Part 11

MR. MERCHANT: Oh, I see that now. We have simply converted $200,000 of cash capital into $200,000 of passive or fixed capital. Before he built the ditch he had $200,000 and before I sold out my grocery business I had $200,000, making $400,000 of cash capital. Now he has $200,000 of cash capital and I have $200,000 of fixed capital, possibly an eternal investment in the bonds. That is what you would call a permanent investment, I suppose, for it might take me twenty years to demonstrate the value of the enterprise as it did the bankers.

MR. BANKER: Now, Mr. Merchant, I want you to mark and remember this; in fact, I want all of you gentlemen to set this down in your memories so that it can never be dislodged. These irrigation bonds would continue as passive or fixed capital until the earnings or sale of the property, covered by the ditch, should not only pay the interest upon them, but should pay off the principal as well, even if it took a thousand years to accomplish this result.

MR. LABORINGMAN: That is nothing but a straight real estate loan as far as I can see, and not a very good one at that.

MR. BANKER: That is just what it is, and for the very same reason a banker should no more buy such bonds or loan on such securities, his commercial deposits than he should loan money on real estate. The principle is the same. If we bankers loan on cotton, cattle, hogs, wheat, corn, or manufactured goods of any kind, we know there is a constant and ready market at some price for these things, for they are all in current demand at some price, somewhere, while a real estate loan, however good it may be, is not what we call a quick asset, or liquid asset; that is, something that you can turn into money at once. A commercial bank should never take a real estate loan, except as additional security for money advanced for some legitimate commercial purpose as distinguished from an investment. The commercial funds should be used for the production of crops, or goods of some kind, and if a real estate mortgage is taken in addition, it should be only within reasonable limits, for it is the easiest thing in the world to tie up all a bank's capital and deposits in real estate loans; that is, to turn the capital and deposits into passive or fixed capital, mortgages or real estate, which might be selling readily in boom times, but which are utterly unsalable when the break comes.

MR. LABORINGMAN: What do you mean by tying up the capital and deposits of a bank in mortgages and real estate?

MR. BANKER: I will explain that to you in such a way that I am sure you cannot fail to understand and appreciate it. Suppose that I had $100,000 in cash in my bank to meet the demands of my depositors; but should give it to farmers in exchange for mortgages upon their farms. I could not pay my depositors the mortgages; they want money. I might not be able, and probably would not be able, to sell the mortgages in time to pay the depositors their money; and if money happened to be scarce, possibly not for a long time would I be able to pay them their money. I would have that $100,000 tied up in mortgages. This is granting credit on land. Now, these mortgages will continue in existence until the farmers can make enough out of their crops to pay the interest upon them from year to year, and finally to pay them off; it may take ten or twenty years. If I had loaned $100,000 on cotton or cattle, the products of the farm, they could have been converted immediately into money at some price to meet the demands of my depositors.

MR. LABORINGMAN: I see now that you bankers must keep the money you receive from us depositors, either in cash or in something you can instantly convert into money, and when you don't do that, you have tied it up, as you say; and if we happen to find it out we are apt to want our money; and if we all want it at the same time, you call it a run on your bank. Now when you say a banker is ready for a run, you mean, as I now understand it, that he has all his deposits on hand in cash, or has all his deposits invested in something that he can turn into cash: good notes that have been taken in the course of business, that is, in the production and transportation of consumable commodities, the necessaries of life. Of course, anybody must understand that if a bank bought a lot of farms or a lot of farm mortgages (and it might be worse off if it bought city mortgages with our deposits), he could not convert them or turn them into money on demand. I am on to this thing now; neither mortgages nor land can be considered what you described a minute ago as quick assets, or as liquid assets, because you cannot convert them into money practically on demand.

MR. FARMER: I grasp that idea now myself. Do you know I have always thought, until within an hour, that we farmers ought to be able to get something to pay out in the shape of currency that represented our land, or in exchange for a mortgage, just because I knew a mortgage was good or worth its face; but I see now that a bank must not only have something that is good and worth its face, but it must be exchangeable for, and convertible into, real money or gold, at any time, or the bank must shut up. And you can't turn all our farms into some form of currency, and expect the banks to redeem it any more than you can sell a farm every hour. I have been trying to sell one farm for ten years. Now I see that would not make very good currency. Since I cannot sell it, the only way for me to convert that farm into cash capital is to take the net earnings, and lay them aside until they equal its value or what it cost me; that might not be within twenty years, as I might not be able to save for that purpose more than 3 per cent or 4 per cent a year which, at compound interest, would about make it. It is perfectly clear to me, now, that real estate is not a proper basis for a currency, which must be currently redeemed in gold. It cannot be done; that is a sure thing.

