The PRESIDENT asked M. Stas if he speaks in the name of the Belgian government, or if this is his own personal opinion only.

M. FORTAMPS declared that the opinion expressed by M. Stas is shared by the ministers of finance of Belgium, but the Belgian government would not refuse to acquiesce in other propositions which should be adopted by the conference.

M. MEINECKE thought it of prime necessity to adopt as the base of the new system a system already recognized and reduced to practice. He did not pretend to ask the sympathies of the conference in favor of the Prussian monetary system, for he thinks that the standard of gold in the countries which have adopted it cannot be replaced by the standard of silver in force in Prussia only. Prussia, then, must renounce its standard if she wished to rally under a general monetary union. However, Prussia is content with the silver standard; the monetary circulation of which it is the basis is excellent, and there is no urgent reason for introducing there a change so considerable as that which would result from the change of this standard. On the other hand, the difficulty of adopting the gold standard is much greater for Prussia than for any other country. Nevertheless, without having the thought of modifying at this time its monetary system, the Prussian government would not fail to take the matter into consideration if the labors of the conference should aim at establishing a basis for a general monetary arrangement. She would study with care the best means to connect her with it, and when resolutions in this respect shall have been adopted, she would communicate them to her northern confederates, whose concurrence is indispensable, and also to the states of south Germany, her cosigners of the treaty of 1857. M. Meinecke adds that with this reservation he would take part in the discussion, and would give his vote.

M. FEER HERZOG, replying to the remarks of M. Stas, said that the metric system would not probably claim scrupulous respect for its smallest parts. The metre, which is the basis, has not, practically, that sure scientific quantity of length which constitutes its definition. The terrestrial spheroid, according to one of the dimensions on which the metre is calculated, presents irregularities, and there could therefore not be found in the metre itself that mathematical perfection which M. Stas seeks for. Nevertheless, the metric system offers great advantages, especially in the co-ordination of the different magnitudes which it includes, and which facilitate calculations.

It is certain that neither the 20-franc piece nor the 5-franc piece represent a fixed round number of grams, and in this point of view it would not be possible to give of them in grams a mathematical definition. But there is nothing to hinder the definition of the napoleon by indicating the round number (155) which a kilogram includes, or rather that it should be defined by the fractionary number of grams which represent its weight, neglecting the decimals beyond the thousandths decimals which practically are of no importance and have only an interest purely scientific. It is not indispensable to the goodness of coin that it should be metrically proportioned.

It has been said it would be necessary to remint the English sovereign. That is a point for discussion. There is between the sovereign and the 25-franc piece a minimum difference of 20 centimes only. But this difference is very little beyond the limit of the tolerance; the reminting of the sovereigns would therefore not be of absolute obligation, and it would be possible to keep in circulation the pieces now in use, provided only that the new ones should be coined with the minimum of reduction indicated. M. Feer Herzog adds that as for the objection raised by M. Stas in respect of the United States, he can reply, that according to a letter from Senator Sherman, which had been communicated to him by Mr. Ruggles, member of the conference, opinions are pronounced in America for lowering the dollar value. That country is, therefore, ready, and the objection of M. Stas falls of itself.

In what regards the division of the sovereign, in case the value of that coin should be brought to 25 francs, it would not be necessary to have coins of 12 francs 50 cents. The pound sterling would theoretically become to France a multiple of a new monetary unit which would be two francs 50 cents, a unit of which it would be the decuple, and consequently there would be no occasion to apprehend the numerous decimals which would follow the successive subdivision of the sovereign of 25 francs, as there would be on the hypothesis of the creation of coins of 12 francs 50 cents and of 6 francs 25 cents.

The Baron DE HOCK observed to M. Feer Herzog that the metre is a unit, not merely scientific but also real; witness the metre kept at the department of justice; the monetary unit might be kept in the same way. He was, besides, of the same opinion with M. Feer Herzog in relation to the division of the pound sterling, and added, that in Austria it is the intention to make coins of 25 francs. These coins will bear the name of 10 florins, and as for their subdivisions, the monetary commission at Vienna, presided over by Baron de Hock, has decided against a coin of 12 francs 50 cents, and preferred that of 10 francs, or four florins. There is nothing to prevent England from doing likewise. The objection of M. Stas, therefore, has not all the weight that he supposed it to have.

