Page images

form a unity identical in weight and denomination, nor to constitute common types ; a unity of metallic composition is suflicient, with the conversion of the coins of the union, that may vary in the different states by a sim le e uation.

For instance, let France take itsp20-filtnc piece, and Austria its l0-florin piece, for union money; then thfe 20-fpanc piece would pass in Austria. for eight florins, and the 10-florin

iece in France or 25 rancs. P Each state might be left to subdivide its union money as it pleased, according to the needs and customs of its people. For example, Austria might coin five-florin pieces, equivalent to 121} francs, that France would not be obliged to receive in its public banks, yet this small change ought to be of the same metallic compositionas the larger principal coins.

M. MEINECKF. thinks that crowns coined by the treaty of 1857, and gold coins by the convention of 1865, of the standard of nine-tenths fineness, would be the best form for this curilency. d But he cannot say what union nioneyhwould be best suited for Prussia. What he

as sai is only intended as a rinci le. For t ese reasons he can only a rove of the art of question eight that concern: the iiiiity of metallic composition, which hepiilould like topsee fixed at nine-tenths fineness. He would vote against the other parts of that question, and could not vote at all on question nine.

His IMPERIAL HIGHNESS pointed out the importance of the question of fineness, to which M. Meinecke alludes, and thought it not expressed with sufficient precision in the list.

M. LAVENAY thought the first part of the question definite enough, but he thought-these

words should be added to the latter part: “having a common denominator and a similar fineness.”

M. HERMANN said Bavaria is bound by the monetary convention of 1857, and cannot_

accept a currency not received by the Zollverein.

Baron SCIIWEIZER said the same of the grand duchy of Baden.

Count D’AVILA thought the principal ob_]cct of the conference is to prepare for the future, and he had always believed that the convention of 1865 was the best for that purpose; but we should find out the best means to hasten the result. For this purpose it would be well to

adopt the gold coins as international money, leaving each state the right to coin its silver in its '

own way. The gold piece of five francs should be adopted as the basis of a monetary unity. The result of this adoption would be to substitute gold for silver in countries where the last is the standard, as in France, where gold is the actual standard, though ‘legislation establishes the doubl.e standard. .

Though he is not authorized to decide this question, he thinks he can safely say that Portugal would not object to lessen the fineness of its coins from 916 to 900 thousan-dths; but England would have to set the example. The efi"ect of this would be slight in Portugal, as sovereigns form the chief gold currency there, and the Portuguese gold coins being few, their recoinage would not cost much, particularly as the diminution would offer a compensation. ' '

Count D’AVlLA added that he was aware of the ditficulties in a change of system for the English currency, but in theory it does not explain the reserve of the delegates from Great Britain. In theory it would be necessary to change the sovereign, as the United States intend to change their dollar, and in case England followed the example of the United States,

Portugal would naturally come in next, particularly as the pound sterling is a legal tender there. '

His IMPERIAL HIGHNESS thought that all the members of the conference should agree first upon the fineness of the international coins, and afterwards discuss the monetary unity (in the concordance of coins among themselves. For, even if the sovereign were reduced to 25 francs, the English piece would not be equivalent to the French, on account of the difference in allo . '

Couht D’AVILA observed that the question has already been discussed in another assembly

Where it was thought that England would agree to an equation between the sovereign and the 25-franc piece. The fineness of nine-tenths, the most common in Europe, ought to be adopted ; but England must modify the alloy of the sovereign, or at least allow it to circulate for a time as 25 francs, without alterin its fineness. ' ‘ M. DE LAVENAY thought the question 0 fineness of minor importance to England, as the sovereign might contain just as much gold as the French 25-franc piece. The weight would not be the same, as the quantity of copper would be different for the same amount of gold, as nine-tenths to eleven-twelfths. ‘

The chief obstacle would be the intrinsic value of the piece, as that would be reduced, and it might cause a commotion among the people. But if England, inspired by the ideas thrown out by Mr. Ruggles on behalf of the United States, would consent to this recoinage, it would have the same interest in nine-tenths as in eleven twelfths, with difference of weight and alloy. Why, then, should not nine-tenths be adopted? Unity of fineness has in fact an international value, for if all coins were of the same fineness nothing would be easier than to ascertain their intrinsic value. The two different pieces would be equal in weight as well as in fineness, thus furnishing a test of value in everybody’s reach. If, on the contrary,unity of alloy is rejected, their weight would be dissimilar and the test destroyed. Therefore, a gold coin having the same fineness and denominator should be adopted, and the second paragraph of article eight could be modified to suit it.

