From the foregoing we may conclude that the volume of a nation's currency is not necessarily a measure of its wealth, and that the wisest and safest method of regulating the amount of money in circulation is to leave it perfectly free to follow the inevitable laws of supply and demand. As a nation grows older its laws more stable, wise and just, it will attract money from other nations, as well as add to its supply by the product of the mines, and its volume of money gradually increases to meet the requirements, the same as the amount of wheat or cotton raised.

Monometallism consists in fixing upon a single metal as the standard of value. The two metals chiefly used as money are gold and silver. Of these silver is more widely and plentifully distributed than gold. It is usually formed in larger deposits and is more easily mined, hence its value is much less than that of gold. If the relative commercial values of the two metals would always continue precisely the same, the government could ascertain that value and fix the legal ratio accordingly, but the production of the two metals does not continue uniform, and hence their values are subject to change. An increase in the output of silver or a decrease in the production of gold, or vice versa, causes the commercial values of the two metals to fluctuate and thus change the actual or commercial ratio between them. Now, according to Gresham's Law, as before explained, when two metals are legal tender, and one is cheaper than the other, the cheaper invariably drives the dearer out of circulation, because a debtor will always pay in the cheapest coin which his creditor is compelled by law to receive.

From the establishment of our coinage system in 1792 until 1873 gold and silver were both legal standards of value, coined in unlimited quantities. The ratio from 1792 to 1834 was 15 to 1, but since the commercial value of silver was slightly below this ratio, gold was gradually driven out of circulation and so

Monometallism continued almost without interruption until in 1834. In 1820 Mr. Raguet wrote to the "National Gazette" to explain the reason for "the disappearance of gold from the United States." Two years later he wrote on the same subject, saying that "although the coinage of gold continued to be large ($1,319,030 in 1820) not a gold coin was anywhere to be seen in circulation." The gold was exported as fast as the mint turned it out with its weight and fineness fixed. To change this state of affairs Congress in 1834 changed the ratio to 16 to 1. This ratio overvalued gold and thence it became the cheaper money. Silver was driven from our shores, and fractional coin was kept in circulation only by making the half dollar, quarter dollar and dimes short in weight. In 1873 silver was demonetized, leaving gold as the sole standard, and reducing silver to the position of subsidiary coin. In this capacity it now circulates with gold. The argument of the monometallists is that in no other way can i both metals be kept in circulation than by making one a standard and the other subsidiary coin. History seems to support their contention.

England adopted the gold standard for herself and her colonies, including Australia, in 1816. Germany demonetized silver and went to the gold standard in 1871. Her example was soon followed by Denmark, Norway and Sweden. The gold standard also exists in Portugal, Turkey, Egypt and a few South American states. The silver standard prevails in Russia and Austria in Europe; China, India, Central America and Mexico.

Bi-metallism means the use of two metals, gold and silver, as standards of value. Those who advocate bi-metallism contend that there is not sufficient gold to supply the money need of the world, and that if the gold standard were universally adopted it would cause a gold famine which would be exceedingly disastrous to the financial welfare. It is further contended that by placing the entire burden as a standard of value upon one metal the use and importance of that metal is accordingly augmented and its value increased, causing a corresponding decline in the values of all other commodities.

But the strongest argument in favor of the double standard is that one metal acts as a check upon the fluctuations of the other. If two metals are equal as money standards, and one, for instance gold, should rise in value, this would bring the cheaper metal into more active use, thereby relieving the pressure on gold, or lessening the demand for it, and causing it to fall. Likewise if silver should become dearer, gold would be more extensively used in making payments instead of silver, thus bringing the two metals nearer an average of value and maintaining that uniformity which is so important as a measure of value. The bi-metallists contend that the uniformity of value of our standard is of far more vital importance than having the two metals circulate together, and that the lack of one metal in circulation can be supplied by other forms of money if necessary. The question may yet be regarded as an unsettled one among nations, with the tendency principally in the direction of the gold standard. The countries now having the double standard are France, Italy, Belgium and Switzerland, constituting what is known as the "Latin Union," Spain, Greece, and a few South American states.