that it shall truthfully measure and state equities.

As I have shown by the figures heretofore cited, gold has risen in value between 30 and 40 per cent. since the demonetization of silver. It is not therefore so faithful a measure of value as is silver, which as illustrated by a variety of examples, has maintained almost undisturbed its relation to commodities.

THE VALUE OF MONEY, AS SUCH, NOT IN THE MATERIAL BUT IN THE STAMP. MONEY IS AN ORDER FOR PROPERTY AND SERVICES.

The logic of the situation, and the reasoning of all the leading authorities on money, lead irresistibly to the conclusion that its value does not reside in the material, but in the stamp; in other words, on the legal-tender function impressed on that material. It is an order for property and services.

Aristotle, writing of money, says:

Money by itself * * * has value only by law, and not by nature; so that a change of convention between those who use it is sufficient to deprive it of all its value and power to satisfy all our wants.

And again he says:

But with regard to a future exchange (if we want nothing at present) money is, as it were, our security that it may take place when we do want something.

John Locke, in "Considerations," etc., regarding money, published in 1691, says:

Mankind, having covenanted to put an imaginary value upon gold and silver, by reason of their durableness scarcity, and not being very liable to be counterfeited, have made them, by general consent, the common pledges, whereby men are assured, in exchange for them, to receive equally valuable things to those they parted with, for any quantity of those metals; by which means it comes to pass that the intrinsic value regard in those metals, made the common barter, is nothing but the quantity which men give or receive of them; they having, as money, no other value but as pledges to procure what one wants or desires.

Baudeau, reputed one of the most eminent of an early school of French economists, says:

Coined money in circulation is nothing, as I have said elsewhere, but effective titles on the general mass of useful and agreeable enjoyment which cause the well-being and propagation of the human race.

It is a kind of a bill of exchange, or order payable at the will of the bearer.

Adam Smith says:

A guinea may be considered as a bill for a certain quantity of necessaries and conveniences upon all the tradesmen in the neighborhood.

Jevons's "Money and Exchanges," chapter 8, says:

Those who use coins in ordinary business need never inquire how much metal they contain. Probably not one person in two thousand in this kingdom knows, or need know, that a sovereign should contain 123.27447 grains of standard gold.

Money is made to go. People want coin, not to keep in their own pockets, but to pass it off into their neighbors' pockets.

Henry Thornton, in his work on Paper Credit, says:

Money of every kind is an order for goods. It is so considered by the laborer, when he receives it, and it is almost instantly turned into money's worth. It is merely in instrument by which the purchasable stock of the country is distributed with convenience and advantage among the several members of the community.

John Stuart Mill says:

The pounds or shillings which a person receives are a sort of ticket or order which he can present for payment at any shop he pleases, and which entitle him to receive a certain value of any commodity that he makes choice.

McLeod, Elements of Banking, Chapter I, says:

When persons take a piece of money in exchange for services, or products, they can neither eat it, nor drink it, nor clothe themselves with it. The only reason why they take it is, because they believe they can exchange it away whenever they please for other things which they require.

On that view of money McLeod feels justified in styling it credit, and he quotes in support of such a use of the term credit, Burke's description of gold and silver as "the two great recognized species that represent the lasting conventional credit of mankind."

Prof. Francis A. Walker, Money, Trade, etc., page 25, speaking of carved pebbles, glass beads, shells and red feathers, used as money in certain countries at certain times, says:

They were good money, though serving no purpose but ornament and decoration. They were desired by the community in general; men would give for them the fruits of their labor, knowing that with them they could obtain most conveniently in time, in form, and in amount, the fruits of the labor of others.

On page 30 he says:

Men take money with the expectation of parting with it; this is the use to which they mean to put it.

Again, Mr. Walker says:

Money is that which passes freely from hand to hand throughout the community, in final discharge of debts and full payment for commodities, being accepted equally without reference to the character or credit of the person who offers it, and without the intention of the person who receives it to consume it, or enjoy it, or apply it to any other use than, in turn, to tender it to others in discharge of debts or payment for commodities.

Even Bonamy Price, who is wedded to the gold standard, in his Principles of Currency, says:

Gold, in the form of money or coin, is not sought for its own sake, as an article of consumption. It must never be regarded as valuable except for the work it performs, so long as it remains in the state of coin. It can be converted at pleasure into an end, into an article of consumption, by being sold; till then it is a mere tool.

How many people ever so "convert" it that earn it?

The great philosopher, Bishop Berkeley, one of the most acute reasoners, in my judgment, that modern times have produced, in the "Querist," published in 1710, propounds the following pertinent and suggestive questions:

Whether the terms "crown," "livre," "pound sterling," etc., are not to be considered as exponents, or denominations? And whether gold, silver, and paper are not tickets or counters for reckoning, recording, or transferring such denominations? Whether, the denominations being retained, although the bullion were gone, things might not nevertheless be rated, bought, and sold, industry promoted and a circulation of commerce obtained?

Dugald Stewart, professor of moral philosophy in the University of Edinburgh, in his Lectures on Political Economy (Part I, Book II), said:

When gold is converted into coin, its possessor never thinks of anything but its exchangeable value, or supposes a coffer of guineas to be more valuable because they are capable of being transferred into a service of plate for his own use. Why then should we suppose that, if the intrinsic value of gold and silver were completely annihilated, they might not still perform, as well as now, all the functions of money, supposing them to retain all those recommendations (durability, divisibility, etc.) formerly stated, which give them so decided a superiority over everything else which could be employed for the same purpose.

