NAPOLEON, ( Jerome ,) Prince President of the Convention , to Clavery , Secretary of the Conference, June 28, 1867

International Monetary Conference.–Sixth sitting.

Prince Napoleon presiding. The sitting opened at 9 o.’clock Present, the delegates that attended the preceding meeting, except M. Fortamps, who was obliged to return to Brussels.

His Imperial Highness announced that Señor José Polo, the representative of Spain in the conference, had to attend the Cortes in Madrid, and the Spanish government had appointed Count Nava de Tajo, sub-director in the department of foreign affairs, to take his place.

Count Nava de Tajo immediately took his place among the members of the conference.

The minutes of the fifth sitting were read and adopted.

His Imperial Highness remarked that the conference adopted the first paragraph of question eight at the last meeting, under this form:

“Should there be types with a common denominator for weight in gold coins of identical fineness?”

The conference also adopted the fineness of nine-tenths.

Now it remains to fix a common denominator, as expressed in paragraph second of question eight, in these terms:

“What should be the common denominator? Must it be five francs?”

The debate being opened, M. de Lavenay advocated the advantages of the five-franc piece as a common denominator. With its multiples it coincides with many other coins; it nearly corresponds to the dollar and the sovereign; and it exists in the convention of 1865. The United States are ready to adopt it, and cannot make use of a higher unity without modifying their entire system.

In some countries, as in Belgium, as M. Stas remarks, if the mould or die of five francs is thought to be too small for convenient coinage and ready circulation, those states might be dispensed from coining it.

His Imperial Highness said, Mr. Leone Levi declared at the conference instituted by the committee of weights, measures, and coins at the Universal Exposition, over which he presided yesterday, that the 10-franc piece, divisible into 100 pence, would be preferred in England.

Mr. Wilson, speaking for Mr. Graham, says, in his private opinion the 10-franc piece would have the advantage over five francs by giving a higher unity, which would be desirable for England in offering a more simple relation with the ordinary system of the franc.

Count d’Avila would vote for five francs as a denominator, and agreed with M. de Lave-nay that certain states may not be obliged to coin it, but they must receive it.

M. Stas insisted that the five-franc piece is too small for convenient coinage, and that it must be enlarged by silver alloy.

M. Dutilleul said that in France the five-franc gold piece is even yet a coin met only in cities, and but very little in the country.

Count d’Avila adduced the example of Portugal, Spain, and the United States, where there is no complaint of the milreis, the 20 real, and the one-dollar piece, all which approximate the five-francs of the monetary union of 1865.

M. Wallenberg repeated what he said on a former occasion in regard to the adoption of the denominator of the 10-franc piece, which agrees perfectly with the decimal system, whereas the 5-franc gold piece neither agrees with the decimal system nor with the system of the franc; 5 francs divided by 100 leaves the 5-centime piece entirely too small, while the 10-franc piece divided by 1,000 gives the centime, forming a good subdivision to the last degree of the monetary scale. He said it should be decided that all the states should coin the 10-franc piece, but be left at liberty to coin whatever other pieces they might choose. The United States might coin two-dollar pieces; that would be much more convenient than the one-dollar piece.

M. Herbet did not agree with M. Stas in thinking the Belgians so much opposed to the 5-franc gold piece.

Baron de Hock favored the 5-franc common denominator, as the lowest possible to be convenient.

M. Vrolik also preferred it, as it will allow the coinage of 15-franc pieces, and will suit the silver standard countries that have the thaler and florin.

M. Meinecke could not say at present what gold coin would be best suited to Prussia and the German states, if they hereafter decide to change the silver for the gold standard; nor could he say that they would readily adopt any coin easily convertible into French gold pieces, as it might be against the interests and opinions of the people. They might adopt the crown of the convention of 1857, nine of which contain 310 francs in gold.

M. Meinecke gave these reasons for not voting on the question of a denominator.

M. Jacobi approved of adopting the five-franc piece as a denominator, but inquired why a five-franc platina piece could not be coined with a weight of five grams, or 1,000 francs per kilogram. This was suggested by M. Stas’s remarks.

His Imperial Highness replied that the platina would have to be purchased from Russia, in the first place, and moreover that the experiments that have already been tried have failed. In any event, the platina piece would be considered as “billon,” and the conference is not concerned with that particular kind of coinage.

