B. HISTORY OF THE GOLD COINAGE OF THE UNITED STATES.

From the Philadelphia Examiner, Vol. 2, of October 15, 1834.

THE GOLD COINAGE.—The party aspect which has been attempted to be given to the bill passed by Congress in the month of June last, altering the relative value of gold and silver, has rendered the present moment rather unpropitious for an investigation into its real merits. Like the American system, it is looked upon as a measure by which one’s devotion to a particular man is to be tested; and the same repugnancy to listen to arguments against the tariff, which, a few years ago, was exhibited by the friends of Mr. Clay, is now displayed as regards listening to arguments against the gold bill, by the friends of General Jackson. It is true, that all who approved the gold bill were not friends of General Jackson, and that all who opposed it were not his foes, but as the vote in congress was made, in a great degree, a party vote, the party which so turned it to account are using every effort to reap the fruits of their policy. Truth, however, has a power which no party management can permanently counteract, and the time will come when those who now think that an act of congress has showered gold upon the country, will lament the blindness which prevented them from foreseeing its baneful effects.

Our present design is to make a few remarks on the subject of the coinage, and as we have no party ends to answer, nor no private interest to consult, we shall examine the subject purely as a question of science, with the design of giving to those who desire thoroughly to understand the true state of the case, the elements of an investigation.

Gold and silver, like all other commodities, have an exchangeable value. This exchangeable value, too, like that of all other commodities, is regulated by the cost of production, and by the proportion which the supply bears to the demand, and hence these metals differ in nothing from other commodities in this particular.

If gold and silver could be dug out of the mines, be separated from the ore, be smelted and refined at one half the actual cost, or, if they were as abundant as iron and lead, it is manifest that their exchangeable value would be greatly diminished; that is, they would exchange for a much less quantity of other commodities, than they can now be exchanged for. Each one of these metals, however, is subject to its own particular laws, and each one stands in relation to all other commodities, in regard to exchangeable value, precisely as any other commodity stands in reference to all the rest.

Between gold and silver, therefore, there is not any fixed proportion as to value, established by nature, any more than there is a fixed proportion established by nature, between lead and iron, or between wheat and tobacco. Nature does not say, that one ounce of gold shall always be worth so many ounces of silver, any more than she says, that a certain number of pounds of iron shall always be worth so many pounds of lead, or, that a bushel of wheat shall always be worth a fixed quantity of tobacco. The truth of this proposition must be self-evident to every intelligent mind, and we shall not, therefore, enlarge upon it.

Taking it, therefore, for granted, that the reader admits these premises, the next position to be laid down is, that it is not in the power of human legislation to establish any fixed, unalterable proportions between the value of any two commodities in existence. It is not in the power of human laws to establish that one ounce of gold shall permanently be worth a certain number of ounces of silver, any more than they can fix the proportions at which iron and lead, or wheat and tobacco, shall be permanently exchangable for one another. Laws may indeed undertake to prescribe what they shall be, but such laws are founded in absurdity, and had their origin in days of ignorance, when the lights of political science had scarcely begun to shine.

It is true, however, that the relative value of gold and silver in the market of the trading world, is not so liable to fluctuation within short periods, as that of most, or all other commodities. It sometimes remains for years without alteration, but this is no evidence that there are not alterations, and the mere fact of a change within the last twenty years of six per cent., affords an unanswerable argument against the expediency of legal adjustment. For how do we know that in the next twenty years the proportions may not fall back to the old ratio, or advance six per cent. still further? It is also true, that the regulations of governments have an influence upon the relative market value of the two metals. They may drive either metal out of circulation, by rating it too low in reference to the mint price of the other, and thus diminish the demand for it in their respective countries, which effect cannot take place without disturbing the market proportions in all other countries. But this is rather a reason why governments should not interfere, than that they should interfere, inasmuch as greater fluctuations might take place, than would take place from the operation of natural causes alone. Thus, suppose that all the governments of Europe should be seized with the silver mania, as ours has been with the gold mania, and establish their mint proportions at such a ratio as would drive gold out of circulation, and substitute silver in its place, is it not evident that such a measure would enhance the value of silver in Europe as exchangeable for gold, and thus materially influence their relative value? The precise effect of the various mint regulations of the different countries in the world, upon the relative value of gold and silver in the general market, could not be easily ascertained, nor is it essential to our inquiry that it should be.

