CHAPTER XVIII.

THREE MONTHS IN EUROPE. Short Session of Congress Convened March 4, 1867--I Become Chairman of the Committee on Finance, Succeeding Senator Fessenden--Departure for Europe--Winning a Wager from a Sea Captain--Congressman Kasson's Pistol--Under Surveillance by English Officers--Impressions of John Bright, Disraeli and Other Prominent Englishmen--Visit to France, Belgium, Holland and Germany--An Audience with Bismarck--His Sympathy with the Union Cause--Wonders of the Paris Exposition--Life in Paris--Presented to the Emperor Napoleon III and the Empress Eugenie --A Dinner at the Tuileries--My Return Home--International Money Commission in Session at Paris--Correspondence with Commissioner Ruggles--His Report--Failure to Unify the Coinage of Nations-- Relative Value of Gold and Silver.

During the last session of the 39th Congress the relations between President Johnson and Congress became such that it was deemed advisable to provide by law for a session of the new Congress on the 4th of March, 1867, that being the commencement of the term for which the Members were elected.

The law, in my opinion, ought to be a permanent one, so that the will of the people, as evidenced by the elections, may be promptly responded to. But such was not the purpose of this act. The reason was that, under the claim of authority made by the President, there was a fear that he might recognize the states in insurrection before they had complied with the conditions prescribed by law for reconstruction.

In pursuance of this law the 40th Congress met on the day named.

I took the oath as Senator, my colleague, Benjamin F. Wade, president _pro tem._ of the Senate, administering it. I became chairman of the committee on finance by the voluntary retirement of Mr. Fessenden. I knew this had been his purpose during the session just closed. He complained of his health, and that the confinement and labor of the position he held added to his infirmity. At the same time it was agreed that the duties of the committee should be divided by referring all appropriations to a committee on appropriations, and I was to choose between the two committees. The House of Representatives had already divided the labors of the committee of ways and means, a corresponding committee to that on finance, among several committees, and the experiment had proved a success. I preferred the committee on finance, and remained its chairman until I became Secretary of the Treasury. Mr. Fessenden took the easy and pleasant position of chairman of the committee on public buildings and grounds, and held that position until he died in September, 1869. I have already expressed my opinion of his remarkable ability as a debater and as a statesman of broad and conservative views. His only fault was a hasty temper too often displayed, but as often regretted by him.

Congress adjourned on the 30th of March, to meet again on the 3rd of July. The Senate was called to a special session by proclamation of the President on the 1st day of April, 1867. It remained in session until the 20th of April and then adjourned _sine die_.

I did not remain until the close of the session, but about the 10th of April sailed from New York for Europe in the steamer "City of Antwerp." I went for needed rest, a change of air and scene, and had in view, as one of the attractions of the voyage, a visit to the exposition at Paris in that year. My associates on the ocean were Colonel Morrow, United States Army, and John A. Kasson, Member of Congress from Iowa, and we remained together until I left London.

I had no plan, route or business, except to go where I drifted with such companions as I met. The only limitation as to time was the duty of returning to meet the adjourned session of the Senate in July. I have no memoranda in respect to the voyage and preserved no letters about it. Still, the principal scenes and events are impressed on my mind and I will narrate them as I now recall them.

The passage on the ocean was a favorable one. We had some rain but no winds that disturbed my digestion. But few on the vessel were seasick, and these mainly so from imagination. The captain, whose name I do not recall, was a jolly Englishman, but a careful, prudent and intelligent officer. I sat by his side at his table. After leaving port we soon took our places at table for our first meal on board. He inquired of me if I was a good sailor. I told him I would be as regular in my attendance at meals as he. He laughed and said he would like to wager some wine on that. I cheerfully accepted his bet, and, true to my promise, I did not miss a meal during the voyage, while he three or four times remained at his post on deck when the air was filled with fog or the waves were high. He paid the bet near the end of the voyage, and a number of his passengers, including Morrow and Kasson, shared in the treat.

I can imagine no life more pleasing than a tranquil, but not too tranquil, sea, with a good ship well manned, with companions you like, but not too many. The quiet and rest, the view of the ocean, the sense of solitude, the possibility of danger, all these broken a little by a quiet game of whist or an interesting book--this I call happiness. All these I remember to have enjoyed on this, my fifth trip on the ocean.

