PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON. §[ 



aware that they fluctnated somewhat — gold varying less than 

 silver — but such statistical and historical knowledge as they could 

 procure led them to believe that the fluctuations were very small 

 and took place with great slowness. This attribute was a most 

 estimable one in their opinion; for, they recognized that a metal- 

 lic currency endowed with legal tender power could not change 

 its absolute or relative value without modifying the obligations 

 of contracts. If the precious metals rose, the creditors would 

 unjustly gain, and the debtors unjustly lose : if they declined, 

 the debtors would unjustly gain, and the creditors unjustly lose. 



8. They believed, on the whole, that the "double standard" 

 would be, for a time at least, practicable. They believed that the 

 great steadiness of the two metals would enable them to circulate 

 together for a considerable time, and if after the lapse of years 

 a change should have developed in their relative values, their 

 descendants would perceive as readily as themselves, the nature 

 of the difficulty, and apply the only possible remedy. 



As a matter of fact, our fathers apparently believed that both 

 gold and silver should be maintained in the coinage with unlim- 

 ited legal tender power. It is a little remarkable that they no- 

 where discuss the relative advantages of a bimetallic and mono- 

 metallic coinage. Probably it never occurred to them that a 

 question of this nature could arise, and took it for granted, as all 

 nations up to that time had done, that silver was indispensable, 

 and gold extremely desirable, and hence that both should be used 

 as unlimited legal tender. It is not difficult, however, to suggest 

 good reasons for 'this state of mind. Very few people at that 

 time were rich enough to be guilty of the extravagance and risk 

 of carrying such a large sum as ten dollars in their pockets ex- 

 cept upon rare occasions. Large cash transactions were much 

 less common than now, and small ones comparatively numerous. 

 Gold coins would have been inconveniently large in their denom- 

 inations, or dangerously small in size for the grocery and country 

 store. For a very poor people silver is unquestionably a far 

 better and more convenient currency than gold — or rather, it is 

 better for the primary currency, while gold is of secondary ad- 

 vantage. Moreover, during those few intervals in which a coiu 

 currency had taken the place of paper, the people had been 

 accustomed to pass silver coins by tale, while gold, on account 

 of its great value, had always passed by weight. They were far 

 more accustomed to silver than to gold, and depreciated paper 

 was probably more familiar than either. In general the poor 

 people of nearly every civilized nation at that time used silver 

 as their principal metallic currency. It is not at all surprising, 

 therefore, if our fathers never thought of limiting the use of sil- 

 ver as money. 



In selecting a unit there was almost universal approbation of 

 the idea that it should conform as nearly as possible to the Span- 

 ish dollar or "piece of eight" reals. Coins of many nationali- 