In the year 1792, when the mint of the United States was about being established, and when bank notes were little known, and intercourse between distant points of the country not easily carried on, it was natural that the people, who before the revolution, had been acquainted with guineas, and had still strongly impressed on their memories the fatal influence of the continental paper money, should desire again to see gold coins in circulation, if for no other purpose than the convenience of transmission. The expediency of adopting one only of the precious metals as the standard of the money of the country, leaving the other to find its relative value by the laws of competition, was not at that time decided, nor, indeed, is it probable that the importance and sound policy of adopting such a measure, was at that day apparent to many. It was accordingly resolved, that gold as well as silver coins should be struck at the mint; and in fixing the relative value of the two metals, one to fifteen was considered to be the ratio which would establish an equivalent currency, and it was accordingly provided, in the act of 2d of April, of that year, that in the coins of the United States, one ounce of pure or fine gold, should be the equivalent of fifteen ounces of pure or fine silver.*

It so happened, that for some years after the passage of this law, the market proportions abroad, as well as at home, continued to correspond with the mint proportions, so that the two metals were both retained in circulation at the legal ratio. Neither one was worth for exportation more than the other, and hence an eagle and ten dollars were convertible terms, and at the banks either could be obtained in exchange for notes, at the option of the holder.

It was in the early part of the year 1818, when the subject of the resumption of cash payments by the Bank of England (which had been suspended since 1797) occupied the attention of the British public, and prepared the way for the act of Parliament to that effect, which was adopted in 1819, that a change in the relative value of gold and silver in the market of the trading world, first became generally apparent in the United States. One ounce of gold, from the operation of that or other causes which disturbed the then existing proportions between supply and demand, became worth more than fifteen ounces of silver. In cases, therefore, where remittances of coin were made from the United States to England, gold was preferred to silver, for the simple reason that a gold eagle, which could be obtained here for ten silver dollars, could, in London be converted into more pounds, shillings and pence, than ten silver dollars.

This fact of the exportation of the gold coins did not pass unobserved, however, by those who had made the subject of coinage and currency a study. The matter was introduced to the notice of congress by Mr. Lowndes, at so early a period as the 27th of November, 1818, when a resolution submitted by him was adopted by the house of representatives, in the following words:

“Resolved, That a committee be appointed to inquire whether it be expedient to make any amendments in the laws which regulate the coins of the United States and foreign coins.”

On the 26th of January, 1819, Mr. Lowndes, as chairman of the committee appointed under this resolution, made a detailed report, favorable to a change in the mint proportion. This report was accompanied by a bill, providing as follows.

1. That there should be retained by the mint as seignorage, from every 371 grains and 25-100 of a grain of fine silver, (the weight of the dollar established by the act of 2d April, 1792,) the quantity of 14 grains and 85-100 of a grain, so as to reduce the weight of the dollar to 356 grains 40-100 of a grain of fine silver, and to 399 36-100 grains standard silver. Small coins to be in the same proportion.

2. That the Eagle should be reduced from 247½ grains of fine gold, or 270 grains standard gold (the weight established by the act of 2d April, 1792), to 237 98-100 grains fine, and 259 61-100 grains standard gold, and small coins in proportion. No deduction to be made of the quantity delivered at the mint for seignorage as in the case of silver, but the expense of refining all gold and silver below the mint standard to be paid by the owner.

Prior to this report, a communication was made, on the 6th of January, in pursuance of a call from the senate, by Mr. Crawford, secretary of the treasury, accompanied by a letter from Robert Patterson, Esq., director of the mint, dated 28th December 1818, in which that gentleman, adverting to the exportation of the gold coins, recommended a change in the relative value of ten per cent, which, had it been adopted, would have expelled every silver dollar and half dollar from the country, in the course of a single year.