M. BROCH was of opinion that monetary unification must be effected, not only in view of the convenience of travellers, but above all for the sake of commerce it would be proper to have an understanding in respect to the subdivisionary coins as well as of gold coin in the interest of the laboring classes. It is essential that the coinage should everywhere offer subdivisions as equivalent as possible, so that the laborer who often has need of a fractional coin may not be the sufferer from variations which might exist in the diverse monetary systems

respecting small change, and may be enabled to estimate correctly the real cost of his limited purchases. It is therefore for identities on the whole monetary scale that M. Broch reserved his approval, and not for simple partial coincidences between gold coin.

He declared himself, moreover, for the system previously recognized by the convention of 1865, and thought the tie which connects the gold coinage and the metric system (155 napo.. leons to the kilogram) was sufficient, without there being need to create a new system, as M. Stas wishes to do. But it was to be remarked that the standard only of silver is in force in Sweden and Norway, and that, moreover, the commerce of those united kingdoms being principally with Germany, especially Hamburg, their adhesion to a monetary union would of necessity be subordinated to the preliminary adhesion of northern Germany.

The PRESIDENT, without contradicting the tendencies of M. Broch, must observe that they presuppose a preliminary reminting of all the gold and silver coinings actually in circulation in the states which would take part in the monetary union, while by a system of equations the remiuting would not bear upon the fractional coins, but only on the large pieces, a distinction which M. Stas has not taken into account.

Mr. GRAHAM, through Mr. Rivers Wilson, replying to the assertion of M. Feer Herzog that sovereigns actually in circulation might be kept so because of the trifling difference which would separate them from the new 25-franc coins, said that, if it be true that the 20 centimes of difference are almost comprised within the limits of the tolerance, it is not the less true that the English government would make it a point of honor not to avail itself of these limits. There would, therefore, be serious inconvenience in leaving in circulation sov ereigns of 25 francs 20 cents. In case of a new emission of sovereigns reduced to 25 francs, it would follow that the people, accustomed to divide by 20, would call for the piece of 20 francs; thence the necessity for a second recoinage, and, in such case, the abandonment of the sovereign. The immediate adoption of the French system would be preferable.

M. FEER HERZOG remarked, that if the sovereign be reduced to 25 francs, and be divided, we obtain the double of the present shilling and not the franc. He added, that this double shilling exists in fact because it is the English florin, and consequently the reduction of the Sovereign would not lead to its abandonment.

Mr. RUGGLES said it would be as impossible to abolish the expression of the dollar in the United States as that of the sovereign in England, but that both might be retained in reducing their intrinsic values. For the sovereign it would be a reduction of only 20 centimes; for the dollar, on the other hand, the reduction would be 3 per cent. on its value. The United States were ready to make this sacrifice in view of monetary unification; such was the opinion of the American people, and after the next winter a general reminting of coin, however considerable, might commence. But this reminting must be made now or never, for if we examine the gold coinages of the great commercial-nations we find them rapidly increasing. If this progression should continue, the time would come when the reminting of the coinage of the United States would become practically impossible in view of the enormous cost of recoinage which would then be necessary. The United States from 1793 to 1849 actually coined but $85,000,000 in gold; in 1850 and 1851, $94,000,000; from 1851 to 1866, $665,000,000. During this last period of 15 years France has coined about $955,000,000 in gold, and England $450,000,000. We thus see that two milliards of dollars in gold, or more than 10 milliards of francs, have been thrown into the money market since the discovery of the mines of Australia and California. This considerable mass of coin is increasing daily. It is certainly possible that in the United States, in the 15 years which are to follow, the coinage of gold may reach the amount of five (5) milliards of francs. In view of such a future the American government would prefer to reduce its monetary unit For that purpose it needs only the passage of a law briefly declaring that "the weight of the gold dollar shall be hereafter 18 612m .90, in place of 18 670m." Those few words would serve to change the whole monetary system of the United States. But the United States, in thus consenting to recoin its gold now in circulation, would expect that France, on her side, will consent to coin gold pieces of 25 francs, in which case monetary unification would at once assume a practical form.

at once.

The PRESIDENT expressed to Mr. Ruggles the satisfaction with which the conference had listened to sentiments so favorable to monetary unification as those he had uttered in the name of the United States; adding that, in regard to the wish expressed for the creation of a 25-franc piece in France, this wish had already found its place in the questionnaire, and would be thereafter discussed.

