Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 13.djvu/788

MONETARY COMMISSION. dissented lioiu tht majority report, arguing iu general lor the gold basis, but declaring in iavor of the rcmonetization of silver on adding to the quantity of pure silver iu a dollar enough to wake its bullion value equal to the then value of a gold dollar.

The Government published a sunniiary uf this report together with papers prepared" for the commission on ''Asiatic trade and flow of silver to the East;" "Constitutional powers of Congress and the States with res|H'ct to metallic money;" "Legislation on subsidiary silver coin;" and "The Trade Dollar." In addition to these the Govern- ment published a collection of valuable statistics gathered by the commission relating to the pro- duction, distribution, and relative value of the two metals and to the monetary systems of for- eign countries.

MONETARY CONFERENCES, Interna- tional. Ccinfcrcncis liclwei-n representatives of flic United States and variois European powers for the discussion of united action with refer- ence to monetarv matters were held in 1S67, 1878, 1881, and 1892.

France, on completing the Latin IMonetary I'nion (q.v. ). indulged in the liope that other na- tions might join the union, and brought the mat- ter to the attention of other governments through diplomatic channels. France called the confer- ence of 18fi7 during the exposition of that year with the thought of furthering this jjroject. Nineteen States were represented at the confer- ence. The first question debated was whether an existing system or a wholly new one was best adapted to secure international coinage. The answer was in favor of an existing system, and it was admitted that the system of the Latin Vnion would probably be best adapted to this purpose. A second question was: "Is there a possibility of establishing at this time identities or partial coincidences of monetary types on a wide scale, on the basis and with the condition of the adoption of the silver standard exclusively?" A third question repeats this inquiry for the gold standard exclusively, and a fourth for the double standards with a eonunon ratio. Thesc questions were discussed together, but the debate was not properly one of standards. The conference de- clared unaninxmsly in favor of the gold stand- ard as a basis of an international coinage. But in this conference the whole question of stand- ards was incidental. Whether a unit should l)c adopted for all the nations or whether coinci- dences in the value of the coins should be efTected were the most important questions <'onsidered. Finally a resolution was adopted that all gold coins which were nuiltiples of '> francs should have legal circulation in all the <oiitract- ing .''tate.s. The work seemed to be complete and the conference adjoirned with mutual congratu- lations. But there the matter ended, as no treaties to carry out the plans were contracted. Quite different was the purpose of the confer- ences of 1878. 1881. and 1802. A fall in the value of silver as compared with gold had taken place and the silver currency tlireatencd to de- preciate seriously and perhaps endanger the monetary systems of those countries in which the double standard existed. In iar>7 the ratio be- tween silver and gold, which for many years had heen below the French ratio of 1 to l.T'f.. rose above it ami in 1874 ro.^e above the .American ratio of 1 to 10, and l)y 1S78 had reached 1 to 17. 'J4. In the meantime prices hail begun to fall. The initiative for the conference of 1878 pro- ceeded from the L'niteil States. The coinage law of February of that year authorized the President to invite "the governments of the countries composing the Latin Union so called, and of such other European nations as he may deem advisable, to join the United States in a conference to adopt a common ratio between gold and silver, for the purpose of establishing, in- ternationally, the use of bimetallic money, and securing fixity of relative value between" those metals." in response to the invitation of the United States, the principal nations except Ger- many sent representatives to the conference, which met in Paris in August, 1878. Consider- able solicitude was expressed at the conference lest silver should be wholly discarded, though no agreement could be reached on binu'tallism. This in particular was the attitude of Great Britain, concerned as she was for the currency of India. The most bitter hostility to bimetallism was exhibited by Belgium and Switzerland, while France, their partner in the Latin Union, was distinctly in favor of it. In its advocacy of the princijile the United States was handicapped by the fact that it was on a paper basis and that it was a producer of silver. The proposals of the United States were rejected, the European na- tions uniting in the declaration "that it is neces- sary to maintain in the world the monetary functions of silver as well as tho.se of gold, but that the selection for use of one or of the other of the two metals, or of both simultaneously, should 1)6 governed by the special position of each State, or of each group of States." The conference was thus without result.

In 1881 another conference was held at Paris. Events were rapidly proving that the alleged scarcity of gold was a fact. 'I'he United States began to import gold and this drew upon the Euro|>ean stock. The Bank of England saw its gold reserves diminish and seemed unable to check the outflow. In France the reserve of gold in the Bank declined, while silver increased. As the proportion of silver in the metallic reserve increased doubts began to be expressed whether gold ])aynients would be maintained. Germany saw the completion of her monetary reform in- definitely postjjoned by her inability to sell her stock of silver coin except at a great sacrifice. In the United States the pressure for free silver continued. France was the prime mover in this conference, though the I'niteil States joined in issuing the invitations. (Jrcat Hritain exhibited great reserve in the conference and the delegates of other States declared themselves bound by strict instructions. The discussions were able and learned, but fruitless, and the conference adjourned without result.

It was not until 1802 that another effort was made to effect monetary reform by means of a conference. In 1801 the President was author- ized to call a conference, (ireat Britain ex- hibited more interest than u.sual, and while she declined to join a conference whose only object was the discussion of bimetallism, consented t*"' take part in a conference to discuss an enlarged monetarv use of silver. The British Govern- ment appointed delegates in sympathy with bi- metallic proposals and sanctioned the appoint-