Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1897-10-30

After noting that the effect of the ndop-
tion of the scheme would probably be an
Increase In prices In France and the United
States, but decrease In india" change
which France and the United States
would contemplate with equanlmity, but
which would be manifestly impossible &c
india" the reply suggests that the United
States Is doubtless partly inspired in maxi
ing its proposals by fear of experiencing
some difficulties and dangers which India
has already surmounted after years of en-
barrassment.
why II would Fail.
The reply then proceeds to discuss va
rious reasons why the experiment would
not succeed. First, France and the United
States, seeing the prospect of a total dis
appearance of gold coinage before the price
of silver has been raised to the intended ra-
ito, might take measures to prevent the eN-
port of gold; second, either country might
be reduced to paper currency In which
case the agreement would cease to operate:
third, q three-sided agreement would be
open to greater risk of termination by one
or two parties than many-sided interna-
tional agreement, besides which. either
France or the United States might some
day think some other nation benefiting
at its expense, and this would lead to dis
cussions as to the eXpediency of the ter
mination of the agreement, discussions
only less serious than actual termination.
Refusal Recommended.
For these reasons alone, without con-
sidering objections to the particular ratio
| proposed, we do not hesitate" continue the
authors of the reply, ito recommend that
| your lordship refuse to give the undertake
ing desired. We shall be willing to consider
| what effect the cooperation of any other
nations, If secured, may have on the prob
lens, but we believe that our best policy
| Is to link ourselves to Great Britain"
Ratio TOO High.
| They then proceed to argue that the ratio
| of 6fteep n nd one-balf tn one ia "tOo hiuh
Differing so widely from the existing ratio,
| 1t would immensely increase the difficulty.
| Indeed, II II could be secured and main
| tanned, we would object to the ratio in the
| interests of India, and we recommend your
| lordship on behalf of India, to decline to
| participate in, or to do anything to en-
courage the formation of a union based
| thereon"
Having discussed the probable effect In
various directions upon Ind!a's local inter-
ests, the dispatch recommends a reply in
the negative, adding: I'VE presume that q
union based upon a ratio low enough to suit
our interests would not be acceptable to
| France and the United States.' In conclu-
sion the official dispatch intimates that the
present proposals might have been favor
ably considered in 1892, but 'the experience
of the last few years has made the position
very different" 1t also notes that "the
| conditions under which we have had to re-
ply to your lordship's dispatch preclude
| our consulting with the commercial and
banking communities of India" but "ever
had another reply been possible 1t could
only have been after the fullest preliminary
consideration by our banking and CONNER
cial bodies"
The dispatch is signed by Lord Elgin
the viceroy of India; Sir George Stewart
White, commander in chief of the British
forces in India and extraordinary membe
of the council of the governor-generala ant
by the following members of the council
Sir James Westland Financial member o.
the counciD, Sir John Woodburn, major
general; Sir e. H. Collin, Hon. Mackenzi,
Dalzell Chalmers and Hon. A. c. Trevor
The correspondence concludes with Lore
Salisbury's dispatch to Ambassador Hay
the contents of which have already beer
| Cabled.