theories so utterly absurd and childish as to become the laughing-stock of the world wherever they are mentioned! I earnestly hope the people of Ohio will think better of themselves.
Some Democratic speakers pretend that the policy of “making and keeping the volume of the currency equal to the wants of trade” may, in the sense of the Ohio platform, under certain circumstances mean, instead of inflation, a reduction of the currency, namely, when it appears that the volume of currency is in excess of the wants of trade.
When will the excess be admitted if it is not admitted now, while large quantities of money lie in the banks idle for want of employment, and that paper money at a heavy discount as to gold? If now the wants of trade are considered to require still more currency, under what circumstances will they be considered to require less? It is easy to show that as you go on increasing the currency the demand will not be satisfied, but it will be still more excited.
One thing is universally admitted: If the volume of our irredeemable paper money is increased, it will further depreciate. The paper dollar, which is worth 85 cents in gold now, will be worth 80, or 70, or 60, or 50 cents, then, and what you can buy for one dollar in paper now will cost $1.25, or $1.30, or $1.40, or $1.50 then.
As the paper money depreciates and loses in purchasing power, its power of effecting exchanges will decrease in a corresponding measure. A transaction requiring the use of $100 now will require $125, or $130, or $150, then. What follows? The increased quantity of the currency bringing with it no increased power of effecting exchanges, in consequence of corresponding depreciation, you are, after the increase, just as far from satisfying the supposed wants of trade as you were before. You