Neither of these suggestions was acted upon, nor was the subject resumed at the next session of congress. On the 2d of February, 1821, however, a second report was presented to the house of representatives, by Mr. Whitman, on the part of a committee to which had been referred a resolution directing an inquiry. This report was also accompanied by a bill, simply providing for the reduction of the eagle and its fractions to the weight prescribed by the bill of Mr. Lowndes, leaving the silver coins untouched. This reduction was equal to an increase in the value of gold of 4 per cent. which was at that time considered to be equal to the change in the relative value between that metal and silver, which had occasioned the exportation of the eagles. This is proved by the report, which advances as an argument in favor of the change, that three half eagles, worth in the United States, $15, were worth in Spain or Portugal, $16, in France, $15½, and in England $15 1-5. This bill like its predecessor, remained without being acted on, and the exportation of gold coins continued until early in the year 1822, when not one was to be seen in circulation, although six millions of dollars had been coined at the mint, of which $1,319,030 were struck in 1820, and $185,325 in 1821. Had the measure then recommended been adopted, the bill would have proved inoperative, for at a subsequent period, a greater change than four per cent. in the relative value of gold and silver took place, which has ever since continued to exist, and which would have carried off the new coins.

The death, in the year 1822, of Mr. Lowndes, who was one of the few individuals in congress who had turned his attention to the subject of the coinage, and the reluctance of that body to intermeddle with a subject of so delicate a nature, jointly combined to postpone for a time all legislative action on the subject. The facilities of remittance afforded by bank notes and bills of exchange, and by improvements in rail-roads and steamboats, obviated entirely the necessity of a gold currency, and as the natural course of things, without any breach of public faith or violation of private contracts, had placed the country in the desirable situation of having but one legal tender, we should possibly have for many years remained in that situation, had it not been for a fresh occurrence, by which fancied private interest was brought to bear upon congress. That occurrence was the discovery of gold in North Carolina, and other southern states, respecting which, the following short notice, derived from the annual report of the director of the mint, of January 1, 1831, may be interesting.

“In the last annual report, the progressive development of the gold region of the United States was illustrated by referring to the increase of the annual receipts from North Carolina, which previous to 1824 had been inconsiderable, but from that year to 1829, inclusive, had advanced from $5000 to $128,000: and also to the then novel occurrence of gold having been received at the mint from Virginia and South Carolina, about $2500 having been received from the former, and $3500 from the latter. The past year exhibits in relation to all those states, a conspicuous increase in the production of gold, and presents, also, the remarkable fact of $212,000 in gold received from Georgia, from which state no specimen thereof had been presented at the mint in any previous year.”

In the report of January, 1834, the director gives the following statement of the amount of gold received at the mint from the southern states, in the years mentioned, stating at the same time, that he has reason to believe that in the two last years not more than half the gold produced in the country had been received at the mint, the residue having been consumed in manufactures, or exported in bullion.

1824,	-	-	-	-	-	5,000
1825,	-	-	-	-	-	17,000
1826,	-	-	-	-	-	20,000
1827,	-	-	-	-	-	21,000
1828,	-	-	-	-	-	46,000
1829,	-	-	-	-	-	140,000
1830,	-	-	-	-	-	466,000
1831,	-	-	-	-	-	520,000
1832,	-	-	-	-	-	678,000
1833,	-	-	-	-	-	868,000
						$2,781,000

This gradually increasing production of gold at the south, engendered precisely the same spirit as the increased production of iron had done at the north. The owners of the gold mines cried out for legislative protection, as the owners of the iron mines had previously done, and laws were solicited to enable the former to get more for their gold, or rather for the rent of their land, than they could otherwise have obtained, just as laws were solicited to enable the latter to get more for their iron, or for the rent of their land, than they could otherwise have obtained. This influence annually increasing in strength, constituted a powerful element towards a revival of the scheme of changing the relative value of gold and silver, the history of which is as follows:

On the 29th of December, 1828, Mr. Sanford of New York introduced in the senate of the United States, a resolution which was adopted in the following words, viz:

“Resolved, That the secretary of the treasury ascertain, with as much accuracy as possible, the proportional value of gold and silver in relation to each other; that he state such alterations in the gold coins of the United States as may be necessary to conform those coins to the silver coins in true legitimate value, and that he report at their next session.”

