Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub
[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

Unequaled for smooth, tough points If your stationer does not keep them, mention The Literary Digest and send 16c. in stamps, to Joseph Dixon, Crucible Company, Jersey City, N. J., for samples worth double the money.

LAWYERS.

We append below a list of leading lawyers in different portions of the United States and Canada.

Legal business, collections, and requests for local information, will meet with prompt attention at their hands:

HENRY C. TERRY, Bullitt Building,
Philadelphia, Pa.

JOHN F. KEATOR 601 Drexel Build-
ing, Philadelphia, Pa.
WEED MUNRO, New York Life
Building, Minneapolis, Minn
WALTER L. CHURCH 9 Franklin St.
Boston, Mass.

JAMES C. MCEACHEN, Benedict
Building, 171 Broadway, N. Y.
WILLIAM J. GROO, 111 Broadway,
N. Y.

There is only

one maker of felt shoes whose product is fit to wear, and this is his trade mark.

TRADE

MARK

Alfred Dolge's

CELEBRATED

FELT SLIPPERS

ANS SHOES

THE BOUND VOL. V.

OF

THE LITERARY DIGEST

Dyspepsia

HORSFORD'S ACID PHOSPHATE,

Pronounced by Physicians of all schools to be the BEST remedy yet discovered for Dyspepsia.

It reaches various forms of Dyspepsia that no other medicine seems to touch, assisting the weakened stomach, and making the process of digestion natural and easy.

Dr. W. S. Leonard, Hinsdale, N. H., says: "The best remedy for dyspepsia that has ever come under my notice."

Dr. T. H. Andrews, Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, says: "A wonderful remedy which gave me most gratifying results in the worst forms of dyspepsia."

Descriptive pamphlet free. Rumford Chemical Works, Providence, R. I.

Beware of Substitutes and
Imitations.

[graphic]

Caution:-Be sure the word "HorsWith Index of Authors, a Classified Index of Sub-ford's" is on the label. All others are jects, and a List of Periodicals Represented, an spurious. Never sold in bulk. Index to the Book Reviews, and an Index to the Newspaper Press Digests. For Six Months,

Ending October 29th, 1892. Cloth, 745 pp. The

Price, $4, Carriage Free.

CONTENTS:

[blocks in formation]

INVESTMENTS

For safe investments in Gold Bonds, in sums to suit, send for descriptive circular.

These Gold Bonds we absolutely guarantee. Sums from SOLON P. ROTHSCHILD, Suite 212, $10 up, in Multiples, to $10,000.

280 Broadway, New York City.

J. NEWTON WILLIAMS, Law Offices,

Principal payable in 3, 6, 9, 12,

Brooklyn Life Insurance Build-or 18 years, according to choice ing, 51 Liberty St., N. Y. of purchaser. Interest, 6, payable in Gold in April and OctoBAILEY & VOORHEES, Metropolitan ber. Write for particulars, free.

M. MAJETTE, Columbia, N. C.

Block, Sioux Falls, S. D.

B. C. & H. L. CHRISTY, Fifth and Wylle Aves., Pittsburgh, Pa.

MORDECAI & GADSDEN, 43, 45, 47 Broad St., Cor. Church, Charleston, S. C.

[blocks in formation]

Western Michigan College,

GRAND RAPIDS, MICH.

Address, Treasury Depart- Acknowledged to be the leading Literary, Classical,. Normal and Professional Training, Musical and Comment, Funk & Wagnalls Commercial Institution. The only College in the West. pany, 18 and 20 Astor Place, conferring a commercial degree. Home surroundings New York.

and comforts. Board and room only $2.10 per week. SEND FOR YEAR BOOK.

[blocks in formation]

Entered at New York Post Office as Second Ciass Matter. Published Weekly by the FUNK & WAGNALLS COMPANY, 18 and 20 Astor Place, New York. London: 44 Fleet Street. Toronto: 11 Richmond Street, West. Subscription price, $3.00 per year. Single Copies, 10 cents. Renewals.-Two weeks after the receipt of a remittance, the extension of the subscription will be indicated by the yellow label on the wrapper. Discontinuances.-The publishers must positively receive notice by letter or postal-card, whenever a subscriber wishes his paper discontinued.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

TH

HE decision that Grover Cleveland shall be again President of the United States, and that the Democratic party shall again control the destinies of that nation may be accepted as an earnest of the determination of the American people to fling aside the crutches of protection, and rely on their own unaided strength for the time to come.

