gold coins of about 2 per cent.; nor in France, where it requires an increase of 34 per cent. Should it be found that neither of these schemes can be made acceptable to all the powers, and that no other plan can be proposed which is likely to be adopted, perhaps a way may be found for securing "a common unit and standard" by an assimilation without an absolute unification in the coinage. The schemes which I have been considering contemplate absolute identity of coinage in some common coin. It must be conceded that this is theoretically to be desired. But as it may be impracticable for the moment, this Government suggests a basis which, though theoretically less perfect than an absolute unification of coinage, may practically secure some of its benefits, and lead to more important advantages. It is to be observed that an identity in the measures of values in the different countries will not completely attain the beneficent results which are sought, unless there be also an identity in weights and measures. The comparatively few persons of each country who travel into the dominions of the other powers, and spend there the money which sometimes had better be spent at home, might and probably would find their means slightly increased, and their annoyances decidedly decreased; but in commercial transactions au identity in the measures of values would be of comparatively little use, if unaccompanied by an identity in the measures of the quantities to which those values are applied. There would still be a necessity for the intervention of an expert to shift the expressions of the measures of quantity from the terms used in the one country to those in use in the other. The resolution of the Senate does not contemplate the extension of this correspondence to these points, nor, in my judgment, would it be desirable to do so. It would probably not be difficult to induce the people of different countries to adopt a common standard of weights and measures, so far as perishable property is concerned. At first the adoption of unaccustomed systems might cause inconvenience and discontent; but if they should prove to be better than the old ones, and if they should have the further advantage of being common to several countries which possess a common standard of values, and which have extended commercial relations, it is probable that the inconveniences would be patiently submitted to, in view of the greater benefits to be derived from the change. But it seems to the Government of the United States that a forced change in the measures of distance, as applied to imperishable property and to permanent investments of capital, may be attended with more serious inconvenience. Thus, while it may be practicable to establish a new standard of length measure for articles of international commerce, such as textile fabrics which are consumed and do not remain, it may be more difficult to make the same change in the standard for permanent values. A few examples will demonstrate the difficulties that would probably attend a change in such measures in this country, and it is supposed that similar if not equal inconveniences would happen elsewhere. It is the custom in the United States to lay out all the towns and cities in regular quadrangles, and to divide each quadrangle into an even number of lots, with an even number of feet. This has been found a convenient mode of dealing in town and city lots and in town and city houses. To make an arbitrary change which should abolish these measures and substitute different ones in their places, involving the use of fractional numbers, would occasion great inconvenience, and might check Lange ( probable ch woul The obi pressed in ant mater Differen ine-tenth tre susten The Go of the seve be attained suggests the dealings in this species of property, and thus cause a loss to those who happen to be holders at the time of change. Again, the whole system of titles in those States which have been created out of the public domain rests upon Government surveys, whose results are expressed in the English mile and its subdivisions of rods, feet, and inches. To substitute a different expression for these measurements would be a work of serious magnitude. Again, the manufactories of the country are filled with machinery, whose delicately adjusted parts, measured by feet, inches, and component parts of the inch, work together in one grand whole, which is in its turn combined in the same system of measures. To produce this machinery, thousands of shops are filled with costly plans, adjusted upon the same scale, whose delicate operations often require a nicer determination of measurement than can be obtained without mechanical aid. To transmute these measurements, so delicate and so accurate, from their present system into a new one, would appear to be an almost endless labor, if indeed it be a possibility. Examples might be multipled, and will probably occur to the enlightened government of They serve to show that, while in theory much to be desired, it is possible that the different powers will not suc ceed so easily in assimilating their several standards of length for permanent values as in securing uniformity in their systems of weights and of lineal measures, as applied to articles of commerce. Accepting this possible result with reluctance, and drawing from it the conclusion that unification of coinage, or even identity in the value of a unit, may not be so easily attained, and will, if attained, have a proportionately less importance, the Government of the United States invites the government to consider whether, without seriously disturbing the coinage of the leading commercial nations, and without changing the nomenclature and relative values in the domestic coins to which the several peoples have become accustomed, it may not be possible to arrive at an assimilation of coinage which will secure many of the advantages that can be obtained without a uniform system of weights and measures, and which may lead hereafter to complete unification. It must be borne in mind in this discussion that, so long as exchanges of commodities exist, the system of payments therefor in bills of exchange (which ordinarily represent values of commodities of the one country transferred to the