On the 9th of December, 1829, the same gentleman offered another resolution, which was agreed to, in the following words:

“Resolved, That a select committee be appointed to consider the state of the current coins, and to report such amendments of the existing laws concerning coins as may be deemed expedient.”

In compliance with this resolution, Mr. Sanford, on the 11th of January, 1830, made an able report, containing a fund of interesting and useful scientific matter in reference to gold, silver, and copper coins, leaving the question of a change in the relative value of gold and silver, unnoticed, with the view, no doubt, of waiting for the communication of the secretary of the treasury, called for on that subject.

That communication was made by Mr. Ingham on the 4th of May, 1830, under the title of a “report from the secretary of the treasury, respecting the relative value of gold and silver, &c.”—It was drawn up with great ability, and was the result of much scientific and historical research, eventuating in a conviction on the mind of the secretary, that it was not clearly advisable to act on the subject, but recommending, for reasons given at length, that if congress should otherwise decide, the ratio of 1 to 15.625 would be as near as could be ascertained, the proportions between the two metals which would make them circulate interchangeably.

On the 9th of December, 1830, Mr. Sanford renewed his resolution of the preceding session, which was adopted as follows:

“Resolved, That a select committee be appointed to consider the state of the current coins, and to report such amendments to the existing laws concerning coins, as may be deemed expedient.”

In conformity with this resolution, Mr. Sanford, as chairman, of the committee, reported, on the 15th of the same month, a bill entitled “An act concerning the gold coins of the United States.” This bill reduced the weight of the eagle (and of halves and quarters proportionally) from 270 grains standard gold, to 254 grains and 38-53 parts of a grain, being an augmentation of the value of gold, as compared with silver, of near 6 per cent. This bill passed the senate on the 14th of January, 1831, but was not acted upon by the house of representatives. We are not aware that any change was made in its provisions, or that any opposition was made to its passage, in the senate.

During the same session of congress, viz: on the 23d of December, 1830, Mr. Campbell White, of New York, introduced into the house of representatives, a resolution which was adopted as follows:

“Resolved, That a select committee be appointed to inquire into the expediency of providing by law, that dollars, of the new American Governments, and five franc pieces, shall be a legal tender in the payment of all debts and demands; and also, whether any additional regulations are necessary, relative to the re-coinage of foreign silver coin at the mint; and that said committee have leave to report by bill or otherwise.”

In March, 1831, Mr. White made a report in pursuance of the foregoing resolution, in which the expediency of having only one standard, and that silver, was urged, and the proportion of 1 to 15.625 between gold and and silver recommended, in case congress should resolve upon a change in the relative value.

On the 15th of December, 1832, Mr. White renewed his motion for the appointment of a committee on coins, which was adopted.

On the 7th of May, 1832, Mr. Wilde, of Georgia, offered a resolution instructing the committee on coins to make some further inquiries; which was adopted, with the following amendment, proposed by Mr. Verplanck;

“And also to inquire into the expediency of making silver the only legal tender, and of coining and issuing gold coins, of a fixed weight and fineness, which shall be received in payment of all debts to the United States, at such rates as may be fixed from time to time, but shall not be otherwise a legal tender.”

The session, however, having terminated without any act on the subject, Mr. Root, of New York, submitted some resolutions on the 14th December, 1832, which were adopted, calling upon the director of the mint for information concerning the relative value of gold and silver, which was furnished in a report from that officer on the 14th of January following. Nothing however, was done, until the 28th of June, 1834, when the bill in question became a law.

It thus appears that the matter had been kept in the view of congress for fifteen years, without eventuating in any legislation, and the question naturally presents itself, what could have been the reason why a matter now considered to be so important to the country, should have been so long neglected? To this question, we can give a ready reply. The matter had not been made a party question, and being regarded as one of those measures which involved the good faith of the government, and the stability of property, all parties were disposed to approach it with great caution, as it behooved them to do.

The arguments employed before the passage of the bill against interfering with the subject, may be simply summed up as follows:

1. That it is a dangerous policy for governments to tamper with their coinage, as is proved from the fact that the British pound sterling, which will now purchase only about four ounces of silver, was originally a pound of standard silver, and that the French livre, which is now worth only 19 cents, was, as its name imports, originally a pound of silver; and that it was to be feared, that, if congress did to day diminish the weight of the gold eagle, it might to-morrow diminish the weight of the silver dollar, and thus cheat all public and private creditors out of a part of their property.

