FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:[3]W. Stanley Jevons,Money and the Mechanism of Exchange, D. Appleton and Company, New York, 1902, pp. 19-28, 54, 55.

[3]W. Stanley Jevons,Money and the Mechanism of Exchange, D. Appleton and Company, New York, 1902, pp. 19-28, 54, 55.

[4]Many recent writers, such as Huskisson, MacCulloch, James Mill, Garnier, Chevalier, and Walras, have satisfactorily described the qualities which should be possessed by the material of money. Earlier writers seem, however, to have understood the subject almost as well.... Of all writers, M. Chevalier ... probably gives the most accurate and full account of the properties which money should possess, and I shall in many points follow his views.

The prevailing defect in the treatment of the subject is the failure to observe that money requires different properties as regards different functions. To decide upon the best material for money is thus a problem of great complexity, because we must take into account at once the relative importance of the several functions of money, the degree in which money is employed for each function, and the importance of each of the physical qualities of the substance with respect to each function. In a simple state of industry money is chiefly required to pass about between buyers and sellers. It should, then, be conveniently portable, divisible into pieces of various size, so that any sum may readily be made up, and easily distinguishable by its appearance, or by the design impressed upon it. When money, however, comes to serve, as it will at some future time, almost exclusively as a measure and standard of value, the system of exchange, being one of perfected barter, such properties become a matter of comparative indifference, and stability of value, joined perhaps to portability, is the most important quality. Before venturing, however, to discuss such complex questions, we must proceed to a preliminary discussion of the properties in question, whichmay thus perhaps be enumerated in the order of their importance:

1. Utility and value.2. Portability.3. Indestructibility.4. Homogeneity.5. Divisibility.6. Stability of value.7. Cognisability.

Since money has to be exchanged for valuable goods, it should itself possess value and it must therefore have utility as the basis of value. Money, when once in full currency, is only received in order to be passed on, so that if all people could be induced to take worthless bits of material at a fixed rate of valuation, it might seem that money does not really require to have substantial value. Something like this does frequently happen in the history of currencies, and apparently valueless shells, bits of leather, or scraps of paper are actually received in exchange for costly commodities. This strange phenomenon is, however, in most cases capable of easy explanation, and if we were acquainted with the history of every kind of money the like explanation would no doubt be possible in other cases. The essential point is that people should be induced to receive money, and pass it on freely at steady ratios of exchange for other objects; but there must always be some sufficient reason first inducing people to accept the money. The force of habit, convention, or legal enactment may do much to maintain money in circulation when once it is afloat, but it is doubtful whether the most powerful government could oblige its subjects to accept and circulate as money a worthless substance which they had no other motive for receiving.

Certainly, in the early stages of society, the use of money was not based on legal regulations, so that the utility of the substance for other purposes must have been the prior condition of its employment as money. Thus the singularpeagcurrency, orwampumpeag, which was found in circulation among the North American Indians by the early explorers, was esteemed for the purpose of adornment, as already mentioned.... The cowry shells, so widely used as a smallcurrency in the East, are valued for ornamental purposes on the West Coast of Africa, and were in all probability employed as ornaments before they were employed as money. All the other articles [previously] mentioned ... such as oxen, corn, skins, tobacco, salt, cacao nuts, tea, olive oil, etc., which have performed the functions of money in one place or another, possessed independent utility and value. If there are any apparent exceptions at all to this rule, they would doubtless admit of explanation by fuller knowledge. We may, therefore, agree with Storch when he says: "It is impossible that a substance which has no direct value should be introduced as money, however suitable it may be in other respects for this use."

When once a substance is widely employed as money, it is conceivable that its utility will come to depend mainly upon the services which it thus confers upon the community. Gold, for instance, is far more important as the material of money than in the production of plate, jewellery, watches, gold-leaf, etc. A substance originally used for many purposes may eventually serve only as money, and yet, by the demand for currency and the force of habit, may maintain its value. The cowry circulation of the Indian coasts is probably a case in point. The importance of habit, personal or hereditary, is at least as great in monetary science as it is, according to Mr. Herbert Spencer, in morals and sociological phenomena generally.

There is, however, no reason to suppose that the value of gold and silver is at present due solely to their conventional use as money. These metals are endowed with such singularly useful properties that, if we could only get them in sufficient abundance, they would supplant all the other metals in the manufacture of household utensils, ornaments, fittings of all kinds, and an infinite multitude of small articles, which are now made of brass, copper, bronze, pewter, German silver, or other inferior metals and alloys.

In order that money may perform some of its functions efficiently, especially those of a medium of exchange and a store of value, to be carried about, it is important that it should be made of a substance valued highly in all parts ofthe world, and, if possible, almost equally esteemed by all peoples. There is reason to think that gold and silver have been admired and valued by all tribes which have been lucky enough to procure them. The beautiful lustre of these metals must have drawn attention and excited admiration as much in the earliest as in the present times.