M. Jacobi replied that platina could be coined now under more favorable circumstances than formerly, considering the improved treatment of that metal, thanks to the labors of Messrs. Henri, Saint Clair Deville, and Debray. He adds that Russia is not the only country where that metal has been found; it has been discovered in considerable quantities in various parts of South America.

M. Feer Herzog was surprised at M. Stas’s objections to the five-franc gold piece; it passes readily in Switzerland, it represents the piastre of many countries, which was the universal currency for a long time, and when brought into America by the Spaniards gave rise to the dollar. M. Jacobi’s suggestion could not be adopted, as it would be dangerous to introduce a new metal, and platinum is too hard to take the place of gold and silver for money.

M. Jacobi replies that from his own experiments and others platina is easily coined, and is predestined by its nature to become the universal metal for money, when it shall be found in sufficient abundance.

Mr. Ruggles said the gold dollar, notwithstanding its dimensions, is well liked in the United States.

His Imperial Highness proposed to put to vote the second paragraph of the new question eight; by adding to five francs the words, or its multiples, so as to allow Sweden to vote in the affirmative.

M. Artom thought the reduction too great, as there should be but one common denominator.

Mr. Graham remarked that if five francs is adopted as a denominator, all accounts in England must be kept in dollars.

M. de Parieu thought the denominator should be certain; he proposed to vote on five francs as a denominator, leaving out “or its multiples,” because a single figure is best for a denominator.

His Imperial Highness put the question to vote, and it was adopted by 13 to 2. England and Sweden voted no; Prussia, Bavaria, the grand duchy of Baden, Wurtemberg, and Belgium did not vote.

The ninth question was next opened for discussion:

“In case gold is adopted as the international metal, would it be expedient for the types of the coins determined by the monetary convention of the 23d December, 1865, for the sake of unification and reciprocity, to be completed by new types; for instance, by pieces of 15 and 25 francs? In this case, what should be their dimensions?”

On motion of his Imperial Highness, the second part of the question was left out, because details, such as the dimensions of the coins, would be more properly discussed when the governments shall agree upon executive measures.

Baron de Hock thought we should first agree upon common coins, that is, money that would be a legal tender in all the states.

M. de Parieu replied that, laying aside the question of legal tender, the proposal of common types has been accepted by the fact of the adoption of the affirmative on the preceding question. With a common denominator, it is evident there will be pieces and common types, practically, if not from absolute necessity. The interest, then, in question nine is reduced to technical explanations on the coinage of 15 and 25 francs solicited by the directors of mints, and the discussion of obstacles to the decimal system.

Viscount Villa Major thought it sufficient to admits, 10, 20, and 25 franc pieces.

Mr. Ruggles particularly insisted upon the interest felt by the United States in obtaining the consent of France to coin pieces of 25 francs, thereby revising the convention of 1865. The American half-eagle and the English sovereign would readily circulate side by side with the French 25-franc piece, on conditions of perfect equality.

Copies of his written argument, presenting the considerations in favor of the measure, were distributed among the members. This document, containing many statistics, is annexed to the present minutes.

His Imperial Highness informed Mr. Ruggles that France does not object to his proposition; but the convention of 1865 being in force, the French government must have an understanding with its associates; but that the revision of that diplomatic act, on the point in question, would undoubtedly meet with no difficulty.

M. ARTOM thought the Italian government would not object to receive the 25-franc pieces, provided it was not required to coin them.

M. Broch wanted the types of the universal coins to be as few as possible. He thought the states should not be required to coin, or even to receive, the 5 and 15 franc pieces. One is too small, and hard to preserve of exact weight, as M. Stas remarks; the other is useless, has it would only suit Germany, where they are disposed to coin the marc, twenty of which would equal 25 francs.

Baron Soden remarked that the 15-franc piece would suit the south German states.

As the differences of opinion seem to be confined to the 15-franc piece, his Imperial High-iness proposed to vote first on the adoption of the 25-franc piece.

M. Hermann, taking up Baron de Hock’s proposition, insisted that the conference first vote to know whether only one coin is to have legal currency in all the contracting states.

Baron de Hock said, in fact, the conference has not yet declared that the coins of one state should be received by all the others. Without such reciprocal reception there would be no monetary community. After the committee has decided this general question, M. Hermann’s might be next examined, namely: “Whether this acceptance is to apply to all the coins of the monetary system, or only to some of them?”

