CLOSE OF THE BRUSSELS CONFERENCE
In view of the various declarations, M. de Rothschild withdrew his plan, and there was left before the conference only the Levy plan. This latter was favourably regarded, but was radically insufficient for the situation, and not considered important enough to receive really vigorous support.
The course of the conference thereupon returned to the general discussion of the bimetallic proposal of the United States. In this discussion the attitude of reserve which the French delegates had maintained was abandoned, and M. Tirard declared with the greatest clearness that he could not advise his Government to open the French Mints to the free coinage of silver, unless there was a general agreement on the part of other nations to open their Mints also. Until, therefore, there should be a decided change of opinion on the part of Great Britain, Germany, Austria, the Scandinavian States, and other monometallic states, the question of returning to the free coinage of silver must be looked upon as settled.
In view of such declarations the delegates of the United States declared that they would not press for a vote upon the question of bimetallism. And the conference closed with a formal adjournment, should the Governments approve, to the 30th May 1893.
The close of the conference was a heavy blow to the bimetallic cause, as illustrating so fully the impossibility of any arrangement. Germany, Denmark,
Sweden, and Norway, declared clearly that no change would be made on the gold basis of their currency. The delegate of Austria Hungary was equally explicit in his statement that his Government had every intention of abiding by the gold standard they were in the course of adopting.
The decided lead of France was followed punctually by Switzerland, Italy, Belgium, and Greece. The Netherlands were prepared to join a bimetallic union, provided that Great Britain formed a part of it; and Spain and Mexico were willing to adopt bimetallism, or other measures which would have the effect of raising the price of silver. No declaration was made on the behalf of Russia, though one of the delegates, speaking personally, was an active supporter of the gold standard. The Roumanian Government did not consider bimetallism a practical possibility, and Turkey and Portugal expressed no opinion.
Practically, the United States stood alone in advocacy of bimetallism. In addition to this fact, the situation was rendered much more trying for her delegates by the fact that since their appointment the presidential election had placed the Democratic party in power, and great uncertainty prevailed as to the attitude and intentions of a new President and Congress. "In these circumstances it soon became evident that the delegates were anxious for an adjournment of the question to give the new Government the opportunity of expressing
their views, and that the conference would adjourn without any practical result. But, nevertheless, some very important statements and declarations were elicited in the course of the debates. In the first place, in addition to the distinct declarations on the part of some of the most important European powers that they would not entertain bimetallism, the representatives of the United States announced in very clear language that at any moment their Government might be disinclined to continue their purchases of silver, and that they were determined to protect their stock of gold. The Indian delegates alluded to the possibility of their Government finding itself under the necessity of closing its Mint to the free coinage of silver."