international Coinage SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SAMUEL B. RUGGLES, United Stales’ Delegate to The- International Monetary Conference at Paris, 1867. Washington, April 8th, 1870. To the Honorable Hamilton Fisii, Secretary of State , etc ., etc., etc. Sir: On the 7th of November, 1867, the undersigned, the Dele¬ gate of the United States of America to “ The International Monetary Conference” held at Paris in June and July of that year, with instructions to report to the Department of State the “proceedings and conclusions ” of the Conference, ‘ ‘ and also to add such observations as might seem to be use¬ ful,” duly transmitted to the Department his Report, stating the particulars of the monetary plan, which the Conference, after full discussion, had agreed with almost entire unanimity to recommend for adoption by the various nations represented. The report briefly reviewed the 2 history of the coinages of Europe, from their original era of unity under the Roman Empire, and thence through the period of disintegration in the middle ages, and the suc¬ ceeding ages of reintegration, down to the meeting of the nations in Conference at Paris in 1867. It also presented the historical contrast between the discordant character of the coins of the United States under the old ‘ 1 Articles of Con¬ federation, ’ 1 and the uniformity of metallic money established under the national constitution of 1787, and now overspread¬ ing our continental Republic from ocean to ocean. The intermediate position of America, North and South, and its large gold and silver product were adduced as indica¬ ting the duty of the Western Hemisphere to promote an intercontinental and world-wide unification of money, as one of the most efficient agencies in advancing the civiliza¬ tion of the human race. The Report was accompanied by various official docu¬ ments and other papers connected with the subject of international coinage, and especially by a full translation from the original French of the “ proces-verbal^ or official report by the proper officers of the Conference, of its organization, proceedings, debates and conclusions ; all of which were transmitted on the 17th of December, 1867, by the President of the United States to the Senate, and were printed as “Executive Document, No. 14, Fortieth Con- “ gress, 2d Session.” All of the independent nations of Europe (except the Danubian Principalities) were represented in the Conference. No delegates were sent from any other portion of the world, except the United States of America. Each nation, whether represented by one or more delegates, had a single vote. There were thirty-two delegates in attendance, rep¬ resenting an aggregate population now exceeding three hundred and thirty millions of inhabitants. Among the European delegates were Finance Ministers, Councillors of kP 3 State, eminent bankers and other individuals of large experience in the monetary affairs of Europe. The debates were systematically conducted by means of questions methodically and carefully arranged. They were commenced [Ex. Doc. p. 30,] by the discussion much at length of the following preliminary and comprehensive question : “By what means is it most easy to realise monetary “ unification: whether by the creation of a system alto- “ gether new and independent of existing systems ; or by “ the mutual coordination of existing systems, taking into “account the scientific advantages of certain types and the “ number of the populations which have already adopted “ them ? ” On this cardinal question, the debate was prolonged and important, in which the delegates from many of the nations took part. It was commenced by M. Mees, delegate from the Netherlands and President of the Netherlands’ Bank, who “declared that if he could admit the immediate real- “ ization of the unification of coinage, he would give the “ preference to the first of the two alternatives. In this “ case, in effect, the creation of a new system, avoiding all “ national susceptibilities, would seem to him the best way “ to obtain the end. But it does not seem possible to him, “ that complete uniformity can be speedily attained, and “ therefore he considers the second alternative as being “alone of a nature to produce actual practical results.” The Count d’Avila, delegate from Portugal, and recently its Minister of Finance, maintained that “if the different “ States found themselves obliged by the establishment of “ a system altogether novel to change simultaneously their “ monetary regulations, the difficulties of the attempt “would be multiplied in such manner that they would “ become insurmountable.” He further deemed it “ essen- “ tial that an agreement should take place between England, 4 “ France and the United States,” that it “ would sooner or “ later rally also the other countries,” and that the “exam- “ pie would have a decisive effect.” He declared himself ready to vote for a single gold standard, the reduction of the pound sterling to twenty-five francs, and the American dollar to five francs, with the gold coin of five francs as the monetary unit. The delegate from Austria, the late Baron de Hock, fa¬ vorably known by his works on finance, concurred in the opinion expressed as to the impossibility of securing the acceptance of an entirely new system, and completely breaking up inveterate habits. “ In Germany,” said he, “ we find a striking example: there was a wish to intro- “ duce into the German States a coin not correspondent “ with any existing types. Although it was the most “ rational and accorded 'perfectly with the metric system , “ it could not find its way into calculations. The gold 11 crown only passed from the mint into the melting pots of ‘ ‘ the goldsmiths. It is only as expressed in the second sen- “ tence of the first question, by the mutual coordination “ of existing legislation, by taking into account the scien- “ tific advantages of certain types, and the number of “ the populations which have already adopted them, that a “ solution maybe found.” He added that gold, “which “ has spread in such considerable amounts through the “ European markets during the last twenty years, would “ be the most convenient agent for a universal monetary “ circulation.” M. Feer Herzog, one of the two delegates from Switzer¬ land, and familiar with its financial affairs, said that “there “ is in France a school important because of the scientific “ authority of its adepts, which admits no other monetary unity than metric unity in round numbers, and proposes “ to take for the unit a weight of five grams of gold, nine- tenths fine,” (equivalent to $2.99AA of the present 5 money of the United States.) “This theoretic solution “ would he wanting in one essential quality, that of prac- “ ticability. At the time we have arrived at, we cannot “ invent a monetary unit not in relation with any type act- “ ually existing. The franc itself had been compelled not “ to depart too far from the Imre tournois, in order to make “ itself acceptable, and the gold crown, containing ten “ grams, has not been able to get into circulation in “ Germany because it is not adapted to the florin of Aus- “ tria, nor the florin of Bavaria, nor the thaler of Prussia. “ By the very force of things,” said he, “it is the napo- “ leon [20 francs], a foreign coin, which represents beyond “ all others the monetary circulation of gold in Germany.” The delegate from Russia, M. de Jacobi, Privy Coun¬ cillor of the Crown, and member of the Imperial Academy of Sciences at St. Petersburg, highly distinguished in Europe not only in general physical science, but especially by his earnest and able advocacy of the merits of the metrical system, said that he “adopted in full the ideas “ developed by M. Feer Herzog. He would have been glad “ that a relation should exist between coins and the “ systems of weights and measures, but in the double view “ of science and practice, he saw no necessity for the “ establishing of such relations to the prejudice of other ‘ ‘ more important interests. He could not, therefore, regard “ as serious the reproach cast upon the coin of France, as “ having widened the breach in the French metric system.” He added that “ the creation of an entirely new coinage ‘ ‘ was so much the less opportune, that he could not let the “ occasion pass without noticing the agreement, perhaps ac- “ cidental but almost complete, between the intrinsic value “ of the principal French coins and those of Russia. Thus “ the silver rouble coincides very nearly with four francs, “ the difference not exceeding the limits of the tolerance. “ In the same way the demi-imperial has a value only “fifteen kopecks” (about 11 cents,) “higher than the 20 ‘ ‘ franc gold piece. ’ ’ M. Meinecke, the delegate from Prussia, thought it of “ prime necessity to adopt as the base of the new system, “ a system already recognized and reduced to practice. “ The difficulty,” said he “ of adopting the gold standard, is “ much greater in Prussia than for any