In due time we arrived at Queenstown in Ireland. It was about the time a party of Irishmen, in some town in England rescued some of their countrymen from a van in charge of English constables, one or more of whom were killed or wounded. Morrow, Kasson and I concluded we would spend a few days in "Ould Ireland." Morrow and Kasson believed they were of Irish descent, though remotely so as their ancestors "fought in the Revolution." We remained in and about Cork for two or three days. We visited and kissed the Blarney Stone, saw the Lakes of Killarney, and drove or walked about the interesting environs of Cork and Queenstown. We sought no acquaintance with anyone.

We were all about the age of forty, physically sound, and both Morrow and Kasson had the military air and step of soldiers. We soon became conscious that we were under surveillance. One day an officer called at our lodgings and frankly told us that there was so much excitement about Fenian disturbances in England, and such political ferment in Ireland, that an examination of the baggage of passengers was required and he wished to examine ours. I told him who we were, and introduced him to Morrow and Kasson, and offered my trunk for inspection. They did the same, Kasson producing also a small pistol from his valise. The officer had heard of that pistol. Kasson had fired it at the birds hovering about the vessel. This had been reported to the police. The officer took the pistol and it was returned to Kasson some days after at Dublin. Morrow ridiculed the pistol and told the officer that Kasson could not hit or hurt him at ten paces away, but the officer was only half satisfied. We soon after went to Dublin, but we felt that we were under suspicion. All Americans were then suspected of sympathizing with the Irish. We told our consul at Dublin of our adventures at Cork, and he said we were lucky in not being arrested. We went to a steeple chase a few miles from Dublin, where gentlemen rode their own horses over a long and difficult route, leaping barriers and crossing streams. We enjoyed the scene very much and mingled freely in the great crowd, but always feeling that we were watched. The next day we started to cross the channel to Holyhead.

We took the steamer at Dublin Bay and found aboard a large company of well-dressed passengers, such as we would find on a summer excursion from New York. Morrow, who was a handsome man of pleasing manners and address, said he could pick out Americans from the crowd. I doubted it. He said: "There is an American," pointing out a large, well-built man, who seemed to be known by the passengers around him. I said he was an Englishman. Morrow stepped up to him and politely said that he had a wager with a friend that he was an American. "Not by a d----d sight," replied the Englishman. Morrow apologized for the intrusion, but the gentleman changed his tone and said that his abrupt answer was caused by a letter he had lately received from a nephew of his whom he had sent to America to make his fortune. His nephew had written him now that the rebels were put down, the next thing to do would be to put down "old England." Morrow said there was too much of that kind of gasconade in America, and that after our desperate struggle at home we would not be likely to engage in one with England.

We arrived safely in London. In my first visit in 1859, with my wife, we were sight-seers. Now I sought to form acquaintance with men whose names were household words in all parts of the United States. By the courtesy of our consul general at Liverpool, Thomas H. Dudley, I met John Bright, Disraeli, and many others less conspicuous in public life. I have already mentioned my breakfast with Gladstone during this visit. Mr. Dudley, then in London, invited Mr. Bright to a dinner as his principal guest. Of all the men I met in London, Mr. Bright impressed me most favorably. Finely formed physically, he was also mentally strong. He was frank and free in his talk and had none of the hesitation or reserve common with Englishmen. He was familiar with our war and had no timidity in the expression of his sympathy for the Union cause. If we ever erect a monument to an Englishman, it should be to John Bright. I heard Disraeli speak in the House of Commons and was introduced to him at a reception at Lord Stanley's. In the ten days I spent in London I saw as much of social life as could be crowded into that time. Charles Francis Adams was then United States minister at London, and I am indebted to him for many acts of kindness. When we were Members of the House of Representatives together he had the reputation of being cold and reserved and he was not popular with his fellow Members, but in London he was distinguished for his hospitality to Americans. He certainly was very kind to me, entertaining me at dinner and taking pains to introduce me to many peers and members whose names were familiar to me. While receptions are very common in London during the session, the Englishman prefers dinners as a mode of entertainment. It is then he really enjoys himself and gives pleasure to his guests. The sessions of parliament, however, interfere greatly with dinners. The great debates occur during dining hours, so that, as Mr. Adams informed me, it was difficult to arrange a dinner that would not be broken up somewhat by an unexpected debate, or a division in the House of Commons. The precedence of rank had to be carefully observed. The unsocial habit of not introducing guests to each other tended to restrain conversation and make the dinner dull and heavy. Still the forms and usages in social life in London are much like those in Washington. But here the ordinary sessions of each House of Congress terminate before six o'clock, leaving the evening hours for recreation.

