other also--that is, it _would_
insure it if monetization were not denied. Incidentally, this plain
statement of the case utterly confutes the only seemingly valid
argument, that is the two-bag argument, with which the goldites have
been able to support their theory of "sound" money. Mr. Lepper's
assertion that monetization does not confer commercial value will have
to rise through many circles in the spiral of intelligence before it
reaches the plane of nonsense.

Further on in his paper, Mr. Lepper says: "The inevitable result of free
coinage at a fixed ratio, is to expel the undervalued metal from
circulation." Who taught him that? Perhaps Gresham taught him. If so, he
taught him what is not true. It is incredible that intelligent people
should be humbugged with such a fallacious proposition as Gresham's
so-called "law." Suppose that under free coinage, gold be undervalued,
and suppose that, being so, it begins to vanish--where will it go to? To
the Bank of England? If so, what will be the effect on the price of gold
in the Bank of England? Will not the price begin to fall at that point
at which the stream of gold pours out? And will it not continue to fall
as long as the outflow goes on? What, on the other hand, will be the
effect on the money market at that point from which the outflow is
established? Will there not be produced a stringency behind the outflow,
and will not all kinds of money begin to appreciate at that point from
which the flow begins? And will not this stringency become greater and
greater as long as the outflow continues? And will not the prices of all
kinds of money, silver in particular, begin to rise until the outflow
ceases? This is to say that the price of gold, like the price of
anything else whatsoever, will fall wherever it accumulates, and the
price of silver will rise in every place from which the gold is drained
away, until a parity of values between the two money metals shall be
inevitably established. This is the _real_ law of two money metals
circulating together; and Gresham's so-called "law" is only the
hocus-pocus and ghost of a law that is true to begin with, and is not
true to end with.

I now come to the gist of Mr. Lepper's article, and I invite particular
attention to the heart and core of the matter as he presents it. He says
(all the while declaring himself to be a bimetallist): "Let us assume
that gold only has hitherto been used as money, that 25.8 grains thereof
have