other) must also continue to exist. It is not probable that even an absolute identity of coinage throughout the world would do away with this medium of payments. The hope that such would be the case would probably prove illusory. The object we seek to attain is a common measure, which can be expressed in the existing coinages of the leading commercial nations without materially affecting the actual values of the several coins. Different rules pravail at the different mints in many respects. In some there is a mint charge; in others, none. In some the coin is of nine-tenths fineness; in others, of eleven-twelfths. Were we now seeking uniformity in the weight, appearance, and value of the coins, it would be necessary to adopt common rules in these respects. But it is supposed that the several powers may be averse to surrender their respective systems unless complete uniformity can be secured. The Government of the United States suggests, for the consideration of the several powers, whether all that is herein contemplated may not be attained without an abandonment of the different mint systems. It of the question) that the international value of the coins of the nations that may become parties to any monetary convention, or who may in any other way arrange this question between themselves, shall be determined by the quantity of pure gold which it contains, which measure shall be expressed in a common standard of weight upon its face; and that, unless absolute unification can be obtained, all other questions of coinage be left to local law and experience. The French decigram is suggested as the most convenient common measure by which to determine this quantity, and that it is desirable, if possible, to avoid running this expression into a fraction. The Government of the United States suggests (also for consideration only) the following as a practicable table: These suggested changes are slight, and need scarcely be accounted for. If adopted, they afford in the decigramme an international unit which will be easily convertible from one expression into another, and fine gold is made the standard, without reference to the quantity of alloy. -to I inclose a copy of the resolution of the Senate requesting the President to invite a correspondence on this subject, and also a memorandum of the population of the four groups of countries herein before referred to. You are instructed to leave a copy of this paper with the minister for foreign affairs, and you will say that the Government of the United States, at the request of the Senate, invites the government ofexpress its views upon the subject of a common unit and standard of an international gold coinage, with a view to promote its adoption. You will also say that the President will deem it his duty, under the resolution of the Senate, to transmit to that body any communication which that government shall be pleased to make on these subjects. I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, [Inclosures.] HAMILTON FISH. 1. Copy of a resolution of the Senate of the United States, passed February 8, 1870. 2. Translation of the official report of the proceedings at the international monetary conference in Paris in 1867. 3. Memorandum of the populations of the four groups of countries referred to in this paper. I. Copy of a resolution of the Senate of the United States, passed February 8, 1870. 247 February 8, 1870. Resolved, That the President be requested, if not incompatible with the public interests, to invite a correspondence with Great Britain and other foreign powers, with a view to promote the adoption, by the legislatures of the several powers, of a common unit and standard of an international gold coinage, and that such correspondence be submitted to Congress for its information and action. Attest: GEO. C. GORHAM, Secretary. II. Translation of the official report of the proceedings at the international monetary conference in Paris in 1867. INTERNATIONAL MONETARY CONFERENCE-EIGHTH AND LAST SITTING. SATURDAY, July 6, 1867. Prince Napoleon presiding. The sitting opened at 1 o'clock. Present, the delegates that attended the last meeting, and M. Delyannis, with the exception of Messrs. Kern, Vrolik, Viscount Villa-Maïor, Meinecke, and Graham, His excellency Mihran-Bey-Duz, member of the grand council of justice, director of the mint of Constantinople, delegate from the Ottoman government, whose arrival in France was delayed, and who had been temporarily represented by Colonel Essad-Bey, took his place among the members of the conference. The minutes of the seventh sitting having been adopted, on invitation from his Imperial Highness, M. de Parieu read the following report, which he had been instructed to prepare at the last sitting: MONSEIGNEUR AND GENTLEMEN: In the month of December last, when the French government communicated the international convention of the 23d December, 1865, to the states here represented, and called their attention to the grand idea of monetary uniformity, those communications were at first received with a certain hesitation in some particulars. We have been, perhaps, too long accustomed to consign many generous ideas, sustained only by common sense, to the region of dreams, leaving them to be buried by prejudice and the blind consideration of the immutability of existing facts. We all know that every enterprise of general interest requires a spirit of unity in its aims and principal means of accomplishment. There were many points in the monetary question so difficult that they caused divisions in the doctrines and the views of the past. The idea of monetary uniformity long languished in the aspirations of poets and economists. The members of the convention of the 23d of December, 1865, encouraged by the success of their labors, warmly welcomed the practical idea of their extension; and on witnessing the success of the monetary union concluded between France, Belgium, Switzerland, and Italy, notwithstanding the false situation caused by the forced circulation of paper in one of the states, it was hard for the government that had presided over the conference of 1865 to refrain from asking the support of the world for a more extended monetary uniformity. The minister of foreign affairs has told you how much