2. That no law could prevent the fluctuations in relative value to which gold and silver are liable, in common with all other commodities, and that a law made to-day might prove inoperative to-morrow, or what would be worse, might require to be changed so frequently, as to leave the coinage of the country in a disturbed or unsettled state, highly prejudicial to that confidence between man and man, which ought to exist in reference to contracts for future payments.

3. That it is an absurdity to have more legal tenders than one, from the impossibility of establishing an immutable equivalency between two; and that as silver was better known to our citizens than gold, especially to the great body of the laboring people, was more convenient for small payments, was less liable to be counterfeited, and was the money in which most contracts for future distant payments were stipulated to be made, it would be unwise to enact a law the effect of which might be to expel all the silver from the country.

4. That if a new proportion corresponding to the present market proportion, were to be adopted, and it should so happen that the market proportion should hereafter fall back towards the rate of 1 to 15, the inevitable effect would be to drive the silver out of the country whenever the course of trade should warrant exports of coin, and for the identical reason that gold had been before driven out.

5. That a law declaring that an existing debt for $10, which, at the time of the contract, meant ten silver dollars, or a gold coin weighing 247½ grains of fine gold, shall now be discharged with a gold coin retaining the same name, but weighing only 232 grains of fine gold, is a law impairing the obligation of contracts and is a breach of the public faith as relates to all public creditors and salary officers.

6. That should the event take place of silver being driven out of the country, its absence would be most sensibly felt in all the small money transactions of the community, owing to the inconvenience, even if they could be had in sufficient abundance, of a gold coin of so low a denomination as one dollar.

7. That this inconvenience would press so heavily upon the public, that they would call out for a change in the laws, or what is quite probable, that they would fly to one dollar bank notes, as a remedy for the evil, and thus render the currency as bad as it was in 1816, in those states where the banks did not pay their notes in coin.

8. That if congress should, in order to prevent this calamity, alter the law, it would not be by increasing the weight of the eagle, but by diminishing the weight of the dollar, and thus, we should lay the foundation for a gradual depreciation of the currency, which at some future day might be employed to the perpetration of the same species of frauds upon public and private creditors, as have marked the course of all governments that have tampered with their coinage.

We are aware that in making these remarks we are treading upon the toes of many of the readers of this Journal in Georgia and North Carolina, and other states where gold is produced, who will not relish a doctrine that seems to be at war with their pecuniary interests. We can not, however, permit our reverence for what we conceive to be the truth, to be smothered by any private considerations. We would have prevented the passage of the gold bill, had we been able, believing it to be pregnant with great future evils to the country, and unattended with one single benefit to compensate for the mischief it is likely to produce. We think we can demonstrate, that as a means of breaking up the paper system, it is utterly futile, and that as a means, of putting money into the pockets of the owners of gold mines, beyond that inappreciable sum resulting from the increased value given to the whole supply of gold in the commercial world by the new demand for the American circulation, it will be found wholly delusive. We have, however, said enough for one occasion, and shall resume the subject hereafter, simply remarking, that by the bill, recently passed, a change has been made not only in the weight of the eagle, but in the standard also; the eagle now containing 232 grains pure, and 258 grains of the new standard, which is 21.58 and a small fraction carats fine, instead of 22, which is a debasement of one and three quarters per cent.

---

THE GOLD COINAGE AGAIN.

From the same, of October 29, 1834.

IN a former article on this subject, we stated that the discovery of gold in our southern states, and the gradually increasing production of that metal since the year 1824, had occasioned an influence to be exercised upon congress, to which might be ascribed, in a great degree, the passage of the recent law, changing the relative value of gold and silver, from 1 to 15 to 1 to 16 and a fraction. In that article we also stated, that by this change the owners of the gold mines would derive no benefit beyond that resulting from the trifling increase in the value of gold which would be experienced throughout the commercial world, owing to the increased demand for the currency of the United States. We proceed now to prove that position, believing that as much error is prevalent on that subject at the south, as there exists at the north in reference to the benefits resulting from legislative interference with the domestic production of iron.

