The introduction of new technologies would reduce the cost of extracting metals from their ores to half (or even a quarter) the present expense and render it possible to work with profit very low-grade ores at present passed over as worthless. Where would then be the fixed ratio? It would, I presume, have to be fixed over again, besides again upsetting trade, creating uncertainty similar to that now existing.
The true solution of the vexed currency question seems to be the introduction of bi-metallism (and if necessary multi-metallism) making either metal legal tender at the prevailing market rates at the time of payment or settlement of account. Natural laws will then rule and control the ratio between the metals, and no one need dread, as now, to accept payment or enter into a contract for the receipt of payment in either metal at a future date.
For instance, a loan of £100, gold, may be made with the stipulation that its repayment is to be in gold or its equivalent in silver at the prevailing market rate of silver at the time payment falls due without fear of loss, the borrower also feeling assured that he will not be called upon to repay a greater value than that which he has received.
Some months ago, when the question of bi-metallism was brought forward in the British House of Commons (in reference to the then pending International Convention on Bi-metallism), Mr. Gladstone stated that Great Britain could not support bi-metallism owing to British capitalists having immense sums either lent out or invested in gold securities abroad, and that were bi-metallism introduced, they would have to accept repayment in silver. (The above is the substance of his expressed views; the exact statement can be found in the papers published at the time.)
This is the reason for the strong opposition shown by British financiers to the introduction of bi-metallism, and they are its chief opponents. Well, at first sight, their reasoning seems sound from a self-interested point of view. How is it, however, that they fail to see that the gold that they are thus grasping after can only be had at the cost of letting out the life's blood of the nation by the ruin of her manufacturing industries?
Are they, for a temporary gain, prepared to face the fiend Anarchy which their grasping policy will ere long, if not abated, conjure up, and which will, when once thoroughly aroused, spur on desperate men (who must have bread for themselves, their wives, and their little ones) to seize the gold of the capitalists for their own needs?
The British Empire, the grandest and the noblest the world has yet seen, is hanging in the balance with the Bi-metallism question. The above ideas are given in the hope that if the facts or theories stated are sound, they may have some influence, however slight, in arousing those who have power or influence to throw all of it into the settlement of the currency question as soon as possible. The whole world is interested in it, especially Europe and America, but none more than Great Britain.
A. W. BIST.
Page 339
their ores to half (or even a quarter} the prosent expense and render it possible to work with profit very low grade ores at present passed over as worthless. Where would then be the fixed ratio? It would, I presume, have to be fixed over again, besides again upsetting trade, creallog uncertainty similar to that now existing, The true solution of the vexed currency ques- tion seems to be the introduction of bi-metallism (and if necessary multi-metallism) making either metal legal tender at the prevailing market rates at time of payment or settlement of account, natural laws will then rule and control the ratio between the metals and no one need dread, as now, to accept payment or enter into a contract for the receipt of payment in either metal at a I-ture date. For instance, a loan of £100, gold, may be made with the stipulation that its repayment is to be in gold or its equivalent in silver at the prevailing market rate of silver at time payment falls due without fear of loss, the borrower also feeling assured that he will not b called upon to repay a greater value than that which he has received, Some months ago when the question of bi-metallism was brought forward in the British House of Commons (in reference to the then pending International Convention on Bi-metallism) Mr. Gladstone stated that Great Britain could not support bi-metalliam owing to British capitalists having immense sums either lent out or invested in gold securities abroad and that were bl-metallism introduced they would have to accent repayment la silver. (The above is the substance of his expressed views, the exact statement can be found in the papers published at time.) This is the reason of the strong opposition shown by British financiers to the Introduction of bi metallism, and they are Its chief opponents. Well at first sight their reasoning seems sound from a self interested point of view. How is it, however, that they fall to see that the gold that they are thus grasping after can only be bad at the cost of letting out the Ilfe's blood of the nation by the ruin of her manufacturing in- dustries? Are they for a temporary gain, pre- pared to face the fiend Anarchy which their grasping policy will ere long, if not abated, con jure up and which will, when once thoroughly aroused, spur on desperate men (who must have bread for themselves, their wives and their hule ones) to seize the gold of the capitalists for their own needs? The British Empire, the grandest and the noblest the world has yet seen, is hang- ing in the balance with the Bi-metallism question. The above ideas are given in the hope that if the facts or theories stated are sound they may have some influence, however slight, In arousing those who have power or Influence t throw all of it into the settlement of the currency question as soon as possible. The whole world is in- terested in it, especially Europe and America, but none more than Great Britain.
A. W. BIST.
*
339
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.