ON PAPER MONEY.

[Published at _Baltimore_, August 9, 1785.]

Messrs. PRINTERS,

I observed a paragraph of intelligence in your Journal, of the 26th of

July, respecting the circulation of paper currency in North Carolina. I

am not disposed to dispute the truth of the fact, that paper currency

passes in that State at par with specie; but I should be very sorry to

see it drawn into a precedent for other States.

_The scarcity of cash_ is a general complaint, and superficial observers

impute the evil to a wrong cause, while shallow reasoners would remedy

it by an emission of paper credit.

The real state of our commerce is this; since the ratification of peace,

the quantity of goods imported into the United States has been much

greater than what was necessary for the consumption of the inhabitants.

Perhaps I shall not be wide of the truth, when I suppose that one third

of the importations would supply the demands of people. The consequence

is, the other two thirds continue on hand as a superfluity. The merchant

finds no market for his goods, and erroneously imputes the evil to a

scarcity of cash. But the real truth is, people do not want his goods;

they purchase what they want, and find cash or produce to make payment;

but the surplus remains in store.

In every trading nation, there ought to be a due proportion between the

commercial interest, the agricultural and the manufacturing. Whenever

the farmers and manufacturers are too numerous for the merchants,

produce and manufactures will be plentiful and cheap; trade will of

course be lucrativ. Whenever the merchants are too numerous for the

laborers, the importations of the former will exceed the wants of the

latter; of course goods will not find vent; and the merchant who owes

nothing may lie and sleep in indolence, while the merchant who deals on

credit _must fail_. The experience of almost every day proves the _truth

of this reasoning_. I will suppose that the number of merchants, and the

quantity of goods in Baltimore, are double to what they were two years

ago; and the market for goods is nearly the same. The effect will be,

that the same profit of business will be divided among double the number

of men, while, at the same time, rents and the price of provision in

market will be double. The clear profit of the merchant will therefore

be reduced to one fourth part of what it was two years ago. I submit to

the inhabitants of this _flourishing_ town, whether this is a mere

supposition, or a moderate state of facts; and whether this reasoning

will not, in a greater or less degree, apply to every commercial town in

the United States.

But is not money scarce? With respect to the quantity of goods in store,

_money is very scarce_: With respect to the produce of the country,

there is _money enough_. Almost every article of home produce will

command cash; but the merchant cannot get cash for his goods. Money is

the representativ of goods bought and sold. I will suppose, for the sake

of argument, that two years ago there was cash enough in the country to

purchase all the goods in market at the usual advance. I will suppose

that the quantity of goods has been trebled since that time. In this

case, had the quantity of money continued the same, there would have

been cash enough to purchase just one third of the goods. But suppose

what is true, that at the time the quantity of goods increases in this

proportion, the quantity of money in circulation diminishes in the same

proportion. In this case there will be but one third of the cash to

purchase three times the goods. Thus but one sixth part of the goods can

be purchased by the circulating cash. The merchant must then lower the

price of his goods to one sixth of their value, or keep them on hand.

This reasoning, however mathematical, is just, and applies to all

commercial countries. It is a fair state of facts in America. But though

the quantity of money is greatly diminished, yet there is sufficient to

represent the produce of the country, which in quantity continues the

same. The price is however lowered by the diminution of the quantity of

circulating cash.

Whether the quantity of cash is diminished, and the quantity of goods

increased in the exact proportion above stated, is not material, the

foregoing reasoning being sufficient to illustrate the principle. The

probability is, that the disproportion between the goods in market and

the cash in circulation, is greater than I have supposed.

The following propositions, I venture to assert, are generally, if not

universally, true:

1. That the imports of a country should never exceed its exports. In

other words, the value of the goods imported should never exceed the

value of the superfluous produce, or that part of the produce which the

inhabitants do not want for their own consumption.

2. That too great a quantity of cash in circulation, is a much greater

evil than too small a quantity.

3. That too much money in a commercial country will inevitably produce a

scarcity.

4. That the wealth of a country does not consist in cash, but in the

produce of industry, viz. in agriculture and manufactures.

5. That in a commercial country, where people are industrious, there can

never be, for any long time, a want of cash sufficient for a medium.

The first proposition is universally acknowleged to be true.

The second is less obvious, but equally true. Too much money raises the

price of labor and of its effects; deprives us consequently of a foreign

market; produces indolence and dissipation; than which greater evils

cannot happen to a State. The sudden increase of money, by large

emissions of paper credit, at the beginning of the late war, produced

more luxury, indolence, corruption of morals, and other fatal effects,

than all other causes that ever took place in America. We feel these

evils to this moment. On the other hand, a scarcity of cash, tho it

cramps commerce for a moment, always checks the evils before mentioned,

lowers the price of labor, and produce will of course find a profitable

market; it produces economy and industry, and consequently preserves the

morals of the people; for industry goes further in preserving purity of

morals, than all the sermons that were ever preached.