Supposing the supply of the precious metals at present afforded by the mines to fail entirely the world over, there can be little doubt that all the plate now in existence would be gradually converted into money, and gold and silver would soon cease to be employed in the ornamental arts. In this case a few years would obliterate entirely all trace of the intrinsic value of these metals, while their value would be understood to arise from those characteristical qualities (divisibility, durability, etc.) which recommend them as media of exchange. I see no reason why gold and silver should not have maintained their value as money, if they had been applicable to no other purposes than to serve as money. I am therefore disposed to think, with Bishop Berkeley, whether the true idea of money, as such, be not altogether that of a ticket or counter.

Appleton's Cyclopedia, defining money, says:

Anything which freely circulates from hand to hand, as a common acceptable medium of exchange in any country, is in such country money, even though it ceases to be such, or to possess any value in passing into another country. In a word, an article is determined to be money by reason of the performance by it of certain functions, without regard to its form or substance.

BASTIAT'S DESCRIPTION OF THE CROWN PIECE.

Bastiat, in his "Harmonies Economiques," describing money, used the following illustration:

You have a crown piece. What does it mean in your hands? If you can read with the eye of the mind the inscription it bears, you can distinctly see these words: Pay to the bearer a service equivalent to that which he has rendered to society. Value received and stated, proved and measured by that which in on me.

No words could more correctly describe the unit in a properly regulated system of money. And notwithstanding the attempt to discredit silver coinage, no piece of money, as I have already shown, would better answer, by its steadiness of value, this description of Bastiat's than would the American silver dollar if silver were remonetized.

So far as it applied to gold Bastiat's description was much nearer accuracy in his day than it is in ours. In his life-time the mints of France and of the Continent were open for the coinage of silver equally with gold, and the money supply of the world was not constantly narrowing by being limited to the yield of a single metal whose annual output would hardly more than meet the demand for the arts.

Were Bastiat alive at this time he would reform his description so as to make it read as follows: "You have an American gold piece. You have had it hoarded in a bank vault for fifteen years. What does it mean in your hands? If you can read with the eye of the mind the inscription it bears, you can distinctly see these words: 'Pay to the bearer 50 per cent. more service than he has rendered to society; value not received or stated on me, but resulting from a cunning manipulation of the law of legal tender, through the influence of the holders of gold and of obligations payable therein, and as a reward to the bearer for having had this money hid away and for depriving society of its use for seventeen years.'"

When people are found everywhere working for money and not for the things which they really need, it is clear that they are working for money, not because of the material of which it is composed, but because it is an order for property which they can at any time obtain by parting with the money. To modify and elaborate Bastiat's description of the crown piece, it might be said of the Money Unit of the United States under a properly regulated system:

"You have a dollar. What does it mean in your hands? If you can read with the eye of the mind the inscription it bears, you can distinctly see these words: To all to whom this may come: Greeting. This is a dollar--a unit of money--part of the great instrumentality created by society to effect the multitudinous exchanges of property and services among men. The amount of its command is constant, because the increase in the volume of money is regulated by the sovereign authority of the nation, with strict regard to the increase of population and demand--hence the value of this unit remains unchanging through time. It is an order for all property on sale, and all services for hire; the proportionate amount of such property and service to which its possessor is entitled being fixed by the universal competition to get it."

GRESHAM'S LAW.

Many persons fear an outflow of gold from the operation of what is known as "Gresham's law," namely, that "bad money will expel good." Sir Thomas Gresham, a financier of Elizabeth's time, stated that if a number of the gold or silver coins of any given denomination were deprived of part of their pure metal, and so made cheaper than the remainder, a successful circulation of the coins thus deprived would result in the melting up or exportation of the coins of standard weight. Writing of this, Mr. Jevons ("Money and the Mechanism of Exchange," American edition, page 84) says:

Gresham's remarks concerning the inability of good money to drive out bad only referred to moneys of one kind of metal. * * * The people, as a general rule, do not reject the better, but pass from hand to hand indifferently the heavy and the light coins, because their only use for the coin is as a medium of exchange. It is those who are going to melt, export, hoard, or dissolve the coins of the realm, or convert them into jewelry and gold leaf, who carefully select for their purposes the new heavy coins--

and avoid the light or abraded coins.

There is, however, a theorem which applies to all money, but which was recognized long before Gresham's time--although it has been erroneously called an "extension" of the law or theorem of Gresham.

That theorem is this: If, in any country, there are two forms of money, each of which is a full legal tender, and one of which can be obtained with less sacrifice than the other, the one requiring the least sacrifice will be the cheaper, and if the unit of that cheaper money will perform in every respect the same function in the payment of debts and settlement of all obligations that can be performed by the dearer money, then, for obvious reasons, the cheaper money will come into universal use, and the dearer money will disappear. But it does not follow that the cheaper money is bad money nor the dearer money good money.

The best money is always the money of the contract, that is to say a money whose dollar, whatever it may be made of, is equal in value to the dollar of the contract. If the money of the contract is the cheapest money, then that is the best money, that is the honest money, and that is the only tolerable money.

If that be the sort of "cheap" money that drives out the dear money, then manifestly the dear money is bad money.

A distinguished official of the Government, who was before a committee of this body the other day, insisted that the proposed Treasury notes should be redeemed in the "best money." I asked him what was the "best money." "Why," he said, "the money that is worth the most." Now, it strikes me, Mr. President, that if you have borrowed a dollar, and, through a badly regulated money-system, are made to pay a dollar worth 25 per cent. more than the dollar you borrowed, you are not paying the best money, but the worst money; not an honest dollar, but a swindling and dishonest dollar.

THE CREDITORS' DEMAND FOR THE "BEST MONEY."