Sec. 10. #Nature and object of bimetallism.# First came “the greenback movement,” which, lasted until after 1880.[17] This then gave way to an agitation for bimetallism. Bimetallism is the plan of using two metals as standard moneys.  Bimetallism is legally authorized when both metals are admitted to the mints for free coinage at an established ratio of weight.  Bimetallism may be legally authorized, but not actually working, for, if the market-value long continues to vary appreciably from the legal ratio, only one of the metals may in fact be left in circulation.  This situation is called limping bimetallism (or the halting double standard), tho this is a contradiction of terms.  National bimetallism is confined to a single country, as was the case in the United States before the Civil War, or in France before 1867.  International bimetallism is that resulting from an agreement among several nations to use two metals on the same terms.

The theory of bimetallism is that the government can act on the value of the two metals through the principle of substitution.  The metal tending to become dearer will not be coined, the other will be coined in greater quantities.  The degree of influence that can thus be exerted on the value of the two metals depends on the size of the reservoir of the metal that is rising in value.  When it all leaves circulation, the law on the statute book permitting it to be coined becomes a mere phrase.  In such a case there is bimetallism de jure, but monometallism de facto. The greater the league of states the greater is the likelihood that the plan will continue to work.  The only notable historical instance of international bimetallism is that of the Latin Union, which united France, Belgium, Italy, and Switzerland in an agreement remaining actually in force from 1866 to 1874.  A strong movement developed between 1878 and 1892 in favor of forming a great international bimetallic union of states.

One object of the movement was to put an end to the great fluctuations in the rates of exchange of money between the silver-using and gold-using countries, fluctuations which occasioned much uncertainty and loss to individuals engaged in foreign trade.  The rise in the price of gold-exchange in the silver-using countries (notably India) meant also an increase in their burden of taxation.  These countries collected their revenues in silver, but they had to pay their debts, principal and interest, in gold.  Another object of this movement was to prevent the burden of individual debts from increasing by reason of the rise in the value of the single standard, gold.  It was, indeed, hoped that by bringing silver much more into use, the value of gold would be reduced, thus bringing relief to the debtor classes.  Still another object of the bimetallic movement was to aid the silver miners and silver-producing districts by creating a larger market for silver.

Several international conferences were held which were taken part in by some of the leading financiers of the world representing their respective governments.  The United States was foremost in advocating the policy, France at first favored it, as did in large measure the British Indian administration, tho England was in the main opposed.  The movement came to nothing.