M. Lavmuv apprehended that the English delegates exaggerate the powers of the other commissioners. The business of the conference is to find out the best way, in theory, to provide for a monetary unity, but no member binds his government by his acts. As the English delegates are in the same position, they should not refuse to enlighten the conference with their experience, but should give their opinions freely in the debate on succeeding


q Baron SODEN, of Wurtemburg, agreed with the representatives of Bavaria and the North Confederation, and felt the necessity of a changein the monetary system of Wurtemburg and South Germany. For that reason the proposal of France for a conference to assimilate the different monetary systems was gladly accepted in Wurtemburg. But, as the Monetary and Customs Union bind Germany together by reciprocal dutie, the decisions of this conference ought to leave the German states at full liberty to act in concert. Their unanimous agreement to adopt the gold standard led us to hope there will be no ditficulty in the adoption of an international currency when the question of an international treaty comes up in the convention. '

With these reservations Baron Soden approved of the declarations made by the delegates from Prussia and Bavaria. ,

Baron DE HOOK thought that when the conference adopted the French monetary system as a centre for the proposed unification, it thereby settled the fineness at nine-tenths, and therefore there was no occasion for a new discussion of that point. He thought, with M. de Lavenay, that the question of unity of fineness is of great importance. In fact, without identity of fineness monetary unification is impossible, because identity of value cannot then be ascertained by weight: and as it is impossible to coin pieces of exactly the same weight

‘and alloy, which gave rise to limits of tolerance, how can one know when these limits of

tolerance are exceeded’! M. FEER HERZOG disagreed with Baron de Hock in thinking that the adoption of the

. French system implies an adoption of its alloy. The system was merely suggested as a

basis of unification, with the modifications the conference might choose to introduce ; but, personally, he thought nine-tenths the best alloy. He said the convention of 1865 is too often called up in discussion; nothing in that is binding on us. The duty of this conference is more extensive; it not only has to study the international merits of the convention of i865, but has to fix a basis for monetary unification. .The frequent mention of that convention has misled the English delegates and induced them to declare they could not vote for its adoption by Great Britain. The resolutions of this conference do not adopt the convention of 1865; they only seek through its proceedings 3. better solution of the monetary question.

With this understanding the delegates can express their personal opinions without speaking ,

for their governments, and it is to be regretted that M Meinecke has shown so much reserve in speaking of the mark of Cologne and Stuttgard in this discussion of a monetary unity.

Count D‘AVILA remarked that he did not mean that fineness was a secondary consideration, as M. de Lavenay supposes; he merely meant that France and England might agree in bringing the sovereign down in value to the 25-franc piece without altering its fineness. The simple question is whether England would give the sovereign a legal circulation at 25 francs with its actual alley, or reduce it to nine-tenths by melting. Contrary to M. Feet Herzog, be thought the convention of 1865 ought to be adopted as a practical basis in discussion. He did not propose its complete adoption, but only in reference to gold coins, without alluding to silver or copper currency. .

M. DE PARIEU thought that the question of fineness, though important, may be con~ sidered as secondary; the chief point is identity of fineness, in the coins. The banks could

distinguish the differences of fineness in case of necessity, and a sutficient medium of con- '

trol might he arrived at to ascertain the value of coins in circulation without resort to single weight If the English pound sterling contained the same quantity of fine gold as the French 25-franc gold piece, an understanding could be easily arrived at. The superior fineness of the sovereign is rather in its favor; for, if reduced to nine-tenths fine, the additional copper alloy would increase its weight, and thus compensate for its loss in gold. But the chief difl-iculty might be the modification of contracts and the conversion of debts if the sovereign were thus reduced.

According to Baron do Hock the question had been already settled by adopting the first question. Though this is not exactly the fact, yet the question is predecided by admitting the advantages of the money of the convention of 1865 in a metric and decimal point of view, for the alloy of nine-tenths offers this decimal character by itself. The members of the conference are therefore almost agreed upon question eight, particularly if these words were expuriged from the second part, “ for instance, by multiples of five francs,” that decide beforehand the common denominator of the international coins.

