It occurs to me that an objection may be raised to my argument classing gold as wealth, and defining wealth to be that which can be made use of to minister to life, comfort and happiness; or perhaps to the distinction of permanent and transitory wealth. Gold, as permanent wealth, can only minister to man through its exchange for other valuables of which direct use can be made. It may be said that in _that_ sense gold can legitimately be money. But if there are objectors to this argument, I beg to call their attention to the conclusive fact that gold _can never_ be representative of all other kinds of wealth. It is just as impossible that it should be, as it is that a bridge _one_ hundred feet in length should span a river _five_ hundred feet in width. It must further be remembered that the uses for which money is required demand an invention which can be made use of for _no other_ purpose whatever, and that money is the name of an invention _demanded_ and made for the purpose of _facilitating_ exchanges—for making them easy, _convenient_ and _adaptable_ to _all_ conditions of _all_ persons. Every attempt ever made to compel gold to answer the demands of money has been a disastrous failure. So long as a country enjoys continuous prosperity under a gold standard of value, it is all well enough. The people make use of an expanded volume of currency in the full faith that prosperity will continue and everything be smooth and right. But anon a _change_ comes, the nation is precipitated into conditions which require _more_ than its accumulations of gold to meet. _That_ being exhausted, it is _inevitable_ that representation be resorted to. The wealth in the form of gold not being adequate, and other wealth not having been used or accepted as money, paper representatives of it are the _only_ resort. So it appears that when an _emergency_ arises the people are _involuntarily_ pressed to the use of the principle of representation, which is the _only_ scientific thing that can be called money. So that while a paper representative of wealth is, _with everything else_, a product of labor, it is more than that; it is the embodiment and application of a principle, which other products of labor are not; and all principles are fundamental; are the basis of all permanent and all purely scientific things and truths, while wealth is the realized product of the outworking of principles, directed and appropriated by man for his use and convenience. The direct inquiry can now be made as to _what_ will _best perform_ what the people require of money; and money is that which can be used to _represent_ real values without an absolute _transfer_ of such values. The basis of all value of this country is our _present_ accumulated _real_ wealth and our _capacity_ to increase it, and this accumulation and the prospective increase may be _wholly_ represented by money and the nation never become bankrupt.