the imperial government was pleased at the eagerness of all the sovereign states of Europe, and of the government at Washington, in sending delegates to the conference proposed to them. In giving to the assembly a president whose great name, exalted position, manifest impartiality, and decided sympathy for monetary uniformity, have given our discussions a brilliancy and importance that we could not expect from our own resources, it has complimented you more highly than could be done by words, and has thanked you all, men distinguished for diplomatic merits, economical science, or technical experience in the monetary art, for the earnest welcome you have given to the ideas you were called together to examine. What was the precise object of your conference-the nature of the questions it was to expound? This, gentlemen, was the first object of your reflections, and upon it the success of your meeting depended. The government of the Emperor might prepare the studies, but it could not fix the terms. *• many of its problems are debated by philosophers. Not 1. the only solvent of such problems, and the one of particular importance in the subject now before us for consideration. At the trade conference of 1864, in Frankfort, it was truly said, "Monetary questions are more practical than all others." The chief question for examination was the monetary standard. On this subject you are aware that the world is divided between three different systems-the gold standard, the silver standard, and the double standard. It was indispensable to know which of these forms would furnish the most desirable and permanent basis for a monetary unity. Governed by these considerations, you have agreed upon a series of questions as the basis of your labors, on the report of a committee of seven members, in the formation of which all the systems had been equitably represented. This "questionnaire," to adopt a neologism of our administrative language, you unanimously adopted in the following terms: "1st. What is the best way to realize monetary unity--by the creation of an entirely new system independent of existing systems, and in that case what should be the basis of that system; or, by the combination of present systems, taking into consideration the scientific advantages of certain types, and the number of nations that have already adopted them? In the latter case, what monetary system ought to be chiefly considered, with the reserve of any improvement that might be made in it? "2d. Can identities or partial assimilations of monetary types be now constituted on a large scale by adopting the silver standard exclusively? "3d. On the other hand, can that result be reached by adopting a gold standard exclusively? "4th. Could a similar result be attained by adopting the double standard, and fixing in all the nations the relative value of gold and silver? "5th. In case of a negative response to the preceding questions, is it possible or expedient to establish identity or partial assimilation of monetary types on a large scale with a silver standard, leaving each state the liberty of preserving its gold standard? "6th. Is it possible and useful to establish identity or partial assimilation of monetary types on a gold basis, leaving each state the liberty of preserving its silver standard? "7th. In case of affirming one of the two preceding questions, would the internationality of the coin adopted as a common standard be a sufficient assurance of its continued circulation in each state; or would it be necessary to stipulate a certain limit in the relation between the value of gold and silver, or to provide for the case in which international coins would run the risk of being expelled from circulation in any of the contracting states? "8th. For the success of monetary unity is it necessary to constitute an identical unity of metallic composition everywhere with similarity of weight and denomination, and what basis is to be adopted; or is it enough to constitute common types of a common denominator as high as multiples of five francs for gold? "9th. In case gold is adopted as an international metal, would it be useful for the types of that coin adopted by the monetary convention of the 23d of December, 1865, to be completed by new types of fifteen and twenty-five francs for the sake of unity and in the spirit of reciprocity? In this case, what should be their dimensions? "10th. In case of affirmative to questions three or six, would it be useful to regulate silver or copper coins by common obligations as to their composition or standard, their limit in payment, or the amount of their issue? 11th. Would it be proper to fix certain means of control to insure the exact coinage of the common types of the international money? 12th. Besides the immediate practical possibilities already discussed, would further discussions of general principles be desirable to spread over Europe the assimilations already effected or hereafter to be realized in respect to money?"" Although no idea of exclusion has entered into this "questionnaire," it is remarkable that its discussion during five sittings has suggested no serious addition; on the contrary, the tenth and eleventh questions you have put off, although the principle of measures of control has been judged indispensable to the success of the monetary conventions, and the twelfth question was left undecided. The decisions of the conference, as a whole, have been regulated by the dominant desire that any future monetary legislation shall result, as far as practicable, in diplomatic conventions between different states, to secure them against their own inconstancy. It is the evident interest of the states to secure the political advantages of the assimilation of their monetary types by the reciprocal circulation of their coins. You did not think the reciprocal circulation in public banks, as resolved upon in 1865, completely answered the aspirations for a monetary uniformity; and, contrary to some reserves found in your minutes, you thought legal currency ought to be considered the last word in the tendencies to unity. The first nine questions of your sittings are comprised in three formulas too abstract to be discussed, and I will reduce them to their simplest form of expression. |