The common notion prevailing, and that which has been most extensively urged by those who have made the gold coinage a party question, is, that the producers of gold are now enabled to get 6 2-3 per cent.* more for their gold than they used to get under the old law, seeing that 232 grains of pure gold are now declared to be the equivalent of ten dollars, whereas, under the old law, 247½ grains were the equivalent of that sum. This assertion would have been true, had the old law prohibited the producers of gold from receiving for their gold more than ten dollars for every 247½ grains; but this was not the case. From the very first moment that gold made its appearance in North Carolina, up to the present time, it has commanded a price in the market above the mint price; that is, one ounce of gold has exchanged for more than fifteen ounces of silver, or, what is the same thing, 247½ grains of pure gold have been exchanged for more than ten dollars. We have no official data to refer to, by which we can ascertain precisely the price at which gold has been sold at different periods at the different mines, but it is fair to presume, that it was as near to the Philadelphia market price as it is now, and as it will hereafter be. If, then, we can ascertain what has been the Philadelphia market price since the year 1824, we shall be able to throw some light on this subject, for let it be remembered, that whatever that price has been, it has gone into the pockets of the producers of gold, deducting the expense of transportation to Philadelphia, where the mint is located—an expense which must be borne by them hereafter, as heretofore. Fortunately upon this point we have evidence that no one will dispute, for, as it comes from a strong advocate of the gold bill, it can not be suspected of unfairness.

From the Washington Globe.

“The following statement of actual sales, made by the United States Bank, will show how she has sold foreign gold:

	Guineas. per cent.	Sovereigns. per cent.	Portugues Gold. per cent.
Jan. 5, 1828,	9½	10	6½
Jan. 3, 1829,	8¼	8½	5½
Jan. 2, 1830,	7¾	8¾	4½
Jan. 4, 1831,	5¼	6	3
Jan. 4, 1832,	8¾	8¾	5½
Jan. 3, 1833,	7	7	3¼

“These are a few only out of thousands of sales made by the Bank of the United States. They go as high as ten per cent.”

Here, then, we see it shown that foreign gold has been sold by the Bank of the United States, at the periods mentioned, at a premium varying from 3 to 10 per cent. The reason why British gold sold higher than Portuguese gold, which is of the same standard, (22 carats fine, that is, 11 parts pure metal to one part alloy), is, that guineas and sovereigns are cash immediately on their arrival in England, even though somewhat lighter than full weight, whereas, Portuguese gold would be available only as bullion. Now, as American gold coins at the periods referred to were of the same standard as the Portuguese, and, like them, only available in foreign countries as bullion, it is fair to presume that the price of American gold was, in the Philadelphia market, the same as that of the Portuguese.

It would, then, appear, that American gold was worth, in Philadelphia, from 1828 to 1833, a premium varying from 3 to 6½ per cent., or upon an average, a fraction above 4½ per cent. In other words, we see that one ounce of gold has uniformly been sold for more than fifteen ounces of silver, and in one case for very near sixteen ounces. Now it must be apparent, that unless the producer of gold gets for his commodity at the mint 6 2-3 and a fraction per cent. more than he used to get in the market, he is not a gainer by the change to the extent asserted. But the new mint price is only 6.681 per cent. more than the old mint price, while the price in the market, upon the average of years quoted, was 4½ per cent. more, and, of consequence, the real advantage to the producer of gold can not possibly have been more than 2.181 per cent., that being the difference between the two rates of premium.

It is not an answer to these positions to say, that the price of gold in the market since October 1833, in consequence of the derangement of commerce and the currency, has been as low, at times, as four, three, two or one per cent., and even less, and thus the benefit to the producer of gold is consequently equal to the difference between those rates and 6.681 per cent. A temporary and unnatural state of things, is not a basis for sound conclusions, and can not, therefore, be admitted into a discussion of general principles.

It would appear, however, that although the gain to the producers of gold by the new law was not as much as has been alleged, yet that upon our own admission, it was equal to 2.181 per cent. In other words, it would appear, as if the mint afforded a constant market at a steady price, 2 per cent. and a fraction higher than used to be obtained in the market under the old law. Let us examine minutely into this, and see how the fact is.