MR. LAWYER: Mr. Farmer, you have reasoned out for yourself a thing that has fooled many a man, and the world has had many bitter experiences trying to do the very thing you now so clearly see cannot be done; that is, make currency out of real estate, or, rather, as you would say, make money out of real estate, when, as we have already seen, gold is the only money we have or can have, so long as gold is our standard of value.

Jevons, a great English writer, has well said: "Land is doubtless one of the best kind of security for the ultimate repayment of a debt; and it is therefore very suitable when money is lent for a long time. But representative bank notes purport to be equivalent to gold, payable on demand, and nothing is less readily convertible into gold in an emergency than land."

MR. FARMER: And we cannot have any more currency than we can redeem daily in gold. Therefore we can't make currency out of all of our real estate, even our agricultural land, which is according to our last census worth sixteen billions or $160 for every man, woman and child in the United States. The average value per acre is $15.57. Now, at first thought, anyone would say that it would be safe to issue money for this value, or sixteen billion dollars; but who would redeem it? That is the question. One hundred and sixty dollars for every man, woman and child. That would certainly be absurd; and yet I have always thought that we could do that very thing until tonight. I see how it is, currency must be currently redeemed in our standard of value, or it will become first worth less than 100 cents on the dollar, and if the thing goes far enough, it would actually become practically worthless, although it might be based upon valuable real estate. How perfectly simple and plain this all is now.

MR. LAWYER: Indeed, it is simple and plain, but do you know that that scheme of making currency or money out of real estate, or converting real estate into currency or money, was tried twice in France upon a most gigantic scale? First, John Law, in 1717, worked out a scheme whereby he tied the government of France to a land enterprise in the United States, the "Mississippi Scheme," covering a large French grant, and through his plan issued money, Government money, that represented about one-quarter cash and the balance real estate. But everybody has heard of John Law and the "Mississippi Bubble," so I won't say any more about that. Nearly a century afterward the same scheme was tried again, and strange as it may seem, in France, too.

From 1789 to 1796, during the French Revolution, the credit of the French Government was added to vast real estate holdings, so that the security was doubled, such as it was. I have just looked this matter up with a good deal of care, and the best description I found was substantially as follows:

Assignats were a form of paper money issued in France from 1789 to 1796. Assignats were so termed because land was assigned to the holders of them. The financial strait of the French Government in 1789 was extreme; coin was scarce, loans were not taken up, taxes had ceased to be paid, production and the country were threatened with bankruptcy. In this emergency Assignats were issued to provide a substitute for metallic currency. These Assignats were originally of the nature of mortgage bonds on the National lands. These lands consisted of the church property confiscated on the motion of Mirabeau by the Constitutional assembly on Nov. 2, 1789, and the Crown lands which had been taken over by the nation on Oct. 7th. Subsequently the lands of the Emigres, the princes and royal followers, 30,000 of the nobility who were exiled from the soil of France, were added to the list of lands against which the Assignats were issued.

These Assignats were first to be paid to creditors of the State; with them the creditors could purchase National land, the Assignats having for this purpose a preference over other forms of money. If the creditor did not care to purchase land, it was supposed that he could obtain the face value for them from those who desired land. Those Assignats which were returned to the State as purchase money were to be canceled, and the whole issue, it was argued, would consequently disappear, as the National lands were distributed.

A first issue was 400,000,000 francs or ($80,000,000) worth of Assignats, each note being 100 francs or $20 value and bearing interest daily, at 5 per cent. They were to be redeemed by the product of the sales, and from certain other sources, at the rate of 120,000,000 francs ($24,000,000) in 1791; 100,000,000 francs ($20,000,000) in 1792; 80,000,000 francs ($16,000,000) in 1793 and 1794, and the balance in 1795. The success of this first issue was undoubted, as all such first issues are.

Mirabeau was a strenuous advocate of the Assignats. "They represent," he said, "real property, the most secure of all possessions, the soil on which we tread. There cannot be a greater error than the fear so generally prevalent as to the overissue of Assignats, reabsorbed progressively in the purchase of the national domain; this paper money can never become redundant."