other country, “ but if the labors of the Conference should aim at es- ‘ ‘ tablishing the basis for a general monetary arrangement, “ Prussia would study with care the best mode of connect- “ ing herself with it.” On the other hand, Mr. Stas, one of the two delegates from Belgium, said that he “would prefer the establisli- “ ment of an entirely new monetary system, and that the “ Conference assume as its mission, to settle principles and “ not expedients in practice. To follow the latter course would be to leave traces in the snow, not to engrave foot- “ prints in rock.” He also maintained that “ the creation of a system based on a standard of gold of five or ten “ grams would offer the immense advantage of having it “ more readily accepted by all nations, as it would avoid all national susceptibility. Doubtless the adoption of the new unit would require the general reminting of all ■’ coinage, but this recoinage would bring with it a de- “ finitive system sanctioned by science.” He further asserted that, “mathematically speaking, the kilogram “ cannot be divided into one hundred and fifty-five equal “ portions.” Mr. Feer Herzog, replying to the remarks of Mr. Stas, said. there is nothing to hinder the definition of this “ napoleon by indicating the round number 155, which a “ kilogram includes, or rather it should be divided by the “ fractional number of grams which represent its weight, “ neglecting the decimals beyond the thousandths deci¬ mals, which practically are of no importance and have 7 “ only an interest purely scientific. It is not indispensable “ to the goodness of coin that it should be metrically pro- “ portioned.” The delegate from the United States 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.” He said that “two milliards ($2,000,000,000) in “ gold had been thrown into the money market since the “ discovery of the mines of Australia and California, and “ that it was certainly possible that the coinage of gold in “ the United States, in the next fifteen years may reach “ five milliards of francs ($1,000,000,000.) In view of such “ a future, the American government would prefer to “ reduce its monetary unit at once. But the United States “ in consenting to recoin its gold now in circulation, “ would expect that France on her side, will consent to “ coin pieces of twenty-five francs, in which case monetary “ unification would at once assume a practical form.” On closing the debate the question was taken by ayes and noes, on a roll-call of the nations, which resulted in a unanimous vote in favor of the second alternative in the question, in the following words, to wit : “It is more easy to realize monetary unification by “ mutual coordination of existing systems, taking into ac- “ count the scientific advantages of certain types, and “ the numbers of the populations which have already “ adopted them.” In reference to any statements made by the delegate of the United States in the debate above quoted in part, he respectfully begs leave to recur to the fact, that before the assembling of the Conference, he had suggested in several conversations with the public authorities of France, the issue of the 25 franc coin by France as a necessary condi¬ tion, in any consent which might be given by the United States to any proposition or plan for reducing the weight of its gold dollar to that of the gold five francs: that in his communication of the 30th of March, 1867, to the De¬ partment of State, he had fully reported the particulars of those conversations : and that he had received in answer, a communication from the Department of State, dated June 21st, 1867, (printed at page 11, Exec. Doc. No. 14,) stating that “the accommodating spirit manifested by M. de Parieu “ and M. Rouher, Chief Minister of State, and subsequent¬ ly by the Emperor in person in the conversations held by “ you with them respectively, is appreciated as an auspic- “ ious augury of an eventual agreement which will give to ‘ ‘ the world the benefits of the uniform system, on a decimal “ basis, of weights, measures and coins ” * * * “that “ the form in which different nations practically concur in “ this plan is not of primary importance, but it is believed “ that the deliberations which have been inaugurated on “ the subject will result in a basis of common understand- “ ing, which will warrant you in encouraging the expecta- “ tion, that the United States may give its adhesion to a “ conventional arrangement, which may be susceptible of “ termination within a period to be specified in such “arrangement,” and that “in any event, it cannot be “ doubted that the views so ably set forth by the Honor¬ able Chairman of the United States Senate Com- “ mittee on Finance, * in the letter of the 17th of May, “ a copy of which forms part of your communication now under reply, will be so far approved by the public “ sentiment, the Congress, and the Executive of the United U States > as to secure a concurrence by this government “ m any reasonable plan for producing the desired reform.” The undersigned also begs to state, that it was perfectly understood by the Conference that none of its delegates were empowered in any way to bind their respective gov- *Mr. John Sherman, Senator from Ohio. 9 ernments, to any plan or proposition which the Conference might adopt. On the contrary, time was given for laying the question before the different governments, for which purpose the Conference fixed the 15th of February then next succeeding, as the time for receiving answers, the un¬ dersigned expressly stating (Exec. Doc. page 74) that the United States could not give a positive answer until the subject had been submitted to Congress. Several sittings of the Conference were devoted to the subject of the double standard of gold and silver, and the necessity of gold alone for an international coinage ; also to the discretion to be left to the several nations respect¬ ively in regulating their silver coins, and the necessity of a period of transition for nations having the single silver standard; also to the expediency of a 15 franc gold coin, to facilitate monetary unification in the Netherlands, Germany, and Sweden. The plan of international coinage finally adopted by the Conference, with only one dissenting voice, embraces : 1. A single monetary standard exclusively of gold nine-tenths (.900) fine. 2. Coins of equal weight and diameter, 3. Of equal quality (or titre.) 4. The unit to consist of the weight of the existing five franc gold coin, with its multiples. 5. The coins of each nation to bear the names and em¬ blems preferred by each, and to be a legal tender in all, for public and private payments. The subordinate details of the periodical examinations and assays needed for ascertaining the weight and quality of the international coins of the different nations, and also the proper regulation of the rate of “tolerance” or allow¬ able variation in coining, were left to a further Conference or diplomatic correspondence. After full and careful discussion, the Conference passed 10 a resolution by a unanimous vote, by ayes and noes, re¬ commending the issue of a gold coin of twenty-five francs; to be similar in weight and quality to the half-eagle of the United States and the sovereign of the United King¬ dom. Its passage was actively urged in behalf of the United States for the reason expressed in the argument, (Exec. Doc. page 68,) that “the three gold coins, types of “ the three great commercial nations fraternally united and “ differing only in emblems, would go hand in hand around “ the world, freely circulating through both hemispheres “ without recoinage, brokerage or other impediment.” It further appears (at page 101) that the Prince Napo¬ leon (Jerome), President of the Conference, speaking in behalf of Prance, declared that “if she consulted her in¬ dividual convenience, she would see no necessity for ‘ issuing the new coin ; but for the purpose of facilitating “ the work of unification, she would make the concession “required by the United States,” adding that “the new “ com would also promote the convenience both of England “ and of Austria.” The delegate from Spain, the Count Nava de Tajo, thereupon stated that “it would equally 4 accommodate Spain.” The question being then put formally to vote, the issue of the 25 franc coin was unanimously recommended. The passage of this resolution was preeminently impor¬ tant to the United States ; not only in securing a world¬ wide circulation for the half eagle and its multiples, but more especially in rendering synonymous and mutually convertible the monetary words “pound,” “dollar” and “franc,” with the pound divided in five even dollars, and the dollar divided m five even francs. With the three coins thus rendered equivalent and equiponderant, all dis¬ tinction between British money, and American money, and 1 1 encli money, disappears forever. A bill of exchange, or any other monetary contract, made payable either in 11 pounds, dollars or francs, would be paid