had at the time been lecturing on Money, and occupied a chair of political economy, was not aware of what was being done, and he presumed the great majority of his fellow-citizens were equally ignorant.

MR. GOSCHEN thought it would be useful to ascertain whether, at the time the law had been passed, Silver was or was not falling.

MR. WÆRN recalled the fact that the adoption of the system of the Single Gold Standard by the States of the Scandinavian Union took place in May, 1873, and was caused by the fall of Silver.

MR. BROCH observed that the fall of Silver had begun to show itself about the month of November, 1872. According to the quotations, the relative price of the two metals was at that time 1 to 15.85. The fall was more marked in 1873, the average relation during the year being 15.91. It must not, however, be forgotten that at that time the legal relation of the metals in Coin was 1 to 16, and consequently Silver was still above par in the United States, although already depreciated as far as the States of the Latin Union were concerned, their bi-metallic system resting on the relation of 1 to 15.

MR. GROESBECK, in reply to Mr. Feer-Herzog, explained that if up to 1834 there was only a small coinage of Silver, it was because Mexican dollars and Spanish dollars were used as well as some 5-franc pieces. Half and quarter dollars were, moreover, of the same purity as the dollar, and that likewise tended to restrict the coinage of dollars. Up to 1873 the American Silver dollar was at a premium, and the explanation given by the American authorities for the demonetization of Silver was that it was better to have gold, not on account of the relative value of that metal, but on account of other advantages which led to the preference.

MR. FEER-HERZOG argued that in 1873 the small quantity of Silver which may have remained in circulation was at a premium as compared with Paper, just as Gold was, but it could not be said that Silver was at a premium per se; it was only at a premium compared with Paper, and not as compared with Gold.

THE PRESIDENT (Mr. Say) insisted upon the question which he had stated at the opening of the Conference, namely: Why did not the United States, in restoring the Double Standard, permit the unlimited Coinage of Silver as well as that of Gold? It had been said by the Hon. Mr. Groesbeck that the restriction of the Coinage of Silver by the Latin Union had supplied a motive for the restriction in the United States; but this view did not seem to be well founded. It was by an amendment of the law that a limit was fixed to the Coinage of Silver dollars, and Mr. Say felt constrained to believe that this amendment was a mode of agreement, a compromise by means of which a majority could be obtained. The influence of the Latin Union seemed to have counted for so little in

the resolutions adopted by Congress on this occasion, that it does not appear that there was, even for a moment, any question of conforming the American system to that of the Latin Union, by the adoption of the relation of 1 to 15.

MR. FEER-HERZOG supported the observations of the President, by calling attention to the fact that the bill in its original form permitted the Coinage of Silver without limit.

MR. GROESBECK said that the author of the bill could not foresee from the start all the changes and limitations the adoption of which the majority of the two Houses might in the course of the debates come to regard as proper. The general tendency and sentiment of the people in the United States are unequivocally favorable to the principle of unlimited coinage. It was at first desired to respond to this feeling of public opinion, but upon reflection it appeared that in such a matter it would be dangerous for one State to act alone, and a certain limit to coinage was therefore provisionally established.

MR. HORTON, in reply to the points raised by the President of the Conference, called attention to the fact that the majority report of the Commission appointed by Congress in 1876 to investigate the Silver question had recommended the adoption by the United States of the ratio of 1 to 15 because it was the ratio of the Latin Union. The bill known as the Bland Bill had been proposed in Congress in the summer of 1876. Between that time and the passage of the law in pursuance of which the Conference met, the whole question had been thoroughly discussed in the United States in all its phases. In this discussion the situation of the Latin Union had not been lost sight of, but had peen made the subject of special attention.

After these explanations, no other member desiring to speak,

THE PRESIDENT (Mr. Say) observed that, in the memorandum presented by the American Delegation, two questions had been presented to the Conference; and he asked whether it was agreeable to the Conference to enter immediately upon the discussion of them, or whether it preferred to remit the consideration of them to the next session.

MR. FEER-HERZOG insisted that the discussion should be opened immediately, and that the Delegates be called upon to give their views successively, in alphabetical order.

THE PRESIDENT (Mr. Say) was of opinion that this mode of procedure would have the inconvenience of compelling each member to make a statement of principles. It would seem to him more satisfactory that those who demanded the floor should speak, either in support of, or to make their objections to, the propositions of the American Delegation.

The Conference adopting this mode of procedure,

The PRESIDENT (Mr. Say) requested one of the Secretaries to read the propositions of the Delegates of the United States.

MR. PIRMEZ desired to make some brief remarks upon the significance of the memorandum presented for discussion. It consisted, he observed, of various propositions, which, taken separately, might appear acceptable, but which it was, at the same time, necessary to view as a whole.

For example, there is certainly no reason to desire that Silver should everywhere be deprived of its function as Money, for which its nature renders it fit. So, likewise, if one considers whether, given a country with a monetary system based on Silver, it is desirable that the Coinage of Silver be free rather than controlled by the State, it is easy to admit that freedom is better than constraint.

But it is not in this isolated form that the propositions are presented to us. They are bound together and formulated in their relation to one point supposed to be admitted, namely, that what is demanded for Silver is already accorded to Gold. The proposition, therefore, amounts to saying that it is advantageous that Gold and Silver should be employed as Money simultaneously, and with equal freedom of Coinage. Now, this is the system of the two Money Standards in its full extent, and in order that there may be no doubt in this regard, the proposition demands. for Silver, as it assumes for Gold, full Legal-Tender power. To declare that it is desirable that all countries adopt the system of the Two Standards, this is, in essence, the proposition upon which the debate opens.