This leads to an illustration of the third proposition. If too much

money in a country raises the price of labor and of produce, the

consequence is, that people will go abroad for articles, because they

are cheaper in foreign markets, and they will purchase as long as they

can get cash. Importations will be multiplied till the country is

drained of cash, and then business will return to a new channel. The

history of trade in America, the last two years, is an illustration of

this proposition.

The fourth proposition, also, is illustrated by facts. I will suppose

that ten millions of dollars are sufficient for a medium in America: Let

that sum be instantaneously augmented to twenty millions, and the

country is not a farthing richer, for the price of goods will be

immediately doubled. _Two_ dollars, in the latter case, purchase no more

than _one_ in the former. People ignorantly suppose that goods rise in

value; when the fact is, money falls in value. Continental currency was

a proof of this. There was cash enough for a medium in the country

before the war; and the addition of two hundred millions of dollars did

not increase the wealth of the country one farthing; nor would the whole

purchase more than the ten millions of specie which circulated before

the war. Had the paper all been Spanish milled dollars, the effect would

have been the same, had they continued in the country, and not been

hoarded.

The fifth proposition depends on this simple fact, that money is a fluid

in the commercial world, rolling from hand to hand wherever it is

wanted, and there is any thing to purchase it. Let the produce of a

country excel, in the least degree, the consumption, and it will never

want money.

Admitting the foregoing observations to be true, both the necessity and

policy of emitting paper, vanish at once. Supposing paper currency to

preserve its credit, still so far from increasing the medium of trade,

that in a few months it will drive all the specie from the country. Bank

notes and bills of exchange are useful in facilitating a change or

conveyance of property; but to issue paper credit, merely with a view to

increase the circulating medium, in a country where the people may have

just as much gold and silver as they are pleased to work for, is the

height of folly. If people are indolent, or extravagant, all the paper

currency under heaven will not make them rich, or supply their wants of

cash. If people are industrious and frugal, and purchase no more foreign

goods than they can pay for in superfluous produce, they will ever have

cash enough. Their whole system of commerce stands on these single

facts.

If the merchants bring more goods than people want, business _must be

dull_; money with them _must be scarce_. At the close of the war, cash

was plentiful and goods scarce. This made business lively, till people

had procured a supply. Remittances were made in cash, so long as it

could be obtained. That period is past, and the merchant must now look

for remittances where alone they ought ever to be found, in the produce

of the country. Business is just now returning into its proper channel,

from which it had been diverted by the violence of war, and the

fluctuations of paper credit. The rapid population of a country is an

agreeable circumstance; but every profession ought to increase in a due

proportion. Supposing ten thousand carpenters were to land in Baltimore

at once, would they have business? Or would they not exclaim, _business

is dull_, _money is scarce_? Every one might have a trifle of business,

but they could not _all make fortunes_.

An event similar to this has taken place in Baltimore. The reputation

for business which Baltimore had acquired just at the close of the war,

brought merchants here from every part of the world, and almost one half

of the town has been built within two years. How, in the name of common

sense, do the merchants expect to find business? The people who come to

this market, multiply gradually, and double in about thirty years. But

the merchants who supply the goods have doubled, if not trebled, in

numbers and stock, within three years. There is, however, an expedient

which will yet enable them all to liv by trade. Let every merchant send

abroad to Ireland or Germany, and bring over his hundred able

industrious farmers, and fix them on the fertile lands of Maryland,

which now lie useless and uncultivated in the hands of the Nabobs: Or

let three fourths of the traders quit the business. Either of these

expedients will make cash plentiful; and one of them must take place.

I will just make one further remark; the want of a proper _union_ among

the States, will always render our commerce fluctuating and

unprofitable. We may do as much business as we please; but if the duties

and restrictions on our trade remain, and the flag of the United States

is insulted as it has been, and each State is laying duties on the trade

of its neighbor, our commerce cannot be reduced to a system, and our

profits must be uncertain. The want of a _Continental Power_ to guard

the honor of the whole body, and reduce our measures to one uniform

system, is the great source of endless calamities. We shall feel

national abuse, till Congress are vested with powers sufficient to

_govern_ and _protect_ us; and till that period, foreigners, like so

many harpies, will prey upon our commerce, and disappoint the exertions

of our industry.

A Collection of Essays and Fugitiv Writings On Moral, Historical, Political, and Literary Subjects · 第 16 / 53 题