stay the progress of that demonetization which has already brought such mischiefs upon trade and the production of wealth.

In referring thus to the Conference of 18G7,1 have no -wish to disparage the object of International Coinage.

A uniform Coinage of Money by all civilized nations would offer certain, definite, appreciable, but not momentous, practical advantages, and would be, moreover, of considerable sentimental importance. It is worth the making a certain sacrifice of national prejudices; it is worth the incurring a certain, definite expense, in recoinage, and a certain temporary embarrassment of trade, pending the readjustment of monetary systems consequent thereon. It is not worth the sacrifice of a (tingle vital interest of mankind; and the Conference of 18G7, in prodaiuting a crusude against Silver, for the sake of forwarding the cause of International Money, did a mischief whose consequences are even yet only half unfolded.

I have said that the action of Germany was taken, under advice of professional economists, with partial or mistaken views of the proper relations of Silver to the trade of the civilized nations, in their present »täte of development. On this point it is imperative, that, with profound respect for the eminent economist, the Delegate from Switzerland, 1 antagonize, as fully as I may, the position he has here taken.

M. i'eer-llerzog expects and desires to see, in the immediate future, the nations of the world divided into two great groups, in the respect of their monetary circulation, the civilized States using Gold as the Solo Standard of value, and the uncivilized, Silver.

On the contrary, it is here maintained that there are not more than three territorially extensive countries in the world—and the recent experience of Germany shows that she is not one of them—which could possibly maintain a Single Gold Standard, upon true economic principles.

If there uj any one thing which political economy declares with an unfaltering voice, it is that the principal Money circulating in the hands of the people of any country should be of full metallic value. The coinage of Billon, or Token-Money, is indeed admitted by political economists, but only as applied to what may legitimately and strictly be termed the "small change" of trade. (1) To extend the operation of a heavy seiguorage to the main body of the Money of a country, what is it but to corrupt the Coin, and to generate in the public body the morЬыя HUMcricus of which Copernicus wrote that it is more fatal than civil war, pestilence, or famine!

Better far, inconvertible Paper Money than a debased Coinage; for the former, at least, does not deceive the sense of the people. If a

с, ir is a wrong confessed. and which is always suggestive of its proper remedy.

The mrversal Gold-mono-metallism of Europe which has been recommended wouI«L in most countries, amount simply to this: a scanty Coinage •»£ Gold. held mainly Ъу the banks for the settlement of interTfcm«msil tfhfí ¿anona. ami л vastly preponderating circulation of debased surer.

England, in exacting a heavy seignorage upon the shilling piece, the florin and che half-crown, carries the principle of Billon to the verge of satkry. though. with, an extensive popular use of sovereigns and halfawvwreiinia* the greater port of the circulating medium is still of full metallic value: bat in. how шапу other countries of Europe is there a sufficiently vuat accumulation of wealth, a sufficiently high range of wages and pnces» a sufficiently rapid circulation, to attract and retain the amuunt -л' Gold especially under the diminishing productiveness of the' mines, which, would oe necesj^iry to constitute the major part in value oí' the actual Money of the people f

If GuM-mono-meciffism in Europe is to mean, as, in this view of the cas«. :t must mean. a principal circulation of debased Silver, with little or no Gold in the hunde of the people, but pretty much the whole Gold re held by the banks, for the purpose of international trade, better 'úíe paper! Why not realize at once the scheme of the British u school of a génération ago: a "national money" for internal arvuIurnMt only, of no value whatever (saving, thus, the whole cost «h JvLvtA-d Sti> er Coinage Ч a purely " non-exportable currency," with a e \ ot" " uicnusic value" only for foreign trade, i. e., for international

which are certain to be perpetuated in time and to become aggravated in degree, if the movement which we have noted in progress is not to be arrested and reversed.

Mr. GoBcheu, in his remarks of Monday, made reference to a normal price of Silver. I must understand this to mean Gld. or thereabouts, of British Money, per oz., being the price from which Standard Silver never departed widely prior to 1873. From this I infer that Mr. Goschen concedes to the French law of 1803 the virtue which is attributed to it by his distinguished countrymen, the late Professor Cairnes, Mr. Stanley Jevons, and the late Mr. Bagehot, viz, that the French law served as "the connecting-pipe" (to use Mr. Jevons'phrase) between the two reservoirs severally of Gold and Silver, which would otherwise have been subject to independent variations of supply and demand, or as an "equalizing machine" (to use Mr. Bagehot's expression) by which the bi-metallic countries, taking the metal which fell and selling the metal which rose, kept the relative value of the two at its old point.

Thus it was, and thus only it could have been, that Silver came to have a "normal price"; that a par of exchange between Gold countries and Silver countries was established and maintained.

Was this adjustment of exchanges desirable! Who gained by it t Who, if any one, lost?

That England profited greatly by it, from first to last, and in every way, it would be preposterous to deny. That India, China, and the other exclusively Silver countries greatly profited by it, on the whole, no one here probably will question. How with the bi-metallic countries! Did they perform this great service to others at a loss to themselves!

To assert that France and the countries associated with her lost by this arrangement merely because England and India profited by it, would be to proclaim anew the brutal doctrine which we know as the Mercantile Theory, which it was the great work of Adam Smith to expose to the contempt of mankind.

But if we cannot give this reason for beh'cving that this great service to the world was rendered by the bi-metallic States at a cost to themselves, what other reasons can be given! May we not, on this question, trust to the sagacity of French financiers, French statesmen, and of the French i>eople themselves, who maintained the policy of the year XI for seventy years, and, though compelled by the action of Germany to suspend the operation of that law, still, in the language of our President (M. Say), look forward to the resumption of this beneficent function, when the present exigency shall have passed away t

For myself, I cannot but believe that, while France might well have •wiahed that the burden should be shared in a larger degree by others, it was better, even for France, that she should do it alone than that it should not be done by any.

But what, Mr. President, if that function is never to be resumed! Whut if, as the Delegate from Switzerland urges, the nations are to

ir final choice between Silver and Gold! What must be tlie r»>a international commerce, when a par of exchange between .Treat divisions ot the earth no longer exists? Must not t bo them thereafter be conducted under difficulties the saiji«.в?е1т. if not wholly in degree, as those which beset the intor:c -¡wi-'^-ravinj nations with others which labor under an irr«.-Ie Pace-Circulation Î

«i vwn. mure important, in the view of the Delegates from the United -iic ргппьче «»tifei-t apon the production of wealth, resulting liiamuaoa of Gbr Money-supply of Europe and America, or in progress, through the gratuitous demonetize