The material of money must not only be valuable, but the value must be so related to the weight and bulk of the material, that the money shall not be inconveniently heavy on the one hand, nor inconveniently minute on the other. There was a tradition in Greece that Lycurgus obliged the Lacedæmonians to use iron money, in order that its weight might deter them from overmuch trading. However this may be, it is certain that iron money could not be used in cash payments at the present day, since a penny would weigh about a pound, and instead of a five-pound note, we should have to deliver a ton of iron. During the last century copper was actually used as the chief medium of exchange in Sweden; and merchants had to take a wheelbarrow with them when they went to receive payments in copperdalers. Many of the substances used as currency in former times must have been sadly wanting in portability. Oxen and sheep, indeed, would transport themselves on their own legs; but corn, skins, oil, nuts, almonds, etc., though in several respects forming fair currency, would be intolerably bulky and troublesome to transfer.

The portability of money is an important quality not merely because it enables the owner to carry small sums in the pocket without trouble, but because large sums can be transferred from place to place, or from continent to continent, at little cost. The result is to secure an approximate uniformity in the value of money in all parts of the world. A substance which is very heavy and bulky in proportion to value, like corn or coal, may be very scarce in one place and over-abundant in another; yet the supply and demand cannot be equalised without great expense in carriage. The cost of conveying gold or silver from London to Paris, including insurance, is only about four-tenths of one per cent.; andbetween the most distant parts of the world it does not exceed from 2 to 3 per cent.

Substances may be too valuable as well as too cheap, so that for ordinary transactions it would be necessary to call in the aid of the microscope and the chemical balance. Diamonds, apart from other objections, would be far too valuable for small transactions. The value of such stones is said to vary as the square of the weight, so that we cannot institute any exact comparison with metals of which the value is simply proportional to the weight. But taking a one-carat diamond (four grains) as worth £15, we find it is, weight for weight, 460 times as valuable as gold. There are several rare metals, such as iridium and osmium, which would likewise be far too valuable to circulate. Even gold and silver are too costly for small currency. A silver penny now weighs 7-1/4 grains, and a gold penny would weigh only half a grain. The pretty octagonal quarter-dollar tokens circulated in California are the smallest gold coins I have seen, weighing less than four grains each, and are so thin that they can almost be blown away.

If it is to be passed about in trade, and kept in reserve, money must not be subject to easy deterioration or loss. It must not evaporate like alcohol, nor putrefy like animal substances, nor decay like wood, nor rust like iron. Destructible articles, such as eggs, dried codfish, cattle, or oil, have certainly been used as currency; but what is treated as money one day must soon afterwards be eaten up. Thus a large stock of such perishable commodities cannot be kept on hand, and their value must be very variable. The several kinds of corn are less subject to this objection, since, when well dried at first, they suffer no appreciable deterioration for several years.

All portions of specimens of the substance used as money should be homogeneous, that is, of the same quality, so that equal weights will have exactly the same value. In order that we may correctly count in terms of any unit, the units mustbe equal and similar, so that twice two will always make four. If we were to count in precious stones, it would seldom happen that four stones would be just twice as valuable as two stones. Even the precious metals, as found in the native state, are not perfectly homogeneous, being mixed together in almost all proportions; but this produces little inconvenience, because the assayer readily determines the quantity of each pure metal present in any ingot. In the processes of refining and coining, the metals are afterwards reduced to almost exactly uniform degrees of fineness, so that equal weights are then of exactly equal value.

Closely connected with the last property is that of divisibility. Every material is, indeed, mechanically divisible, almost without limit. The hardest gems can be broken, and steel can be cut by harder steel. But the material of money should be not merely capable of division, but the aggregate value of the mass after division should be almost exactly the same as before division. If we cut up a skin or fur the pieces will, as a general rule, be far less valuable than the whole skin or fur, except for a special intended purpose; and the same is the case with timber, stone, and most other materials in which reunion is impossible. But portions of metal can be melted together again whenever it is desirable, and the cost of doing this, including the metal lost, is in the case of precious metals very inconsiderable, varying from 1/4d.to 1/2d.per ounce. Thus, approximately speaking, the value of any piece of gold or silver is simply proportional to the weight of fine metal which it contains.

It is evidently desirable that the currency should not be subject to fluctuations of value. The ratios in which money exchanges for other commodities should be maintained as nearly as possible invariable on the average. This would be a matter of comparatively minor importance were money used only as a measure of values at any one moment, and as a medium of exchange. If all prices were altered in like proportionas soon as money varied in value, no one would lose or gain, except as regards the coin which he happened to have in his pocket, safe, or bank balance. But, practically speaking, as we have seen, people do employ money as a standard of value for long contracts, and they often maintain payments at the same variable rate, by custom or law, even when the real value of the payment is much altered. Hence every change in the value of money does some injury to society.

It might be plausibly said, indeed, that the debtor gains as much as the creditor loses, or vice versa, so that on the whole the community is as rich as before; but this is not really true. A mathematical analysis of the subject shows that to take any sum of money from one and give it to another will, on the average of cases, injure the loser more than it benefits the receiver. A person with an income of one hundred pounds a year would suffer more by losing ten pounds than he would gain by an addition of ten pounds, because the degree of utility of money to him is considerably higher at ninety pounds than it is at one hundred and ten. On the same principle, all gaming, betting, pure speculation, or other accidental modes of transferring property involve, on the average, a dead loss of utility. The whole incitement to industry and commerce and the accumulation of capital depends upon the expectation of enjoyment thence arising, and every variation of the currency tends in some degree to frustrate such expectation and to lessen the motives for exertion.