The presidential mansion is the natural resort of all who visit Washington. The doors are always open to visitors at stated hours, and the President is easy of access to all who call at such hours. Formerly presidential receptions were open to all comers, and the result was a motley crowd, who formed in line and shook hands with the President, bowed to the attending ladies, passed into the great east room and gradually dispersed. In late years these receptions have become less frequent, and in their place we have had diplomatic, military and navy, and congressional receptions, for which invitations are issued. During the usual period before Lent card receptions are given by the cabinet, by many Senators and Members, and by citizens, for which invitations are issued. I know of no place where the entrance into society is so open and free as in Washington.

From London I went, by way of Dieppe and Rouen, to Paris, where my first call was on General Dix and his family. Next I visited the exposition, and wandered through and about and around it. I have attended many exhibitions, but never one before or since that combined such magnitude and completeness in size, form and location, and such simplicity in arrangement and details, as the Paris Exposition of 1867. I spent ten days in this inspection, and in walking and driving around Paris and its environs. Through the kindness of General Dix, then envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary, I received invitations to many meetings and receptions given by Mayor Haussman and other officers of the French government to visitors from abroad connected with the exposition. I accepted some of them, but purposely postponed this social part of my visit until I returned from Berlin.

From Paris I went to Antwerp via Brussels. At this latter place I met Doctor John Wilson, then United States consul at Antwerp. He was an old friend at Washington, where he served during the greater part of the war as an army surgeon. He was a man of remarkable intelligence, familiar with nearly every part of Europe, and especially with France, Belgium and Prussia. He readily acquiesced in my invitation to accompany me to Berlin. On the invitation of Henry S. Sanford, our minister to Brussels, I returned to that city, and met at dinner the principal officers of Belgium, such as we designate cabinet ministers. I drove with Mr. Sanford to Waterloo and other famous historic places in and about that beautiful city.

From Brussels we went to the Hague, where General Hugh Ewing, a brother-in-law of General Sherman, was United States minister. After a brief stay in Holland, General Ewing, Doctor Wilson and myself went to Berlin. Prussia was then a kingdom of rising power, and Berlin was a growing city, but not at all the Berlin of to-day. Bismarck was recognized as a great statesman and, although far less prominent than he afterwards became, he was the one man in Germany whom I desired to see or know. Mr. Joseph A. Wright, late United States minister at Berlin, had recently died, and his son, John C. Wright, who was in charge of the legation, had no difficulty in securing me an audience with Bismarck, accompanying me to the official residence, where I was introduced to him. Bismarck spoke English with a German accent, but was easily understood. When I spoke of recent events in Europe he would turn the conversation to the United States, asking me many questions about the war and the principal generals in the opposing armies. He was in thorough sympathy with the Union cause, and emphatically said that every man in Prussia, from the king to his humblest subject, was on the side of the Union, and opposed to the Rebellion. What a pity, he said, it would have been if so great a country as the United States had been disrupted on account of slavery. I mentioned my visit to the international fair at Paris and my intention to return, and he said he would be there.

This interview, which lasted, perhaps, forty minutes, was as informal and frank as the usual conversation of friends. Bismarck was then in full health and strength, about fifty years old, more than six feet high, and a fine specimen of vigorous manhood in its prime.

I found the same feeling for the United States expressed by a popular meeting in the great exposition hall in Berlin. Our little party was escorted to this place on Sunday afternoon by Mr. Kreismann, our consul at Berlin. As we entered the hall, Mr. Kreismann advanced to the orchestra, composed of several military bands, and said something to the leader. When we took our seats at one of the numerous tables he told me to pay attention after the first item of the second part of the programme before me, and I would hear something that would please me. At the time stated, a young man advanced to the front of the stage, with a violin in his hand, and played exquisitely the air "_Yankee Doodle Is the Tune_," and soon after the entire band joined in, filling the great hall with American music. The intelligent German audience, many of whom knew the national airs of all countries, realized at once that this addition to the programme was a compliment to the Americans. They soon located our little party and then rose, and fully two thousand persons, men, women and children, waved their handkerchiefs and shouted for America.

The feeling in favor of the United States was then strong in all parts of Europe, except in France and England. In these countries it was somewhat divided--in France by the failure of Maximilian, and in England by the rivalry of trade, and sympathy with the south. Generally, in referring in Europe to the people of the United States, the people speak of us as Americans, while those of other parts of America are Canadians, Mexicans, etc.

