ment of pronounced bimetallists by the Government of India.
The reception of the proposals of the United States on the Continent of Europe was less cordial. France was especially lukewarm, and did not accept the proposal that the conference should be held at Paris. Arrangements were finally made for a meeting at Brussels. Germany was non-committal, but consented to be represented at the conference. England and the United States, as it appeared, were to be the moving forces in this conference. All was in readiness for a meeting in May, 1892, when the fear of cholera in Europe caused its postponement to November.
This delay was fatal, for in the meantime two political events had occurred which altered the attitude of the leading nations. In England the Conservative Party was overthrown and gave place to the Liberals, who had little sympathy with bimetallism. The new Ministry added to the delegation two men who were avowed opponents of bimetallism. In the United States the election of 1892 resulted in the defeat of the party in power. Under these circumstances the delegation from the United States could not make any binding promises for the incoming Administration. Accordingly the conference had little promise of success. When it met it was proposed to discuss any plans for enlarging the use of silver, especially such as might be proposed in the conference before taking up the subject of bimetallism. This was a programme of discussion rather than of action, and after some twelve sessions of fruitless debate the conference adjourned without any action.
Consult the reports of the conferences—that for 1867 being included in the appendix of that of 1878—issued by the United States Government; Wallace, International Monetary Conferences, in which the events leading up to the conferences are carefully portrayed. See also Bibliography with the article Money.
MONEY (OF. moneie, monoie, monnoye, Fr. monnaie, from Lat. moneta, money, mint, from Moneta, an epithet of Juno, in whose temple at Rome money was coined, from monere, to warn, connected with meminisse, to remember, Gk. μέριμνος, merimnos, anxious, Skt. smar, to remember). The medium of exchange and measure of value. Whatever fills these functions, however crudely, is money. Of all the substances which have been used as money, gold and silver take the first place, and the discussion of money usually has these in view. It is well to remember, however, that some of the humbler functions of money are to-day performed by nickel and copper, and that in times past not only other metals, tin, lead, iron, and platinum, have been used as money, but also, especially among primitive peoples, a wide variety of other objects. Jevons enumerates among other things, furs, skins, leather, sheep, cattle, wampum, cowries, grains, olive oil, tobacco, and salt, as being in use at one time or another for this purpose. Primitive as these may be, the enumeration seems to emphasize the fact that it is not a substance per se that we designate as money, but a substance invested with a certain utility.
So important is this function in modern life that we cannot readily conceive of a society without some mechanism to perform it. And indeed from the earliest days of recorded history we find references to money, and there are few among the primitive peoples of our own time which do not possess it in rudimentary form. The difference between the highly civilized nations of modern Europe and America and their early progenitors or the savage tribes of Africa does not consist so much in the fact that we use money and they do not, as in the extent to which it is used. Even though money is recorded as known among the most primitive peoples, it is then of only occasional use, it does not penetrate into every relation of social life. Peoples whose social organization is based upon slavery and patriarchal conditions have little need for money, nor is the need great among a pastoral or agricultural people when there is little differentiation of occupation. On the other hand, among highly organized industrial peoples where nearly all produce not for individual needs, but for sale in the market, money is in constant and universal demand.
The primary function of money is that of a medium of exchange; and, if in the theory of money to-day this characteristic receives scant notice, it is not because it is not fundamentally important, but rather because it is comprehended with comparative ease. Other functions are all derived from the primary function, medium of exchange.
Whatever the substance used as money may be it becomes an object of universal desire. In primitive society the most widely desired object came to be used as money. The fact that an object is universally desired fits it in the first instance for use as money, but after it acquires that function it is desired not chiefly for its own sake, but for its command over other things. At an early date the desire for personal adornment singled out the precious metals as money par excellence, but at the present time it is not because gold is beautiful that we desire it, but because as money it procures for us whatever we may desire.
In the second place, money is the measure of value. The acts of buying and selling fix upon the objects bought and sold relative values, and it was only a slight step to extend the conception of value to things not sold or bought, or which are not intended for sale. All things capable of sale can be valued in terms of money. All credit operations depend upon this fact. Since the value of the money in use in any society is insignificant as compared with its total wealth valued in terms of money, it has been argued that the function of money as a measure of value is far more important than its function as a medium of exchange. And in fact the further we get away from primitive conditions of trading, the more important does this derivative function become. When all wealth is valued in terms of money barter of a higher order becomes possible. In the new form of barter, however, the exchange of commodities is indirect. Modern commerce is largely based upon it, and while it is most apparent in international trade, where balances only are settled by the transfer of money, it is no less widespread and fundamental in domestic trade. See Credit; Bank, Banking.
From the function of a measure of value is derived a subordinate function of the greatest practical importance, namely the function of money as a standard of value. A standard of value is simply a measure by which values at dif-