It is natural that this decision on the part of so important a .contributor to the manifold requirements of the United King-dom should inspire feelings of hopefulness, almost akin to jubilation. A strong belief has prevailed in these islands that the return of the Democrats to power would result in the getting rid of the tariff, and that British manufactures would then pour in upon the market of the United States like a flood. It is no doubt true that the Democratic party are pledged to some modification of the tariff. The victory, however, is by

no means so complete as it would appear on the face of the situation. Cleveland is President of the United States in virtue mainly of the solid support he has received from the Southern and some of the Central States. Those States, for the most part, want solidarity and cohesion. The Northern States, on the contrary, present an almost unbroken front in favor of protection, and they are well organized, skilled in tactical manoeuvring, possessed of large financial resources, and capable of bringing strong pressure to bear upon any Government that may happen to be in power, whether Republican, Democratic, or Mugwump.

No Government is likely at present to be strong enough to sweep entirely from the statute-books the protective tariff, and establish a tariff for revenue purposes alone. To attempt anything of this kind would be to establish absolute free trade, since the United States is now almost in a position to dispense with tariff revenue entirely. There must, therefore, be concessions and compromises on both sides. This may be carried so far as to disappoint the not unreasonable hopes of our people that the greatest market in the world, and probably in the world's history, is once again to be found lying at the feet of British industry and commerce.

Apart from these considerations, however, it requires unusual temerity to allege that the tariff system of the United States has been a failure-for that country. America has since the Civil War enjoyed an amazing degree of prosperity. It would, of course, be absurd to pretend that all this, or perhaps any great. part of it, is owing to the tariff policy adopted hitherto; but at least the tariff has not prevented the people of the United States, with characteristic enterprise, from taking advantage of the wonderful resources with which nature has so bountifully endowed them, and freely promoting their development. Measured by any or all of the usual standards, the United States will not be found lacking in success, but as there is a not unusual disposition to allege that the conditions of social well-being are not so satisfactory as they might be, and as the tariff is freely blamed for this alleged condition of things, it is well that the actual facts should be put on record as briefly as possible.

[The writer proceeds to show, from official sources of information, that the United States between 1880 and 1890 reduced its national debt from $46.50 to $20.50 per capita, while the debts of the several States and Tertirories fell from $5.70 to $3.50. The debt of Great Britain and Ireland fell in this interval from $101.50 to $87.70 per capita, but the debts of nearly all continental European States have increased, and so have the debts of most of the British colonies; that the increase of wealth in the United States was equally striking; that the capital embarked in manufacturing increased considerably over 100 per cent.; that the proportion of population in the northern cities engaged in manufacturing increased from 19.9 to 23.7 per cent.; that the actual advance of wages paid in manufacturing industry is greater than the increase which took place in the previous thirty years; that, while the McKinley Act has undoubtedly increased the prices of certain important productions, the general course of prices has been downwards for many years, and no legislative enactment has been able to arrest the movement; that the foreign trade of the country has increased, and that in 1891 the manufactures exported were 19.3 per cent. of the whole, against 6.9 per cent. in 1880.]

Enough has been said to show that the American tariff has not been a bad thing for Americans. England has appeared to think the American tariff more or less a device of the enemy to damage her special commerce.

America has been our best customer, and consequently our best friend. The tariff has not prevented Americans purchasing even protected goods in England. The United States has, by reason of her tariff, suffered greatly in her carrying trade,

and is not likely to rival Britain in this business so long as such tariff is continued.

A large section of the American people believe that the country can do without protection. The nation has been exceedingly prosperous, as we have seen. American manufacturers, in spite of high wages and other drawbacks, are exporting increasingly large products to outside markets. Apparently the principal industries are now strong enough to take care of themselves. There is discontent with the tariff among farmers, and artisans, and laborers, who think the fortunes of their employers are growing too rapidly.

But now comes the alarmist theory of the doctrinaire politician or economist that the tariff is still needed for revenue purposes. Whether the United States can afford to introduce free trade is a question now distinctly raised. It is not only possible but probable that the United States could reduce its present tariff revenue from forty-five millions sterling to about one-half of that amount, which would bring it to about the level of the customs revenue of the United Kingdom, without going beyond the taxation of articles de luxe. Should the item of pensions become narrowed to a fraction of its present amount (about $100,000,000) and the rest of the expenditure for Federal purposes remain stationary, the total annual revenue required would not exceed thirty-five millions sterling -which could be raised without the levy of duty on imports of any kind.