In 1790 the interest was reduced to 3 per cent, and as the Treasury had again become exhausted, a further issue was decided upon; it was also decreed that the Assignats were to be accepted as legal tender, all public departments being instructed to receive them as the equivalent of metal money. The second issue amounted to 800,000,000 francs ($160,000,000) and carried no interest. It was solemnly declared in the decree authorizing the issue that the maximum issue was never to exceed one billion two hundred million francs (1,200,000,000) ($240,000,000). This pledge, however, was soon broken, and further issues brought the total up to three billion seven hundred and fifty million francs (3,750,000,000) ($750,000,000). The consequence of these further issues was instant depreciation, and the note of 100 francs ($20) sank to less than 20 francs ($4) in coin. Recourse was then had to protective legislation. The first step was to decree the penalty of six years' imprisonment against any person who should sell specie for a more considerable quantity of Assignats, or should stipulate a different price for commodities, according as payment was to be made in specie or Assignats. For the second offense, the penalty was to be twenty years' imprisonment (August 1, 1793). For this the death penalty was ultimately substituted (May 10, 1794). This severe provision was, however, repealed after the fall of Robespierre. Notwithstanding these precautions, the value of the Assignats still declined, till the proportion of specie had become that of sixty to one. Then came the passing, by the convention, on May 3, 1793, of the absurd maximum. The decree required all farmers and corn dealers to declare the quantity of corn in their possession and to sell it only in recognized markets. No person was to be allowed to lay in more than one month's supply, a maximum price was fixed above which no one was to buy or sell under severe penalties. These measures were soon stultified by further issues and by June, 1794, the total number of issued Assignats aggregated nearly eight billion francs ($1,600,000,000), of which only two billion four hundred and sixty-four million francs had returned to the Treasury to be destroyed. The extension of the maximum price to all commodities only increased the confusion. Trade was completely paralyzed and all manufacturing establishments were closed down. Attempts by the convention (legislature) to increase the value of the Assignats were of no avail. Too many causes operated in favor of the depreciation; the enormous issue, the uncertainty as to their value, if the revolution should fail; the relation they bore both to specie and commodities which retained their value and refused to be exchanged for money of constantly diminishing power. Even between the Assignats themselves there were differences. The Royal Assignats themselves, which had been issued under Louis XVI had depreciated less than the Republican ones. They were worth from 8 per cent to 15 per cent more, a fact due to the hope that in case of a counter-revolution they would be less likely to be discredited.

The Directory was guilty of even greater abuses in dealing with the Assignats.

By 1796 the issue had reached the enormous figure of forty-five billion francs ($9,000,000,000), and even this gigantic total was swollen still more by the numerous counterfeits introduced into France by the neighboring countries. The Assignats had now become totally valueless, the abolition of the maximum the previous year, 1795, had produced no effect; and, though by various payments into the Treasury, the total number had been reduced to about twenty-four billion francs ($4,800,000,000), their face value was about thirty to one of coin. At this value they were converted into eight hundred million francs ($160,000,000) of land warrants or Mandats Territoriaux, which were to constitute a mortgage on all the lands of the republic. These Mandats were no more successful than the Assignats; and even on the very day of their issues were at a discount of 82 per cent. They had an existence of six months, and were finally received back by the State at about the 70th part of their face value in coin. That is, the State gave one dollar in coin for seventy dollars in the paper.

This experience of France has been the experience of practically the entire world, Italy, Russia, Germany, Great Britain. The South American countries are now going through it. Even the very best of them, Brazil and Argentina, although their notes are not backed up by the land as those of France were, have suffered the same consequences of their folly. They are the notes issued by the Government against their own credit. They were issued as fiat money, but are gradually being retired just as the Assignats were as depreciated currency.

MR. BANKER: Well, we haven't anything on the South American countries to speak of ourselves from Colonial times down to the present day.

UNCLE SAM: Now, Mr. Banker, just hold up; you can't get into that tale of woe tonight, for I always have a bad dream when I think of it; a veritable nightmare. We must quit for tonight. Mr. Farmer over there has gone to sleep on my hands already.

MR. FARMER: No, he hasn't; not on your life, and I hope it's a very long life, Uncle Sam.

MR. LABORINGMAN: Mr. Farmer, you are the first man I ever saw who snores when he is awake. You snored loud enough to wake the dead. Your snoring actually kept me from going to sleep.

UNCLE SAM: Well, boys, let me see whether I can recollect just what points we have made tonight.

_First_: There is credit, which is the result of confidence and trust. It is the right to demand payment.

_Second_: For every credit granted, a debt is created.

_Third_: If every debt is paid every credit will be canceled.

_Fourth_: Credit is never excessive no matter what its absolute quantity is, so long as it always returns into itself; that is, cancels itself.

_Fifth_: Credit from a commercial point of view, when granted to create consumable commodities, the necessaries of life, is filling its proper function.

_Sixth_: Credit granted to facilitate the sale, transfer and distribution of consumable commodities, the necessaries of life, is filling its proper function from a commercial point of view.

_Seventh_: Credit extended in the form of acceptances of checks, drafts or bills of exchange, growing out of the actual production and distribution of the necessaries of life, is filling its proper function from a commercial point of view.

_Eighth_: Credit obtained through accommodation acceptances or indorsements is a bane to and peril of commerce, especially if such credit is used in real estate investments, and more particularly in speculation.