After a pleasant week in Berlin I went by way of Frankfort, Wiesbaden and Cologne to Paris. The exposition was then in full operation. It may be that greater numbers attended the recent exposition at Chicago, but, great as was its success, I think, for symmetry, for plans of buildings, and arrangement of exhibits, the fair at Paris was better than that at Chicago. The French people are well adapted for such exhibits. The city of Paris is itself a good show. Its people almost live out of doors six months of the year. They are quick, mercurial, tasteful and economical. A Frenchman will live well on one-half of what is consumed or wasted by an American. I do not propose to describe the wonderful collection of the productions of nature or the works of men, but I wish to convey some idea of life in Paris during the thirty days I spent in it.

Louis Napoleon Bonaparte was then Emperor of the French, and Haussman was mayor of the city of Paris. General Dix, as before stated, was United States minister plenipotentiary and envoy extraordinary at the court of France. Upon my arrival, I hired what in Paris is called an apartment, but which includes several rooms, comprising together a comfortable residence. Many similar apartments may be in the same building, but with them you need have no communication, and you are detached from them as fully as if each apartment was a separate house. The concierge, generally a woman, takes charge of your room, orders your breakfast if you require one, and keeps the key of your apartment when you are absent. It is a charming mode of living. You can dine or lunch when you will, and are master of your time and your apartment. I employed a neat, light carriage and one horse, with a driver who knew a smattering of several languages, and found him trusty and faithful--all this at a cost that would disgust the ordinary hotel proprietor in the United States, and especially the hack driver of any of our cities. This, in Paris, was the usual outfit of a gentleman.

General Dix advised me on whom and when and how I should make my calls. My card in the usual form announced that I was "Sénateur des États Unis d'Amérique." A Parisian could not pronounce my name. The best he could do was to call me "Monsieur le Sénateur." With a few words of French I acquired, and the imperfect knowledge of English possessed by most French people, I had no difficulty in making my way in any company. I received many invitations I could not accept. I attended a reception at the Palais Royal, the residence of the mayor, dressed in the ordinary garb for evening parties, a dress coat and trousers extending to the knees, and below black silk stockings and pumps. I felt very uncomfortable in this dress when I entered the reception room, but, as I found every gentleman in the same dress, we become reconciled to it. Subsequently I attended a reception at the Tuileries, at which I was presented by General Dix to the emperor and empress.

One feature of this presentation I shall always remember. The general company had been gathered in the great hall. The diplomatic representatives of many countries were formed in line according to their rank, attended by the persons to be presented. Soon a door was opened from an adjoining room and the Emperor of the French, escorting, I think, the Empress of Russia, passed along the line and saluted the ambassadors and ministers in their order, and the ladies and gentlemen to be presented were introduced by name to the emperor. General Dix presented Fernando Wood, of New York, and myself. Following the French emperor came the Emperor of Russia escorting the Empress Eugenie of France, and the same mention of our names was made to her. Following them came kings, the Prince of Wales and others of like rank, each accompanied by distinguished peers of his country. Third or fourth in this order came the King of Prussia, Prince Bismarck, and General Von Moltke. When Bismarck passed he shook hands with Dix and recognized me with a bow and a few words. If the leaders in this pageant could have foreseen what happened three years later--that King William would be an emperor, that Bonaparte would be his prisoner and Eugenie a refugee from republican France--the order of the march would have been reversed.

Soon after this reception, I was invited by the emperor to attend, with General Dix and his daughter, a dinner at the Tuileries. Such an invitation is held to be in the nature of a command. I accompanied them, and was agreeably surprised to find that the dinner was quite informal, though more than forty sat at table. When I entered the room one of the ladies in waiting came to me and introduced me to a lady whom I was to escort to the table. Presently she returned and said: "Oh, I understand monsieur does not speak French, and marquise does not speak English. Will monsieur allow me to be a substitute?" I agreed with great pleasure. Both the guests and the hosts were promptly on time. I was introduced to the emperor and empress. She was very gracious to her guests, passing from one to another with a kindly word to all. I noticed her greeting to Miss Dix was very cordial. The emperor engaged in a conversation with me that continued until the dinner was announced,--fully ten minutes. He asked many questions about the war, and especially about General Sherman. I answered his questions as I would to any gentleman, but felt uneasy lest I was occupying time that he should bestow on others. General Dix was by my side, and encouraged the conversation. When the dinner was announced each guest knew his place from the card furnished him, and the party was seated without confusion.

