"upon the whole, it seems to be most advisable, as has been observed, not to attach the unit exclusively to either of the metals, because this cannot be done effectively without destroying the office and character of one of them as money, and reducing it to the situation of a mere merchandise, which accordingly at different times has been proposed from different and very respectable quarters, but which would probably be a greater evil than occasional variations in the unit, from the fluctuations in the relative value of the metals, especially if care be taken to regulate the proportions between them with an eye to the average commercial value. either of the metals is to abridge the quantity of circulating medium, and To annul the use of is liable to all the objections which arise from the comparison of the benefits of a full, with the evils of a scanty circulation."

Sir William Petty, in his posthumous work, published in 1691, is stated to be the first who suggested that the coin which was to be the principal measure of property ought to be made of one metal only. Money is understood to be the uniform measure and rule for the value of all commodities; that one of the two precious metals is only a fit matter for money; and, as matters now stand, silver is the matter of money.

That profound philosopher, Mr. Locke, thus expresses himself: "I have spoken of silver coin alone, because that makes the money of account and measure of trade all through the world; for all contracts are, I think, every where made, and accounts kept, in silver. I am sure they are so in England and in the neighboring countries. Silver, therefore, and silver alone, is the measure of commerce. sure of commerce both together in any country, because the measure of Two metals, gold and silver, cannot be the meacommerce must be perpetually the same, invariable, and keeping the same proportion of value in all its parts. But so only one metal does, or can do, to itself. So silver is to silver, and gold to gold; but gold and silver change their value one to another; for supposing them to be in value as sixteento one now, perhaps the next month they may be as fifteen and three-fourths, or fifteen and seven-eighths to one; and one may as well make a measure to be used as a yard, whose parts lengthen and shorten, as a measure of trade of materials that have not always a settled invariable measure to one another. One metal, therefore, alone can be the money of account and contract in any country. The fittest for this use, of all others, is silver. Gold, though not the money of the world, and the measure of commerce, nor fit to be so, may, and ought to be coined, to ascertain its fineness and weight, and such coin may safely have a price as well as a stamp set upon it by public authority, so the value set be under the market price."

Lord Liverpool, who was Master of the Mint in England, and whose system of money is now in practical operation in that country, thus remarks: "Experience has proved, that when coins of two metals are made legal tenders at given rates, those who have any payments to make will prefer to discharge the debt or obligation, by paying in that coin which is overrated; and in this manner gold, being overrated, became the practical currency of England. In the reign of King William, by proclamation, gold guineas, worth but 20s. 8d., were made current at 21s., which, being 4d. more or 11 per centum too high, made gold the principal measure or tender in payments." He was of opinion that the money or coins of any country, which are to be the measure of property, can be made of one metal only;" and that gold was the fittest metal for a rich country like England. He

proposed that "the new silver coins shall not be a legal tender for any sum exceeding the nominal value of the largest piece of gold coin in currency. This is the highest state of perfection to which any system of coinage can, in my opinion, be brought." He considered it necessary to exact a heavy seignorage on silver coin, to secure its permanency in circulation; and maintained, that such an overvaluation would not prejudice prices. "When the silver coins were the principal measure of property, and were greatly defective, the price of all commodities rose in proportion; but since the gold coins are become the principal measure of property, though our silver coins are on an average as defective as they were before, (about $,) the price of commodities, even when purchased with silver coins, has not risen on account of the defect of these silver coins. The present defective silver coins continue to be paid and received at their nominal value, and according to the rate at which they can be exchanged for our gold coins; sometimes, when they are wanted for particular purposes, they are exchanged even at a premium above their nominal value."

He thought that prices of commodities were "influenced by a defect in that sort of coin only which is the principal measure of property, and in which our balances to foreign countries are regulated and paid."

Mr. Ricardo, who attained well-merited celebrity, in adverting to the English currency, observes: "It appears then, that whilst each of the two metals was equally a legal tender for debts of any amount, we were subject to a constant change in the principal standard measure of value. It would sometimes be gold, sometimes silver, depending entirely on the variations in the relative value of the two metals; and, at such times, the metal which was not the standard would be melted and withdrawn from circulation, as its value would be greater in bullion than in coin. This was an inconvenience which it was highly desirable should be remedied; but so slow is the pro gress of improvement, that, although it had been unanswerably demonstrated by Mr. Locke, and had been noticed by all writers on the subject of money since his day, a better system was never adopted till the last session of Parliament, when it was enacted that gold only should be a legal tender for any sum exceeding 42s."