It appears morally certain that in a few years the United States will be compelled, by the necessities of a plethoric public purse, to lower tariff duties, apart from the recent manifestation of public opinion regarding McKinleyism.

IF

THE CHIEF OF THE BANDITS OF EUROPE.
JAMES DARMESTETER.

Revue Bleue, Paris, November 26.

F there were a tribunal to pass upon crimes against Europe, the first criminal who would be put at the bar, in obedience to the joint outcry of France and Germany, would be the forger of the 13th of July, 1870.

Prince Bismarck is not the only statesman who has lied and used forgery as a weapon of war. He is the first and the only one who has lied to bring on war, to set upon each other two nations who wanted peace, and with the full knowledge that such a war must be horrible at the time and full of disasters for the future. Those few strokes of the pen across the dispatch sent by his King not only meant the death of 300,000 Frenchmen and of 200,000 Germans; they not only meant the misery of 2,000,000 human beings; they meant misery and terror, perhaps for centuries, between the two nations at the head of human progress. They meant the education of new generations to love war and scorn right, the cultivation of hate, and a war of extermination set up as the ideal of wars to come. They meant the recasting of Europe in such shape that hate should prevail and common humanity be ignored. No great work, no pregnant word, not a step in moral advance, has been made during these twenty years-years passed in a nightmare of preparation for a morrow still more terrible, that may leave Europe exhausted and a prey to anarchists and barbarians. This man, by one lie, has stained with blood the coming century.

France did not want war; she wanted to suppress the Empire, to reconquer her own liberty, to devote herself to the ideal, always missed but always sought, of democracy and fraternity. France, which had made Italy—and she does not regret it even to-day-was ready, and is still so, to give her hand to a Germany which shall be really German.

Germany did not want war. She had become united. The treaties which gave to King William the command of all the German forces made sure her independence as against outside enemies, and left her independent at home. To arouse her to war, it was necessary that she should be provoked or made to

believe that she had been provoked. Two men in Europewanted war-one vaguely, and as in a dream. One, the dreamer of the Tuileries, exhausted by disease, by disappointments, by the plebiscite, feeling his throne sinking under the rising tide of revolution, and catching wildly at any straw. The other wanted war, but coldly, with clear sight and a will of iron. He wanted it not for the unity of Germany, which was accomplished,. but to transform this defensive union into an offensive and conquering one, to transform the free union of States into an autocratic empire. He wanted it in order to tear from France those of her provinces the most French at heart, in order to make sure of a dictatorship which should be perpetual, because of the threat of possible vengeance. In a word, he wanted it because he was sure of victory, because he knew the weakness. of the Empire, had counted its soldiers and captains, and knew that he could put three men in the field to one on the other side, and had a Moltke against a Leboeuf.

This war, which the two nations did not wish, had to be made inevitable, and had to be declared by the captain of France, so that in the eyes of Europe, formal and indifferent, the legal right should be on the side of Prussia, and that great. Germany, heavy and honest, might be stirred to the depths of its conscience, and throw itself into a crusade against the aggres-sor, backed with the conviction that God was behind its legions. The occasion came; King William let it slip through his fingers. “The affair was spoiled." Bismarck sent out his falsified dispatch. War followed. It still lasts. When will it end? France does not attempt a justification of her Emperor, nor of the men who acted for him. He knew that the dispatch. was falsified, and yet accpted it. He recognized an insult which he had never received, in order to gain the right of revenge. He was able to unmask the Chancellor, and yet he became his accomplice. But he, at least, has paid the debt, in person and in his posterity. Nemesis waits for the other head. The inevitable Nemesis is often late, and is fond of visiting the crimes of the father upon the son. In this instance, however, she came soon; the criminal himself was chosen as the agent of her work, and she did not wait for Bismarck to get to hell.

A tremor of indignation and shame has shaken Germany from end to end; and this hardy Bismarck is astonished. Is it possible that all Germany does not roar with laughter between two mugs of beer over the story of the trick he played upon France? Would it not have been madness to have missed so good a chance, when failure was impossible and there were two provinces to be won and so many milliards? Could a better and more plausible pretext have been found, or one which was more sure to win the sympathy of Europe? Without it, could 'the young flower of the Confederation of the North," as the poetic Journal de Hambourg puts it, "have borne imperial union as fruit?" And Germany stands aghast before this hero to whom she owes so much, and whom she sees at last as he was-a robber-baron of the Middle Ages. She feels the flush of victory upon her brow, and also her loss. of faith in her cause.