All the delegates are of opinion that a common denominator ought to be fixed upon for all gold coins of certain importance. In neglecting this last condition, we might say that denominator exists already ; thus a common denominator of one-tenth is found for the sovereign, rated at 25 francs 20 centimes, and the Napoleon. But we do not want such a small enominator for the reciprocal conversion of monetary values. That of 2 francs 50 centimes, proposed by M. Meinecke, is even too small; for the comparison between the

pieces of 10 francs, 12 francs 50 centimes, and 7 francs 50 centimes, would be very difiicult.

In the material fabrication of these gold coins there should be a minimum difference of five francs, so as to make an apparent distinction in the form of these pieces. Such was M. Pelouze‘s opinion. He thought the coinage of a 25-franc piece very practicable, because it would differ greatly in size from the Napoleon of 20 francs. '

In a scientific point of view, the delegates might therefore negative the first paragraph of question ei ht, and affirm the second para raph modified by M. Lavenay’s proposition, in discussin ._the utility of common types “ or the weight and fineness of the gold coin.”

M. Escmm considered the question of similar fineness for the international coins as ofgreat importance. Without this unity it would be very difficult to ascertain the true value of the pieces. It is their weight that gives the measure of their value. ‘We must, therefore, have a unity of fineness. and the best for that is nine-tenths, on account of its decimal character. In a metrical oint of view it would have been better if the convention of 1865 had adopted the fineness 0 eight-tenths instead of 1393053 for the small coins.

M. STAS hoped that his single vote for an entire new system at the beginning of the conference, as offering the best chances for a monetary unity, will not influence his present observations on question eight. He thought with Baron de Hock that the adoption of the first question implies an adoption of the French system, and that it is indispensable for its monetary types. Unity of fineness must be admitted, because the real value of a piece is most conveniently ascertained by weighing it. Nobody has a true test always about him to ascertain whether his money is of a fineness within the limits of toleranm. The fineness of all coins must therefore be similar. and they must be of the metrical system.

The fineness of nine-tenths has this quality, and its prevalence in France, Italy, Germany, and the United States recommends it to those countries that have preserved the fineness of {-2‘, like England and Portugal.

After the question of fineness comes the common denominator, as five francs. The multiples of five francs would be 10, 15, 20, 25 francs, the correlative coinage of which would be very difiicult. For instance, in the present ieces of 5, 10, and 20 francs, the diameters are 17, 19, and 21 millimetres. Now, if a 15- ranc piece is coined, its diameter must be between 19 and 2] millimetres, and there would be but one millimetre difference between the pieces. It would be very easy to mistake these coins, particularly when we see 10 and 20 franc ieces so often mistaken. Why, then, make a piece between them in size ‘!

M. STAS di not hesitate to say, that in presence of so many practical difliculties, besides the inconvenience of a system with so many gold coins, it would be necessary to raise the common denominator from five to 10 francs and supply the five-franc gold piece, which is so inconvenient it is often refused in Belgium, by an alloyed silver iece of the same value.

He thought Austria was wrong to make a 10-florin and four- orin piece, of 25 and 10 francs, because 10 has to be divided by four, which makes a system essentially defective in a scientific point of view. On the whole, he was for unity of fineness, and thought it ought to be nine-tenths, with the lowest types of 10 and 20 francs. The five-franc piece should be alloyed with silver, so as to make it more convenient in size, and no 15 or 25-franc pieces should be stfuck, because they are not scientific, and their practical utility is uncertain.

M. HAINDL, as director of a mint, protested against Baron de Hock’s interpretation of the limits of tolerance. Certain tolerances are agreed upon, not to lessen pieces in weight and fineness, as Baron de Hock says, but solely on account of the impossibility of giving the exact weight and fineness that the coins ought to have. The tolerances above and below ought to compensate for the eneral wear on all coins.

M. J ACOBI remarked that t e question of tolerance cxplainsitself. He thought a common fineness and tolerance should be adopted in coining the pieces. He said the second paragraph of question eight is not properly worded, and the labors of the conference will be vain, unless identity of weight and fineness is inserted in the first line.

His IMPERIAL HlGHNESS, in answer to M. Jacobi and other members, proposed to substitute the following phrase for the paragraph in question:

“Is it necessary to constitute common types for the weight and fineness of gold coins '!”

This new formula is open to debate. '

Baron DE HocK preferred the original form ; as the last mingles two distinct questions, namely, of weight and fineness. It is probable that all the members of the conference will vote for identity of fineness, and few for correlative identity in wei ht; for, with this double identity of weight and fineness, identical coins are produced, and t ere would be no need to establish partial coincidences between the coins of different countries, as mentioned in the first question.

