It is seen that the real character and qualities of gold are the same as are those of any other product of labor, which we can exchange direct, for other products of labor which we want more than we do the gold. If at any time the balance of trade is _against_ us, and we have _no_ cotton, corn, pork, gold or _anything else_ to make it good, we must then make it good by our representatives of value—our bonds—to be converted when we shall have these products. This process has been actually going on ever since we began to export bonds, either national, state, county, city, railroad or bonds of other incorporated companies. Now, is it not _perfectly_ evident that we have not only produced by labor what we have exported, which we have been pleased to denominate merchandise, but also that we have produced all the gold that has been exported; and in this connection is it not just as much an article of merchandise as is either cotton or corn? Gold cannot at _one_ and the _same_ time be both _money_ and _merchandise_. If _gold_ is money, so also is _wheat_, _cotton_ and _corn_ money, since they perform the same _services_ and possess the same _qualities_ as merchandise that gold does. To be perfectly clear in our conclusions, money must be resolved into its _uses_ and entirely divested of all its _fictitious_ and _irrelevant_ relations. The fact that money is that thing which is made use of to exchange real values must be the initial starting-point, of which sight must never be lost until it is _definitely_ settled what will _best_ perform this service. Anything which can be made use of for _any other purpose whatever_, is _not_ the _best_ thing to be made use of as money; because the demand for such a thing for such other purposes destroys its positive value as money by causing fluctuations in its exchanging power.