By this name we may denote the capability of a substance for being easily recognised and distinguished from all other substances. As a medium of exchange, money has to be continually handed about, and it will occasion great trouble if every person receiving currency has to scrutinize, weigh, and test it. If it requires any skill to discriminate good money from bad, poor ignorant people are sure to be imposed upon. Hence the medium of exchange should have certain distinct marks which nobody can mistake. Precious stones, even if in other respects good as money, could not be so used, becauseonly a skilled lapidary can surely distinguish between true and imitation gems.

Under cognisability we may properly include what has been aptly calledimpressibility, namely, the capability of a substance to receive such an impression, seal, or design, as shall establish its character as current money of certain value. We might more simply say, that the material of money should be coinable, so that a portion, being once issued according to proper regulations with the impress of the state, may be known to all as good and legal currency, equal in weight, size, and value to all similarly marked currency....

FOOTNOTES:[4]W. Stanley Jevons,Money and the Mechanism of Exchange, pp. 29-39. D. Appleton & Company, New York, 1902.

[4]W. Stanley Jevons,Money and the Mechanism of Exchange, pp. 29-39. D. Appleton & Company, New York, 1902.

The essential idea of "legal tender" is that quality given to money by law which obliges the creditor to receive it in full satisfaction of a past debt when expressed in general terms of the money of a country. A debt is a sum of money due by contract, express or implied. When our laws, for instance, declare that United States notes are legal tender—and this is the only complete designation of a legal-tender money—for "all debts public and private," it must be understood that this provision does not cover any operations not arising from contract. Current buying and selling do not make a situation calling for legal tender; a purchaser cannot compel the delivery of goods over a counter by offering legal-tender money for them, because, as yet, no debt has been created.[6]

Contracts made in general terms of the money units of the country must necessarily often be interpreted by the courts. The existence of contracts calling for a given sum of dollars and the necessity of adjudicating and enforcing such contracts, require that there should be an accurate legal interpretation of what a dollar is. As every one knows, the name, or unit of account, is affixed to a given number of grains of a specified fineness of a certain metal. This being the standard, and this having been chosen by the concurring habits of the business world, it is fit that the law should designate that, when onlydollars are mentioned in a contract, it should be satisfied only by the payment of that which is the standard money of the community.

Since prices and contracts are expressed in terms of the standard article, it is clear that the legal-tender quality should not be equally affixed to different articles having different values, but called by the same name. This method would be sure to bring confusion, uncertainty, and injustice into trade and industry. No one who had made a contract would know in what he was to be paid. The legal-tender quality, then, should be confined to that which is the sole standard. And it is also obvious that when a standard is satisfactorily determined upon, and when various effective media of exchange, like bank notes, checks, or bills of exchange, have sprung up, the legal-tender quality should not be given to these instruments of convenience. They are themselves expressed in, and are resolvable into, the standard metal; so the power to satisfy debts should be given not to the shadow, but to the substance, not to the devices drawn in terms of the standard, but only to the standard itself, even though, as a matter of fact, nine-tenths of the debts and contracts are actually settled by means of these devices. So long as these instruments are convertible into, and thus made fully equal to, the standard in terms of which they are drawn, they will be used by the business community for the settlement of debts without being made a legal tender. And whenever they are worth less than the standard they certainly should not be made a legal tender, because of the injustice which in such a case they would work.

Having shown that the legal-tender quality is only a necessary legal complement of the choice of a standard, it will not be difficult to see that the state properly chooses an article fit to have the legal-tender attribute for exactly the reasons that governed the selection of the same article as a standard. The whole history of money shows that the standard article was the one which had utility to the community using it. As the evolution of the money commodity went on from cattle to silver and gold, so the legal-tender provisions naturally followed this course.

A state may select a valueless commodity as a standard,but that will not make it of value to those who would already give nothing for it; and so, it may give the legal-tender quality to a thing which has become valueless, but that will not of itself insure the maintenance of its former value. This proposition may, at first, appear to be opposed to a widely-spread belief; but its soundness can be fully supported. It should be learned that a commodity, or a standard, holds its value for reasons quite independent of the fact that it is given legal recognition. It has happened that legal recognition has been given to it because it possessed qualities that gave it value to the commercial world, and not that it came to have these qualities and this value because it was made a legal tender.

A good illustration of this truth is to be found in international trade. Money which is not dependent on artificial influences for its value, and which is not redeemable in something else, is good the world over at its actual commercial value, not at its value as fixed by any legal-tender laws. It is not the legal-tender stamp that gives a coin its value in international payments. A sovereign, an eagle, a napoleon, is constantly given and received in international trade not because of the stamp it bears, but because of the number of grains of a given fineness of gold which it contains—the value of which is determined in the markets of the world. And an enormous trade among the great commercial countries goes on easily and effectively without regard to the legal-tender laws of the particular country whose coins are used.

By imposing the attribute of legal tender, however, upon a given metal or money, it may be believed that thereby a new demand is created for that metal, and that its value is thus controlled. And in theory there is some basis for this belief. It is, of course, true that, in so far as giving to money a legal-tender power creates a new demand for it (which without that power would not have existed) an effect upon its value can be produced. But this effect is undoubtedly much less than is usually supposed. It must be remembered that the value of gold, for instance, is affected by world influences; that its value is determined by the demand of the whole world as compared with the whole existing supply in the world. In order to affect the value of gold in any one country, a demand createdby a legal-tender enactment must be sufficient to affect the world-value of gold. Evidently the effect will be only in the proportion that the new demand bears to the whole stock in the world. It is like the addition of a barrel of water to a pond; theoretically the surface level is raised, but not to any appreciable extent.