indifferently in either. Identical in character, their names would become unimportant. The “dollar,” consecrated by three hundred years of use, would lose nothing of its present foothold or repute in the commerce of the world, but standing midway between the “pound” and the “franc,” would be greatly facilitated in becoming the common “money of account,” in all the nations. In the concise and emphatic language of the Chairman of the Finance Committee of the Senate, in his letter of March 17th, 1867, laid before the Conference, (printed at page 109, Exec. Doc. 14,) this triple unification would “put an end to the loss and intricacies of exchange ‘ ‘ and discount. ’ ’ The all pervading efficacy of the measure in simplifying exchange, may not be wholly acceptable to individuals or institutions reaping a profit, not from the unity but the diversity of money, and may possibly excite their hostility, open or covert. Should that be the case, it will the more fully teach the true friends of an inter¬ national coinage the necessity, not only of avoiding all utopian and visionary schemes of preterpluperfect metrical harmony (derived, after all, from an inaccurate estimate of the quadrant of the terrestrial spheroid we inhabit,) but, in its stead, of exerting somewhat of common sense and judicious statesmanship, in surveying the real difficulties of the task, and in seeking only for what is practically attain¬ able. Such, at least, was the spirit which actuated the Paris Conference. Soon after its adjournment, copies of the official report of its debates, proceedings and conclusions were duly transmitted to the G-overnments of the respective nations for consideration. Up to the present time, the recom¬ mendation of the Conference in respect to the five franc gold unit, (deferring the immediate consideration of the question of the single standard,) has been adopted by nine of the nations of Europe, to wit: by France, Belgium 12 Switzerland, Italy, the Pontifical States, Spain, Greece, Roumania, and Sweden, having an aggregate population of 99,900,0000 inhabitants. The preliminaries of a monetary treaty, providing for a coin assimilating the 10 florins of Austria with the 25 francs of France, were signed by the authorized representatives of those two nations on the 31st of July, 1867. It contained a condition in respect to the double standard, not yet complied with by Fiance, but specimen coins were struck in anticipation, in October, 1867, bearing the heads re¬ spectively of the Emperors of France and of Austria, with the reverse, inscribed “10 florins, 25 francs.” The adop¬ tion by France of the single standard, to which a school of political economists in that country still remains violent¬ ly opposed, but which has been repeatedly and earnestly recommended in the Reports of official investigations {enquetes) by large Commissions of imposing authority, will secure the completion and execution of the treaty by Austria, and thereby increase the number of European nations using the franc to ten, with an aggregate popula¬ tion of 135,400,000 inhabitants. The various official acts by which the above named European nations have acceded, in whole or in part, to the plan of the Conference, will be found (with the exception of Spain,) in the official report presented to the British Par¬ liament in 1868, by “The Royal Commission on Interna¬ tional Coinage,” to wit: that of Austria, at page 222 ; that of Sweden, at page 293 ; that of Roumania, at page 294 ; that of the Pontifical States, at page 247 ; and that of Greece, at page 263 ; curiously exhibiting in that classic ground the “drachma,” coming down from the age of Pericles, and after the lapse of more than twenty centuries assimilated with the “franc,” to play its part in modern civilization. The official assent of France, Belgium, Switzerland and Italy had been secured in 1865, by the Monetary Trea- 13 ty in December of that year, which will be found at page 158. In this treaty, however, the double standard had been recognized and the issue of any intermediate coin of gold between 20 and 50 francs had been prohibited. The disregard of those provisions by the Conference, shows of itself how little its action was owing to any dictation or undue influence on the part of France. The senseless clamor against the plan of the Conference as “Frenchify¬ ing” the money of the United States, renders it necessary now to state, as a matter of history, that the plan did not in any way originate with the Government of France or any of its Delegates. On the contrary, it was first proposed in any general international assembly, in the year 1868 in behalf of the Government of the United States by its Delegate in the International Statistical Congress at Berlin, who op¬ posed the passage of a resolution offered in that body assimilating the gold coin of the United States with that of the United Kingdom, (as creating a permanent antagonism between the assimilated coin of the United Kingdom and the United States, and the coin of the European Continent,) and proposed as an amendment the reduction in weight of both to that of the gold coin of France. He also opposed a double standard as fallacious and illogical, although exist¬ ing in France, and to a slight extent in the United States. The plan of the Conference is in no respect local or merely national, but is simply and broadly international and intercontinental. The actual issue of the gold franc international coin has been commenced by some of the nations not included in the Treaty of 1865. It is already in circulation in the flour¬ ishing Principality of Roumania under the government of its present enlightened ruler, who has introduced in full the metrical weights, measures and coins of France. His example, in all probability, will soon be followed by the Sultan of Turkey, who has manifested so strongly his wish to keep pace with the civilization of Europe. 14 The assent of Spain to the franc system was given by the Provisional Government, in a formal decree, published at Madrid and Paris, soon after the expulsion of Queen Isabella. A specimen of the new half franc silver coin now in possession of the undersigned, bears the well known “ pillars” with the ancient arms of Spain, encircled by the legend “400 piezas en kilogramo ,” thus distinctly and arithmetically recording its assimilation witli the “ franc,” 200 of which are equiponderant w ith the French “ kilo¬ gramme. ” Among the Northern European Powers, the liberal and intelligent Government of Sweden, so distinguished by its successful public works of intercommunication, has already issued the new gold pieces called “ Carotins ,” bearing the words “ 10 francs’’"' and now in common circulation in the countries on the Baltic. They are stamped with the ‘‘ image “and superscription” of the Swedish Monarch, Charles XV, lineally descended from Bernaclotte and Eugene Beau- harnois, and now taking the lead in the civic march of monetary reform in the North of Europe. Under his in¬ fluence and authority, Norway, which has a separate leg¬ islative body, will soon be united with Sweden in the gold franc system. His steady support of the legislative efforts of M. Wallenberg, President of the Bank of Stockholm and one of the two delegates of Sweden and Norway in the Paris Conference, has secured the coinage of a Swedish gold coin of 25 francs, to be issued as soon as similar pie¬ ces shall be put in circulation by the government of France. It will be seen by the “ Journal officiel de VEmpire Francais of the 26th of January last, that the necessity for the immediate issue of the 25 franc coin by France, was made the subject of elaborate discussion iu the French Senate on the preceding day. In this interesting and in¬ structive debate which occupies fourteen printed columns of the w Journal Offiael^ the comparative merits of the 15 25 franc coin and of a new coin of 10 even grams (or a decagram) equivalent to 31 existing francs, were fully examined. The metrical merits of the proposed de¬ cagram coin had been urged on the 21st of January, by Monsieur Michel Chevalier, Senator, in a general speech on the coinage of France, in which he had claimed for the decagram, its perfect conformity to the “logic” of the metrical system. It is, however, specially noticeable that in the latter por¬ tion of his speech, M. Chevalier, who combines with his abstract philosophies, a large admixture of practical states¬ manship, after stating these “ indications of logic,” very pertinently proceeds to ask, and then to answer as follows: “ Is it necessary to abandon ourselves absolutely and “ exclusively to logic ? It is a question. Logic is a power; “but various conventional requirements (convenances diver- 1 ‘ ses) may cause us to disregard it, (peuvent faire qvi on “ s’en ecarte”) “ When, in order to conform wholly to logic, it is necessa- “ ry to submit to considerable sacrifices, or to change the “ inveterate and cherished habits of peoples: and when “ even the triumph of logic is not to