NAPOLEON, ( Jerome ,) Prince, President of the Conference to Clavery , Secretary of the Conference. Roux , Secretary Adjunct, July 2, 1867

International Monetary Conference.–Seventh sitting.

Prince Napoleon presiding. The sitting opened at half past 8. Present, the delegates that attended the preceding meeting and M. Fortamps, with the exception of M. Delyannis. The minutes of the sixth sitting were adopted.

M. DUTILLEUL regretted that the conference decided at its last meeting in favor of the legal currency of gold coins of five francs in the states uniting in a monetary convention. He preferred to declare those coins receivable in the public banks, and wished this opinion of his, to be inserted in the minutes of the present sitting.

M. Jacobi asked an explanation of the words cartel monétaire, used in Baron de Hock’s seventh observation, inserted at the end of the sixth report.

M. Parieu replied that it was an arrangement between states to punish counterfeiters. He added, that in France the penal code furnished all the arms necessary to reach counterfeiters.

Chevalier Artom observed that all conventions of extradition contain provisions applicable to counterfeiters.

His Imperial Highness then stated that the conference had reached the theoretical terminus of its deliberations. The business now is to analyze and specify the results of its labors, and then to come to an understanding about the means of arriving at a practical solution.

His Imperial Highness proposed to intrust to the vice-president of the conference the care of embracing in an abridged report the facts and decisions stated in the minutes.

In regard to the means of arriving at a practical solution, they might be comprised in the three following propositions, which his Imperial Highness would submit to the conference:

1st. Ought the states to agree upon a general arrangement?

2d. Ought the countries that wish to make separate arrangements confer with the states of the convention of 1865?

3d. In any event, what must be done to arrive at a practical result? Has the time arrived for laying the question before the different governments?

Baron de Hock wished an understanding between special conventions and the states of the convention of 1865, and not by separate and isolated legislative measures.

Chevalier Artom thought that, even in a theoretic point of view, a decision should at once be made by the conference in favor of M. Hock’s proposition.

Count d’Avila, while agreeing to the generai mode of proceeding proposed, did not see the necessity of a special arrangement in what concerns, for instance, Spain and the United States, both having adopted the fineness of nine-tenths, for all they would have to do would be to bring their coins to the weight of the 5-franc piece or its multiples. After doing that it would be enough for them to accede to the convention of 1865.

Baron de Hock, insisted upon the necessity of special arrangements, as he proposed. It was not only necessary to agree upon the fineness and weight to constitute a monetary unity; the entire process, from the metallic composition to the means of control, should harmonize, and the monetary regulations in the states of the union should give assurances of stability.

M. Fortamps agreed with M. de Hock. When one state gives legal currency to the coins of another state, it is essential that the fineness, weight, tolerance, control, &c, should be similar on both sides. Under this implied reserve the right of accession was inscribed in the convention of 1865.

M. Herbet said the reserve had already been used. The Papal States and Greece have declared themselves ready to accede to the convention of 1865. The request was considered by the French government and submitted to the three other co-signing governments.

M. Feer Herzog thought that accession to the treaty of 1865 ought to be the subject of a formal convention to assure identity of fabrication.

Count d’Avila agreed with MM. Hock, Fortamps, and Feer Herzog on the necessity of assuring the identity of fabrication in all coins received in the states of the proposed union: and he thought that, as soon as these conditions were complied with and were recognized by the states that signed the convention of 1865, they should have the right of accession to the convention without any new action on the subject. It should be well understood that the arrangement will only relate to gold pieces as a universal Coin.

M. Jacobi thought that the arrangement of 1865 does not expressly stipulate the adoption of gold as a standard, as voted unanimously by the conference. Certain states should unite on this principle at first, and then the contracting states of 1865 could more easily join them. Other countries might come in afterwards.

His Imperial Highness replied, it was not so easy for the French government to take the lead in the selection of a standard as M. Jacobi thought. The adoption of the gold standard, exclusively, would require a modification of the French law, and, of course, the subject would have to be laid before the legislature. The double standard had many staunch advocates in France, who would certainly oppose the withdrawal of silver from circulation. At least it would be very useful for the government to rely on diplomatic arrangements, already concluded, showing that the principle of the single standard is admitted both in theory and practice by many other states, when the subject is laid before the legislature. It is a simple subject for domestic consideration.

M. Parieu thought the interest of the states alone would be sufficient to bring about a diplomatic arrangement. It may not be necessary for the conference to decide this question absolutely. In fact, the countries that think proper to revise their interior legislation at once, introducing the principles adopted by the conference, would not hesitate to solicit an accession that would insure the benefits of internationality to their new coins.

The Papal States and Greece have acted in this manner; the pontifical government, in particular, that had placed the monetary regulations of the Roman States in harmony with the convention of 1865, with some differences as to what concerned the admission of a division of 2 francs 50 centimes, soon renounced the last provision in order to accede to the convention in question.

M. Kern thought that despite the favorable dispositions shown by many countries, a general understanding upon the application of the principles admitted must take place slowly, by successive accession to the states that compose the monetary union of 1865.

Mr. Ruggles seconded Baron Hock’s motion, so far as his instructions would allow. He said that on the 27th of May last, when M. Berthemy, the French minister in Washington, invited the government of the United States to participate in the present conference, he declared that its object was to exchange views and discuss principles, but added this important clause, “to seek for a basis for further negotiations.” By reason of that communication, Mr. Seward, the Secretary of State, empowered him (Mr. Ruggles) “to represent the government of the United States in the proposed conference to the extent and in the spirit of the letter of the French minister above mentioned.”