It may now be permissible to examine into the extent to which a demand is created by legal-tender laws. If the article endowed with a legal-tender power is already used as the standard and as a medium of exchange, it is given no value which it did not have before. The customs and business habits of a country alone determine how much of the standard coin will be carried about and used in hand-to-hand purchases, and how much of the business will be performed by other media of exchange, such as checks or drafts. The decision of a country to adopt gold—when it had only paper before, as was the case in Italy—would create a demand for gold to an extent determined by the monetary habits of that country; and this demand has an effect, as was said, only in the proportion of this amount to the total supply in the world. This operation arises from choosing gold as the standard of prices and as the medium of exchange. To give this standard a legal-tender power in addition does not increase the demand for it, because the stamp on the coin does not in any way alter the existing habits of the community as to the quantity of money it will use.

But in case an equal power to pay debts is given to fixed quantities of two metals, while each quantity so fixed has a different metallic value but the same denomination in the coinage, Gresham's law is set in operation with the result that the cheaper metal becomes the standard. After this change has been accomplished, the legal tender has no value-giving force. When the cheaper metal has become the standard, its legal-tender quality does not raise the value of the coin beyond the value of its content. This cheaper standard, in international trade, would be worth no more in the purchase of goods because it bore the stamp of any one country. Prices must necessarily be adjusted between the relative values of goods and the standard with which they are compared. If thestandard is cheaper, prices will be higher, irrespective of legal-tender acts. Where two metals are concerned, then, the only effect of a legal-tender clause is an injurious one, in that the metal which is overvalued drives out that which is under-valued.

The example of an inconvertible paper, such as our United States notes (greenbacks) in 1862-1879, is still more conclusive. Although a full legal tender for all debts public and private, their value steadily sank until they were at one time worth only 35 cents in gold. In California, moreover, these notes, although legal-tender, were even kept out of circulation by public opinion. In short, the value of inconvertible paper can be but little affected by legal-tender powers. Its value is more directly governed, as in the case of token coins, by the probabilities of redemption.[7]As bearing on the point that the value of the paper was more influenced by the chances of redemption than by legal-tender laws, we may cite the sudden fluctuations in the value of our United States notes during the Civil War. With no change in the legal-tender quality and no change in the indebtedness which might be paid with such notes, their value frequently rose or fell many per cent. in a single day owing to reports of Federal successes or defeats in battle, which had a tendency to affect one way or the other the public estimate of the probabilities of an early resumption of specie payments. The fact that they were legal tender evidently had no effect whatever in maintaining their value.

In view of the evident fact that legal-tender acts do not preserve the value of money, it is clear that the demand created by such legislation must be insignificant. And this must be so in principle as well as in fact.

There is but one thing which the legal-tender quality enables money to do which it could not equally well do without being a legal tender; that is, to pay past debts. An examination, however, shows that this use of money is very small compared with its other uses. The amount of past debts coming due and which might be paid in any year, month or day is insignificant when compared with the total transactions of thatyear, month or day—so very small as to lose all measurable value-giving power. In other words, the one thing which legal-tender money can surely do in spite of the habits, wishes or prejudices of the business community in which it exists, namely, cancel past debt, is infinitesimally small when compared with those other things which man wishes money to do for him. It is for this reason that it ceases to give value, and this is why history has shown so many instances where money endowed with legal-tender power has become utterly valueless. The legal-tender money is no longer money if it will not secure for man the things which are most important for his welfare, if it will not buy food, clothes and shelter; for it performs none of the functions of money except the subsidiary one of cancelling past debts.

Moreover, the obligatory uses of legal-tender money are in fact very inconsiderable. A law requiring a past debt to be satisfied with money of a certain kind has for its essence only the payment of something of a definite value, or its equivalent; in practice, it does not even bring about the actual use of a legal money, since the monetary habits of the community will not necessarily require the debt to be paid in such money. Take the extreme case of a judgment by a court against a defendant for fulfilment of a contract; in such an example, of all others, it would be supposed that legal money would be exacted. But even here, the judgment would most probably be satisfied by the attorney's check, or at most by a certified check. If such media of exchange are of common usage in the community they will be resorted to in practice even for legal-tender payments.

The necessity of paying that which would be mutually satisfactory to payer and payee also makes clear why the existence of a legal-tender money does not necessarily cause its actual use in payments. The business habits of the community are stronger than legislative powers. Business men will not as a rule take advantage of a legal-tender act to pay debts in a cheaper money, if they look forward to remaining in business. For, if, by taking advantage of legal devices they defraud the creditor, they cannot expect credit again from the same source; and since loans are a necessity of legitimatemodern trade, such action would ruin their credit and cut them off from business activity in the future. Gold was not driven out of circulation by paper money during the years 1862-1879 in California, because the sentiment of the business public was against the use of our depreciated greenback currency; and a discrimination was made against merchants who resorted to the use of paper.

