One Thousand Secrets of Wise and Rich Men Revealed by C. A. Bogardus (best management books of all time TXT) 📕

another change. In 1853 the law says that no longer shall it require 371.75 grains of silver to make a dollar's worth of fractional coins, but that 342.22 grains of silver would make two halves, four quarters or ten dimes, and they should be a legal tender in the payment of debts for $5. In '73 the coinage of the standard silver dollar was stopped by law, and silver fell in price. In 1878 the Bland-Allison act allowed the coinage of the standard silver dollar. In 1890 the Sherman act called for more silver coinage and the price of silver immediately advanced. In 1893 the coinage of silver was again stopped and the price of silver dropped, hence we see that the law does regulate values, and that gold does change in value so far even as the dollar is concerned. A teacher once told Benjamin Franklin that a boy told him, if he would take a tub weighing 100 pounds and put 500 pounds of water in it, which only about half filled the tub, the tub and water would weigh 600 pounds, but if he would put a live fish weighing 100 pounds in the tub, the tub, water and fish would not weigh more than 600 pounds. Can you explain that curious contradiction of the law of gravity, asked the teacher of Franklin. Whereupon Mr. Franklin requested his interrogator to call at his office next day. Franklin procured a tub weighing 100 pounds, put in it 500 pounds of water, and the weight was 600 pounds, just as the boy had told the teacher; then Mr. Franklin added a 100-pound live fish and the total weight was 700 pounds. The next day the teacher called on Franklin for his solution of the great problem, whereupon Franklin replied, there was but one solution to the question. "What is that?" anxiously inquired the visitor. "Why," replied Franklin, "the boy lied."

My friends, when they tell us the law cannot regulate value and that gold never changes, and when we examine the records and see that gold does change and that law does regulate value, we say there is but one answer to them, and that is just as Franklin answered the teacher about the boy.

We hear it said by the Republicans that free silver would drive gold out of the country; our Democratic friends tell us that free silver will not drive gold out of the country. So we see on that point people seem to differ in opinion. For my part I believe that free silver either will drive the gold out or else it will not. I want to ask the Republicans to acknowledge for the sake of argument that silver would not drive the gold out. Now, let us examine the question if silver don't drive the gold out, and we have a block of gold large enough to make into $100, and a block of silver sufficiently large to make into a like amount, if the gold-standard Democratic idea prevails, all the money we could coin would be the $100 from the gold, for silver could not be coined, but if bimetallism prevailed we could coin $100 from the gold and $100 from the silver, making $200, that is, if the silver does not drive out the gold. But the Republicans may urge that free silver would drive out the gold by the gold going at a premium over silver, then we would coin the block of silver into 100 legal tender dollars and the gold would be exchanged for a block of silver say 25 per cent larger than the block that drove it out, and we would coin that block into 125 legal tender dollars, adding it to the silver that stayed at home, making 225 dollars, just $25 more than we would have if the gold did not advance to a premium. But they tell us that would be coining the cheapest metal. Now, honor bright, you Republicans cannot complain of that for the reason I will presently explain. We often hear it urged that during the eighty-one years of bimetallism in the United States only about 8,000,000 silver dollars were coined, and that subsequently to 1873 more than 400,000,000 have been coined. True, there were only about 8,000,000 dollar pieces made of the silver metal, but there were more than $8,000,000 made because of the silver, for as France had a ratio of 15½ to 1 against our ratio of 16 to 1 our gold stayed at home and the silver was at a 3 per cent premium over the gold according to the French ratio, then a $100 block of gold drove a $100 block of silver to France, and drove from France to America a block of gold large enough to make $103. So we had our gold made into $100, and the gold that came from France in exchange for silver made into $103, making a total of $203, whereas we could only have had $200 if one metal had not gone at a premium. History, arithmetic and common sense prove the correctness of this proposition.