I need not say that the young lady I escorted was a charming woman. I did not learn whether she was married or not, but have always regarded her action in relieving me from a silent dinner as the highest mark of politeness. She was bright and attractive, and I certainly did and said all I could to amuse her, so what I expected to be a dull dinner turned out to be a very joyful one.

It is impossible for an American to visit Paris without enjoyment and instruction. The people of Paris are always polite, especially to Americans. The debt of gratitude for the assistance of France in our War of the Revolution is never forgotten by a true American, and Frenchmen are always proud of their share in establishing the independence of America. The two Bonapartes alone did not share in this feeling. The Americans are liberal visitors in Paris. They spend their money freely, join heartily in festivities, and sympathize in the success and prosperity of the French republic. If I was not an American I certainly would be a Frenchman. I have visited Paris three times, remaining in it more than a month at each visit, and always have been received with civility and kindness. Though it is a great manufacturing city, chiefly in articles of luxury requiring the highest skill, yet it is also a most beautiful city in its location, its buildings, public and private, its museums and opera houses, its parks and squares, its wide streets and avenues, and especially the intelligence of its people. Science and art have here reached their highest development. We may copy all these, but it will require a century to develop like progress in America.

I returned to England for a few days and then took the steamer "City of Paris" for New York, where I arrived on the 13th of July. I took the cars for Washington and arrived ten days after the session had commenced.

While I was in Paris a special international commission, composed of delegates from seventeen nations, was sitting to consider, and, if possible, agree on a common unit of money for the use of the civilized world. Mr. Samuel B. Ruggles, a gentleman of the highest standing and character, was the representative of the United States on this commission. It should be remembered that at this time the only currency in circulation in the United States was the legal tender notes of the United States and the notes of national banks. Neither gold nor silver coin was in circulation, both being at a premium in currency. At this time silver bullion was at a premium over gold bullion, the legal ratio being sixteen to one. In other words, sixteen ounces of silver were worth, in the open market, three to five cents more than one ounce of gold. All parties in the United States were then looking forward to the time when United States notes would advance in value to par with gold, the cheaper metal.

The question before the commission was how to secure a common coin that would be the measure of value between all nations, and thus avoid the loss by exchange of the coins of one nation for those of another. Mr. Ruggles knew that I had studied this question, and therefore wrote this letter:

"Paris, May 17, 1867. "My Dear Sir:--You are, of course, aware that there is a special committee now in session, organized by the Imperial Commission of France, in connection with the 'Paris Exposition,' composed of delegates from many of the nations therein represented. Its object, among others, is to agree, if possible, on a common unit of money, for the use of the civilized world.

"I perceive that the opinions of the committee are running strongly in favor of adopting, as the unit, the existing French five-franc piece of gold.

"May I ask what, in your opinion, is the probability that the Congress of the United States, at an early period, would agree to reduce the weight and value of our gold dollar, to correspond with the present weight and value of the gold five-franc piece of France; and how far back such a change would commend itself to your own judgment?

"I would also ask the privilege of submitting your answer to the consideration of the committee.

"With high respect, faithfully your friend, "Samuel B. Ruggles, "U. S. Commissioner to the Paris Exposition and Member of the Committee. "Hon. John Sherman, "Chairman of the Finance Committee of the Senate of the United States, etc., etc., etc., now in Paris."

To this letter I made the following reply:

"Hotel Jardin des Tuileries, May 18, 1867. "My Dear Sir:--Your note of yesterday, inquiring whether Congress would probably, in future coinage, make our gold dollar conform in value to the gold five-franc piece, has been received.

"There has been so little discussion in Congress upon the subject that I cannot base my opinion upon anything said or done there.

"The subject has, however, excited the attention of several important commercial bodies in the United States, and the time is now so favorable that I feel quite sure that Congress will adopt any practical measure that will secure to the commercial world a uniform standard of value and exchange.

"The only question will be, how can this be accomplished?

"The treaty of December 23, 1865, between France, Italy, Belgium, and Switzerland, and the probable acquiescence in that treaty by Prussia, has laid the foundation for such a standard. If Great Britain will reduce the value of her sovereign two pence, and the United States will reduce the value of her dollar something over three cents, we then have a coinage in the franc, dollar and sovereign easily computed, and which will readily pass in all countries; the dollar as five francs and the sovereign as 25 francs.