Explanation has been given of the principles according to which legal-tender laws should be applied, if at all. It is not wholly clear that there is any reason for their existence. It may now be well to indicate briefly the origin of legal-tender provisions. It can scarcely be doubted that their use arose from the desire of defaulting monarchs to ease their indebtedness by forcing upon creditors a debased coinage. Having possession of the mints, the right of coinage vesting in the lord, the rulers of previous centuries have covered the pages of history with the records of successive debasements of the money of account. The legal-tender enactment was the instrument by which the full payment of debts was evaded. There would have been no reason for debasing coins, if they could not be forced upon unwilling creditors. It is, therefore, strange indeed that, in imitation of monarchical morals of a past day, republican countries should have thought it a wise policy to clothe depreciated money with a nominal value for paying debts. Although the people are now sovereign, they should not embrace the vices of mediæval sovereignty for their own dishonest gain in scaling debts.

FOOTNOTES:[5]Report of the Monetary Commission of the Indianapolis Convention, pp. 131-7. The Hollenbeck Press, Indianapolis, 1900.[6]"A contract payable in money generally is, undoubtedly, payable in any kind of money made by law legal tender, at the option of the debtor at the time of payment. He contracts simply to pay so much money, and creates a debt pure and simple; and by paying what the law says is money his contract is performed. But, if he agrees to pay in gold coin, it is not an agreement to pay money simply, but to pay or deliver a specific kind of money and nothing else; and the payment in any other is not a fulfilment of the contract according to its terms or the intention of the parties." 25 California 564, Carpentervs.Atherton.[7]For a contrary view, see Joseph French Johnson,Money and Currency, Chapter 13.—Editor.

[5]Report of the Monetary Commission of the Indianapolis Convention, pp. 131-7. The Hollenbeck Press, Indianapolis, 1900.

[6]"A contract payable in money generally is, undoubtedly, payable in any kind of money made by law legal tender, at the option of the debtor at the time of payment. He contracts simply to pay so much money, and creates a debt pure and simple; and by paying what the law says is money his contract is performed. But, if he agrees to pay in gold coin, it is not an agreement to pay money simply, but to pay or deliver a specific kind of money and nothing else; and the payment in any other is not a fulfilment of the contract according to its terms or the intention of the parties." 25 California 564, Carpentervs.Atherton.

[7]For a contrary view, see Joseph French Johnson,Money and Currency, Chapter 13.—Editor.

[8]The greenbacks were an outgrowth of the Civil War. Soon after the opening of the struggle the Secretary of the Treasury negotiated a loan of $150,000,000 with Eastern banks. Partly because of Confederate successes and partly because of the failure of Secretary Chase to adopt a firm policy of loans supported by taxation, public credit greatly declined, and Government bonds became almost unsaleable. The outlook became alarming and depositors withdrew gold from the New York banks in such large amounts that specie payments were suspended, December 30, 1861. In February, 1862, Congress provided for the issue of $150,000,000 in United States notes or greenbacks. Bond sales proceeded slowly and a second issue of $150,000,000 of notes was authorised in July of the same year. As a result of "military necessity" a third issue of $100,000,000 was authorised January 17, 1863, and temporarily increased March 3 to $150,000,000. Provision was made for the reissue of the greenbacks and $400,000,000 were outstanding at the close of the war.

Depreciation of the greenbacks occurred at once and the value of gold as expressed in greenbacks was subject to almost constant change. During the year 1862 the premium varied from 2 to 32; in 1863 from 25 to 60; and in 1864 from 55 to 185. Among the most important political and economic factors which caused these fluctuations may be mentioned:

(1) The increase in the amount of the greenbacks. Each new issue was reflected in a rise in the premium.

(2) The condition of the treasury. The annual reports of the Secretary of the Treasury were anxiously awaited and their appearance caused a rise or fall of the premium according as the condition of the finances seemed gloomy or hopeful.

(3) Ability of the Government to borrow. The fate of a loan indicated public confidence or distrust.

(4) Changes in the officials of the treasury department. Secretary Chase's resignation, July 1, 1864, depressed the currency decidedly.

(5) War news. Every victory raised the price of currency and every defeat depressed it.

From 1862 to 1865 the premium on gold and the median of relative prices correspond so well that one cannot resist the conclusion that these changes were mainly due to a common cause, which can hardly be other than the varying esteem in which the notes of the Government that constituted the standard money of the country were held. If this conclusion be accepted, it follows that the suspension of specie payments and the legal-tender acts must be held almost entirely responsible for all the far-reaching economic disturbances following from the price upheaval which it is our task now to trace in detail.

Statistical evidence supports unequivocally the common theory that persons whose incomes are derived from wages suffer seriously from a depreciation of the currency. The confirmation seems particularly striking when the conditions other than monetary affecting the labour market are taken into consideration. American workingmen are intelligent and keenly alive to their interests. There are probably few districts where custom plays a smaller and competition a larger rôle in determining wages than in the Northern States. While labor organisations had not yet attained their present power, manual laborers did not fail to avail themselves of the help of concerted action in the attempt to secure more pay. Strikes were frequent. All these facts favored a speedy readjustment of money wages to correspond with changed prices.But more than all else, a very considerable part of the labor supply was withdrawn from the market into the army and navy. In 1864 and 1865 about one million of men seem to have been enrolled. About one-seventh of the labor supply withdrew from the market. But despite all these favoring circumstances, the men who stayed at home did not succeed in obtaining an advance in pay at all commensurate with the increase in living expenses. Women on the whole succeeded less well than men in the struggle to readjust money wages to the increased cost of living.

