MONETARY COMMISSION of Tim U. S. CONGRESS, The mistaken demoneti zation of silver by congress in the coinage Feb. 12, 1873, passimg almost unnoticed during that year, soon afterwards attracted the attention of thoughtful men. Its possible ,onsequences loomed portentously into view, as the subject was more and more studied. `Within three years it became a theme of general discussion in the United States. It • was a prolific source of debate in the 44th congress; and 15, 1870, the senate initiated a joint resolution for the appointment of a joint commission of three senators, three members of the house, with experts. not exceeding three, to lie selected by the former, whose was to inquire, "First, Into the change which has taken place in the relative value of gold and silver; the causes thereof, whether permanent or otherwise; the effects thereof upon trade. commerce, finance, and the productive interests of the coun try, and upon the standard of value in this and foreign countries: Second, Into the pol icy of the restoration or the double-standard ia•this country; and, if restored, what the legal relation of the two coins, silVer and gold, should be;‘Third, Into the policy of con tinuing legal-tender notes concurrently with the metallic standards, and the effect thereof upon the labor, industries, and wealth of the country; Fourth, Into the best means for providing for facilitating the resumption of specie payments." The commission as organized consisted of Messrs. John P. Jones, Lewis V. Bogy, and George S. Boutive11, of the senate; Randall L. Gibson, George Withird, and Richard P. Bland, of the house of representatives; Wm. S. Groesbeck of Ohio, and Prof. Francis Bowen of Massachusetts. Geo. M. Weston of Maine was appointed secretary. The sessipns of the committee were held in New York until December of that year, and afterward„s in Washington. Circulars were immediately issued by the commission to men of eminence in monetary studies, to authors, hankers, and business men in the United States and Europe, to elicit the widest possible information on the topics of the resolution. The chambers of commerce in the cities were invited to furnish, and did furnish, lists of per sons most competent to give information. The U. S. representatives in foreign countries were required to aid in the work. The commission entered upon its ditties with energy. collected vast, stores of information, and were aided by the most eminent political econo mists and financial writers of all schools, who were glad to have such an opportunity for the elucidation and comparison of their views. The main substance of the report was submitted and ordered to be printed Mar. 2, 1877, It is a masterly condensation of the philosophy and facts bearing on money questions; embracing clear statements of all schools of opinion. The conclusions of the commission were not unanimous. But the majority report not only exhibits such grasp of the whole subject, but has also been so far proved correct in its deductions by facts which have since become a part of monetary history, that the several dissents of individual members of the committee from eertaiu parts of the majority report are not of much importance. On the whole, the report is the most valuable compendium of facts and monetary theories ever published. It takes rank in point of ability with the famous bullion report of England in 1810, but covers a far wider field, and introduces social science problems in connection with the money question not taken into consideration by the British committee. The latter sifted finan cial questions from bankers' points of view: the U. S. commission reviews the subject in. the light of the public weal—the greatest good to tire greatest number.
The conclusions of the majority of the committee on the first questions submitted are: That ..he recent production of silver relatively to gold has not been greater than formerly; that the (then) recent fall in the price of silver was not caused by any recent large produc tion; but mainly by the concurrent demonetization of silver in Germany, the United States, and the Scandinavian states, the closure of the mints of Europe to its coinage, the temporary diminution of the Asiatic demand, the exaggeration of tire actual and prospective yio'd of the Nevada silver mines, and a prevailing idea that the efforts of holders of government securities would bring about its demonetization: that gold is more fitful in production than silver; that the average production of both is more steady than of either one; "that to annihilate the money function of one must greatly increase the purchasing power of the other, and greatly reduce prices;" that " silver to the amount of $3,000,000,000 in coin, the accumulation of 50 centuries, is so worked into the web and woof of the world's commerce that it cannot be discarded without entailing the most serious consequences, social, industrial, political, and commercial;" that "the evil is enormously aggravated by selecting gold as the metal to be retained and silver as the metal to be rejected;" that "the exchanges of the world, and especially of this country, are continually and largely increasing, while the supplies of both the precious metals, taken together, if not diminishing are at least stationary, and the supply of gold, taken by itself, is falling off; and that to submit the vast and increasing exchanges of this coml. try and the world to be measured by a metal never to be depended on in its supply, and now actually diminishing in its production, would make crisis chronic, and business paralysis perpetual." Covering the second question the commission recommend the