M. de Parieu, in reply to Baron de Hock, put this question: “Are the five-franc gold coins to be received in the public banks of the states that are bound by the monetary convention?”

M. Stas proposed to substitute the words legal circulation, for received in the public banks. He said, as the convention of 1865 only contained this last stipulation, the Bank of France, without giving reasons, refused to receive 155,000 francs in Belgian gold. If it feared a surfeit of that kind of money, it might rest quietly, as only 4,800,000 francs in gold have been coined in Belgium since the convention.

M. Feer Herzog said it is trae the contracting states only obliged the public banks to receive the union money in 1865, because they did not wish to force their citizens to accept foreign money; but it was officially declared at that time by the board of directors of the public funds, that when the public banks in France received the union money their example would be followed by all the other large credit establishments.

M. de Parieu feared it might cause some trouble in remote localities if the union currency were now made a legal tender among private individuals, instead of only being receivable in public banks. Tax collectors might readily recognize the different dies of the gold pieces with the denominator of five francs; but individuals would be puzzled by the foreign effigies on the coins imposed upon them.

M. de LavEnay thought that inconvenience might result if small change, with intrinsic value below the nominal, were forced into circulation; but we are now speaking of coins of a real value equal to their legal value.

Mr. Rivers Wilson had doubts about the words “legal circulation;” he asked what would be the result of a limitation to the amount receivable in payment, as in the case of silver small change?

His Imperial Highness said the question was not about coins with a limited circulation; he approved of the words “legal circulation,” because they mean that the international money must not be refused, and the people will then accept it willingly.

He proposed this new wording: “Shall the gold coins with the common denominator of five francs have legal circulation in the states that are mutually bound by the monetary convention?”

On M. Stas’s proposition, the word “coins” was substituted in place of the words “the coins,” as being more restrictive, and expressing certain coins.

The question thus put was adopted unanimously.

The delegates from England, Prussia, Wurtemberg, and the grand duchy of Baden did not tote.

His Imperial Highness recalled the discussion of the 25-franc piece.

Mr. Ruggles wished it to be well understood that the United States particularly desire the adoption of the 25-franc piece as a type.

Mr. Graham thought there should not be so many different pieces. The introduction of the 15 and 25-franc pieces into the French system would be a defect; it would be better to stop at the 20-franc piece. He inquired if Fance really intended to coin 25-franc pieces.

His Imperial Highness replied that certainly, if France consulted only its own convenience, she would see no necessity for issuing this new coin; but to facilitate the work of unification, the object of the labors of the conference, it would make the concession requested by the United States. It also appeared that the coinage of the 25-franc piece would equally accommodate both England and Austria.

Count Nava de Tajo said that the coin would also accommodate Spain.

M. Stas agreed with Mr. Graham in believing if a new system is not to be adopted we ought to adopt the French system, without change, and not multiply subdivisions.

His Imperial Highness thought the bases of the convention of 1865 ought to be enlarged, in order to effect assimilations that it has not yet offered the means of realizing.

M. Stas thought the bases of the convention of 1865 were too large already, and that the five-franc piece ought not to remain in it.

M. Jacobi said if experience shows the five-franc piece to be too small for convenient circulation, it will soon disappear.

The question on the 25-franc piece being put to vote it was unanimously adopted. Prussia, the grand duchy of Baden, and Wurtemberg abstained from voting.

His Imperial Highness then proposed the opening of debate on the 15-franc piece.

M. Vrolik insisted on the admission of the 15-franc piece in the universal monetary circulation.

M. de Parieu seconded the motion, because he thought it would prove acceptable to many densely populated states.,

Baron Soden answered for Wurtemberg in accepting M. Vrolik’s proposition.

Baron de Hock thought there was no present necessity for adopting the 15-franc piece, because Holland has not yet come into the monetary union, and the coin in his opinion would be of no use in the German states.

M. Vrolik replied, that without speaking for his government, he indicated the 15-franc piece as a means of inducing a certain number of states to join the monetary union.

M. de Parieu did not see why Austria objected to the 15-franc piece when it was demanded by Holland, and suited south Germany. The Austrian commission of April last adopted the 10 and 25-franc pieces. By adding a 15-franc piece to the 10-franc piece, Austria would have the two elements composing the piece of 25 francs in gold.

M. Artom demanded that, in any event, it be laid down that the states should be bound to accept the 25-franc piece, but not to coin it.