It is sometimes argued that the withdrawal of laborers from industrial life was the chief cause of the price disturbances of the war period. This withdrawal, it is said, caused the advance of wages, and greater cost of labor led to the rise of prices. The baselessness of this view is shown by two well established facts—first, that the advance of wages was later than the advance of prices, and second, that wages continued to rise in 1866 after the volunteer armies had been disbanded and the men gone back to work.

Wage-earners, however, seem to have been more fully employed during the war than in common times of prosperity. Of course, the enlistment of so many thousands of the most efficient workers made places for many who might otherwise have found it difficult to secure work. Moreover, the paper currency itself tended to obtain full employment for the laborer, for the very reason that it diminished his real income. In the distribution of what Marshall has termed the "national dividend" a diminution of the proportion received by the laborer must have been accompanied by an increase in the share of some one else. Nor is it difficult to determine who this person was. The beneficiary was the active employer, who found that the money wages, interest, and rent he had to pay increased less rapidly than the money prices of his products. The difference between the increase of receipts and the increase of expenses swelled his profits. Of course, the possibility of making high profits provided an incentive for employing as many hands as possible.

After an examination of the change in the condition of the great mass of wage-earners, it may seem surprising that fewcomplaints were heard from them of unusual privations. This silence may be due in part to the fact that a considerable increase of money income produces in the minds of many a fatuous feeling of prosperity, even though it be more than offset by an increase of prices. But doubtless the chief reason is to be found in the absorption of public interest in the events of the war. The people both of the South and North were so vitally concerned with the struggle that they bore without murmuring the hardships it entailed of whatever kind. Government taxation that under other circumstances might have been felt to be intolerable was submitted to with cheerfulness. The paper currency imposed upon wage-earners a heavier tax—amounting to confiscation of perhaps a fifth or a sixth of real incomes. But the workingmen of the North were receiving considerably more than a bare subsistence minimum before the war, and reduction of consumption was possible without producing serious want. Accordingly the currency tax, like the tariff and the internal revenue duties, was accepted as a necessary sacrifice to the common cause and paid without protest by severe retrenchment.

In studying the influence of depreciation upon rent, it is necessary to use that term in its popular rather than in its scientific sense. This fact is less to be lamented, because the theorist himself admits that the distinction becomes sadly blurred when he attempts to deal with short intervals of time. Capital once invested in improvements can seldom be withdrawn rapidly. In "the short run," therefore, it is practically a part of the land, and the return to it follows the analogy of rent rather than of interest.

The renting landlord found that the degree in which he was affected by the fluctuations in the value of the paper money depended largely upon the terms of the contract into which he had entered. It is clear from a careful examination that the landlord who before suspension had leased his property for a considerable period without opportunity for revaluationmust have suffered severely if paid in greenbacks. The number of "dollars" received as rental might be the same in 1865 as in 1860, but their purchasing power was less than one-half as great. Somewhat less hard was the situation of the landlord who had let his property for but one or two years. At the expiration of the leases he had opportunities to make new contracts with the tenants.

In his capacity as special commissioner of the revenue, Mr. David A. Wells devoted some attention to the rise of rent. His report for December, 1866, says:

The average advance in the rents of houses occupied by mechanics and laborers in the great manufacturing centres of the country is estimated to have been about 90 per cent.; in some sections, however, a much greater advance has been experienced, as for example, at Pittsburgh, where 200 per cent. and upward is reported. In many of the rural districts, on the other hand, the advance has been much less. Mr. Wells later modified this estimate somewhat.

The advance in rents was greater in cities than in minor towns. In some cities—e. g., Cincinnati and Louisville—owners of workingmen's tenements appear to have been able to increase their money incomes rather more rapidly than prices advanced, but in Boston, Philadelphia, St. Louis, and in smaller towns, their money incomes appear to have increased more slowly than living expenses. These conclusions rest, however, on a narrow statistical basis.

The rural landowner suffered serious injury from the paper currency when he let his land for a money rent. But renting farms for a fixed sum of money has always been less common in the United States than renting for a definite share of the products. It is probable that at the time of the Civil War more than three-quarters of the rented farms were let "on shares." Inasmuch as no money payments entered into such arrangements, the pecuniary relations of landlord and tenant were not directly affected by the change in the monetary standard. Farm owners who had let their places on these conditions escaped the direct losses that weighed so heavily on the recipients of money rents. But even they did not avoid allloss. For the price of agricultural products for the greater part of the war period lagged considerably behind the price of other goods. This difference, of course, meant loss to men whose incomes were paid in bushels of grain.

The task of ascertaining the effect of the greenback issues upon the situation of lenders and borrowers of capital is in one respect more simple and in another respect more complex than the task of dealing with wage-earners. It is simpler in that there are not different grades of capital to be considered like the different grades of labor. But it is more complex in that the capitalist must be considered not only as the recipient of a money income, as is the laborer, but also as the possessor of certain property that may be affected by changes in the standard money.