be followed by great “ advantages, we are allowed to hesitate. A wise adminis- ‘ ‘ tration may lay aside logic, and adopt combinations “ which from other points of view would be advantageous “ to the public interest.” The debate of the 25th of January, was opened by M. Le Verrier, Senator, the astronomer and savan measuring the outermost limits of planetary space by his skillful use of exact science. In a powerful speech of wide range, he supported the plan of the 25 franc coin, as being practi¬ cable, in preference to that of the decagram, as being merely theoretical. He was followed by M. Dumas, Senator, and “President of the Commission on Coins,” and as such, Director of the Mint, who stated that the re- 16 coinage required by the decagram, would cost 70,000,000 of francs, ($14,000,000). M. Le Roy de Saint-Arnaud, Sen¬ ator, concurred with M. Le Verrier, and held that “the “ question could be resolved only in accordance with prac- “ tical ideas. I admire science,” said he ; “I bow before “ the savans ; but in questions of this nature, in which so ‘ ‘ many persons and interests are intermingled, ” * * * “I ‘ ‘ regret the excess of science, and fasten myself to the “ facts.” He was followed by General Marquis de Laplace, who denounced the 25 franc coin as unmetrical and unneces¬ sary, and urged, among other objections, that it differed too little in size from the 20 franc coin, and might tend to raise to 25 francs, the price of objects now selling at 20. In closing the debate, the necessity for the immediate issue of the 25 franc coin, and indeed the whole plan of the Paris Conference, were vindicated with signal ability by M. de Parieu, the universally acknowledged leader in Europe of the pending measure of monetary unification, and now President of the Council of State in the new lib¬ eral ministry. Suffice it to say, that in accordance with the form of proceeding peculiar to the body, the Senate “ passed to the order of the day,” thereby rejecting the proposition ot the decagram, and virtually expressed their approbation of the 25 franc coin, by leaving its issue to the proper Minister charged with the coinage. The whole of the debate, thus briefly quoted, is well worthy of translation for general distribution. In respect to the remaining nations of Europe, it may be stated that Denmark having a large portion of its com¬ merce with Hamburg, virtually the commercial capital of North Germany, may very possibly defer its decision on the plan of the Paris Conference, until the government of North Germany shall have had time fully to study the question, which it now has under careful examination. The fact that its present monetary standard is exclusively 17 of silver, requiring in any event a period of transition for making the change to gold, may account for at least a tem¬ porary delay until other European nations, and especially the United Kingdom, shall have acted definitely in the matter. Nevertheless, in 1868 a large convention at Hamburg, from the Chambers of Commerce of all the principal cities of Germany, both North and South, decided by a large major¬ ity to recommend to the Government at Berlin, the assimi¬ lation of the Prussian “thaler,” of 72-$k cents, with the 5 franc coin of France. The preparation of the necessary memorial was committed to Doctor Soetbeer of the Cham¬ ber of Commerce of Hamburg, widely known in Europe by his able and earnest efforts in support of monetary unification. In “The Netherlands,” which has the single silver standard, many of its sagacious and experienced financiers and men of business are inclined to adopt at once the plan of the Paris Conference, but it is probable that the Government may feel inclined to wait for a time the action of North Germany. In Portugal, which has long enjoyed intimate commercial relations with the United Kingdom, the British sovereign circulates freely and to a considerable amount, although the “crown” of 10 “ milreis” is the legally established money, and nevertheless, its delegate in the Conference actively urged the triple unification of the sovereign, the dollar and the franc. The Imperial government of Russia still holds the ques¬ tion open for examination. We know that the stand taken in the Conference in favor of the franc system, by its scien¬ tific delegate, M. de Jacobi, is quite in harmony with the imperial ukase of the 11th of November, 1865, introdu¬ cing a monetary system into Finland, almost identical with that of the franc, the difference not exceeding the limits of the “ tolerance.” (Exec. Doc. 14, page 78.) The Russian gold 2 18 mines yield annually from $12,000,000 to $15,000,000, a considerable part of which is exported, while a portion is used in the arts ; so that its coined gold now outstanding probably does not exceed $150,000,000. Such, then, is the general aspect of the question of international coinage in Continental Europe, and such the progress already made towards monetary unity. In the long series of political consolidations recorded in the history of Europe, fusing petty communities and provinces into large and compact nations, its incongruous and discordant coinages, numbered by hundreds in the middle ages, had become reduced by the year 1863, to eighteen in number, counting the coinages of Germany North and South as one. By the above mentioned acts of monetary assimilation since 1863, the number has been reduced to nine. Of the coinages of the eight European nations who have not yet adopted or agreed to adopt the plan of the Paris Con¬ ference, (including the United Kingdom as the most con¬ spicuous, and which will be hereinafter considered,) no two are alike. The portion of Continental Europe now enjoying the benefits of monetary assimilation, forms a geographical belt extending eastward from the Atlantic Ocean, through Spain and France, and thence through Italy and Greece to the easternmost boundary of the Grecian Archipelago, with its more northern portion reaching through France, Belgium, Switzerland, Northern Italy and Austria, and down the Danube, through Roumania to the Black Sea ; by a singular felicity embracing both of the great seats of ancient civilization. Throughout the broad expanse of these united nations, the five franc gold coin and its multiples now freely pass without recoinage, discount or other impediment, daily re¬ lieving hundreds, if not thousands of traders and travelers 19 from the impositions and exactions of the money changers, formerly lying in wait for their prey on every frontier. It would seem incredible that in this enlightened age of the world, in the very focus of European civilization, in the short nine hours journey between the two great capitals, Paris and London, and throughout the populous German territories largely occupying Central Europe, such an evil should be permitted to remain undiminislied ; but even now in 1870, a passenger from Paris to London and back, must stop twice on the British Channel to change his gold, once at Calais in going, and once at Dover in returning; while the petty annoyances of the frequent changes occasioned by the diversified coinages scattered over the motley political surface of Germany, have become proverbial. But if these are the impediments in Europe, what shall be said, or what cannot be said, of the gold coin of the United States, which for nearly eighty years has been so loaded with its needless and largely excrescent weight that it will not pass in Europe at all, except at a heavy discount, and wherein fact, it is never seen in circulation, except on its way to the nearest melting-pot ? Exceeding in weight and consequent money value by three and a half per cent, the coin of France, and by two and six-tenths per cent, that of the United Kingdom, it cannot circulate without heavy loss, and must be recoined. It is a “ sorry sight” to behold the millions on millions of American eagles carefully and expensively coined at the American Mints, all melted down and recoined at the expense of the American shipper; to see our cherished republican em¬ blems and the national monetary motto, “In God We Trust,” brightly stamped upon our coins, all disappearing to give place to the crowned heads claiming “by the grace of God,” to be sovereign in Europe. The obliterated coin thus circulating under a foreign mask, carries with it no evidence of the existence of the American Union, as 20 one of the leading powers of the world; while our mer¬ chants and money dealers, seek to avoid the cost of recoin¬ age, by shipping large amounts of gold in uncoined bars, only one grade higher in civilization than the ingots or bul¬ lion of semi-barbarous communities, unable or unwilling to issue a coin which will circulate side by side with that of civilized nations. Such then are the historical facts, under which the great problem of an international coinage comes before the civil¬ ized world, and especially the United States. The question now to be decided is simply and only this ; shall the practi¬ cable measure of assimilation