LAST DITCH OF DEMOCRACY - Majority Rights

the metalic content, or the amount of metal, referred to by a given piece
of money has attracted the attention of a great and élite set of people:
Demosthenes, Dante, Cleopatra have all found the subject interesting,
quite interesting.
It is curious that no snobism has yet been openly erected by monetary
economists, Bacon, Hume, Bishop Berkeley a most respectable set of
men have all thought it worth their attention. John Adams, Lincoln,
Jefferson, Gallatin, Justice Taney, naturally men in official position
HAVE glanced at the problem, ever since Phillippe le Bel caused such
distress to his subjects, both since then and before then.
Monetary crime is divisible into perhaps two major sections: the usury
wangle, and the wangles in variation of value, both of which are
sometimes forced by monopoly, by cornering the control of the currency.
The sovereign power over the issue of money CAN of course be used for
maintaining justice. Kitson’s study related to flagrant injustice. He found
that men who had become indebted in cheap or depreciated currencies
had been forced on more than one occasion to pay those debts in money
worth twice or much more than the money wherein the debts had been
contracted. In Kitson’s opinion this was not by accident. He thought it
was the fruit of design. He cited a good deal of conclusive evidence in
support of his view.
Now supposing that Kitson’s view was correct, would it not be
interesting to pursue the subject further? Would it not be of interest to
know whether the SAME banking firms had indulged in this little
practice or wheeze, several times over? Let us say after the wars of
Napoleon, after the great and terrible Civil War in America of the 1860’s
and after the “diktat” of Versailles?
#72 (March 30, 1943) U.S.(C24)
USUROCRACY