restoration of the double standard and the unrestricted coinage of both metals. The report on the third question for solution refers to the answer to the fourth, viz.: " the best means for providing for facilitating the resumption of specie payments." To this question the report answers, that "the remonetization of silver is a measure essential to specie payments, and may make such payments practicable." The commission believe "that the remonetization of silver in this country will have a powerful influence in preventing, and probably will prevent, the demonetization of silver in France and other European countries ;" that remonetization by the United States, even without change in leg islation elsewhere, will draw to us silver from other countries while it is cheap, in exchange for what we have to export; and that this country will have the benefit of the rise which the committee believe will take place in its value when tire temporary causes of its depression have passed. The report concludes with these words: "If the states of the Latin union, or other countries in Europe, abandon the double standard after we re-adopt it, or because we re-adopt it, it will be a policy on their part through which great advantages will inure to us, and great disasters will befall them. It would inaugu rate in the United States an era of prosperity, based upon solid money, obtained on profitable terms, and under circumstances necessarily stimulating to our industry and commerce." "Finally, the commission believe that the facts that Germany and the Scandinavian states have adopted the single gold standard, and that some other European nations may possibly adopt it, instead of being reasons for perseverance in the attempt to establish it in the United States, are precisely the facts which make such an attempt entirely c.,ble and ruinous. If the nations on the continent of Europe had the double standard, gold standard would be possible here, because, in that condition, they would freely exchange gold for silver. If was that condition which enabled England to resume specie payments in gold in 1821. The attainment of such a standard becomes difficult precisely in proportion to the number and importance of the conniries engaged in striving after it; and it is precisely in the same proportion that the ruinous effects of striving- after it are aggravated. To propose to this country a contest for a gold standard with the Euro pean tuitions is to propose to it it disastrous race, in reducing the price of labor and com modities, in aggravating the burdens of debt, and in the uhnitintion and concentration of wealth, in which all the contestants will suffer immeasurahly, and the victors even more than the vanquished." Mr. Boutwell alone makes a minority report against remonetization of silver, except on a previously agreed basis, adopted in conjunction with European nations. Prof. Francis Bowen expresses his dissent from the conclusions of the majority of tho commit tee at much length; and, while he argues for the gold basis alone, he tinnily reports in favor of the remonetization of silver, on adding to the quantity of pure silver in a dollar enough to make its bullion value equal to the then value of gold per dollar, and also recommends the reduction of the value of our gold coins, so that a live dollar piece shall be the equivalent of the English pound sterling. He also recommends that tire paper money of the government should be gradually taken up by the treasury department and destroyed. In addition to the summary of the report, the first volume, as issued by the government, embraces papers prepared for the commission by Geo. M. Weston on "Asiatic trade and flow of silver to the East;" " Constitutional powers of Congress and the States with respect to metallic money ;" "Legislation on subsidiary silver coins;" and "The trade dollar." The appendix to the same volume contains a report on silver pro duction in the United Slates; the world's production of gold and silver; relative value of gold and silver; population and specie in the western world; demonetization of silver in Germany; payment of French indemnity of 1871; movement of specie to India; standard of the United States; coinage of the United States; money standard for Great Britain; monetary system of Austria-Hungary and China: also, papers furnished by all the foreign ministers of the United States. The second volume contains written and oral answers by men of eminence in monetary science, and by those of great e.xperience in business, both in the United States and Europe, in reply to a series of questions agreed upon by the commission. Among the citizens of this country from whom written answers were drawn were Henry C. Carey, John A. Dix, Henry S. Fitch, August Belmont, John J. Bennett, Barclay & Livingston, Royal Phelps, W. L. Fawcett, 0. 1). Ashley, R. M. Waters & Co., Samuel Hoard, W. G. Sumner, Wm. E. DuBois, Albert Miller, J. K. a Forrest, B. F. Nourse, F. P. Knight, Robert Patterson. Among foreigners who re sponded were G. B. Airy. Francis Jourdan, Hector M. Hay, Ernest Seyd, E. de Parieti, and Henri Cernuschi. The oral testimony was from a large number of distinguished Americans, and is very interesting.