"

Already it had been asked upon many sides, without an answer having been given, whether the conquests of 1871 havenot cost too much; whether the pleasure of forcing into the family circle, at the point of the bayonet, children who hate this family, was worth the butchery of the past, the sacrifices of the present, the terrors of the future. Moreover, has not Germany abused her victory? Has she not drunk too deeply of this bad wine of success and glory? Would it not have been better to let the Empire fall of its own weight and allow peace, years, and liberty to cement the German union? What has war brought that peace would not have given her, with the exception of a sort of Franco-German Poland, a war without end, and the new draft of men and blood now asked by Caprivi? Her only consolation was that she did not invite the war, that it had been imposed upon her as a duty, and she found relief from past miseries and future distress in the

thought that Divine right was on her side. She repeated the words pronounced by the old Emperor at the inauguration of the Germania of Niederwald: "The German armies, under the lead of their princes, were the instruments of Providence. In the years 1870-1871 we felt the help of the Divine Will." And now Germany awakes from its dream of saintly glory to discover that instead of having been the soldier of God, she was but the instrument of a brigand, and to find in the place of the finger of God the hand of a forger!

In a moment she sees all her past glory poisoned by this Bismarckian canker; the monument of Ems changed into one of shame; the Germania of Niederwald that has withstood anarchist dynamite, shaken and soiled at its foundations, because the Empire was dishonored at birth, and Europe repeats with Faust "Am Anfang war die Lüge”—at the beginning was a lie. What an awakening for the people of Luther, for the people of the Deutsche Treue, which has not always been an idle word; for the people of conscience, for the nation that, when it caught Rome in a lie, tore it from its heart, and, without question of kings or emperors, addressed itself to God! In this memorable week something has sunk into the German soul which, notwithstanding the weak denials of Caprivi, works for reconciliation more powerfully than cannons or rifles or treaties-namely, doubt. Can Germany keep with a clear conscience what Bismarck has stolen? As to the uneasy idealist who holds in his hands the destinies of Germany, this irresponsible heir of the victories of his grandfather and of the treachery of the Chancellor, it would be interesting.to know what thoughts stir his soul. Yet history knows but one prince who, of his own free will, as a matter of justice, in obedience to right, and for the sake of future peace, gave up an iniquitous conquest: his name is Saint Louis.

A

THE FRANCO-RUSSIAN ALLIANCE AND THE
TRIPLE ALLIANCE IN THE LIGHT
OF HISTORY.

Deutsche Revue, Breslau, November.
V.

LL Bismarck's friendly overtures to Russia and support of her Eastern policy signified nothing in the presence of the stumbling-block of an Austro-German alliance. They were thoroughly negatived, too, by the prohibition against the negotiating of Russian paper by the German national bank. The consequences of this injudicious measure were the entailment of serious losses on the frightened German creditors who sold out at a heavy sacrifice; the annoyance of Russia, without crippling her in any way, and the establishment of a common material interest between her and France, which bought the Russian bonds from the German holders. No such community of interest had previously existed; and although Russia would have seen in a monarchical France a natural ally, there is little ground for sympathy between republican France and the autocrat of the Neva. The pardon of the Nihilist, Krapotkin, and the refusal of the French Government to extradite Hartmann, the perjurer, prompted the Czar to remark to the French Ambassador, General Appert: "Quel fichu gouver nement que vous avez, il parait que c'est un tas de canailles."

The Bulgarian crisis of Aug. 21, 1886, somewhat changed the aspect of affairs. After Graf Kalnoky's speech in the Hungarian delegation concerning the mission of Kaulbar, and Lord Salisbury's speech in the Mansion House stamping him as a conspirator bribed by foreign gold, the Moscow Gazette (Katkow's organ) advocated the recall of the Russian ambassadors from Austria and England, and the formation of an alliance with France over the head of Germany, inasmuch as Bismarck, while pretending friendship for Russia, was really desirous of involving her in another Oriental war. The Foreign Office in St. Petersburg did not act on this suggestion, but it made secret overtures to Italy, guaranteeing her the restitution of Trieste, if she would join Russia in a war against Germany and