The old mint price of pure gold was $19,39,4-10 cents per ounce of 480 grains, as may be ascertained from the fact that 247½ grains, [the weight of pure gold in an eagle of the old coinage] was the equivalent by law of ten dollars.* The market price, therefore, of pure gold between the years 1828 and 1833 at 4½ per cent. premium, was $20,26 6-10 cents per ounce, which was, consequently, the price that the producer of gold used to get for his commodity in the Philadelphia market.

The new mint price of pure gold is $20,69 cents per ounce of 480 grains as may be ascertained from the fact that 232 grains (the weight of pure gold in an eagle of the new coinage) is the equivalent by law of 10 dollars.*

The difference between these two prices is 42 cents and 4-10ths of a cent per ounce, which is equal to 2 per cent. and a fraction, and it thus still appears that the present mint price is that much higher than the old market price, and consequently that the producer of gold gains 2 dollars and a fraction on every 100 dollars by the new proportion.

We say it appears so, and for the simple reason that the fact in reality is not so. To prove this, we must ascertain whether the 20 dollars 69 cents spoken of as the present price of an ounce of pure gold, are the same kind of dollars as those spoken of, where $20,26 6-10 are stated to have been the price of pure gold under the old law. For it must be very evident that the term dollar is in itself no sign of fixed quantity or value, and that as quantities and values are the things regarded in all sales and purchases, and not mere denominations, it is absolutely necessary that this point should be determined before any correct opinion can be formed.

Under the old law, a dollar was represented by a silver coin containing 416 grains of standard silver, or, by 24 grains and 75-100 of a grain of pure gold, that being the tenth part of the quantity of pure gold contained in an eagle of the old coinage.

A dollar under the new law is represented also by 416 grains of standard silver, or, by 23 grains and 20-100 of a grain of pure gold, that being the tenth part of the quantity of pure gold contained in an eagle of the new coinage.

It thus appears that the dollar spoken of at the two different periods, contains the same quantify of silver, but a different quantity of gold, and it is therefore evident that the producer of gold, when he sells one ounce of that metal for silver coins, gets 2 per cent. and a fraction more than he used to get, but when he sells it for gold coins he gets only the same quantity of gold that he used to get. For, in the first case, he gets for his ounce 20 dollars 69-100 of a dollar, each weighing 416 grains standard silver, that is 8607 grains, instead of 20 dollars and 26-100 of a dollar and a fraction, that is 8430 grains standard silver, the price he used to get; and in the second case he gets for his ounce a number of gold coins of a particular weight, and standard, which contain 480 grains of pure gold (that being what the mint is obliged to give for an ounce of pure gold) instead of a number of gold coins of a different weight and standard, but containing precisely the same number, that is, 480 grains of pure gold, which he could have received at the mint, had he taken it there, in preference to selling his gold in the market.

But it may be said, that although this be true, that is, although it be true that the producer of gold can get no more pure gold in coin for an ounce of pure gold in bullion, under the new law, than he used to get under the old law, yet that with his 480 grains of pure gold in coin, received at the mint for one ounce of pure gold, he can procure from the banks or from individuals, 8607 grains of standard silver, so that it amounts to the same thing whether he sells his ounce of metal for gold or silver. This would be true unquestionably, if the fact were as supposed that 8607 grains of standard silver could be permanently purchased for 480 grains of pure gold. That it can be thus purchased, at this time, will not be denied, but that it can permanently remain procurable at that rate, is not admitted. It is not possible for two metals, long to circulate interchangeably at a legal equivalency, if there be not at the same time, a market equivalency. The dearer one will inevitably be exported whenever the course of trade leads to the exportation of coin, leaving the cheaper one to supply the channels of circulation. Thus in the case before us, whenever exchange shall rise so high as to render it more profitable for an importing merchant to export bullion than to buy a bill, he will export silver, as being more valuable abroad, in consequence of its being undervalued at home, and on the other hand, whenever the course of trade invites the importation of bullion, gold will be imported, because it is over-valued by our laws. Nothing indeed can prevent in process of time the almost complete draining of the country of all its large silver coins of full weight under the present law, if the relative value of gold and silver in the market of the trading world, should continue the same as it now is, or fall back towards the old proportion of 1 to 15.

