the notice
of the committee of the American Senate.

"It is strange, indeed, to see American newspapers eagerly maintaining
the inviolability of the 'pound sterling,' when it has become
entirely evident that the great monetary struggle of the future
must lie between the British pound and the American dollar. In
truth, this was virtually admitted in the 'conference' by Mr.
Graham, one of the British delegates, and master of the royal mint.

"With high regard, faithfully yours,
"Samuel B. Ruggles.
"Hon. John Sherman,
"Chairman Senate Finance Comittee, etc., etc., etc."

We were called upon to legislate upon the subject. The French
government promptly acquiesced in the coin proposed. Mr. Ruggles'
report said that several governments had already assented to it.
The report was referred to the committee on finance of the Senate,
who submitted a favorable report with a bill to carry out the
recommendations, and that report was published. There was no
dissent from the plan except that Senator Morgan, of New York,
thought it would interfere with the profit of New York brokers in
changing dollars into pounds. As a matter of course, it would have
interfered with the exchanges of New York and London, the great
money centers of the world. It would have interfered with bullion
dealers who make profit in exchanging coins; but the whole of it
was for the benefit of each country.

No man can estimate the benefit it would have conferred upon our
own people. It was only defeated by the refusal of Great Britain
to assent to the change of her pound sterling by the reduction of
its value about one penny. But pride in the existing coins, so
strong in that country, defeated the measure, although it had been
assented to by her representatives in that monetary congress; and
so the thing ended.

It is easy now to perceive that if this international coin had been
agreed to it would have passed current everywhere, as it could
rapidly be exchanged at sight without going through the hands of
brokers. I do not believe that Mr. Morgan would have insisted on
his opposition, as the only ground of his objection was, it would
have destroyed the business of the money changers of New York.
Even his resistance would have been ineffectual, as the committee
and the Senate were decidedly in favor of the bill and the opposition
of New York brokers would have added strength to the measure.

The greatest statesmen of Europe and America have