Baron DE HOCK favored common types with identity of fineness, but opposed identity of weights, as that would cause identity of coins. M. Parieu’s wording, where the two _ele» ments are distinct, is therefore preferable.

As to common types, it would be best to let each state make its own gold coins as it chose, rovided it had one gold piece in common with the others. The same distinction might e made in these coins as in the union coins and territorial money of the convention of 1865.

Baron DE HOCK concluded by referring to Mr. Haindl’s remarks, certainly caused by a

misunderstanding, as he regarded the question of tolerance precisely in the same light as his honorable colleague.

M. MEINECKE did not think it necessary to adopt an identical coin, but that a distinct concordant coin would be sufiicient. It would be best to divide the question as proposed by his Imperial Highness, as he would vote for identity of fineness, even at nine-tenths but against identity of weight. He did not know if the four-thaler piece, so often mentioned in this discussion, could be struck in Prussia.

M. J ACOBI thought that the adoption of coins of different weight and fineness, but equal in value, would remove present difliculties, and the money would be carried in_la_ld.

On the contrary, would not identity of fineness without identity of wei ht force each state to recoin all foreign money that comes in, as is the case at present? T erefore identity of weight and fineness ought to be adopted.

M. VROLIK thought weight and fineness go together and ought not to be separated, so there is no cause to divide the question put by his Imperial Highness. \Vhat ought to bethe common denominator of the common types, the 5 or 10-franc piece? M. Vrolik preferred the five-franc piece, because he believed in the necessity of the 15-franc piece for Prussia, south Germany, and Holland. which would certainly circulate extensively in central Europe. As M. Stas sa s, this 15-franc piece might be mistaken sometimes for the 20 or 30-franc piece, but to reac a monetary uniformity we must overlook some difliculties.

His IMPERIAL Hlurinnss thought the difficulty of fabrication not insurmountable, and the difference of five francs could easily be perceived. So thought M. Pelouze. The 15-franc piece might, therefore, be coined.

Mr. RUGGLES considered unity of fineness as essential. He will vote for the question as put ply his Imperial Highness because the United States desire unification‘of fineness and weig t.

M. ARTOM was of opinion that, as the conference is agreed upon identity of fineness, that part of the question mi ht be voted on separately. _

M. DE LAVENAY said, by identity of weight is meant correlative weight, and the adoption of the question as proposed does not force the adoption of identical coins. A piece of l5 francs and one of 10 francs, both of nine-tenths, have correlative weights. Identity of weight is the present question. _

His IMPERIAL HIGHNESS said there can be no international money without identity of fineness and weight. There is no necessity, then, to modify the first paragraph of article eight as it now reads, namely:

“ Is it necessary to constitute common types in weight and fineness for gold coins ?”

M. WALLEN BERG thought that as the conference is agreed on identity of title, that part of the question ought to be put to vote. He asked that the standard be fixed at nine-tenths, as Sweden has agreed, after many essays, that it is the best. These experiments were made when the metrical system was first attempted to be introduced, and which failed on account of the opposition of the clergy and country people.

His IMPERIAL HIGHNESS thought it best not to fix a fineness at present, till the vote becomes unanimous.

M. DE PARIEU said there is no absolute necessity for agreement of weights and fineness. For instance, an assimilation might be efiected between the French monetary system and the English, if the sovereign were reduced to 25 francs, and it would not be necessary to reduce the fineness for that purpose. It would be a great advance without identity of weight and fineness.

On the other hand, there might be types of a common denominator without identity; for example, if the English should reduce their sovereign to 25 francs without our striking any coins of that value.

I-lis.IMPERlAL HIGHNESS said that would not be an international coin.

M. DE PARIEU replied that international money does not mean identical coins, but coins easily changed. Thus, the simple relation of 20 francs and 25 francs would constitute a sort of international community of a certain utility.

M. STAS was of opinion that, with e ual value, weight is inseparable from fineness.

M. J ACOBI agreed with M. Parieu. qHe thought unity will remain ideal in certain states, but that is of no importance; it is sufiicient for coins to have simple relations.

Baron DE HOCK, who advocated common coins, admitted identity of fineness and identity of weight in coins of the same value. He would also like to see identity of diameter in these equal value coins. Yet to decide this more easily, he thought the two parts of the question should be voted on separately. One of the two might be decided unanimously.