Abraham Lincoln once said he did not know much about the tariff question, but he thought he knew enough to know that if we bought $20 worth of steel rails of a foreigner the foreigner would have the money and we would have the rails; but if we made the rails in America and bought them of an American, America would have the money and the rails, too. Now, my Republican friends, don't you believe that? I do. I may not know much about the money question, but I think I know enough to know that if under the gold standard we borrow $20,000,000 of a foreigner, when we pay it back the foreigner will have the money and the interest, too, but if we coin the silver, which is an American product, into legal tender dollars, borrow $20,000,000 of an American, when we pay it back it kind of seems to me somehow that America will have the money and the interest, too. What say you, Lincoln Republicans? But another objection is that we would have a great commerce destroying flood of silver in this country. Let us examine that proposition as seekers after the truth. Here comes Mr. Foreigner with a carload or two of silver, the United States mints coin it into legal tender American dollars and hands it back to Mr. Foreigner. Now, Mr. Foreigner will either take that silver money away with him or else he will leave it here. If he takes it away it will not flood this country, will it? Well, if he leaves it here he will either give it to us or buy something with it. Now, if he gives it to us, will not you Republicans be willing to take your share? Won't you Democrats willingly receive your share? And, I ask, is there a gold standard banker in all America who would not, with just a tiny wee bit of persuading, be willing to take the shares of both Republicans and Democrats? Now, if Mr. Foreigner should buy something with this great flood of silver we can see the wisdom of Mr. Gladstone when he said, "If America should adopt bimetallism they would within six weeks control the markets of the world."

A favorite expression of our Republican friends is, that because Mexico does not maintain a parity between gold and silver under bimetallism, the United States cannot. When a man tells us that we should pity him. If we examine that question by comparison we will see the party making such a statement is either not sincere, or else he is not posted on the relative strength of the United States and Mexico. Records show that Mexico has 700,000 square miles of land, more than one-half of which is nearly or quite barren desert or waste land, leaving only about 350,000 miles of arable land, 4,981 miles of railway, 27,861 miles of telegraph line and a population of 10,000,000 Indians and Spaniards. The United States has 3,460,000 square miles, over two-thirds of which is arable land, and very productive of the staple articles consumed by the most enlightened nations of the world. We have 170,000 miles of railway, 780,000 miles of telegraph line, and a population of 72,000,000 Anglo-Americans; thus we see we have over ten times as much arable land exclusive of Alaska, thirty-four times as much railway, twenty-nine times as much telegraph line, and over seven times the population of Mexico. In size, wealth, commerce and science, Mexico is not to be compared with the United States.

When we compare Mexico with the United States, we are comparing it with the most gigantic country of the nineteenth century. You can form the United States into eighteen states each as large as Spain, or thirty-one states as large as Italy, or sixty-two states as large as England and Wales. What a mighty confederation of land, water, commerce, wealth and people is the United States when we come to think of it. Why, friends, we can take five of the six first-class countries of Europe—France, Great Britain and Ireland, Germany, Austria and Italy, then add Mexico—let some mighty smith forge them all together into one vast empire, and you can lay them all down in the United States, west of the Hudson river, twice.

Wittingly has it been said that the United States has the natural basis for the greatest continuous government ever established by man. Mexico has less than 100 miles of inland navigation, while the United States has over 35,000 miles. Steam boats can go up the Mississippi, Missouri and Ohio rivers over 2,500 miles from the Gulf, thus carrying our seaboard into the very heart of our continent. As to our resources, the crop of 1879, after feeding our population, furnished for export 283,000,000 bushels of grain. This vast crop was raised on 164,215 square miles, or less than one-twelfth of our arable land. It is estimated that if all our arable land was under the plow, it would feed a population of 1,000,000,000 people, and furnish for export 1,000,000,000 bushels of grain food for export. But what can we say of the people of Mexico and the United States? The difference in our population is not alone the difference between 10,000,000 in Mexico and 72,000,000 in the United States, but the difference between 10,000,000 Indians and Spaniards and 72,000,000 Anglo-Americans.

Mexicans and Indians are but semi-civilized, and the Spaniards are, generally speaking, a sluggardly, non-advancing people, while the Anglo-Americans of the United States are the most highly civilized people on the earth, wide awake and progressive in science, literature and mechanical inventions. At a recent exposition in Paris where the foremost nations of the world were exhibiting for premiums five gold medals were given for the greatest inventions or discoveries, and how many came to the United States? Only five; that is all. Now to say that because Mexico cannot maintain a parity between gold and silver, America cannot, is just about like saying that a Kentucky race horse cannot beat an English horse because a Mexican donkey cannot do so. My friends, our ability to maintain a parity between gold and silver is our ability to absorb money in our daily and yearly business. Give our country the increased volume of money that bimetallism will give us instead of the necessary contracted volume that the gold standard leaves us, and we will have a genuine lasting wave of prosperity moving westward from New England, starting the shops at increased wages. That wave will meet with joy the western prosperity wave that sets in motion the mining and agricultural interests of a patient and patriotic people, the eastern and western wave will shake hands with the southern cotton growers and northern wheat raisers. From the four quarters of our nation prosperity will spring up from an American point of view without