He also informs us that-- "It is perfectly impracticable _to transmute 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 transmutation project we have seen." (p. 413). When he says that "it is the best _transmutation_ project he has seen," the context shows that he means to say that it _comes nearer to transmuting 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? End of Project Gutenberg's A New Banking System, by Lysander Spooner