The problem is further complicated by the fact that the relative importance of these two items—rate of interest and value of principal—is not the same in all cases. Whether a lender is affected more by the one item or the other depends upon what he intends to do with his property at the expiration of existing contracts. A widow left in 1860 with an estate of say $10,000, who expected to keep this sum constantly at interest and to find new borrowers as soon as the old loans were paid, could neglect everything but the net rate of interest received. On the other hand, if this estate had been left to a youth of twenty who intended to invest his property in some business after a few years, the rate of interest would be of relatively less importance to him than the purchasing power of the principal when the time came to set up for himself.

Of course, the same difference exists in the case of different borrowers. Those borrowers who expected to renew old loans on maturity would have to consider little beyond the interest demanded by lenders, while borrowers who expected to pay off the loans out of the proceeds of their ventures would be interested primarily in the amount of goods that would sell for sufficient money to make up the principal.

Although these two classes of cases are by no means independent of each other, the following discussion will be rendered clearer by observing the broad difference between them. Accordingly, attention will first be directed to the effect of the price fluctuations upon the purchasing power of the principal of loans, and afterward to changes in the rate of interest.

Most persons who made loans in the earlier part of the Civil War and were repaid in greenbacks must have suffered heavy losses from the smaller purchasing power of the principal when it was returned to them. But while this general fact is clear, it is difficult to make a quantitative statement of the degree of the loss that will be even tolerably satisfactory.

In the case of almost all loans made before the middle of 1864 and repaid prior to 1866, the creditor found that the sum returned to him had a purchasing power much less than the purchasing power that had been transferred to the borrower when the loan was made. This decline varied from 1 to more than 50 per cent. On loans made in the middle of 1864 or later, on the contrary, the creditor gained as a rule. In the case of loans made in January, 1865, and repaid six months later, the increase in purchasing power was over 40 per cent.

In turning to study the fortunes of men who have no thought of employing their capital for themselves, but expect to seek new borrowers as rapidly as old loans are repaid, one finds it necessary to distinguish between cases where loans have been made for short and for long terms; between the cases, that is, where there is and where there is not an opportunity to make a new contract regarding the rate of interest. The latter cases may be dismissed with a word. The capitalist who lent $10,000 for five years in April, 1862, at 6 per cent. interest, would be in relatively the same position as the workingman who received no advance in money wages; while his money income remained the same, the rise of prices would decrease his real income in 1864 and 1865 by about one-half. Of course, this loss to the creditor is a gain to the debtor; for tothe business man using borrowed capital the advance of prices means that he can raise his interest money by selling a smaller proportion of his output.

More interesting is the case of loans maturing and made afresh during the period under examination. The important question is: How far did the lender secure compensation for the diminished purchasing power of the money in which he was paid by contracting for a higher rate of interest?

The advance in the rate of interest was comparatively small—much too small to compensate for the increased cost of living. While prices rose approximately 85 per cent. and money wages somewhat less than 60 per cent. during the years 1860-65, rates of interest on call and time loans increased less than 15 per cent. during the same period.

The conclusion is not only that persons who derived their income from capital lent at interest for short terms were injured by the issues of the greenbacks, but also that their injuries were more serious than those suffered by wage-earners.

To explain this state of affairs is not easy. The first reason that suggests itself to the mind considering the problem is that both lenders and borrowers failed to foresee the changes that would take place in the purchasing power of money between the dates when loans were made and repaid. No doubt there is much force in this explanation. If, for instance, men arranging for loans in April, 1862, to be repaid a year later, had known that in the meantime the purchasing power of money would decline 30 per cent., they would have agreed upon a very high rate of interest. Men able to discern the future course of prices would not have lent money at the ordinary rates, and if the rates prevailing in the New York market throughout all 1862 and 1863 were less than 7 per cent., it must have been because the extraordinary rise of prices was not foreseen by borrowers and lenders.

Nor is it surprising that business men failed to see what was coming; for the course of prices depended chiefly upon the valuation set upon the greenbacks, and this valuation, in turn, depended chiefly upon the state of the finances and the fortunes of war—matters that no one could foresee with certainty. Indeed, there was much of the time a very generaldisposition to take an unwarrantedly optimistic view of the military situation and the chances of an early peace. Many members of the business community seem to have felt that the premium on gold was artificial and must soon drop, that prices were inflated and must collapse. To the extent that such views prevailed borrowers would be cautious about making engagements to repay money in a future that might well present a lower range of prices, and lenders would expect a gain instead of a loss from the changes in the purchasing power of money.

But the full explanation of the slight advance in interest cannot be found in this inability to foresee the future—at least not without further analysis of what consequences such inability entailed. Workingmen are commonly credited with less foresight than capitalists, and nevertheless they seem, according to the figures, to have succeeded better in making bargains with employers of labour than did lenders with employers of capital. The explanation of this less success seems to be found in the difference between the way in which depreciation affected what the capitalist and the laborer had to offer in return for interest and wages. There is no reason for assuming that an artisan who changed employers during the war would render less efficient service in his new than in his old position, or that a landlord who changed tenants had less advantages to put at the disposal of the incoming lessee. In both these cases the good offered to the active business man remained substantially the same, and it may safely be assumed that, other things being equal, this business man could afford to give quite as much for the labor and the land after as before suspension. From the business man's point of view, therefore, there seems to have been room for a doubling of money wages and rent when the purchasing power of money had fallen one-half. But in the case of the borrower of capital the like was not true. The thousand dollars which Mr. A offered him in 1865 was not, like the labour of John Smith or the farm of Mr. B, as efficient for his purposes as it would have been five years before. For, with the thousand dollars he could not purchase anything like the same amount of machinery, material, or labor. And since the same nominalamount of capital was of less efficiency in the hands of the borrower, he could not without loss to himself increase the interest which he paid for new loans in proportion to the decline in the purchasing power of money, as he could increase the wages of laborers or the rent for land.