M. Meinecke regretted that he could not vote on this question any more than he could on the other; but to come to a decision it will be necessary to know what Prussia wants. Now there is no fixed opinion in that country, but a monetary uniformity is certainly desired. All he can do is to vote for the gold standard, but in minor questions he can take no part. He has no idea of their effect, for he does not know when or how Prussia will pass from the silver to the gold standard. It could not be done now without producing a monetary crisis in Prussia, which is not in the same situation as France in that particular. The latter would not have so many sacrifices to make as the former in the transition to the proposed monetary unification.

M. Kern came to the conference intending to vote personally and without committing his government for all propositions that would contribute to the formation of a monetary union more extensive than that of 1865, but resting always upon the same basis. He did not speak for his government. Without regard to preference to the country he represents, in a spirit of conciliation, he voted for the 25-franc piece because the delegates from Austria and the United States made this concession, and he believed England would do the same. But he was surprised to hear the delegate from Great Britain say the 25-franc piece did not appear to him to be useful.

M. Kern did not see the convenience of adopting the 15-franc piece so long as the states particularly interested, and especially Prussia, have not pronounced in its favor.

Mr. Rivers Wilson, speaking for Mr. Graham, said the delegate from Great Britain placed himself in a purely theoretical point of view when speaking of the acceptability of the 25-franc piece. It would be rather injurious than useful to the general economy of the French system, but it would not be so in a monetary union between England and France.

His Imperial Highness sincerely regretted this disagreement. If the discussion of the members is theoretical, it is only in the sense that it does not bind their governments, as if they had plenary powers; but this conference is not here for speculative studies; its aims are definite and practical, to which it is the duty of all its members to direct their efforts.

Mr. Rivers Wilson replied that England could not but appreciate the intention with which it has been proposed to introduce the 25-franc piece.

M. de Parieu remarked that the words by reason of reciprocity were designedly inserted in question nine, now under discussion. They are always understood, and with this reserve M. de Parieu saw no inconvenience in coining and circulating 15-franc pieces. To repeat the lively remark of his Imperial Highness in respect to the 25-franc piece, it would be an invitation to the states that think they are not yet prepared to decide.

M. Haindl, while confessing that the 15-franc piece would suit the German states, remarked, that there would be a difference between it and the seven florin or four-thaler piece of 11/4per cent. in favor of the former. It would therefore be necessary to increase the value of the thaler or florin, which is their present monetary unity. That, perhaps, explains the hesitation of the German states.

Baron Soden said that while favoring the 15-franc piece, he did not forget that the treaty of 1857 still binds Wurtemberg and the states that have signed it, with the exception of Austria.

M. de Parieu observed there is no other gold piece but the 15-franc piece that can bring Prussia, south Germany, and Holland into the monetary union. Now what ought the conference to propose? It ought to prepare a common ground and point out all possible communications between the existing systems.

Count d’Avila approved of this, and said the conference ought to decide at once, either for or against the admission of the 15-franc piece, so that the decision might serve hereafter as a point of departure in further governmental resolutions.

M. Kern, for reasons already given, thought the states interested ought to wait for more precise declarations than have been given.

M. Artom, not wanting to see the 15-frane piece positively rejected, proposed to decide by vote if the question should not be reserved.

His Imperial Highness consulted the delegates to know if any state wished to exclude the 15-franc gold piece from the monetary union.

The conference replied negatively to the question, with the exception of Sweden and Norway.

His Imperial Highness then put the question: “Shall the 15-franc piece be mentioned in question nine, or shall it be reserved?”

Seven states voted for the mention, seven against it, and six did not vote.

Those in favor were: France, Spain, the United States, Greece, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Russia.

Those against were: Austria, the Grand Duchy of Baden, Switzerland, Italy, Denmark, Sweden and Norway.

These states did not vote: Bavaria, Belgium, Great Britain, Prussia, Turkey, and Wurtemberg.

Question ten, in relation to silver or alloyed coins, was next read. The conference decided that the question could not be settled then.

The proposal of Baron de Hock and M. Jacobi, relative to the principle involved in question 11, concerning the control to be exercised in the coinage of the common types of the international money, was approved by a unanimous vote. As to measures of verification and control, they will be specified in the arrangements between the states, and the negotiators may refer to the conventions of 1857 and 1865.

