NO. III.
We have said that there is a true standard of value, and that this is based in the capacity of a country to pay without infringing upon the country itself; that is, without resorting to an actual transfer of supposed title to any part of its domain for something the domain itself produced. Actual ownership in the soil of a country is an assumption, as has been stated in the “Papers on Labor and Capital.” If the title to any real estate is traced back far enough, it would be found to have originated in the practice of “Squatter Sovereignty.” The inhabitants of a country having the right to make use of the land they occupy, render it more or less valuable, according to the amount they can make it produce, whether it be in the shape of its natural products or those of artificial assistance, or whether it is simply occupied for purposes other than production.
The basis, however, of the value is in the productions of the soil of a country; it matters not how much value may be added by the art of man to what nature furnishes. This would find no scope for action did the earth not first yield the fruits of her bosom to the hand of the artist. The finest cloth, the most delicate silks and laces, the most costly jewels, even the light that robs night of its darkness, are all primarily the products of the earth. Without this yielding of the earth there would be nothing. This giving up of the earth to the demands, efforts and desires of man, is the process by which he acquires all his wealth. Even the gold that has so long been called money the earth has yielded, and still yields. When this is considered in its true light, we come to a realization that gold is no more money, absolutely, than any other of the different products of the earth, but with them all it forms the real value standard. Gold is relatively valuable for the general uses it can be made to subserve; so, too, and only so, are all other products. Any other metal might just as well have been selected out of which to coin money as gold. It no longer answers the purpose it has been used for so long. It is not “radical” enough to suit “the times.” It is one of the landmarks of conservatism, reminding us that once it required at least six months to communicate with, and receive an answer from, London, whereas we now know the 5 o’clock P. M. closing prices of stocks in London at 1 o’clock of the same day.
Such annihilation of time and space is entirely ahead of, and above, the era of gold, which must yield its sway to something more elastic, and consequently possible of better adaptation to the constantly varying requirements of the peoples. The world having been so long held in financial bondage to gold, is now approaching a period wherein it will rid itself of the yoke. A very few people in the world rule it. What of the thrones of Europe without the Rothschilds? and what of them if not for gold? The vast debts of those countries alone render crowns longer endurable. Just a little more intelligence among the common people—just a few more newspapers and readers, and the work is done; those who play king, and they who are the real kings, will fall together. Kings rule the people, but money rules kings. This is beginning to be realized, and the realization is not satisfactory to those who produce wealth; they do not care to live under the tyranny of a god they themselves have fashioned. But after gold, what?