What is meant by the hackneyed
phrase, "the gold standard," has not
been fully explained, says Senator
Stewart, of Nevada. When we speak
of standard weights and measures our
meaning is plain, because a yard is a
fixed length and a quart or a bushel
contains an ascertained quantity of
space. Money, to be a standard in the
sense of accurate measurement of
value, must be of such volume as will
always bear a uniform relation to the
aggregate of property for sale. To contend
that money which is of a greater
purchasing power nt one time than it
is at another is a just standard of value
is like contending that a yardstick 00
feet long, if made of some particular
kind of wood, would be the same standard
of measurement ns a yardstick
three feet long. If money can be an
honest standard measure of value, and
the same money can measure five times
as much property in the aggregate at
one time as at another, why may not a
gallon which includes five times as
much cubic space at one time ns it does
at another be an ticcurate measure of
quantity?
The contention of the advocates of
the gold standard rests upon the assumption
that the quality of gold is
the only question considered in commercial
exchanges. They deny that
either the supply or the demand for
gold has any effect in estimating the
quantity of any particular commodity
which n given amount of gold will buy.