which has already made such progress during the last six years, be encouraged and extended? or shall it be repudiated and abandoned, for the purpose of seeking out some new theory of coinage in the belief that all the nations of the world will agree to adopt it, even at the cost of calling in and recoining all their gold ? Since the adjournment of the Paris Conference in 1867, such a theory claimed to be purely 1 ‘ scientific, ’' has been brought forward in France, and also in the United Kingdom and in the United States, in three separate plans, differing in details, but all insisting upon a single metrical gram of gold (worth sixty cents,) as the unit, with a coin or coins of ten even grams or a “decagram,” as the decimal multiple. It will be one of the objects of the present communication, carefully and impartially to examine the merits and advan- tages, practical and metrical, of this new unit in comparison with that proposed by the Paris Conference, and also to consider the probability of its adoption by any and which of the nations of the civilized world. For this purpose it will be necessary to present the leading facts in relation to the gold coinages of the different nations, both separately and in the aggregate, and the proportion of each and of the whole to the population and also to the foreign com- meice of each and of the whole. 21 The figures can hardly fail to show the magnitude of the in¬ terests involved in the subject, and the grave responsibility of deciding a question which maj^ permanently affect not only the commerce and the welfare of the American Union, but to some extent its moral rank in the common family of nations. GOLD COINAGES. The amount of gold coin outstanding in Europe and the United States of America, can only be estimated approx¬ imately. For this purpose the amounts actually coined by the three principal coining nations, France, the United Kingdom and the United States, have been ascertained from their official tables. Partial returns from other nations for certain periods, have also been obtained, which furnish to some extent the means of estimating the residue. If nec¬ essary, a table of coinages embracing all the nations may be completed hereafter, by obtaining full returns from each. 1. The gold coinage of France, from the year 1793, tothelst of January 1866, estimating five francs to the dollar, was. $1,312,220,884 2. That of the United Kingdom up to 1866 from 1816, (when its coinage was re¬ formed by coining sovereigns equiv¬ alent to the pound sterling,) estima¬ ting five dollars to the sovereign, was $935,341,450 3. That of the United States, from the establishment of the Mint in 1792, to July 1866, was.$845,836,591 $3,093,398,855 From the year 1866 to 1868, the gold coinage of the United Kingdom, was . . . $26,132,185 That of the United States, from July 1866 to July 1869, was.$95,708,659 121,840,844 $3,215,239,699 22 Of this total $3,215,239,699, a considerable portion consists of gold, originally coined by some one, of the nations, and subsequently recoined by one or both of the others, and noUunfrequently more than once. Other por¬ tions have been melted down and used in the arts, leaving only the residue actually outstanding. The yearly product of gold is stated by Professor Blake, in his Report on “Precious Metals,” as having amounted in 1867: In the United States, and British North America, to.. $59,060,000 Mexico, Central America and South America,. 6,300,000 Australia and New Zealand, .... 37,550,000 Russia,. 15,500,000 In other parts of Europe and in Africa, 2,270,000 Eastern Asia,. 10,000,000 $130,680,000 GOLD COIN OUTSTANDING. According to the estimates of political economists and bankers in Europe and the United States, believed to be reliable, the amount of gold coin now outstanding, in the various parts of Europe and America, is in round numbers : I. In France, Belgium, Switzerland, Italy and Pontifical States, using the gold franc,.$1,250,000,000 II. In Austria, Spain, Sweden, Greece and Roumania, agreeing to use the franc,.. 200,000,000 $1,450,000,000 23 Brought forward, .... $1,450,000,000 III. In the United Kingdom using the sovereign,. 450,000,000 IY. In the United States using the gold dollar, . 200,000,000 V. In Germany, (Nortli and South,) Neth¬ erlands, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Russia and Turkey using other gold coins, all differing in value, . . . 300,000,000 $2,400,000,000 VI. In Canada, Mexico, Central America and South America using sovereigns, dollars, doubloons and various other gold coins,. • • 150,000,000 $2,550,000,000 In the lifteen years ending with 1868, the United States exported upwards of $600,000,000 of gold coin and bullion, (beyond the amount imported;) of which more than one- half was sent in coin to Europe and there recoined. The gold of the nations of Eastern Asia is not embraced in the present examination. Gold is used as money in Japan, but not as yet in China. A portion of the gold of Australia and New Zealand is sent to British India where active efforts are in progress to introduce it as money. The treaty recently ratified, between the United States and China, originally contained a clause, by which the President and the Emperor mutually stipulated to use their influence to secure uniformity of money and of weights and measures between the two nations. Although the clause was stricken out (under peculiar circumstances) in 1868, the steadily increasing intercourse between the two nations must lead ere long to an assimilation of their money. 24 Population and Foreign Commerce of Nations USING DIFFERENT GOLD COINS. The following table has been compiled from official retnrns, generally for the year 1867. Nations using, or that have agreed to use the Gold Franc. Nations. Population. Gold Coin. Foreign Commerce. France, Belgium, ------ Switzerland, ----- Italy, including Pontifical States, - Greece, ------ Roumania, ----- Sweden, ------ Austria, ------ 39,800,000 4,900,000 2,500,000 26,000,000 1,400,000 4,600,000 4,200,000 16,900,000 35,400,000 ; 1 i J \ $1,250,000,000 > $200,000,000 $1,593,000,000 549,000,000 165,000,000 357,000,000 16,000,000 39,000,000 62,000,000 *175,000,000 340,000,000 1 135,700,000 $1,450,000,000 $3,296,000,000 Using the Sovereign, or Pound. Nation. Population. Gold Coin, j Foreign Commerce. United Kingdom, - - - - \ 30,400,000 $450,000,000 $2,503,000,000 Using the Gold Dollar. Nation. Population. Gold Coin. Foreign Commerce. United States, - 40,000,000 $200,000,000 $877,000,000 Using other Gold Coins. Nations. Population. Gold Coin. Foreign Commerce. Germany, (North and South) Netherlands, - Denmark, ------ Norway, ------ Portugal, ------ Russia, (European) - - - - Turkey, “ - 38,700,000 3,600,000 1,800,000 1,700,000 4,400,000 69,800,000 10,500,000 • $300,000,000 $650,000,000 409,000,000 34,000,000 46,000,000 42,000,000 403,000,000 *120,000,000 130,500,000 $1,704,000,000 Canada, Mexico, Central America and South America, using Sovereign, Doubloon, Dollar, and other Gold Coins. Population. Gold Coin. Foreign Commerce. TOTALS. Europe,. United States, - Canada, Mexico, &c., - 37,000,000 $150,000,000 $480,000,000 40,000,000 37,000,000 2,200,000,000 200,000,000 150,000,000 7,503,000,000 877,000,000 480,000,000 ' 373,600,000 $2,550,000,000 $8,860,000,000 25 In respect to the foreign commerce of the nations above tabulated as amounting in money value to $8,860,000,000, it is necessary to explain, that it represents very nearly double the amount of the commodities actually interchang¬ ed, for the reason that nearly all the amounts tabulated as “exports” by any particular nation, reappear in one or more of the amounts tabulated as ‘ ‘ imports 1 ’ by some one or more of the other nations ; thus reducing the aggregate amount actually interchanged from $8,860,000,000 to $4,430,000,000. Applying this rate of reduction to the foreign commerce of the different classes of nations, respectively using the franc, the pound, the dollar, and the various other coins of gold, the proportions would stand : Foreign Commerce. Nation or nations usiDg the franc,. $1,648,000,000 “ “ “ pound,. 1,251,500,000 “ “ “ dollar,.. 438,500,000 “ “ “ other gold coins, 852,000,000 Canada, Mexico, &c. “ various coins,... 