MR. PIRMEZ declares that the country which he has the honor to represent cannot do otherwise than reject this proposition. The system of the Double Standard has the effect to organize monetary crises. At the present moment the removal of the restrictions to which the Double Standard is subjected, in those countries of the Latin Union which have a metallic circulation, would have for its immediate result to give enormous profits to speculators in the metals, by enabling them to withdraw Gold and replace it with Silver in the circulation.

COUNT RUSCONI saw no difficulty in the Conference pronouncing itself, in the first place, on the question of principle, namely: Is it possi ble to establish a fixed relation between Gold and Silver? This question of principle once settled, if it be decided affirmatively, the moment would have then arrived for an examination of the means to be employed to establish such a ratio. On the other side, does bi-metallism offer so many disadvantages that it can be said that mankind have made a mistake in the concurrent use of the two metals during the entire course of the ages? Must the world be divided into two camps absolutely separated from each other, and mankind be plunged into the unknown by the general adoption of a system of exclusion? The Delegate of the Italian Government was opposed to such a plan.

MR. BROCH explained how, in his view, the Double Standard was almost always an ill-regulated system. In reality, he said, there is never a Double Standard; one of the metals always outweighs the other, and leaves to the latter a merely secondary role in the circulation. It is a recognized law that the weaker metal drives out the stronger, so that, in fact, a country never keeps the Double Standard, but secures merely an alternative standard. Mr. Broch recognized that the United States had a great interest in having other countries make equal use of the two metals for their monetary circulation and give equally to both the Legal-Tender character.

The United States fear that if the States still subjected to the régime of Paper Money resume specie payments with the Single Gold Standard, this will immediately produce the double consequence of augmenting, in a high degree, the value of Gold and of depreciating that of prod ucts of every kind; a result which, from their point of view, as a great producing country, and as a great debtor State, would in fact present disadvantages. The United States have a heavy debt, and it must be admitted that a rise of Gold would, with one blow, aggravate the weight of this debt.

But Mr. Broch observed on the other hand that if, with the Double Standard, the unlimited Coinage of Silver be admitted, as the United States demand, it is also to be feared that everywhere the price of provisions and of the necessaries of life will be considerably increased; which is another evil, and a far more serious one than the one just mentioned, because it reaches not merely the proprietor and the producer, but the mass of consumers, the laborers, petty employés, functionaries, all those who receive wages or fixed incomes.

After the discovery of the mines of California and Australia, Gold fell; and, thereupon, in consequence of the necessity of paying in Asia, in Indo-China, and the East, for the raw textile materials for which Europe manifested an extraordinary demand, an upward movement in the value of Silver declared itself. That metal, at that time in great request, an object of search, commanded a premium; but this premium never exceeded 2 per cent. Now, on the contrary, the development of the Silver mines and the demonetization of Silver in Germany have brought about a fall in the value of Silver far greater and more permanent; a fall which, besides, is merely the continuation of the descending path of this metal through the centuries. In fact, said Mr. Broch, as one can easily be satisfied by casting his eye over the picture presented at the first session (Exhibit A, first session), Silver always goes on gradually losing its value, with the exception of a few moments.of stoppage, or even an accidental rise. It seems to be its destiny to be always falling.

Mr. Broch maintained, further, that if a ratio between Gold and Silver should be adopted and fixed internationally, the oscillations which in spite

of this purely conventional relation, must take place in their real values, and the fluctuations of the metal in circulation, must cause frequent perturbations in foreign trade. In his view the system of the Single Gold Standard offered great advantages. Gold, said Mr. Broch, can be transported much more easily than Silver. The relation of weight is at present about 1 to 18; but the ratio of volume is 1 to 30. In Europe, and in a condition of our civilization like the present, Gold will, therefore, on account of its portability, have the preference for the ordinary uses of life as well as for trade, both foreign and domestic. With Gold, people who have the good sense to pay all their purchases in cash can easily gratify this propensity. A man can carry upon his person a considerable sum in Gold without inconvenience, while if one were reduced to paying everything in Silver, a lady could not go into a shop to buy a dress without taking with her a porter to carry the load of Silver which the purchase of this simple object would require to-day. Gold alone responds to the needs of an active circulation and of an advanced civilization; it is become the Money of all peoples that are progressing, while Silver remains exclusively the Money of peoples which are backward or stationary.

If, added Mr. Broch, the bi-metallic system by some impossible combination of circumstances should be extended in Europe, it would speedily bring about the disappearance of Gold, especially in small states; the slightest, even passing, oscillation in the value of the two metals would suffice to drain them completely of the metal commanding a premium. Passing to another order of ideas, Mr. Broch affirmed that it was not so much the lack of currency as the organization of the banks and the deplorable condition of the finances of the different nations which was responsible for the fact that many of them were still subject to the régime of Paper Money. The United States thought that if Russia, Austria, and Italy should adopt the Single Gold Standard and resume specie payments, Gold would increase in value to a considerable extent, because they would require a great quantity of it. But, according to Mr. Broch, they would require infinitely less than was supposed. Experience, he said, has proved that in such a case the state which desires to replace its paper circulation with metal or convertible notes only requires for the operation a sum of metal equal to that given by the premium of Gold over the paper, say 10 per cent. of the value of the paper; on this subject Mr. Broch regarded the apprehension of the United States as chimerical.

The system of the Double Standard, which they praise, would have, in his view, another disadvantage. Even if all the states of Europe came to adopt it, as the United States demand, there would always be, outside of the system, great, nay, immense countries, such as China and India, which would remain attached by inveterate habit to the Single Standard of Silver; and the necessary relations of commerce between them and Europe, varying of necessity according to circumstances, would bring