No government eau maintain at one j time more than ono standard of value, any more than it can maintain more than one standard of weight, or more than one standard of measure, or more than one standard oí' length. If there be two or more standards of different value, the standard of Jower value will in practice beoome the only standard. If one goes into the market, the law ! being that a yard sball be either two feet or three feet in length, and buys carpets by the yard at a flxed price, there will be delivered to him carpets measured in yards of two feet in length. If he buy coal by the ton, the law being . that a ton shall be either 2,000 or 2,240 pounds, he will receive tons of 2,000 ( pounds each. If he buy potatoes by the bushei, the law being that a bushei shall contain either two pecks or four ! pecks, there will be delivered to him : bushels of two pecks each. On the same principie, if the law be I that a dollar is either a gold coin, with a bullion value equal to its face value, or a silver coin, with a bullion value of only half its face value, and not convertible at par into gold coin, the sellera of the carpets, the coal and the ' ! toes will be paid in dollars of the lesser value. There never has been and there never i can be in any country at any time a bimetallic standard, and the attempt to créate a doublé standard has uever produced anything better than an alternating standard, with the inevitable j consequences of injustice with reference to past contracts and uncertainty with ! reference to future contracts. Indeed, Senator Jones admits in the report of the silver commission of 1876 that "whenever underthe doublé standard there is a variance between the legal and market relations of the metáis the standard would be practically based on one metal, and it the cheaper and more available one." The financial history of the United States and of France furnish conclusive evidence of the acearacy of the senator's view ou this point.