So far as this train of reasoning undertakes to explain the mode in which the fall in prices has been brought about, it seems to me impregnable. But in so far as it endeavors to disprove the appreciation of gold, or to show that the general fall is not due to this appreciation, I have never been able to see its force. In truth, both the bimetallists and their opponents seem to confuse the question when they speak of the appreciation of gold as causing lower prices. The appreciation of gold _is_ the general fall in prices. The two are not related as cause and effect; they are simply two names for one and the same thing--namely, a different rate of exchange between gold on the one hand and commodities in general on the other, by which the same amount of gold buys more commodities than before. When the general fall in prices is admitted, the case of the bimetallists as to the appreciation of gold is established once for all. Improvements in the production of commodities may explain how it happens that they are more abundant, and exchange on less favorable terms with gold, of which the quantity has not been increased by new rich mines or great improvements in production; but the fact of the depreciation of commodities, or of the appreciation of gold, is not thereby explained away. Nevertheless, the improvements in production do seem to me to have an important bearing on the question in hand: a bearing not on the simple fact of the appreciation of gold, but on the social consequences which are said to flow from it, and therefore on the questions of policy which are here under consideration. A moment's thought will show, for example, that a general increase in the efficiency of labor affects very materially the mode in which a fall in prices acts on the relations of debtor and creditor. If A borrows from B a hundred dollars, repayable in five years, and if at the end of the five years prices in general have fallen to one-half of the previous rates, B, in paying back to A the one hundred dollars, clearly returns twice as many commodities as he got. But if, at the same time, the efficiency of labor has been doubled by improvements in production, B can produce with the same labor twice as many commodities as before; and he returns to A the product of the same quantity of labor as he received. The classic economists and the socialists (at least some schools of socialists) have maintained alike that the ideally perfect standard of justice in the exchange of commodities and services is equality of sacrifice or labor; that if things so exchanged for each other that equal sacrifice got the same reward, complete justice would be attained. Applying this test to the relations of debtor and creditor in the case supposed, we find it not one of hardship to the debtor, but apparently one of justice to both parties. It is true the creditor gets more commodities than he gave; but he gets the product of the same amount of labor as he devoted to the