"This will put an end to the loss and intricacies of exchange and discount.

"Our gold dollar is certainly as good a unit of value as the franc; and so the English think of their pound sterling. These coins are now exchangeable only at a considerable loss, and this exchange is a profit only to brokers and bankers. Surely each commercial nation should be willing to yield a little to secure a gold coin of equal value, weight, and diameter, from whatever mint it may have been issued.

"As the gold five-franc piece is now in use by over 60,000,000 of people of several different nationalities, and is of convenient form and size, it may well be adopted by other nations as the common standard of value, leaving to each nation to regulate the divisions of this unit in silver coin or tokens.

"If this is done France will surely abandon the impossible effort of making two standards of value. Gold coins will answer all the purpose of European commerce. A common gold standard will regulate silver coinage, of which the United States will furnish the greater part, especially for the Chinese trade.

"I have thought a good deal of how the object you propose may be most readily accomplished. It is clear that the United States cannot become a party to the treaty referred to. They could not agree upon the silver standard; nor could we limit the amount of our coinage, as proposed by the treaty. The United States is so large in extent, is so sparsely populated, and the price of labor is so much higher than in Europe, that we require more currency per capita. We now produce the larger part of the gold and silver of the world, and cannot limit our coinage except by the wants of our people and the demands of commerce.

"Congress alone can change the value of our coin. I see no object in negotiating with other powers on the subject. As coin is not now in general circulation with us, we can readily fix by law the size, weight, and measure of future issues. It is not worth while to negotiate about that which we can do without negotiation, and we do not wish to limit ourselves by treaty restrictions.

"In England many persons of influence and different chambers of commerce are earnestly in favor of the proposed change in their coinage. The change is so slight with them that an enlightened self-interest will soon induce them to make it, especially if we make the greater change in our coinage. We have some difficulty in adjusting existing contracts with the new dollar; but as contracts are now based upon the fluctuating value of paper money, even the reduced dollar in coin will be of more purchasable value than our currency.

"We can easily adjust the reduction with public creditors in the payment or conversion of their securities, while private creditors might be authorized to recover upon the old standard. All these are matters of detail to which I hope the commission will direct their attention.

"And now, my dear sir, allow me to say in conclusion that I heartily sympathize with you and the others in your efforts to secure the adoption of the metrical system of weights and measures.

"The tendency of the age is to break down all needless restrictions upon social and commercial intercourse. Nations are now as much akin to each other as provinces were of old. Prejudices disappear by contact. People of different nations learn to respect each other as they find that their differences are the effect of social and local custom, not founded upon good reasons. I trust that the industrial commission will enable the world to compute the value of all productions by the same standard, to measure by the same yard or meter, and weigh by the same scales.

"Such a result would be of greater value than the usual employments of diplomatists and statesmen.

"I am very truly yours, "John Sherman."

As the result of its investigation the commission agreed, with entire unanimity, that the gold five-franc piece should be adopted as the unit of value, and that the coins of all nations represented should be based upon that unit or multiples thereof. This would require a slight change in the quantity of gold in the dollar of the United States, amounting to a reduction of about three cents, a reduction in the pound sterling of England of about one penny, and a slight reduction or increase in the gold coins of other countries.

Mr. Ruggles reported the proceedings and recommendation of the commission to the President, and his report was referred to Congress.

A private letter to me from Mr. Ruggles, dated December 30, 1867, shows the nature of the opposition to the measure proposed, being entirely from British opposition to a change in the pound sterling. He wrote:

"New York, December 30, 1867. "My Dear Mr. Sherman:--You may have perceived, within the last week, articles in the 'New York Evening Post,' the 'New York Times' and the 'World,' on the subject of the proposed monetary unification; the first denying its _propriety_, the second its _practicability_, and the third underrating its _importance_.

"The articles are hastily and ignorantly and, in some respects, bitterly written. My first impulse was to briefly answer each of them in its respective newspaper. On further reflection, it seemed more decorous that, as a member of the 'conference,' I should first appear before the Senate committee now in possession of all the papers, and there render any proper explanations, and not obtrude myself as a combatant in the newspapers, prematurely and only partially defending my official action. If, however, you should think that the articles should be answered without delay, I could readily cause it to be done, by other persons.