M. de Parieu, observing that the Baron de Hock had prepared a note upon the question, it was voted that the note be annexed to the minutes.

The Vice-President of the conference said the 12th question was proposed in case the delegates did not agree on any of the principles laid down in the first part of the list. As this did not happen, and the question of a standard was unanimously agreed upon, the conference decided that the 12th question be suppressed.

On motion of his Imperial Highness, the conference adjourned till Tuesday, the 2d of July, in order to come to an understanding upon the best means to realize the desires of the conference.

The sitting closed at half past 12, noon.

First appendix to the minutes of the sixth sitting.

The delegate from the United States of America proposes that France shall issue a 25-franc gold piece.

If it be objected that such a piece, not containing an even number of grams, would impair the symmetry of the metric system, it need only be stated that France has not, and never has had, a gold coin containing an even number of grams. The relation in value between silver and gold having been fixed by law at 15 ½ to 1, it became impossible to establish a decimal relation between the two metals: or, in other words, between the number of francs which represent only silver, and the number of grams in the coins of gold. This legal relation of 15 ½ to 1 is itself fractional, and must be doubled and carried to 31/2 to make even numbers.

The frank is simply a monetary word. which expresses 5 grams of silver nine-tenths fine. It is the French monetary unity. Gold having a value of 15 ½ times greater than silver, it requires 15 ½ francs each of 5 grams of silver (say 5 +15 ½ = 77 ½ grams) to buy 5 grams of gold, or 155 grams of silver to buy 10 grams of gold. As 31 is the smallest even number of this relation, 31 is the smallest number of francs which can be represented by a piece of gold having an even weight of grams. No enlightened government would consent to confine its gold coinage to pieces of 31 francs and its multiples. We therefore perceive that France has made complete abstraction of metrical weight in its gold coins, not one of which weighs an even number of grams.

The proposed 25-franc piece would weigh 8 grams. 0625, and, in fact, would more nearly approach an even metrical weight than any French gold piece now existing.

This relation of 15 ½ to 1 is practically prescribed by the French law, which enacts that 155 (5+31) pieces of 20 francs, being 3,100 francs, shall weigh 1,000 grams, or one kilogram; but the same ratio would exist between 124 (4 + 31) gold pieces of 25 francs, which would also contain 3,100 francs, and would also weigh one kilogram.

The United States have never attempted to fix a decimal weight for their gold coins, although they were among the first to adopt a decimal monetary system. The present gold dollar weighs 25.8 grains troy, which is about equal to 1.671 milligrams, and exceeds the metrical weight of the French 5-franc piece about 58 ½ milligrams.

A gram of gold nine-tenths fine is equivalent in round numbers to 30 pence English, or 60 cents of the United States. Consequently 58 ½ milligrams taken from the dollar would reduce it about 3 ½ cents, or 292 ½ milligrams taken from the half eagle of five dollars would reduce it 17½ cents, being about 3 ½ per cent.

It is needless to expatiate on the comparative merits of a decimal, a duodecimal, or a binary system, for the reason that the decimal system has become a fixed fact in a large portion of the civilized world, rendering any change practically impossible. In like manner the unification of the coinage of the world has become a question of a nature more practical than scientific in character, chiefly falling within the domain of commerce and finance.

The “international committee on uniform weights and measures and coins.” charged with the preliminary study of the question, took into consideration not only what is theoretically and abstractedly possible, but what is commercially and financially practicable. The subsequent duty of fixing a common coin as the monetary unit required an international conference, composed of representatives duly accredited, from the various nations, and vested with diplomatic powers.

If the labors of the international committee were to prepare the subject for a diplomatic conference, it might well state that so large a reduction as 3 ½ per cent, in the gold coin of the United States would seriously affect existing contracts, and that such a change would only be sanctioned by the government and the people of the United States in order to assure to mankind the greater and more important benefit of a common currency throughout the globe. As the expense of recoin age would be considerable, and will increase in proportion to the production of gold in the United States, the change must be made immediately if made at all. It should be remembered that the population of the United States, now near 40 millions, will probably exceed 100 millions at the close of the present century, in the short space of thirty-four years.

Long before that time the annual product of gold and silver in the United States will be greatly facilitated and increased by the completion of the Pacifie railroad across the continent, and now in rapid progress, which will open outlets to both of the oceans for our wide spread metallic interior, now so difficult of access. Its annual product, now nearly 100 millions of dollars, may eventually reach 300 or 400 millions. The money of the world must be unified now or never.