240,000,000 Gold. $1,250,000,000 450,000,000 200,000,000 300,000,000 150,000,000 In considering the importance of an international money in foreign commerce, it should be bornein mind that every in- voiceof commodities exported, stating their value in the mon¬ ey of the exporting nations, must be translated and recompu¬ ted in the monetary denominations of the nation importing. At the estimated rate of $2,500 value for each invoice, (which exceeds the average rate of values in the invoices, at the Custom House in New York,) a yearly foreign commerce of $4,430,000,000, requires yearly 1,772,000 invoices, needing recomputation whenever used in the commerce between nations, the money of which is not assimilated. The assimilations effected since 1863, have lightened to a con¬ siderable extent, this enormous and needless burthen, but the civilized world will be relieved of the whole, by the s 26 complete introduction of the international coinage, destined under God’s good Providence, to become the great mone¬ tary labor-saving machine of modern civilization. Its importance, great as it is shown to be by the pro¬ ceeding tables, will fully keep pace with the population and commerce of the civilized world. Within the scanty remnant of the present century, now less than thirty years, the present population of forty millions within the United States, (if the rate of natural increase and the rate of immi¬ gration actually shown in the decade from 1850 to 1860, amounting together to 35 ftfo per cent, shall continue without diminution,) will be increased to 99,335,770. The population of Europe in 1775, estimated in 1776 at 108,500,000, increased in the ninety-four years ending in 1868, to 296,600,000 ; being at the rate of nearly twelve per cent, for each decade, decennially compounded. A careful examination of the facts collected in behalf of the United States, at the International Statistical Congress at the Hague, in September last, shows that the population of Europe is now increasing, notwithstanding the heavy drainage by emigration, at a rate a little exceeding six per cent, in the decade, which, if continued to the close of the century, will carry the present 296,600,000 to 353,255,130 inhabitants, nearly three fold the population which enjoyed a common coin in the days of Augustus. If to these enormous masses in Europe and the United States numbering together 452,690,906, we add 47,309,094 for the population of the portions of America North and South, beyond the present limits of the American Union, (and now estimated at 37,000,000,) the European and American portions of the civilized world within the next thirty years, wdl embrace an aggregate of five hundred millions of in¬ habitants, either enjoying the facilities of monetary unifi¬ cation, or wondering why the present generation was 27 unable to secure a reform so plainly needed by the commerce of the world. What then is the impediment which clogs our path? Is it physical or moral, or commercial or political in character ? It is neither. It is only the theoretical opposi¬ tion of a school of “economists,” denominated “decagram- mists” in Paris, having disciples scattered over the world, some in France, some in England, some in the United States, with a few in Germany, singularly imaginative in character, who seriously propose, in public journals, to form a “Saxon Monetary League” between Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States, to cheek the ambi¬ tion of France and the other Mediterranean nations, seeking to fasten the franc upon the globe. These metrical reformers incessantly invoke what they call the ‘ ‘ logic ’ 5 of the metrical system, to disparage and expel the franc. In obedience to some occult but in¬ flexible dogma of metrical law the existence of which they assume, they hold the single metrical 44 gram ” to be the only lawful unit of gold, and a gold 4 4 decagram ’ ’ of ten even grams the smallest lawful multiple. A portion of the school under the extreme necessity of the case, con¬ sents to a half decagram, of five even grams, very nearly equivalent to three dollars ; and in the United States, to fractional dollars, half eagles, eagles and double eagles. The precise money value of a “gram” in the United States being 59 sW# cents, the value of the decagram is $5.98 xi . In the money of France, it is equivalent to 31 francs, and in that of the United Kingdom to 1 iVoVo sov¬ ereigns. It has no metrical assimilation with the half eagle or any of its multiples, or with the 25 franc coin, or with the British sovereign, or with any existing coin in the civilized world. Some of its proposed subdivisions would nearly approach the existing heavy gold coin of the United States, from which they would vary only one- 28 third of one per cent. ; but that variation would necessi¬ tate either a recoinage, or the loss of the i of 1 per cent., which would exceed the cost of recoinage. The adoption of the decagram coin would therefore require the recoinage of the whole of the $2,400,000,000 of gold in Europe and the United States, shown by the tables. Nay more, the silver francs of the European Continent, losing their rela¬ tions to or identity with the gold coins now in existence, their recoinage would also be necessary. [The amount of silver francs coined by France alone, from 1795 to the close of 1866, estimating five francs to the dollar, was $935,000,000, a considerable portion of which has been exported to East¬ ern Asia, within the last fifteen years.] The cost of recoining gold has been variously estimated from i to | of one per cent. Assuming the latter rate, the cost of recoining the $2,400,000,000 in Europe and the United States, would be $6,000,000. If the plan proposed by the Paris Conference should be adopted, no part of the $1,250,000,000 held by the nations already using the franc, would require recoinage, by which they, would save $3,125,000; while the nations holding the remaining $1,150,000,000, would pay for its recoinage, $2,875,000. Viewed in a cosmopolitan light, and regarding only the good of the whole, a saving of $3,125,000 by any separate nation or nations, is a gain to that extent by the com¬ mon family of nations. In the narrower spirit by which individuals are often actuated, the question might arise, and in fact, has been repeatedly asked already, whether the nations thus exempt from the burthen of recoinage, should not bear a portion of the expense in¬ curred by the others ? The Report of the British Royal Commission on Inter¬ national Coinage in 1868, insisting that in the work of mone¬ tary unification, “concessions would have to be made on one “ part and on the other,” could hardly have intended to 29 refer to pecuniary contributions. The proper dignity of nations like the United Kingdom and the United States, exercising the higli prerogative of regulating their coinages, would scarcely permit them to solicit or accept pecuniary contributions from France, Belgium, Switzerland, Italy or the Pontifical States. Even if it would, the difficulty and delay in adjusting and apportioning the quotas and amounts to be paid by the other recoining nations, large and small, would practically render the task impossible. In truth, the cost of recoinage is now adverted to, not for the purpose of suggesting any such scheme of apportionment, but rather to impart increased interest to the fact, that the United States will never have an opportu¬ nity for recoining their gold more favorable than the present, when its amount, through exceptional causes is temporarily reduced to $200,000,000, probably the lowest point it will,reach in our national history for ages to come. Our citizens have paid, in the last fifteen years, for the recoinage in Europe of nearly double that amount of our gold coin, and unless they can obtain the necessary change of weight, must continue to bear the burthen constantly increasing for centuries to come; whereas the change once made, is made forever. The supposition that the civilized world would ever abandon an international coinage once secured, to gratify any idle u decagrammistic’’ theory, is simply preposterous. The real question then recurs : Is there any defect in the present gold franc system of coinage, so radical and vital, as to justify the United States or any other nation in de¬ manding before the world, that it be repudiated and aban¬ doned % What is, the evil, if any, which, after an exper¬ ience of nearly seventy years now proves to be unendurable ? It certainly will not be denied, that the foundation of the gold coin of France is metrical, with its coins all having a fixed and definite relation to the one common metrical 30 unit, the kilogram. The kilogram containing 1,000 grams, is divided into 3,100 even francs, and consequently 10 even grams are divided into 31 even francs. The 5 franc coin is A, the 10 franc coin is it, the 20 franc coin It, and the 25 franc coin of this even weight of 10 grams, which is in fact, the central point around which these simple fractions with the common denominator 31, all revolve. It is a point near at hand and easily accessible. The coinages of the United Kingdom and of the United States have no such point of union, and are wholly unmet- rical. In the United Kingdom, 20 troy pounds are coined into 9341 sovereigns. A troy ounce is divided into 3H1 sovereigns, the monetary measure of which, in the singu¬ larly inconvenient British currency, is £3. 