M. HERBET laid before the conference a communication which had been made to him personally by Mr. Graham, relative to the coin of Canada, about which there would be a question of recoinage on the basis of the convention of 1865. This was an important communication, and it would be of advantage if Mr. Graham would repeat it to the conference, which could take action upon it.

Mr. GRAHAM replied that nothing had been decided upon in this respect, but as there was an identity of coin between Canada and the United States, if the latter should approximate to the French monetary system, Canada would, of necessity, follow the example.

M. MEES said that he could only consider the first question in a theoretic point of view, and that his vote could not bind his government, seeing that Holland would not, at least at present, be able to conform to any monetary system whatever while surrounded by three

monetary systems so different as those which are based upon the franc, the thaler, and the sovereign.

109

The Count D'AVILA, resuming the question of the reminting of the English coin, discussed in succession by M. Stas, Feer Herzog, and Mr. Graham, expressed the opinion that if the pound sterling were reduced to 25 francs, the reminting of the English sovereigns, far from being an expense to the treasury, would probably be profitable to it, as the new sovereign would be inferior in fineness to the old. In fact, by reducing the fineness from to there would be a gain of more than 60 milligrams of pure gold for each sovereign Besides, the adoption of the pound sterling for 25 francs would be sufficient, because naturally the subdivisions of the one coin and the other would correspond with each other; for example, there would be natural equations between five francs and four shillings, 50 francs and two pounds sterling, &c.

No one asking to speak, the president proposed to take the vote on the first question, pointing out at the same time the necessity for agreeing preliminarily on the manner of voting, individually or by states.

M. HERBET remarked that, in conformity with the precedents, the vote could only be taken by states; the French government, in fact, on inviting foreign governments to take part in an international monetary conference, left them at full liberty as to the number of delegates who should represent them. If the vote were per capita, some states would cast more votes, because their delegates might be more numerous. That is a consequence which could not be admitted. Without having precisely the character of a diplomatic assemblage, the present conference is, however, composed of members who have been furnished with preliminary instructions by their governments, and who should, in consequence, yield their individual opinions, so as to bring forward only those of the states they may represent, and it pertains to the first of the delegates of each state to utter its vote.

The mode of voting laid down by M. Herbet being accepted by the conference, the president put to vote the first paragraph of the first question:

"Is it more easy to realize monetary unification by the creation of an entirely new system, independent of existing systems, and in this case what should be the basis of this system?"

The conference decided unanimously in the negative.

The president then put to vote the first part of the second paragraph of the same question: "Is it, on the contrary, more easy to realize monetary unification by mutual co-ordination of existing systems, taking into account the scientific advantages of certain types, and of the numbers of the populations which have already adopted them?"

The conference unanimously responded, yes.

The second part of the same paragraph thus framed was then put to vote:

"In this case what monetary system should be principally taken into consideration, reserving improvements of which it might be susceptible?”

Upon a suggestion from M. Fortamps, it was understood that the vote to be given did not determine the question of standard. The conference expressed itself unanimously in favor of the system of the monetary convention of 1865, annexed to this procès verbal. Messrs. de Hermann and Baron de Soden stated that all their votes were given subject to reserve in respect of anterior engagements of their respective states.

M. DE PARIEU stated that, in effect, the German states finding themselves mutually bound by the treaty of 1857, their reciprocal engagements do not permit them to act in severalty, except as far as Austria is concerned, which has quite recently freed herself from the engage

ment.

The examination of the second question was remitted to the next meeting, which was fixed for to-morrow at 2 o'clock.

The sitting was closed at half-past twelve.

CLAVERY, Secretary of the Conference.
ROUX, Assistant Secretary.

DE PARIEU,
Vice President of the Conference.

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY CONFERENCE-THIRD SITTING.

THURSDAY, June 20, 1867.

M. de Parieu presiding. The sitting opened at 2 o'clock. Present, the delegates who were present at the second sitting, as well as M. Vrolik, and excepting the Count de Moltke Hvitfeldt.

The minutes of the preceding sitting having been adopted, the president opened the discussion on the questions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, which are strictly connected together, and thus framed :

2. Is it possible to constitute at this time identities or partial coincidences of monetary types, on an extensive scale, on the basis and with the condition of the adoption of the silver standard exclusively?

