This is a hardship on the borrower, and can be prevented by increasing
the amount of money in circulation.

This is the very essence of what is claimed by those who are for
increasing the volume of money in circulation. Money has changed in
value, and those who are mortgaged, or otherwise under interest-paying
obligations, have found that money is scarcer, in this instance through
contraction of the currency, and therefore harder to get.

There should certainly be enough money issued for the smooth carrying on
of the country's business, and when they determine the amount necessary,
it should be put in circulation at once. But stopping money from
fluctuating value is another thing.

The man who buys a barrel of flour one day for $4.00 may find that it is
worth only $3.50 the day after. The man who borrows money at 7 per cent.
one day may find it worth only 6 1/2 the day after.

To prevent these fluctuations in the value of either money or
commodities is a legislative feat beyond the power of mortal man. And
when we see our Legislator trying to regulate the value of anything that
one man has to sell to another, are no longer surprised at his trying to
regulate the weather by exploding powder in the air. Our Mark Twains and
Bill Nyes are flat indeed, when compared to that straight-faced clown,
the American legislator, who would give an unchangable value to either
the shoes we wear or the money we use.

This whole question of currency has as little to do with the prevailing
misery as the missing button off your vest would have to do with your
being frozen to death. England not only has enough money to carry on her