17s. 10kl. In the gold coinage of the United' States, the nearest point of contact between even weights and even coins, is at 43 ounces troy, which weigh eight hundred dollars in United States gold coin. Nevertheless the Mints ( the United Kingdom and of the United States have coined and weighed in the last fifty years upwards of $1,800,0( ,000 of gold coin without the variation of a pennyweight, show¬ ing how unimportant for any practical purpose, is the con¬ formity of coin to any even weight. In the coinages of the United Kingdom and of the United States, the smallest amount weighed is a tenth of a grain, equal in value to BiVifu mills, while in the French system, the gram (value in round numbers 60 cents), is divided into decigrams of 6 cents, centigrams of 6 mills, and milligrams of h of a mill, so that the French division of weights is six fold more minute. The difficulty alleged to exist in computing the weight and value of French gold, is wholly imaginary and factitious. The francs represent fractions having a common denominator 31, so that their values and weights are readily convertible. The pretended difficulty is 31 needlessly created, by stating the fractions in decimal fig¬ ures, by which ingenious artifice the five franc coin simply existing as A of the 10 even grams, is exhibited with the appalling row of decimals 1.6129032258065. The absurdity of such decimal minuteness will be seen in the fact, that the last nine figures in the row, 032258065, represent in money value less than- 4 - 8 Vu part of a United States cent! The alleged difficulty vanishes at once, when we see that the simple fraction A of 10 grains, affords all the means re¬ quired for converting grams into francs. It needs only to multiply the grams by 31, and divide by 10. 365 grams 31 365 1095 10 / 1131.5=1.131-, 5 A francs. . o too with dollars. The ratio of 31 francs to 10 grams, gives 310 francs to 100 grams, which 310 francs being equiva- len. to 62 dollars, (when assimilated,) it needs only to mul¬ tiply the grams by 62 and divide by 100, 365 62 730 2190 100/ 22630=1226.^=1131 francs. With any ordinary amount of grams the necessary computation would not require more than one-tenth of a minute, which represents the sum total of the labor in com¬ puting the relative weight and value of grams and francs. But it is said that individuals ma}^ desire to weigh single pieces of gold, for which a gold coin having an even weight in grams would be convenient. Would it not be equally convenient to make use of the silver franc piece in France, 32 or the nickel five cent piece in the United States, both of which weigh five even grams and are ready, by millions, to be used as weights, if desired ? In point of fact, these metrical pieces are very rarely, if ever used for the purposes of weighing, and especially not for weighing other coins. It is equally true, that the practical necessity and value of an even weight of any denomination in any coin, is altogether exaggerated. Not one man in ten thousand knows or cares to know what is the weight of the coin he receives or pasSes, but every . one knows and cares to know its value. What nations and individuals need in an international coinage, is uniformity of value and little else. That is the great and vital desid¬ eratum, and it will be lamentable indeed to lose it, in the Quixotic pursuit of a perfect metrical harmony in coins, of no practical value when secured. In pursuing the shadow we lose the substance, and what is still more remarkable, in the United States we shall not gain even the shadow. Under the plan proposed in the bill pending before the Committee on Coinage, of the House of Representatives, originating with Mr. E. B. Elliot, of the city of Washing¬ ton, and not with the “Treasury Department of the United States,” as is sometimes erroneously stated, the weight of the gold dollar is fixed at If grams, so that 3 dollars would weigh 5 grams, and 6 dollars 10 grams or a decagram. Un¬ der this system, our only gold coins of even metrical weight would be pieces of three dollars, six dollars, nine dollars, and so onward in a ternary series, virtually abolishing the decimal system peculiarly the pride of the United States by which it was first established ; or leaving it either to play a secondary part, or in time to be sacrificed altogether to appease the metrical fanaticism now obstructing the path of human progress. Can we hope that any ambidexter, am¬ phibious system, half metrical, half decimal, will fully satisfy all the requirements of the st> called “scientific” 8S school? France, seventy years ago, disobeyed the funda¬ mental dogma of metrical infallibility, by dividing the 10 gold grams into 31 equal portions, not decimal. Will not the United States be equally guilty in dividing the 10 grams into dollars and their multiples weighing grams and ternary fractions of a gram ; a division, of all others, the most re¬ pugnant to the decimal system ? On this point, there should be no misunderstanding. If the metrical system is really the supreme law of the world, unchangeable by any human authority, let it be obeyed strictly to the letter. But if it be a human machine for human convenience, very admirable for many purposes, both scientific and practical, but not indispensable for every purpose, let it be used within its proper limits, and with a wise moderation. If we are to uproot and overturn all the coinages of the world, in a blind, unreasoning idolatry of the metrical sys¬ tem, how can we tolerate a dollar of 1,066 grams ; a half eagle of 8,333 grams ; an eagle of 16,666 grams; a double eagle of 33,333 grams? Where shall we find fractional ternary weights with which to weigh these fragmentary coins ? Can they themselves be used as weights for weigh¬ ing other coins or commodities in even grams ? But we are assured that there now exists in Germany, a decagram in a German gold crown of great monetary im¬ portance, with which we should not only bring the coin of the United States into intimate relation, but make it a golden link in a chain binding the Saxon nations in a “ Saxon Monetary League,” to rescue the world from the over¬ weening power of the “Latin Monetary League ” which has made such alarming progress in Europe. In the pictorial illustrations which the zeal of our metrical reformers has scattered broadcast through the country, this German crown occupies a conspicuous and commanding position, attended by a new British sovereign, with its weight in- 34 creased more than two per cent., a new French coin of 100 new francs, with its weight increased more than three per cent., and a new United States double eagle of 33.333 grams, not to mention the two hemispheres embla¬ zoned in monetary union. The first difficulty in realizing this monetary vision, will be found in the fact that neither France nor the United Kingdom have ever consented, nor is there any reason to believe that either of them ever will consent, thus to increase the weight of their coins. A second difficulty exists in the further fact, that no German crowns are now in circulation beyond a very trifling amount. They constituted the coinage referred to in the preliminary de¬ bate in the Paris Conference, as having proved an utter failure, in not conforming to any existing coin. A letter to the undersigned from Dr. Roesing, the Con¬ sul General at New York from North Germany, dated the 25th of March, 1870, states that the total number of Ger¬ man crowns ever coined in North Germany is as follows : in Prussia, 91,811 pieces ; in Hanover, 795,142 ; in Saxony, 45,000; and in Brunswick, 45,298; in all 977,251, having a total value in United States coin at $6.64 each of $6,988,946. Dr. Roesing further states that the failure of these coins to circulate was owing to their “disproportion to “ the existing monetary systems, which were left intact,” “ that the bulk of these coins is now in the Bremen Bank, “ whose circulation is based on the gold standard,” but that “even in Bremen these coins are extremely unpopular, “forming an ugly fraction in proportion to the gold thaler “ coin (of 10 thalers, $7.29,) the received unit.” The very limited circulation of the German crown is also shown in a letter to the undersigned, from Messrs J. R. Eckfeldt and Wm. E. Dubois, Assayers of the United States Mint, dated March 10, 1870, stating that “only a “ single piece of the German gold ‘krone’ has ever been 35 “ received at the Mint, in Philadelphia, and that nine years 1 ago.” It may be safely affirmed, that there is no amount of German crowns now in circulation, sufficient to induce the United States to overlook and disregard the $1,250,000,000 of gold in France and its associated states, and the $450,000,000 in the United Kingdom, still less to enter into the proposed “Saxon Monetary League.” It is enough to say, that if such a fancy could ever become a reality, its influence would be most disastrous, in dividing the common family of nations into a monetary dualism, antagonist in fact, and wholly repugnant to the world-wide international¬ ity, peculiarly the aim of our present age. After all the exhibitions of zeal for metrical uniformity, it is not a little remarkable that the various “decagram” coins, assumed by their adherents in the different nations as representing the only monetary quantities which metrical law or metrical “ logic ” can ever tolerate, widely differ in their respective monetary values. The German crowns, if any yet exist, will be found to contain not only ten even grams of fine gold, but ItVoV additional grams of alloy, making their total weight llAVo grams, wholly preventing them from circulating side by side, with the decagram pro¬ posed for France and the United States, which is to con¬ tain but ten grams of standard gold .900 fine. A still more fatal divergence will be found in the British “decagram,” recently proposed and advocated with great earnestness and ability by Doctor Farr, the distinguished and experienced “ Registrar General of the Population of the United Kingdom.” He proposes to reduce the present British standard of the quality of coin from .916 tine to .915, by adding 18 milligrams (about i of a troy grain,) to the weight of the existing sovereign, which would raise its weight to eight even grams, without increasing its value. He then proposes to issue a new gold coin of ten even 36 grams, of similar quality, to be equivalent to 1£ sovereign, or £1. 