3. Is there, on the contrary, a possibility of attaining this result on the basis and with the condition of the adoption of the gold standard exclusively?

4. How much of like result in proceeding on the basis and with the condition of the adoption of the double standard and the establishment of an identity of relation in all countries between the value of gold and the value of silver?

5. In case of the negation of the three preceding questions, would it be possible and beneficial to establish identities or partial coincidences of monetary types on an extended scale on the basis of silver coins, leaving each state at liberty simultaneously to regulate the gold standard?

6. Would it be possible and beneficial to establish identities or partial coincidences on the basis of gold coins, leaving each state at liberty to regulate the silver standard?

7. On the hypothesis of the affirmative solution of one of the two preceding questions, and observing the distinctions which the alternative imports, would the advantage of internationality which coins of the metal assumed as the common standard would have, be a sufficient guarantee of their continuance in the circulation of each state, or would it be necessary beyond that to stipulate either for a certain limit in the relation between the value of gold and that of silver, or for the case where international coins would incur the risk of being completely expelled from circulation in some of the contracting states?

Mr. MEES avowed himself, for each particular state, partisan of a single standard, and, although representing a state whose system rests on the standard of silver, he did not maintain that this standard would be that which it would be proper to adopt in preference to gold; but he could foresee serious inconvenience in all the nations of Europe adopting the same standard, for this would exclude entirely from European circulation one of the two metals, while M. Mees considered them both as beneficial to be retained. It should not be forgotten that for trade with the extreme east silver is the metal always in use; M. Mees would, therefore, be inclined to vote in the negative on the questions 2, 3, and 4, because he does not admit either the standard of silver exclusively, or the standard of gold exclusively, and he would only vote for the adoption of the two-fold standard in the event of the formation of a universal monetary union, an hypothesis whose epoch of realization cannot, as yet, be predetermined.

M. DE JACOBI could not perceive any necessity for agreeing upon the adoption of one or the other standard. It would be sufficient to stipulate that such and such coins should be received and accepted as legal coins, each state remaining, in other respects, free to strike other coin in accordance with convenience or the necessities of its internal transactions.

M. LAVENAY remarked that the difficulty was perhaps greater than M. Jacobi seemed to suppose it. The proposition just set forth would tend to nothing less than the establishment of the double standard in all countries. How could it be admitted, in effect, that the government of a state which should have the silver standard, which, for example, could only strike legal coin in that metal, could consent to attribute that privileged character to foreign gold coins? How could their subjects, their public banks, be obliged to accept metallic specie which it shall have prohibited in its own issues, and of which it would seem to admit implicitly the fitness?

In another point of view would not the same government have to apprehend a danger— that of bringing into the market of the country a foreign money which might drive out the national coin, and thus give preference to a metal which it has deemed fit to discard from internal circulation in that state?

Thus, in the opinion of M. Lavenay, every country which, upon economic principles, shall have adopted one standard only, could not accept the combination proposed.

M. JACOBI. Without being bound to stipulate for the employment of one and the same standard, governments might come to an understanding to coin pieces of equal value. The approximations would not present great difficulties. Thus the demi-imperial of gold varies little from the napoleon of twenty francs, and if the Russian government should coin pieces of one rouble and one-fourth, it would obtain a piece equal to the five-franc piece of France, and at the same time preserve to itself the denomination of rouble.

M. LAVENAY admitted the facility with which these combinations could be attained between France and Russia, which have the double standard; and the case would not be similar between a country with the silver standard and a country with a gold standard, such, for example, as Prussia and England.

The PRESIDENT did not perfectly comprehend the practical bearing of the observations of M. Jacobi. In the opinion which prevailed at the drawing up of the questionnaire, and in which the members of the conference appeared to concur, the solution now sought for could only be found in one of the five combinations following the adoption by all the states either of the gold standard, or the silver standard, or the double standard, or, in fine, the standard of gold, with liberty to maintain for a time the standard of silver, and reciprocally.

M. FEER HERZOG indicated a certain connection between the remarks of M. Mees and those of M. Jacobi. They both think that the adoption of the same standard is not indispensable to the creation of a money which shall be universal. M. Feer Herzog was not of this opinion; for the specie, be it gold or be it silver, which should be intended for universal circulation, would become a simply commercial money, from the moment of their entry into a country where the monetary standard would be of a different metal. This would fall back on the inconveniences which the conference should particularly apply itself to remove.