A gold standard then instead of a silver one, may be fairly considered as the one which must ultimately prevail in the United States, and consequently the gold dollar of 23 2-10 grains of fine gold, and not the silver dollar of 416 grains standard silver will be the money of account, and coin in which bank notes will be payable. When this state of things then arrives, what will the producer of gold in the southern states have gained by the change in the relative value of gold and silver? Positively nothing. He will not be enabled to exchange an ounce of gold for any more commodities than he used to do before the alteration of the coinage.—When people sell goods for gold, they sell them for specific quantities of gold, and not for the jingle it will make, or, for any title it may bear. If a law were to declare that a dollar, instead of containing 416 grains of standard silver, should contain but half the quantity, that is, 208 grains, and should be a legal tender at that weight, the consequence would be, that every man who had an article for sale worth one dollar before the enactment of the law, would refuse to sell it for less than two dollars. The same would be the case, whatever the diminution of weight might be. If 5 per cent. were deducted from the weight of coins, all commodities would rise in price 5 per cent. Nobody would gain by the change, except the class of debtors owing money at the time, and nobody would lose, but the class of creditors, the former by being enabled to discharge a debt with less metal than they had contracted to pay, and the latter by being compelled to accept it. But all new contracts and engagements would have reference to the new coins, which would possess a value precisely in proportion to the quantity of pure metal contained in them.

It may, however, be thought that during the time which must elapse before the standard is changed from silver to gold, by the expulsion of the silver, the producer of gold would be benefitted to the extent of two per cent. and a fraction, by his ability to obtain 8607 grains of standard silver for an ounce of pure gold. But this is not so, for the effect of the law is to depreciate the value of the silver down to the level of the gold, for, let it be remembered, that to increase the price of gold, which was the design of the gold bill, is to decrease the price of silver. The law which says, that a number of gold coins which contain one ounce of pure gold, shall pass for no more than the number of silver coins that contain 8607 grains of standard silver, at the same time declares, that the number of silver coins which contain 8607 grains of standard silver shall pass for no more than the number of gold coins that contain one ounce of pure gold. So long, therefore, as the two metals circulate interchangeably, the one possesses no more value in exchange, than the other, and consequently, a number of coins containing 8607 grains of standard silver, will purchase no more than a number of coins containing one ounce of pure gold. It is only for exportation, or consumption in manufactures, that the silver would possess the superior value referred to, and this superior value would benefit only the exporting merchant, and not the producer of gold. It is true, however, that after silver should have become scarce, it would command a premium in the market, as gold used to do, in which case 8607 grains of standard would no longer be procurable for one ounce of pure gold, and consequently the producer of gold would not have even the shadow of a benefit from the change.

Is there then no advantage to result to the southern producers of gold, from the operations of the measures of the great alchymists who have brought back the golden age? We reply, none whatever, except that trifling and almost inappreciable one to which we adverted at the commencement of this article, arising from the fact, that a new demand for gold has been created by its adoption as the American standard. What this will amount to must be conjectural, but we should suppose, when we advert to the actual stock of gold coin and bullion now in existence in Europe, Asia, Africa, North and South America, the accumulation of centuries, that the demand for the American market can have no perceptible influence in raising the value of the whole mass.—Whatever that rise may be, however, it will go to the benefit of the domestic producer of gold, but that is all he will derive from a measure fraught with infinite mischief to the country, and accompanied by a breach of the public faith.

NOTE.

After writing the foregoing article, we were furnished by a respectable broker of this city, with a statement of the price of American gold, during the years for which we have above given the prices of foreign gold, which is as follows:

	Buying price. per cent. prem.	Selling price. per cent. prem.
1828, Jan. 19,	5 to 5½	7
1829, “ 1,	5 to 6	6½
1830, “ 1,	3½ to 4½	5
1831, “ 1,	2½ to 3	4 to 5
1832, “ 13,	2½	3½

An average of these rates is 3¾ for the buying price, and 5 per cent. for the selling price, giving a medium of 4 per cent. which is sufficiently near to 4½ per cent. for our purpose.