as proposed, though not perfect, is more nearly so than our present crude fixed-weight-of-gold standard,—they should support it heartily as a big step toward their own ideals. They should certainly not oppose it. In the terse phrase of modern slang, they should "put up or shut up."
Those who press the above six objections do not treat the question as a practical one but as purely academic. So far as the objectors have any other purpose than intellectual gymnastics their purpose is, subconsciously at least, obstructive rather than constructive. They seem to think that, by finding some shortcoming in the plan, they have justified the monetary system which we now have. They are, if I catch their spirit correctly, staunch defenders of the status quo, trumping up excuses for their temperamental hostility to change. This emotional attitude is discussed further in the following section.
3. The Obstacle of Conservatism
A. "It has never been tried." Not as a whole; but every feature in it has been tried and tested—the index number, issue and redemption ad libitum of gold certificates, varying the redemption rate (as in the gold exchange standard), etc. It is simply a combination of these tried elements.
Perhaps the nearest existing approach to the plan as a whole is the "gold exchange standard" of India which has virtually converted the silver rupee into the gold standard somewhat as the proposed plan would virtually convert the gold standard into the composite standard.
The system here proposed would really be no more of an innovation in principle than was the Indian Gold Exchange System when introduced and developed between 1893 and 1900, while the evils it would correct are similar to, but vastly greater than, the evils for which the Indian system was devised. It was con-