It is fortunate that the gold sovereign of Great Britain, around which the prejudices of the English people naturally cluster, only requires to be reduced to the value of 25 francs, a diminution of 64 milligrams in weight of fine gold, being a reduction in value of only 2 pence English, or 4 cents of the United States. In truth, the reduction to be made by Great Britain is less than one-fourth of that required from the United States.

The great and inevitable injury that must result from undue delay in unification in au epoch like the present, when the product and coinage of gold is so rapidly increasing, will more clearly appear from the following gold statistics of the three largest coining nations.

(Of this amount, $146,923,622 was stamped in bars.)

Summary for the three nations.

If we add to this enormous sum the gold coinage of Prussia, Russia, Austria, and other important countries of Europe, we can judge of the importance of a monetary unification that would give the same circulation, the same character, and the same value to this entire mass, and of the sums which would be saved, now needlessly expended in recoinage, brokerage, and exchange.

Of the gold of these three nations, we see that France furnishes $1,312,220,814 which would not require recoinage; while a considerable portion of the residue, ($1,780,878,041,) furnished by Great Britain and the United States, would need to be recoined to unify the money of the civilized world. From the latter, amount we must deduct—

1st. What has been already recoined by France, deducting the French gold recoined byGreat Britain or the United States.

2d. What has been lost or used in the arts.

3d. Coins so much worn as to be reduced to the weight of the number of francs they should represent. This last reservation will apply almost exclusively to the coins of Great Britain, many of which have worn off the one per cent, of the required reduction, while very few of the coins of the United States have lost their excess of three and a half per cent.

It is, moreover, to be considered that the United States and Great Britain may continue to add, for many successive periods of 15 years, the gold to be produced in America and Australia, which will, probably, fall little short for each period of $655,352,323 for the United States, and $455,235,695 for Great Britain—the amounts respectively coined during the 15 years just elapsed. We will not dwell upon what cannot be forgotten, the possibility of a still more enormous product that would result from the more extensive developments and discoveries in the vast auriferous interior of the United States, a field as yet only partially explored.

Without going too far in measuring the gigantic monetary future in reserve for the world, we simply say that the work of unification cannot begin too soon.

It is by no fault of France, but her good fortune, that the burden and inconvenience of the recoinage and the modification of contracts will be almost exclusively borne by the United States and Great Britain, while France, with her six milliards of gold in circulation, will share without cost in the general advantage and the honor of having unified the money of the world.

It is under these circumstances that it is asked, in the name of the United States, that France, in a spirit of wise liberality, will effectually contribute, as she easily may, to the great work of practical unification by adding the 25-franc gold piece to her present coins.

Such a coin will circulate side by side everywhere, and in perfect equality, with the half-eagle of the United States and the sovereign of Great Britain.

The three gold coins, types of the three great commercial nations, fraternally united and differing only in emblems, will go hand in hand around the globe, freely circulating through both hemispheres without recoinage, brokerage, or other impediment. This opportune concession of France to the spirit of unity will complete the work of civilization she has so much at heart, and will inaugurate that new monetary era, the lofty object of the international conference and the noblest aim of a concourse of nations, as yet without a parallel in the history of the world.

Second annex–Baron de Hock’s observations on the means of control.

Eleventh question.

It is necessary to fix the following principles:

1st. The money shall be coined of its full standard and weight, without abatement for coinage or any remedy; in no case must there be connected any particular interest, in view of any profit, with the fabrication of money.

2d. The kilogram shall be established as a weight for the common coins; the weights used by the mints must be made after a common normal weight.

3d. Common methods of assay and equal limits of tolerance for standard and weight of the common coins must be agreed upon.

4th. Coins of the same value must have the same diameter; they shall bear the date of the year when they were coined.

5th. When many pieces coined in the same year are found to be defective, by a process to be agreed upon, the government in default shall call in all the pieces issued in that year.

6th. An understanding shall be had as to the method of withdrawing from circulation all clipped coins, those diminished in weight beyond the limits of tolerance, or those on which the inscriptions have become illegible.

7th. It shall be held as a principle that each state shall punish violations of the monetary laws of the other states, as well as infractions of their own laws, and on this principle a monetary cartel shall be agreed upon.