A highly respectable authority, Mr. Gallatin, in his able letter to the Secretary of the Treasury, maintains the superiority of the double standard, and the practicability of keeping both metals in circulation. He instances France as the country which affords the best and most easy means to ascertain the fact, as it is far the most wealthy country in which both gold and silver coins circulate simultaneously. During the thirteen last years there has never been a premium on silver coins, and there has almost always been one on gold coins; but it is very rarely, and only for very short periods, that this premium on gold coins has ever fallen below one-fifth or exceeded four-fifths per cent., and the average is about one-half rather below than above it. The relative value of gold to silver bullion is, therefore, fixed at the rate of 3,091. 197, nearly equal to 15.69 to 1. Each metal is brought to the Mint in greater or less quantities respectively, according to the fluetuations in their relative market value. But what proves that this ratio does not essentially differ from the true average market relative value, is, that the Mint has been abundantly supplied with both for the last twenty-five years, the coinage of France being far greater than that of any other country.

"The present rate (of our gold standard) was the result of information clearly incorrect respecting the then relative value of gold and silver in Europe, which was represented as being at the rate of less than 15 to 1, If gold coins are raised by law when it was, in fact, 15.5 to 15.6 to 1. to their true value, they will not be exported so long as the exchange on London is not above 1 per centum above the true par, or about 84 per cent. nominal, as now calculated. Whenever the exchange is above that rate, there is no means to prevent the exportation; and as the general tendency of our exchanges with Europe is against us, this affords a reason why, in fixing the relative value of the two metals, gold may be a little overrated beyond the ratio deduced from the average premium on French gold coins in France. But this should be done cautiously, as there is always danger in going beyond what the well ascertained facts will warrant." Adverting to Spanish American coins, he observes, in respect to the various rates of premium on doubloons: "This affords no criterion whatever of the relative value of the two metals, as it is exclusively due to the varying demand for the Havana and South American markets, where, by internal regulations, the doubloon is rated never less than $16, and generally at $17. This arbitrary order drives, of course, silver from the market, and, without raising, actually, gold to that rate, has, nevertheless, a considerable effect on the price of that particular coin. As there is not in nature any permanent standard of value, it has been objected to the simultaneous circulation of the two metals as a legal tender, that, in addition to the fluctuations in the price of either gold or silver, if only one of the two was made the sole circulating medium, the fluctuations in their relative value increase the uncertainty of the standard. Great Britain, till the year 1797, when the suspension of cash payments took place, and all other nations to this day have used the two metals simultaneously, without any practical injury, and to the great advantage of the community, though in many instances sufficient care had not been taken to assimilate the legal to the average market value of the two metals—a fact so notorious, so universal, and so constant, is sufficient to prove that the objection, though the abstract reasoning on which it is founded is correct, can have no weight in practice."

In respect to the opinion that the English demand for gold, upon the re sumption of specie payments, had suddenly influenced its relative value, it is elsewhere stated, that any extraordinary demand from a particular country is met without difficulty, or sensibly affecting the price of the metal required." This decisive fact, (the premium in France on gold, not having exceeded to per cent.,) also shows, that it is erroneously that the exportation of American gold coins, which commenced in the year 1821, has been ascribed to that extraordinary demand. That exportation has been continued uninterruptedly after that cause had ceased to operate, and, as will be seen hereafter, is due to the alteration from that epoch in the rate of exchanges."

Mr. Tooke, an eminent writer, is inclined to doubt the correctness of the opinion, that the British demand increased the relative value of gold, and he remarks, "these circumstances, collectively," (diminution in the export of silver to Asia, and the emancipation of Spanish America,) "are likely to have increased the supply of silver, and give reason to expect that the fall in the price of silver arose from a relative increase of its quantity and consequent diminution of its value, rather than from a diminished quantity

and increased value of gold." He admits, however, that "all information hitherto accessible relating to the proportion of the supply and demand of the precious metals, is vague, and insufficient to build any practical conclusion upon; and the only object of the arguments brought forward is to afford grounds for calling in question the opposite presumption, which, in my opinion, has been much too generally and hastily admitted."

Mr. Tooke thinks, that England probably possessed twenty millions of pounds sterling of gold before 1797; the greater part of which, he calculates, would be forthcoming from the hiding places of the hoarders, or from the continent of Europe; "none (gold) being absolutely necessary (on the continent) as the standard or basis of their circulation, which is silver."