05. 0 and to be denominated a “ Victoria? 1 This new coin would exceed in value, by nearly ten cents the decagram proposed for the United States, while its differ¬ ence in quality from that of the general coinage of Conti¬ nental Europe and the United States, would keep the British Islands in perpetual, monetary isolation. The “ Royal Commission on International Coinage,” in¬ stituted by the Government of the United Kingdom in 1868, consisted of fourteen members, with Viscount Halifax as Chairman, and Rivers Wilson, Esquire, of the British Treasury, as Secretary, with several eminent members of Parliament, bankers and merchants. After collecting a large mass of testimony and other valuable information, they came to the conclusion, that the mere assimilation of the sovereign with the gold coin of other countries, although valuable in itself, would not be sufficient, without a “simultaneous assimilation” of its silver, bronze and copper sub-divisions (down to “pence,”) with the cur¬ rencies of other nations. It was for the purpose, among others, of avoiding any necessity for a work so exceedingly difficult, if not imposs¬ ible, that the Paris Conference proposed gold alone for in¬ ternational money, leaving silver to fluctuate as merchan¬ dise, or to circulate as “legal money” only in minor payments in the domestic commerce of the different nations, and to be regulated by each in its own discretion. It appears by the London Times of the 7th of August last, that an inquiry was made after the customary notice, in the House of Commons, on the 6tli of August, by John Benjamin Smith, Esq., Member of Parliament, asking for information from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in respect to an International Coinage ;—on which occasion, the member making the inquiry, after urging upon the House the value and necessity of a common international 37 money, expressed his desire that the United Kingdom “should take the lead in a matter of such importance,” “ and his hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer “would give an answer worthy of an “enlightened coun “ try, and the age in which w r e live.” The Chancellor of the Exchequer, (the Right Honora¬ ble Robert Lowe,) in answer, entered at length into the subject and expressed his willingness, on certain conditions, (among which was the abolition by France of the double standard,) to reduce the value of the sovereign to that of the 25 franc coin, and his belief that it ‘ ‘ was possible for “ England and France to give up a little of their crotchets, “ for the sake of the great advantage of an international “ coinage,” and that if Parliament should “be induced to “ look at the matter from the point of view in which he “ had put it, we might come to some arrangement by “ which we should get the blessing of one coinage through- “ out Europe, which,” he thought, “would be a great step “ in civilization.” There are many indications that public opinion in the United Kingdom in favor of a common international money, is steadily gaining ground. The principal obstacle seems to be, a difference of opinion as to the proper mode of providing a just equivalent to the holders of existing monetary obligations for the reduction in the weight of the coin. WEIGHTS OF THE HALF EAGLE, SOVEREIGN, AND 25 FRANC COIN. The precise weight of the three coins of the three great coining nations, to wit: the five dollar coin or half-eagle of the United States, the British sovereign, and the 25 franc gold coin, all estimated at .900 fine, and valuing the milli- 38 gram at T fv of a cent, (precise value rHUiihr of a cent,) is as follows : The U. S. half-eagle weighs, The British Sovereign (at .900 fine) fits actual weight as coined fine is 7.3225 fine. .6657 alloy. 7.9882) The 25 franc-coin weighs The half eagle exceeds the sovereign in weight, .... 8,359 8,136 8,359 milligrams. 8,136 8,064 milligrams. 223 milligrams. . 223x6=13-^0 cents. The half-eagle exceeds the 25 franc coin in weight, . . • 8,359 8,064 295 milligrams. 295 X 6 = lT-f^u cents. The sovereign exceeds the 25 franc coin in weight, . . - 8,136 8,064 72 milligrams. 72x6=4-j a oV cents. In the United States the legal “tolerance” or allowable variation in coining is one-half of a grain in the half-eagle, or 1 in 258, slightly exceeding lyV cents. The wide difference in the weights of the three coins above exhibited, showing an excess of 295 milligrams in the half-eagle over the 25 franc coin, and an excess of 223 mill¬ igrams over the sovereign, abundantly explains the immense recoinage in Europe of the coin of the United States, counted by hundreds of millions. The trifling reduction of this excess of weight by the decagram plan, being only 25-,-Wo milligrams, (the difference between 8359 and 8333tVVV) would practically do nothing to remedy the evil. The recoinage would still continue at the cost of the shipper in the United States. It can only be prevented by equalizing the weight of the coins of the three nations. In respect to the proper allowance to be made to holders of existing monetary contracts, it will be seen that the lT'-iVo cents above estimated as the difference between the half-eagle and the 25 franc coin, (amounting precisely to lTSVo 39 cents,) exceeds three and a half percent., (being cents in the half eagle,) by only l-fr mills , being less than one- thirteenth of the legal tolerance. After providing for the payment of the Bi percent., the slight deficiency of 1A mills in the half-eagle might be readily adjusted, by a temporary and very slight excess in coining the new pieces. Apologizing for the mass of details which the necessary presentation of the subject has required, the undersigned has only to state in conclusion, that the bill introduced into the House of Representatives, by the Honorable Samuel Hooper of Massachusetts, a member of the Committee on Coinage, on the 16th of March 1870, and now pending in the Committee, reduces the weight of the gold coin of the United States to that of France and the eight other Continental nations as hereinabove exhibited. The 124/ 0 - grains speci¬ fied in the bill, are practically equiponderant with 8.064 milligrams. It is peculiarly gratifying to add, that the bill distinctly and unmistakably provides, that in case of legal tender of the coin thus reduced in weight, on any contract public or private existing when the law shall take effect, an addition¬ al sum of three and a half per cent, shall be paid to the creditor. That full and exact measure of justice is requir¬ ed by every principle of public or private faith. If the coin could be reduced three and a half per cent, without paying the equivalent, it might equally be reduced twenty or fifty per cent. The highest considerations of public policy and national honor alike demand, that the Govern¬ ment of the United States should pay precisely the amount of gold it has agreed to pay; and it would be strange indeed, if creditors mainly citizens of our own country holding private debts, were not entitled to the same meas¬ ure of justice as foreign or domestic holders of our pub¬ lic securities. There may be instances abroad, where 40 short-sighted nations in reducing the weight of their coinage, have neglected to provide for the difference ; hut if it be so, the United States now have the opportunity of setting an example that will stand as a better guide in the future. The manifold benefits of an international and inter¬ continental coin of uniform value, worth any amount of honest effort it may cost, will be vast and ever enduring ; but they will be dearly bought by the sacrifice of one jot or tittle of the supreme good faith, which the American Union is strong enough and wise enough to bear aloft with¬ out stain or blemish, through the coming ages. With high respect, Your obedient servant, SAMUEL B. BUGGLES. To the Honorable David Heaton, Chairman of the Committee on Coinage , of the House of Representatives , etc ., etc., etc.