"I cannot but think that the dignity of the subject, formally presented as it now is, to our national authorities, by a diplomatic assemblage representing nearly all the civilized nations of the Christian world, entitles it to a full discussion before the Senate committee, to be followed by a maturely considered report, fairly weighing and presenting to the country all the merits and demerits, facilities and difficulties of the measure.

"I am just at the moment confined to my house by an 'influenza,' but if I can be of any service, either before the committee or elsewhere, I shall hold myself subject to your official call, for any duty, after the 7th or 8th of January, which you may indicate.

"You must have perceived that my report to the department of state, having in view the possibility of European readers, abstained from some considerations which might properly be brought to the notice of the committee of the American Senate.

"It is strange, indeed, to see American newspapers eagerly maintaining the inviolability of the 'pound sterling,' when it has become entirely evident that the great monetary struggle of the future must lie between the British pound and the American dollar. In truth, this was virtually admitted in the 'conference' by Mr. Graham, one of the British delegates, and master of the royal mint.

"With high regard, faithfully yours, "Samuel B. Ruggles. "Hon. John Sherman, "Chairman Senate Finance Comittee, etc., etc., etc."

We were called upon to legislate upon the subject. The French government promptly acquiesced in the coin proposed. Mr. Ruggles' report said that several governments had already assented to it. The report was referred to the committee on finance of the Senate, who submitted a favorable report with a bill to carry out the recommendations, and that report was published. There was no dissent from the plan except that Senator Morgan, of New York, thought it would interfere with the profit of New York brokers in changing dollars into pounds. As a matter of course, it would have interfered with the exchanges of New York and London, the great money centers of the world. It would have interfered with bullion dealers who make profit in exchanging coins; but the whole of it was for the benefit of each country.

No man can estimate the benefit it would have conferred upon our own people. It was only defeated by the refusal of Great Britain to assent to the change of her pound sterling by the reduction of its value about one penny. But pride in the existing coins, so strong in that country, defeated the measure, although it had been assented to by her representatives in that monetary congress; and so the thing ended.

It is easy now to perceive that if this international coin had been agreed to it would have passed current everywhere, as it could rapidly be exchanged at sight without going through the hands of brokers. I do not believe that Mr. Morgan would have insisted on his opposition, as the only ground of his objection was, it would have destroyed the business of the money changers of New York. Even his resistance would have been ineffectual, as the committee and the Senate were decidedly in favor of the bill and the opposition of New York brokers would have added strength to the measure.

The greatest statesmen of Europe and America have sought for many years to unify the coinage of nations, and to adopt common standards of weights and measures, so that commerce may be freed from the restrictions now imposed upon it, but Great Britain has steadily opposed all these enlightened measures, and thus far has been able to defeat them.

My report from the committee on finance, made to the Senate June 7, 1868, contains a full statement of the acts of the monetary conference at Paris, and of the approval of its action by many of the countries there represented, and of the support given to the plan in Great Britain by many of her ablest statesmen and the great body of her commercial classes, but the party then in power in parliament refused its sanction, and thus, as already stated, the measure failed.

It has been quite common, during recent discussion about silver, to attribute the alleged demonetization of that metal to the action of the Paris monetary conference. In 1867, when this conference was in session, as already stated, sixteen ounces of silver were worth more than one ounce of gold. Fifteen and one-half ounces of silver were the legal equivalent of one ounce of gold in all European countries. No suggestion was made or entertained to disturb the circulation of silver. The only object sought was to secure some common coin by which other coins could be easily measured. As gold was the most valuable metal in smallest space, and the five-franc gold piece of France was the best _unit_ by which other coins could be measured, other gold coins were to be multiples of the unit, so that five francs would be a dollar and five dollars would be a pound. The coins of other nations would be made to conform to multiples of this unit.

It was perfectly understood that, while silver was the chief coin in domestic exchanges in every country, it was not convenient for foreign commerce, owing to its bulk. The ratio between gold and silver was purely a domestic matter, to be determined by each country for itself. It is apparent that the chief cause of the fall of the market value of silver is its increased production. This affects the price of every commodity, cotton, corn, or wheat as well as silver. The law of supply and demand regulates value. It is the "higher law" more potent than acts of Congress. If the supply is in excess of demand the price will fall, in spite of legislation. The most striking evidence of this was furnished by our recent legislation by which we purchased over 400,000,000 ounces of silver at its market value and hoarded it, and yet the price of it steadily declined. We can coin it into silver dollars, but we can keep these dollars at par with gold only be receiving them as the equal of gold when offered.