It should also be pointed out that on one important class of loans capitalists suffered comparatively little even during the war. Interest on many forms of Government bonds was paid in gold. Capitalists who invested their means in these securities consequently received an income of almost unvarying specie value. If the person who made these investments were an American, he would be able to sell his gold-interest money at a high premium, but he would also have to pay correspondingly high prices for commodities, so that upon the whole his position would not be greatly different from that of the foreign investor. That such opportunities for investment as these securities offered should exist when men were most of the time loaning money for short terms at 7 per cent. or less, is perhaps the most emphatic proof that could be offered of the inability of the public to foresee what the future had in store.

Laborers, landlords, and lending capitalists are all alike in that the amount of remuneration received by them for the aid which they render to production is commonly fixed in advance by agreement, and is not immediately affected by the profitableness or unprofitableness of the undertaking. It remains to examine the economic fortunes of those men whose money incomes are made up by the sums left over in any business after all the stipulated expenses have been met.

A very important part of the solution of the problem of profits has already been contributed by the preceding studies of wages, rent, and interest. The evidence has been found to support the conclusion that in almost all cases the sums of money wages, rent, and interest received by laborers, landlords, and capitalists increased much less rapidly than did the general price level. If the wording of this conclusion be reversed—the prices of products rose more rapidly than wages, rent, or interest—we come at once to the proposition that as arule profits must have increased more rapidly than prices. For, if the sums paid to all the other co-operating parties were increased in just the same ratio as the prices of the articles sold, it would follow that, other things remaining the same, money profits also would increase in the same ratio. But if, while prices doubled, the payments to labourers, landlords, and capitalists increased in any ratio less than 100 per cent., the sums of money left for the residual claimants must have more than doubled. In other words, the effect of the depreciation of the paper currency upon the distribution of wealth may be summed up in the proposition: The shares of wage-earners, landowners, and lenders in the national dividend were diminished and the share of residual claimants was increased.

Two other general propositions respecting profits are suggested. First, other things being equal, profits varied inversely as the average wage per day paid to employees. This conclusion follows directly from the fact that the money wages of men earning $1-$1.49 per day before the perturbation of prices increased in higher ratio than those of men earning $1.50-$1.99; that the wages of the latter class increased more than the wages of men in the next higher wage class, etc. Second, other things being equal, profits varied directly as the complexity of the business organization. By this proposition is meant, for example, that a farmer who paid money rent, used borrowed capital, and employed hired labourers, made a higher percentage of profits than a farmer of whom any one of these suppositions did not hold true. If, as has been argued, the increase of profits was made at the expense of laborers, landlords, and capitalists, it follows that thatentrepreneurfared best whose contracts enabled him to exploit the largest number of these other persons.

The farmers of the loyal states were among the unfortunate producers whose products rose in price less than the majority of other articles, and from this standpoint they were losers rather than gainers by the paper currency. Of course, it is possible that the farmer's loss from this inequality of price fluctuations might be more than offset by his gains at theexpense of labourers, landlord, and lending capitalist. But there is good reason for believing that the increase of theentrepreneur'sprofits in the latter fashion was less in farming than in any other important industry. This conclusion seems to follow from the proposition that, other things being equal, profits varied directly as the complexity of business organization. The American farmers of the Civil War were in a large proportion of cases their own landlords, capitalists, and laborers. So far as this was true, they had few important pecuniary contracts with other persons of which they could take advantage by paying in depreciated dollars. Of those farmers who hired labor very many paid wages partly in board and lodging—an arrangement which threw a considerable part of the increased cost of living upon them instead of upon their employees. Finally, the renting farmer probably gained less on the average from the contract with his landlord than tenants of any other class, because in a majority of cases the rent was not a sum of money, but a share of the produce. While, then, the general effect of the paper standard was in the direction of increasing profits, it seems very doubtful whether farmers as a whole did not lose more than they gained because of the price disturbances.

It would be highly desirable to test our general conclusions by means of direct information regarding profits made in various branches of trade, but the data available for such a purpose are very meager. What scraps of information are available, however, support the view that profits were uncommonly large. Mr. David A. Wells, for example, in his reports as special commissioner of the revenue, has stories of "most anomalous and extraordinary" profits that were realized in the paper, woolen, pig-iron, and salt industries. A more general indication of the profitableness of business is afforded by the remark in the annual circular of Dun's Mercantile Agency for 1864, that "it is generally conceded that the average profits on trade range from 12 to 15 per cent."

But the most important piece of evidence is found in the statistics of failures compiled by the same agency. The followingtable shows Dun's report of the number of bankruptcies and the amount of liabilities in the loyal States from the panic year 1857 to the end of the war:

Back to Index Next