Austria, and at the same time France guaranteed her the Trentino on the same condition. But Depretis was loyal to his engagements, and declined the overtures promptly. The danger of a European war was thus waived for the moment, but the relations between Russia and Austria remained strained. There was a coolness, too, between Russia and Germany, intensified when the estrangement between the latter and France assumed a threatening character at the period of the elections. General Martinov was sent to Paris, and shortly afterward a significant article by Kateakazy, a protégé of Gortschakoff, appeared in the Nord to the effect that Russia wished peace, but she wished also the maintenance of the balance of power in Europe, and could not see France subjected to another great defeat. This was, of course, tantamount to an intimation that if Germany should enter on a war with France she would have to divide her forces. Katkow urged a much more active policy, and at an audience granted him by the Czar, urged on His Imperial Majesty the cementation of a close alliance with France. The Czar, half convinced, told him to lay his views before Giers, who, however, refused to receive him, very much to the Czar's annoyance. Immediately afterward came news of another ministerial crisis in Paris, showing how very little reliance was to be placed on the shifting quicksand of French public opinion, and the Czar felt that the calm-thinking Minister was a more tuustworthy adviser than the flighty publicist. The Russian mistrust was further heightened by the disappearance of President Grevy from the stage; and when Deroulede's noisy sympathy with the death of Katkow reached Russia, it was met by an intimation in the Nord that " Russia would not mix herself up in the French affairs; she acknowledges the sympathy of the French people gratefully, but in so far as its opinion is of any weight, it could support only a Government which showed itself capable of maintaining such a position in Europe as France was entitled to." The Westnik Zeuropny went further, remarking that, while it was entirely desirable to maintain a good understanding with France, an alliance with her against Germany would be the height of folly, for, even if such a war were successful, there would be no spoils to divide. We want no German territory, and were we to help France to wrest Alsace-Lorraine from Germany, we should earn the permanent hatred of France Germany and perhaps provoke a coalition against us. could render us very little help in the event of a general European war, it would not put a man in the field for us against England or Austria, our Eastern foes, and neither could we aid France by a soldier on the Rhine. An understanding with France should not therefore partake of the character of an alliance against Germany."

[ocr errors]

In the spring of 1887, affairs were again disturbed by the promulgation of an Imperial Ukase prohibiting foreigners from holding or inheriting land in Russia. This was very annoying to Germany, many of whose citizens held land in Russia, and appeared to be specially aimed at Prince Hohenlohe, the Stadtholder of Alsace-Lorraine, whose wife had just inherited from her brother a property in Volhynia, as large as a small kingdom. Bismarck lost no time in inviting Count Kalnoky and Signor Crispi to visit him, to show the world how thorough was the understanding between the guiding statesmen of the Triple Alliance; and Crispi's speech delivered at Turin on his return, convinced M. Flourens that the time for a quarrel with Germany was inopportune. Then followed the meeting between the Czar and Bismarck, on the return of the former from Copenhagen, at which the Czar reproached Bismarck for his conduct in the Bulgarian question, and taxed him with having given Prince Ferdinand assurances of German secret support. Bismarck stamped the communication to which the Czar alluded as a forgery and had no difficulty in convincing the Czar that it had been perpetrated in St. Petersburg, a fact which was afterward verified, although the names of the offenders were never made known. At any rate the Czar admitted that he had been imposed upon, and gave orders that the Russian press should cease its attacks on Germany. The Autocrat The of Gatschina is, however, not so powerful as he seems. director of the Press, Feoktistov, is a Pan-slavist, and can close his eyes when it suits him, and it was not long ere the Russian Press began afresh to assail the Dreibund, and Russia's troops were being concentrated on her western frontier.

THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY CONFERENCE.

то

PROFESSOR H. S. FoxWELL.

Contemporary Review, London, December. understand the present monetary situation, we must go back to the time of the first International Conference of 1867. It has been described as a time of monetary peace. There were then, as throughout the whole period known to history, two monetary metals-gold and silver-each used as legaltender money. England, it is true, since 1816, used gold only as a legal tender, while Germany and other important countries, to say nothing of the East, used silver only. But between the two single-standard groups stood France and the nations of the Latin Union, where legal tender might be made in either metal, at a fixed ratio of 15% to 1, and either metal might be received at this ratio at the mint in unlimited quantities. Somewhat aloof from this European system, and not greatly affecting it, except in a negative way, was the United States, whose mints were also open to both metals at the ratio of 16 to I. The general effect of this combination was that for two centuries silver and gold were always convertible at or about 15% to 1. Thus, for all practical purposes, we had an international money.