_Ninth_: Credit granted upon real estate securities should depend entirely upon the investment fund of the country for its cancelation. So far as such credit is canceled by appropriating the commercial fund of the country, labor will be thrown out of employment, production and consumption will cease to a corresponding degree, and this will measure the amount of human suffering that is sure to follow.

_Tenth_: Real estate is not a proper basis for currency, because it is not a consumable commodity with a ready market where it can be converted into gold and because the value of real estate from the standpoint of our currency needs is unlimited and therefore necessarily not convertible into gold coin which is always essential to a sound currency.

The history of credit granted to our Government or forced by our Government from the people will furnish plenty of food for our appetites, humble our pride, and recall most sickening experiences one week from tonight. Don't you think so, Mr. Banker?

MR. BANKER: I certainly do.

MR. LAWYER: So do I. And even then we cannot do the subject half justice; but I suppose that we must get through some time.

UNCLE SAM: I see that Mr. Farmer is now wide awake, but that Mr. Laboringman over there is starting for the land of nod, because Mr. Farmer is not keeping him awake by his snoring, so I think I'd better say good night.

EIGHTH NIGHT

COLONIAL CREDIT MONEY

UNCLE SAM: When we parted last Wednesday night, we all agreed to make our experiences in Government issues of money the subject of inquiry tonight, and I presume you have all been spending your days and nights in studying American history, that is, in studying me.

MR. MERCHANT: I have put more work into the question of our Government issues of money than into any subject in my life in the same length of time, principally because I knew Mr. Farmer used to be what we called a Green-backer some years ago and I wanted to be ready if he happened to still entertain those ideas and was still subject to those fits of madness that came over him before he paid off the mortgage on his farm. But that's ancient history now, and he's holding the mortgage on the other fellow's farm. Now, Mr. Farmer, don't get hot, for I don't mean any disrespect to you, but only to recall that craze for fiat money when you and I were much younger than we are now. Then again, you seem to have had a real revelation during our last talk, and to have been converted to the principle that there could be too much paper money.

MR. FARMER: That's all right, Mr. Merchant, but I well remember that I was not alone when I used to advocate greenbacks without limit. Mr. Banker over there was in the same boat with me.

MR. BANKER: Right you are, Mr. Farmer, and there was not a man in this immediate neighborhood then except old Judge Jones who did not agree with us, but we've traveled some since then.

MR. LAWYER: Well, gentlemen, I am a little surprised to find you all so completely convinced that Government issues of money are to be condemned before a fair trial. I half imagine that Mr. Manufacturer over there will sympathize with me in my contention for the constitutional power, and the wisdom of issuing United States Notes.

MR. MANUFACTURER: You are very sadly mistaken about me; I am ready to prove that you are mistaken, both as to the wisdom and constitutional right of the Government to issue money even if you are a lawyer, and ought to know all about the constitution. I don't claim to know very much about the money question, generally speaking, but like Mr. Merchant I have made a special study of this particular feature of it. I am convinced there is only one side to this question, however many sides there may be to some other phases of it, and we do not have to leave the history of our own country for overwhelming proof of the folly of it. I for one do not believe that the Government has any constitutional right to issue money.

MR. LAWYER: Well, Well!

MR. MERCHANT: We'll make you say "well, well" before we get through with you, if it takes till morning.

MR. MANUFACTURER: It won't take until morning and when we get through with him, he will be finished for fair, I think.

MR. LABORINGMAN: We are evidently going to have some fun tonight. You seem to think that you have Mr. Lawyer in chancery. Now, blaze away. I want you to nail Mr. Lawyer on the greenback question, if you can; for he has been getting the best of you on several occasions; personally, I hope I will never get any less of the greenbacks as they are good enough for me.

MR. MERCHANT: But they are not good enough for you, Mr. Laboringman, nor for anyone else, if they are not worth one hundred cents on the dollar; or if they are ever liable to be worth less than one hundred cents on the dollar; or if they are teaching an economic falsehood, so long as they remain in existence; or if they are positively doing the business interests of the country actual harm by excluding a corresponding amount of gold, and finally, if they have no legal right for existence today, even though one may admit for the sake of the argument that it was necessary to issue them to save the nation, an admission which I will not make.

MR. MANUFACTURER: Good for you, Mr. Merchant, that statement has the right ring to it. The greenback is guilty of every one of the charges that you make from my point of view, and so it must always be with every Government issue of money.

You may go back to the very first Government issue of paper money in this country, and follow the practice down to this very hour, and it has left a trail of dishonesty, disaster, ruin and misery unmatched by any other single cause. In my contention for this statement I am going to rely for my historical facts upon George Bancroft, the greatest American historian of our earlier period.