Prof. F. M. Tiiylor, of the Unlversity, has written a letter to the monetary eonimissiou in which ho discusses theiT reeently pu'blished report. He not agree with all the recoinnicnd.itious coutained therein, although commendlng tJie of the corumission as a whole. He is not entirely satisfled with the banking feature of the report, dor does he beial plan of eurrency reform is practieaWe. lic liases this mi the sentiment whu-h prevails in both u uses of congresa against bhe retirev.'Ain of the greenbacks. Prof. Tayioi: w rites: "If I pilt out oi' mind for the tnoment tlie question oj: praotiaablíity, I find mysi'lt' reading with almost uumixed satisfaotion and approval the !)inions and recommendatio-na of the luonetary eoiuTuissio'n, and this both as respects thd leadlng deas and also the expedienta proposed for carrying out these ideas. Indeed, 1 ihink there is but one mudiliration oï any importanee which I slu.uld incllned tó urge; and that eoneis the ineans proposed for secufing elasticity. I do not oonsider these altogether adequate, partlcularly 011 the side of contractílity. I tliink every bank shduld b; prohfbited fmtn paying out the notes of any other bank. Kut. this almosl unmixed approval f the pian outlied is bas,d nu the assumption üial it is practieaible, and t lm t assuinption si-eins to imwarranted. Hiere is no chance of passing a bilí whicii providea for the retireinent of the greenback. li' tliis be grauted, it is plain that in order lo bring out a thoroughly sa.tisfactoi-y project of reform, it would have been necessarj for the conimission t reooguize tiii; limit at (lic outscr. and bhe pían aeeordingly. However. the work of the conimission ill doubfless contribure greatly o defining the sorl and degree of reform which the country wants and n the long run will g%i."