thing like twenty-five per cent.[1] The decline was much discussed and feared about 1855 owing to the then novel rate of production; but men get used to all wonderful things, and cease to consider what they get used to. Nevertheless, the force of vast production continues to operate year after year.[2]
So much for the past of gold; now for its future. In 1877 Dr. Suess, of Austria, an eminent geologist, startled the economic and financial world by proving to his own satisfaction that the world's production of gold was destined to decrease and in no very long time to become insignificant. His theory was based on the fact that gold, being one of the heaviest metals, would naturally, during the molten period of the earth, have sunk very far from the surface—too far to be mined successfully. This theory, though not corroborated by any direct or historical evidence, obtained considerable currency, and was an important factor in promoting the sentiment for bimetallism.
Like the other scientific theory that no man could ride a two-wheeled vehicle because of the perpetual tendency to fall over, and another, supposed to be based on the laws of motion, that a ball-pitcher could not "curve" a baseball, this theory has proved to have no foundation in fact. It is now evident that the production of gold for the next fifty years will be altogether unprecedented. This production has been vigorously stimulated by fresh discoveries of mines, by new and cheap mining processes, and by the fall of silver, leading miners to pay greater attention to the other metal. The operation of the latter factor is best seen in
- ↑ M. Chevalier, in his once celebrated book on the Depreciation of Gold, says that since 1492 silver has fallen in the ratio of six to one and gold four to one—i. e., that gold is worth only twenty-five per cent what it was in 1492.
- ↑ In volume clviii of the North American Review, p. 464 (April, 1894), President E. B. Andrews, of Brown University, asserts that "it is universally admitted that since 18'73 there has been an extraordinary appreciation of gold." This is a very easy way to settle a question. For my part I do not think there is much more evidence of a rise since 1873 than since 1845. Land has risen, wages have risen, cheese, butter, eggs, beef, and many other commodities have risen, and interest has fallen—all going to show that gold has continued to fall. The only commodities which have fallen greatly are those like iron, in which great inventions have been made, tending to reduce the cost of production, or, like coal, where the extension and improvement of railways, canals, and telegraphs have quickened and cheapened transportation. The Suez Canal, Indian railways, and western railroad building in the United States have naturally had a profound effect on the prices of wheat, corn, and cotton. In Mr. Atkinson's article, above referred to, this claim of an appreciation of gold since 1873 is not admitted, but controverted. Instead of being "universally admitted," this alleged appreciation is, in my opinion, generally denied by the best authorities on the subject, among whom Mr. Atkinson stands high. It is true, however, that gold has not depreciated since 1873 so fast as in the fifties. The reason is not far to seek. The production of the Californian period was extremely sensational, so long as it was new, and led men to fear that gold would be a drug in the market—thus "bearing" the price of gold.