Neither in terms nor spirit does that letter limit the labors of the conference to the discussion of abstract principles; on the contrary, it plainly declares the principal object of the conference to be “to seek for a basis for farther negotiations.”

Fortunately, this end has been attained. The conference has sought out and discovered the desired brasis, not a vague, changeable, and uncertain one, but the basis of a fixed and fundamental system, the principal points of which are these:

First, a single standard of gold; second, coins of equal weights; third, coins of equal fineness; fourth, coins divided according to the decimal system; fifth, 5 francs as the unit.

The propagation of a system thus defined would practically complete the labors of the conference. The details of application could not be attended to at present; they should be regulated by some subsequent conference, or by the different states separately.

M. Wallenberg wished to mention a remarkable fact. By a ukase of the 11th No vember, 1865, the Russian government introduced a monetary system in Finland almost identical with that of the franc, the difference not exceeding the limits of toleration. Now, if the Russian government would extend these provisions to the other provinces of the empire, an important assimilation would be realized.

He added that, in his opinion, a general understanding should be had only on gold coins, upon the basis of the convention of 1865. Each state would be free to coin its silver change as it pleased.

M. Parieu proposed this paragraph, which he thought would be acceptable to all the delegates:

“The conference expresses the hope that the measures taken by the governments of the different states to modify their monetary system, in conformity with the basis laid down by the conference, may end in diplomatic conventions.”

The paragraph was unanimously adopted.

His Imperial Highness suggested the fixing of a time for the different governments to make known their decisions upon the resolutions voted for by their delegates, and the ultimate steps to be taken.

M. Kern thought it should be put off till the end of the year, or till November, so as not to hurry the governments in their decisions., After the expiration of that term, there might be no occasion to call the whole conference together; the French government could invite the states that should express a desire to enter into negotiations immediately to send delegates to a new conference.

Chevalier Artom and M. Wallenberg proposed a delay of three months.

Mr. Ruggles said the government of the United States could not give a positive answer till the subject had been submitted to Congress, which would not meet before the 1st of December next; he therefore proposed to fix the term for the 15th of May, 1868.

M. Meinecke would report to the Prussian government as soon as the labors of the conference were closed; but he was sure the answer could not be positive unless sufficient time was granted, because his government could not decide the question without consulting the North German Confederates and the governments that signed the convention of 1857.

M. Hermann assented, as far as Bavaria was concerned.

M. Vrolik wished the term to be more than three months, and added that Holland could not decide till it learned the intention of the German states.

Count d’Avila said it was well to avoid every act that would embarrass the free action of the governments. Let the French government communicate the resolutions, voted by the conference, to the different states, request a prompt answer, collect the answers, and then call a new conference, if necessary: that was the best thing to be done.

M. Kern agreed to it, adding that the French government might agree beforehand about that convocation with the other states that signed the convention of I865.

M. Jacobi was of the opinion that the states that have signed the act ought to form but one group in agreement, so as to give but a single answer.

His Imperial Highness saw no objection to accepting Count d’Avila’s proposition, and concurred in the remarks of M. Kern and M. Jacobi, but he still thought it well to fix a certain delay.

M. Herbert proposed to fix upon the longest delay, with the right to anticipate it in diplomatic language, by adding, “within six months, or sooner if possible.”

MM. Fortamps and Wallenberg insisted that the delay should not be too long. It was not necessary to present the question to the legislatures of the different countries before the governments made known their intentions. As often happens, the negotiation could take place, then the diplomatic act in consequence could be submited to the legislative assemblies, according to the constitutional forms of each state.

His Imperial Highness asked the English delegates what time they would require.

Mr. Rivers Wilson replied that the longer the time given, the greater chance for a satisfactory answer from his government. He feared that by harrying the decision of the English government no good would be effected. He proposed the 1st of June. Mr. Rivers Wilson added that, on the whole, he could not promise a final decision for England at any fixed time. If the British government was disposed to adopt any measures, it would probably limit them to an inquiry to be made by a committee of the House of Commons, or by a royal commission.

Mr. Ruggles earnestly urged the adoption of the 15th of May, 1868.

M. Herbert thought if a state desired to treat upon the enlarged basis of the convention of 1865, before the expiration of the delay voted by the conference, no opposition should be made to its entering into immediate negotiations with one of the states signing the diplomatic act.

After discussion of the time to be fixed, his Imperial Highness put to vote this proposition of M. Parieu:

“As soon as answers shall be received from the different states to the communication officially made to them of the labors of the conference by the French government, that government, in accordance with the answers that may be received, will call a new conference, if necessary.

“It is desirable that answers should be received before the 15th of February next.”

The first paragraph of the proposition was unanimously adopted. The vote on the second was as follows:

The following voted for the 15th of February, 1868: the Grand Duchy of Baden, Bavaria, Denmark, the Netherlands, Portugal, (adding, “or sooner if possible,”) Prussia, Russia, (or sooner if ‘possible,) Switzerland, Turkey, Wurtemberg.

The following voted for the 1st of October, 1867: Austria, Belgium, Italy, Sweden, and Norway.

The United States voted for the 15th of May, 1868; Great Britain, for the 1st of June, 1868.

France and Spain did not vote. Count Nava de Tajo said he did not vote because he was not instructed by his government, but he was sure that Spain would act with the majority.

The conference having decided all the questions it was called upon to discuss, his Imperial Highness thanked the delegates for their enlightened assistance.

It was then agreed that the conference should once more assemble to adopt the minutes of the present sitting, and to hear the reading of the report that M. Parieu had been kind enough to prepare.

The sitting closed at 11 o’clock.