Mr. Baring, an eminent banker, and accustomed to pecuniary transactions of the most extensive and various nature, is an advocate of the double standard, in consideration of the peculiar circumstances of England. He asserts, that "if gold and silver were concurrent legal tenders at the old mint regulation, (1 to 15. 2,) silver would at present be the practical standard, as the debtor always acquits himself in the cheapest metal he is enabled to do so by law. Gold was his cheapest payment previous to 1797, and, therefore, the practical standard of the country at that time; in consequence of subsequent variations in the price between gold and silver, silver would be so now. The practical currency may change from one metal to another in a short space of time; the fact of gold having been the practical tender in this country under the former system, and that silver would be so if that system continued, is a practical proof of it.

"It will vary with the variations in the relative value of the metals, however wisely you may adjust the difference. The variation in France is seldom above a tenth per cent.: it sometimes runs up to a quarter per cent.: it has been, I am told, something higher on particular occasions. A very slight difference of th or 4th per cent. would determine the use of one metal or another.

"There is no doubt that when this country (England) returned to payments in specie, supposing we wanted from fifteen to twenty millions of pounds, of gold for instance, and that to that extent there was a demand on the rest of the world for gold, gold got an increased value from that cir

cumstance.

"This country partially rejecting gold as its tender, the effect would be to reduce to some extent the value of gold over the rest of the world."

One of his leading motives in recommending the incorporation of silver in the standard, appears to have been an impression, that it was "evident that the Bank, (of England,) wishing to reinforce its supply of specie, can do so with infinitely increased facility, with the power of either drawing in gold or silver, than if it were confined to only one of the metals. The choice is already much; but the circumstance that silver is the practical standard of Europe more than doubles the certainty and facility of procuring a supply."

The substance of Mr. Baring's evidence before the committee of the British Parliament, being subsequently submitted to the consideration of the Bank of England in four queries, the Governor and Directors of the Bank, in part, thus reply.

"1st. Provided there be sufficient eurrency in the country for the small payments, there does not appear to the Bank to be any advantage in the pro

posed addition of silver as a general legal tender, from the great difficulty of retaining gold as the bulk of the currency under such an arrangement.

"ed. It does not appear that it would afford to the bank any security against combinations to their prejudice, nor would it enable the bank more readily to rectify the foreign exchanges, nor to provide with less difficulty for periods of panic. Neither does it appear to the bank that it would facilitate their procuring, when necessary, supplies of gold from abroad.

"3d. The bank can see no advantage in reverting to the former system of making silver by weight a legal tender to any amount, and they are farther of opinion, that a varying scale of value in any metal cannot be otherwise than prejudicial in its effects upon all contracts."

The Secretary of the Treasury, in his masterly and elaborate report to the Senate during the last session, "respecting the relative value of gold and silver, &c." remarks, in reference to the double standard, "that however exactly the proper equilibrium of values of gold and silver may be adjusted at the Mint, the balance is likely to be disturbed by causes which can neither be anticipated or controlled by political power." And in the course of his able disquisition, he arrives at the apparently sound and rational conclusion, that the regulation of the measure of value in both metals is inherently defective, and requires to be remedied, and that "this remedy is to be found in the establishment of one standard measure of property only. The proposition that there can be but one standard, in fact is self-evident. The option of Governments charged with this duty, is, therefore, between having property measured sometimes by gold, sometimes by silver, and selecting that metal which is best adapted to the purpose for the only standard. Silver ought to be the standard measure of property in the United States, and maintained by mint regulations, as the chief material for metallic currency."

Such discordaney of opinion amongst writers, distinguished for profound and philosophical views, and practical knowledge of the subject under consideration, is perplexing and embarrassing.

The committee have endeavored to form a just and impartial estimate of the various principles respectively sustained; and they will now proceed to make some appropriate observations upon them, as general truths, and, also, in reference to the fitness of their application to the existing and peculiar circumstances of the United States.

Gold or silver is the money of commerce, and the measure of value. It is freely received every where as the equivalent in exchange for all other articles. It is, by general consent, the representative of value, the pledge cheerfully taken in fulfilment of bargains, because the receiver knows, that he can with it purchase such things as he desires. It is the instrument by which transfers can be most conveniently effected, but it is not the article really wanted.

Commodities are the things actually exchanged and required-provisions, clothing, materials for manufacture, or for other use. Money facilitates exchanges, but its value is in circulation. Commodities are valuable in exchange, and valuable, also, as useful or consumable necessaries, The real value of these depends upon the quantity of labor expended upon their production, but not in any degree upon money price, or the quantity of gold or silver required to measure their nominal value, or to effect their exchange. This price or quantity is regulated by the productiveness of the