A New Banking System Part 6

It says that this soulless person shall have this whole field to himself, notwithstanding he has so little money to lend, and notwithstanding there are many other persons standing by, having, in the aggregate, fifty times as much money to lend as he; and desiring to lend it at one half, or one third, the rates he is demanding, and extorting!

It says, too, that he shall have this whole field to himself, notwithstanding that ninety-nine one-hundredths of those who desire to borrow, are sent away empty! and are thereby condemned--so far as such a system can condemn them--to inevitable poverty!

SECTION 2.

But further. Each one of these 2,000 legal, or artificial, persons, who alone are permitted to _lend_ money, is made up of, say, fifty actual, or natural, persons, to whom alone, it is well known, that this legal person will lend it!

These 2,000 legal persons, then, who alone are permitted to lend money, are made up of 100,000 actual persons, who alone are to borrow it.

These 100,000 actual persons, who compose the legal persons, do not, then, become bankers because they have money to lend to others, but only because they themselves want to borrow!

Thus when the system says that they alone shall lend, it virtually says that they alone shall borrow; because it is well known that, in practice, they _will_ lend only to themselves.

In short, it says that only these 100,000 men--or one in four hundred of the population--shall have liberty either to lend, or borrow, capital!

Such capital as is indispensable to every producer of wealth, if he would control his own industry, or make his labor most productive.

Consequently, it says, practically--so far as it is in its power to say--that only one person in four hundred of the population shall be permitted to have capital; or, consequently, to labor directly for himself; and that all the rest of the four hundred shall be compelled to labor for this one, at such occupations, and for such wages, as he shall see fit to dictate.

In short, the system says--as far as it can say--that only 100,000 persons--only one person in four hundred of the population--_shall be suffered to have any money_! And, consequently, that all the property and labor of the thirty-nine million nine hundred thousand (39,900,000) persons shall be under the practical, and nearly absolute, control of these 100,000 persons! It says that thirty-nine million nine hundred thousand (39,900,000) persons shall be in a state of industrial and commercial servitude (to the 100,000), elevated but one degree above that of chattel slavery.

And this scheme is substantially carried out in practice. These 100,000 men call themselves "_the business men_" of the country. By this it is meant, not that they are the producers of wealth, but only that they alone handle the money! Other persons are permitted to sell only to them! to buy only of them! to labor only for them! and to sell to, buy of, and labor for, them, only at such prices as these 100,000 shall dictate.

These 100,000 so called "_business men_," not only own the government, but they _are_ the government. Congress is made up of them, and their tools. And they hold all the other departments of the government in their hands. Their sole purpose is power and plunder; and they suffer no const.i.tutional or natural law to stand in the way of their rapacity.

How many times, during the last presidential canva.s.s, were we told that "_the business men_" of the country wished things to remain as they were? Having gathered all power into their own hands, having subjected all the property and all the labor of the country to their service and control, who can wonder that they were content with things as they were?

That they did not desire any change? And their money and their frauds being omnipotent in carrying elections, there was no change.

These 100,000 "business men," having secured to themselves the control of all bank credits, and thereby the control of all business depending on bank loans; having also obtained control of the government, enact that foreigners shall not be permitted to compete with them, by selling goods in our markets, except under a disadvantage of fifty to one hundred per cent.

And this is the industrial and financial system which the "National"

bank system establishes--so far as it can establish it. And this is the scheme by means of which these 100,000 men cripple, and more than half paralyze, the industry of forty millions of people, and secure to themselves so large a portion of the proceeds of such industry as they see fit to permit.

CHAPTER IX.

AMASA WALKER'S OPINION OF THE AUTHOR'S SYSTEM.

As Mr. Amasa Walker is considered the highest authority in the country, in opposition to all paper currency that does not represent gold or silver actually on hand, it will not be impertinent to give his opinion of the system now proposed.

He reviewed it in a somewhat elaborate article, ent.i.tled "_Modern Alchemy_," published in the _Bankers Magazine (N. Y.)_ for December, 1861.

That he had no disposition to do any thing but condemn the system to the best of his ability, may be inferred from the following facts.

After describing the efforts of the old alchemists to trans.m.u.te the baser metals into gold, he represents all attempts to make a useful paper currency as attempts "_to trans.m.u.te paper into gold_." He says that the idea that paper can be made to serve the purposes of money is "_a perfectly cognate idea_" with that of the old alchemists, that the baser metals can be trans.m.u.ted into gold. (p. 407.)

He also informs us that--

"It is perfectly impracticable _to trans.m.u.te paper into gold_ to any extent or degree whatever, and that all attempts to do so (beneficially to the trade and commerce of the world) are as absurd and futile as the efforts of the old alchemists to change the baser metals into the most precious." (p. 415).

These extracts are given to show the spirit and principle of his article, and the kind of arguments he employs against all paper that represents other property than coin; even though that property have equal value with coin in the market.

Yet he says:--

"One thing we cheerfully accord to MR. SPOONER'S system--_it is an honest one_. Here is no fraud, no deception. _It makes no promise that it cannot fulfil._ It does not profess to be convertible into specie [on demand]. It is the best trans.m.u.tation project we have seen." (p. 413).

When he says that "it is the best _trans.m.u.tation_ project he has seen,"

the context shows that he means to say that it _comes nearer to trans.m.u.ting paper into gold_, than any other system he has seen.

This admission, coming from so violent an opponent of paper currency, may reasonably be set down as the highest commendation that _he_ could be expected to pay to any _paper_ system.

He also says:--

"Many schemes of the same kind have, at different times, been presented to the world; but none of them have been more complete in detail, or more systematically arranged, than that of MR. SPOONER. (p. 414).

But by way of condemning the system as far as possible, he says:--

"MR. SPOONER, however, can, we think, make no claim to originality, so far as the general principle is concerned. The famous bank of JOHN LAW, in France, was essentially of the same character." (p. 413.)

No, it was _not_ essentially of the same character. One difference--to say nothing of twenty others--between the two systems was this: that LAW'S bank issued notes that it had no means to redeem; whereas MR.

WALKER himself admits that "MR. SPOONER'S _system makes no promises that it cannot fulfil_." That is to say, it purports to represent nothing except what it actually represents, viz.: property that is actually on hand, and can always be delivered, _on demand_, in redemption of the paper. Is not this difference an "essential" one? If MR. WALKER thinks it is not, he differs "essentially" from the rest of mankind. What fault was ever found with JOHN LAW'S bank, except that it could not redeem its paper? Will MR. WALKER inform us?