His IMPERIAL I-IIGHNESS proposed M. de Parieu’s reading 111 two forms:

“Should there be types with a common denominator for the weight and fineness in gold coins?” Or this: ‘

fi “ Should there be types with a common denominator for weight in gold coins of identical nenessl”

M. Kenn seconded M. Parien’s motion for the term denominator, whichmay be theoretical, without obligation of coinage.

Several members expressed their preference for M. de Parieu’s second reading, and his Imperial Highness put it to the vote. - It was unanimously adopted.

~ His IMPERIAL HIGHNESS also proposed to vote on the question of international fineness, and suggests nine-tenths, which was unanimously adopted. .

Mr. GRAHAM said he voted for nine-tenths only in case of an eventual recoinage.

His IMPERIAL HIGHNESS then put the question of a common denominator; but at the request of several members, the discussion was put off till the next sitting, which was fixed for Friday, 28th June, at 9 o’clock a. m.

The sitting closed at a quarter to 1 o'clock.

NAPOLEON, (J EROME,) Prince President of the Conference. CLAVERY, Secretary of the Conference.

[merged small][graphic][merged small][merged small]

Prince NAPOLEON presiding. The sitting opened at 9 o’clock. Present, the delegates that attended the preceding meeting, except M. Fortamps, who was obliged to return to Brussels.

His IMPERIAL HIGHNESS announced that Senor José Polo, the representative of Spain in the conference, had to attend the Cortes in Madrid, and the Spanish government had appointed Count Nava de Tajo, sub-director in the department of foreign affairs, to take his place.

Count Neva de Tajo immediately took his place among the members of the conference.

The minutes of the fifth sitting were read and adopted.

His IMPERIAL HIGHNESS remarked that the conference adopted the first paragraph of question eight at the last meeting, under this form:

“Should there be types with a common denominator for weight in gold coins of identical fineness?”

The conference also adopted the fineness of nine-tenths.

Now it remains to fix a common denominator, as expressed in paragraph second of question eight, in these terms:

“ What should be the common denominator’! Must it be five francs '1"

The debate being opened, M. DE LAVENAY advocated the advantages of the five-franc piece as a common denominator. With its multiples it coincides with many other coins; it nearly corresponds to the dollar and the sovereign; and it exists in the convention of 1865. The United States are ready to adopt it, and cannot make use of a higher unity without modifying their entire system.

In some countries, s in Belgium, as M. Stas remarks, if the mould or die of five francs is thought to be too sma l for convenient coinage and ready circulation, those states might be dispensed from coining it.

His IMPERIAL HIGHNESS said, Mr. Leone Levi declared at the conference instituted by the committee of weights, measures, and coins at the Universal Exposition, over which he resided yesterday, that the 10-franc piece, divisible into 100 pence, would be preferre in En land.

ligdr. WILSON, speaking for Mr. Graham, says, in his private opinion the 10-franc piece would have the advantage over five francs by giving a higher unity, which would be desirable for England in offering a more simple relation with the ordinary system of the franc.

Count D’AVILA would vote for five francs as a denominator, and agreed with M. de Lavenay that certain states may not be obliged to coin it, but they must receive it.

M. STAS insisted that the five-franc piece is too small for convenient coinage, and that it must be enlarged by silver alloy.

M. DUTILLEUL said that in France the five-franc gold piece is even yet a coin met only in cities, and but very little in the country.

Count I)’AvrLA adduced the exam le of Portugal, Spain, and the United States. where there is no complaint of the milreis, t e 20 real, and the one-dollar piece, all which approximate the five-francs of the monetary union of 1865.

M. WALLENBERG repeated what he said on a former occasion in regard to the adoption of the

- denominator of the 10-franc piece, which agrees perfectly with the decimal system, whereas

the 5-franc gold iece neither agrees with the decimal system nor with the system of the franc; 5 francs ivided by 100 leaves the 5-centime piece entirely too small, while the 10-franc piece divided by 1,000 gives the centime, forming a good subdivision to the last degree of the monetary scale. He said it should be decided that all the states should coin the 10-franc piece, but be left at liberty to coin whatever other pieces they might choose. The United States might coin two-dollar pieces ; that would be much more convenient than the one-dollar piece.

M. HERBE'1‘ did not agree with M. Stas in thinking the Belgians so much opposed to the 5-franc gold piece.

Baron DE HOOK favored the 5-franc common denominator, as the lowest possible to be convenient.

« PreviousContinue »