As for the fear expressed by M. Mees on the subject of the total disappearance of silver, in case of the adoption of the standard of gold exclusively, it did not seem to be founded on a thoroughly exact appreciation of the situation. The world is divided in its monetary relation into two considerable and very distinct groups: on one side the western States, where gold tends more and more to prevail; on the other, the countries of the extreme east, where silver continues to predominate. Commerce, which develops itself more and more between Europe and those far-off countries, cannot fail to keep up on this side a considerable circulation of silver. The adoption of a single standard in Europe and the United States would not, therefore, have the consequences which M. Mees supposes, and M. Feer Herzog regards the standard of gold alone as the basis of a true monetary union.

The PRESIDENT could only connect himself to a certain extent with this manner of discovering whether the conference had come to an understanding about the complete unification of monetary types; but in default of a solution so completely satisfactory, we might arrive at a specification of coincidences more or less numerous between certain types, and to obtain this result, which would not be without value, unity of standard would not be necessary. It would suffice that all the contracting states should have a common standard.

M. Baron DE HOCK would define somewhat further the object of the discussion after having fixed the standard as being the prototype, the rule of weight, of fineness, and of the metal of the money of a country. He recollected that the conference, in declaring at the last meeting in favor of the system of the convention of 1865, had already fixed the weight and fineness of the standard it intends to propose. It now remained for it to determine upon the metal-shall it be gold or silver? M. Hock would vote for the gold standard, and as for the double standard it did not seem to him, in the same manner as to M. Herzog, susceptible of service in the formation of a monetary union.

The Count D'AVILA supported the judicious consideration developed by M. Lavenay. He did not think that countries with the silver standard could have an understanding with countries having the gold standard for the establishment of equations of their monetary types.

M. HERMANN set forth the importance of looking at the question actually under discussion from the stand-point of view of the population of states which represent, on the one hand, the standard of gold or the double standard, and on the other the standard of silver.

The PRESIDENT reminded the meeting, on this point, that if European states only were taken into account, if abstraction was made of Asia, the monetary circulation whereof could not be confounded with that of Europe, and whose population is besides compensated in a certain degree by the population of the American continent, the following results are obtained: One hundred and eighty millions of inhabitants in states which use the gold standard, or the double standard, against 60,000,000 in those which hold the silver standard. The decision could not be doubtful. The president having remarked that the United States were in the like situation with France,

Mr. RUGGLES answered that this double standard did not practically exist, and that therefore the United States did not seem to him to be in position to be comprised among the countries having a double standard.

The original act of Congress, which was passed at a time when we were less enlightened than to-day, either by study or experience, sought to establish a double standard by giving to gold coin and silver coin equal legal currency in payments, whatever might be the amount of the debt.

In 1853, in view of the considerable change which had been experienced in the respective value of the two metals, and which was then in the way of increase, the double standard was practically abolished by the reduction of about seven per cent. in the weight of the fractional pieces of the silver dollar, and by the declaration that all the divisional coins which should subsequently be struck should be a legal tender only for the payment of debts not exceeding five dollars. It is true that the silver dollar is still retained as lawful money for debts of any amount, but of a total silver coinage of 136,351,512 dollars, 4,366,340 only are in dollars, while $131,985,472 consist of subdivisions of the dollar.

Almost all the divisional pieces which had been coined before the passage of the law of 1853 have disappeared, in obedience to the fundamental and inexorable law of demand and supply, which sets at naught all attempts made to fix by legislation the relative values of the two metals. The legislators and the people of the United States have sufficiently learned, if not by study, at least by experience, that the system of a double standard is not only a fallacy, but an impossibility, in assuming a fixed relation between the values of two different products, gold and silver. The value of each of these depends upon the quantity produced, and this quantity is beyond the power of legislation. A diminution of value is, and ever will be, the inevitable result of the increase of supply.

During the 56 years which immediately preceded the year 1850, the United States coined in gold $85,588,038, and in silver $75,322,969, which represents a supply of about 11 of gold to one dollar of silver. From 1850 to 1866, inclusive, the coinage of gold has been $759,648,453, and of silver, $59,027,843, which represents about $12 50 in gold to one dollar of silver.

Admonished by so great a change in the relative supply of the two metals, the United