Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1852-07-31

u
respect could be shown there independent grounds
sufficient to justify the proposed charge Depostors at
the mint come solely for private advantage and for
that end put the Government to considerable expense
Should they not pay for that expense 1t contended
by MIR. Brooks that the Government, by assuming the
monopoly of coinage, obliged perform its duties
for nothing But has not Government the monopoly of
the Post Office and does il charge the people who
it OF the Patent Office for whose benefit il charges
fees OF the administration of law to secure which
sutors must defray the costs OF andforeign
affairs yet compulsory charges made licenses for
vessels inspection of steam engines for consular services
and passports But not further illustrate the matter
il is evident that the grauty of coinage is exception
TO the general rule adopted by Government in like
which rule is, that where the benefit Of governmental
action primarily to individual that individual
is charged therefor invariably 1t only in where
the benefit is general one not conferred any one In
particular, that Government acts gratuitously.
For what is ii that coinage alone, of all the
services performed by Government for the pecuniary ad
vantage of individuals is executed without charge for
expenses 1t be said that the depositors Of bull
lion meritorous class than the producers Of
ron Of cotton of WOOL Of wheat yet would IL not be
thought ridiculous that the Government should be at the
expense Of gratutoasy manufacturing those articles into
merchantable and valuable shape? And, to come
closer to the question: shall the banker merchant who
into possession of bullion have it melted assayed
and coined for nothing at the mint while the hum
BILE and poor miner who digs must wash, or smelt or
otherwise prepare it without any Government assistance
and finally il he wishes it assayed in his country
must pay from to per centum TO the government
assayer in California Bullion is also taxed to pay some
mint operations already, those for parting refining
which the Government win charge for part Of the
process of coinage certain class of bullion Dealers
while another class is freed from all charges?
Upon consideration of the whole matter, it appears
evident that moderate coinage duty will have tendency
to increase the home circulation of coins will place
the dealers in bullion the and worse footing
than our other producing interests will conform prac
tice to that of Europe and to the intentions Of Hamilton
and the founders Of mint system and will relieve the
Government Of very considerable expense conferred as
bounty on n class interest.
On question of finance like this and which lies
out Of the usual range of thought of legislators and
people, all Difference is due to the opinions OF writer's who
have examined the subject Settled by this test, there
can be no difficulty in coming to a conclusion The
writers on political economy certainly at disagree
ment many points, but the propriey of charge
for coinage there is complete unanmty; it is believed
that Mr. b. could not point to single author of autho
rity in modern times who has condemned coinage duty
Adam Smith, in book W. c. vi, and elsewhere OF his
Wealth OF Nations treats of the subject at large, and
with irresistible force of reasoning Say gives his views
in favor Of it in his Political Economy, book j. sec. g.
John Stuart Mill the abest modern writer the science
approves of seignorage (Pol Econ vol H. W and
j. r. McCuoch, in his Essay Money, G. iii, Boston,
$780, devotes great space to show the propriey of the
charge on coinage But ADLER essay is any where to
to be found none certainly that could have weight
with the people of the United States than that by Alex
ander Hamilton, in his report the mint and if some
member of Congress were to read it his speech the
A few words more and these comments may be con-
cluded
Mr. Books refers to the "weght of authority" which
he has against charge for coinage from practical bust
ness men, Mere authoritative dcta, without the
panment of reason therefor, unworthy of any
sideraton If Mr. b. had given the grounds which
his correspondents based their opinions it would have
been only just to them, and to those who disagree
with them. But, far see, they either have
not furnished he has not chosen TO present single
practical statement bearing the subject except that
by Adams Co. as to the respective charges of transport
ing bullion from San Francisco to London and New
York This statement is intended to show that under the
proposed charge bullion will be preferably sent to Lon
don instead of to minis BY the facts presents
it would appear that $500 900 be delivered from San
Francisco to London at $500 less expense than TO New
York, and the inference is drawn that additional
half per cent here, by operating additional premium
export will turn the current Of shipments rresisbly
to London. But little consideration will show that an
error must Turk in the statement thus presented
fact that the rate of exchange London has,
with temporary exception, ruled very high for some
time past in fact much above the real par that there
has been constant source Of profit in renting gold
coin to be there melted sold to meet bills drawn here
The coin thus shipped is the produce Of California gold
and has had to bear st the charges TO New York. set
down in Adams & Co.'S statement at 4.61 per cent, TO
which add ID freight and other charges to London from
New York per cent by the rates Of Edwards San
ford Co., and have total charge Of $3.50 per cent
borne by shipments of California dust first Cor coinage
here then to London to meet bills Now in the face of
this fact asked believe that the bullion could
have been been placed in London direct from San Fran
cisco, at per cent Is this credible? We all know by
what small per centages exchange dealers and bullion
merchants are guided know that their operations
have constantly demanded Of them to be placing bullion
in London. IL appears matter of fact that by the
indirect route Of New York to London it costs them over
81 per cent it stated that by the direct route it costs
but per cent and in such circumstances called
upon to explain why the indirect route with its greater
cost is almost invariably selected We that there
must be in the facts Of the staemen but wherein
1T lies IL is not incumbent to show Mr. Brooks
and his correspondent should themselves present the
PLANTATION. We, however, take the liberty of intrudng
for their consideration the following possible Of
error. We assume that the per centages Of freight
charged are correct, that nothing has been omitted
Nevertheless the Of may lie in single word
misused We believe that what is called 800 600 in the
statement is such thing in London. 1t Is probably
SlOOOO0 or the cash equivalent in New York. but in
London II Is most probably good deal less. The
it is less is that IL has to sustain number of heavy
charges for melting for assay for refining for discount
at bank it probably also could have been quickly
realized in London by the indirect than the direct ship
ment that there is loss OF interest by delay The
bullion called 100000 is therefore great deal lcssened
by its London friends how much lessened we will not
pretend to say but is clear that sagacous dealers
long ago learned that the advantages Of the direct
shipment which appear to be per cent, altogether
delusve and that their gains by depose at mint and
reshpment make IL their interest bring their dust here
first when its proceeds finally destined London
Having thus shown that the facts presented by Adams
Co.. If they prove any thing show that all California
gold ought already to have been sent direct from San
Francisco which know is the case the inference
which it is attempted to draw that small charge for
coinage will certainly hereafter turn the Of trade
clearly unsupported by any rational inference from the
experience of cannot however. leave this