It seems incredible that this fortunate and historical advantage should have been deliberately sacrificed. But so it was, at the Conference of 1867. The fatal measure was, however, the German change of standard which created a demand for something like eighty million pounds sterling, gold; while some fifty-four million pounds sterling worth of silver coin was thrown on the market. France immediately imposed restrictions on the mintage of silver. The United States had previously taken action in a similar direction, the effect of which during the subsequent passage to specie payments was to cause a demand for gold which Mr. Goschen has estimated at over eighty million pounds sterling, while it still further limited the monetary use of silver. Since these critical events the depreciation of the white metal has made steady progress until it now stands to gold in the ratio of 24 to 1. For while silver has depreciated only about ten per cent. in relation to standard commodities, since 1873, gold, in consequence of the increased demand, has appreciated some 35 per cent. This is only another way of saying that prices have fallen 35 per cent.; and this steady fall of prices operates like a friction brake upon the wheels of industry and commerce.

Moreover, the demonetization of silver has disastrously affected the trade between gold and silver countries, and the experiment shows that the single gold standard does not fulfill the requirements of a currency as defined by Mr. Balfour in his recent speech at Manchester: We require that it shall be a convenient medium of exchange between different countries, and we require of it that it shall be a fair and permanent record of obligations over long periods of time."

[ocr errors]

In this terse statement, Mr. Balfour has put in a nutshell, the situation with which the Brussels Conference has to deal. The most obvious suggestion is that Europe shall revert to its ancient policy, and resume the use of silver as legal tender upon a fixed ratio with gold, opening its mints with equal freedom to the coinage of both metals. There can be no doubt that this system, if reëstablished, would completely remove such difficulties in the present situation as arise out of the loss of the par of exchange. As Mr. Balfour has admirably explained, the supply of the precious metals may fluctuate from causes independent of the action of Government. But Governments, who determine the monetary use of the metals, have an irresistibly dominant influence over the demand for them. By enacting free mintage of both metals at a fixed ratio, they set up an automatic machinery, the effect of which is that the monetary demands for the metals, varies exactly with the variations in the amounts supplied to the mints, and their relative value therefore remains unaffected by these vari

[ocr errors]

ations. Upon this point the Gold and Silver Commission were unanimous. So long," they say, "as the system was in force we think that, notwithstanding the changes in the production and use of the precious metals, it kept the market price of silver approximately steady at the ratio fixed by law between them."

The opposition to the bimetallic policy in this country, so far as it is really active, is confined to a very small area. It is common to say that the City is dead against any scheme for remonetizing silver. But the rancorous and unintelligent hostility which claims to represent city opinion, appears really to represent only the views of a very small group of city editors. So far as can be gathered from the responsible utterances of men of high official or business standing, the expert opinion of the city seems to be at least much divided upon the question. It is well known that some of the most experienced directors of the Bank of England are bimetallists, and the difficult and critical character of the present monetary situation is thoroughly recognized in the Bank Parlor.

The favorite policy of the average city man is unquestionably "drift." There is nothing your busy man dislikes so much as to be squarely faced by inconvenient facts which compel him to reconsider a familiar course of action, perhaps even to grapple with an unfamiliar idea. But the situation is critical; we stand now at the parting of the ways. The Battle of the Standards which has been raging since 1873 must be shortly decided one way or the other. Silver must either be fully and freely accepted as legal-tender money, or it must soon cease to be money at all except in the Far East.

There was not a single speaker at the Paris Monetary Conference of 1889 bold enough to recommend the general adoption of a gold standard. The delegates were well aware that it would involve an appreciation of gold, not only violent at the outset, but proceeding at an increasing rate as population and wealth increased. They knew that this would mean an unprecedented collapse of prices and values, entire confusion in the trade with the Far East and the unjust disturbance of all contracts.

[ocr errors]

Now that the theoretical difficulty of maintaining an arbitrary ratio has been authoritatively disposed of, public opinion in England is rapidly drifting in favor of a measure which will inaugurate a common standard for the British Empire. But the objectors, realizing that a ratio may be safely fixed, may now turn round and say, What ratio?" This question has been well considered by English bimetallists, who have their own views on the matter. But it is obviously a point upon which foreign nations will have much to say, and it would be both unusual and impolitic to go into a conference pledged beforehand to a particular solution of the principal matter to be discussed.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]
« iepriekšējāTurpināt »