Oberendly intended to mean "of not less value" till it is impracticable to expect to get coins from 2 different countries of nearly identical value.
Then as to the discussion as to its being taken by count or weight - the point appears one of not much actual importance in the actual state of the circulation.
The Treasury assume that what Mr. Fremantle calls "the universally known & almost weight" of the "Hongkong Mexican Dollar" is the actual standard of value, but they ignore the evils arising from the absence in the law in Council of any clauses specifying the limit of weight & forbidding circulation of chopped coin. As shown by the various letters from the Banks and speeches at the Chamber of Commerce, the practical standard in the commercial world is not one Mexican dollar being of the same fineness; they could be thrown into the same scales without increasing the difficulty.
Mr. Fremantle in saying that no law or proclamation is at hand defining the weight & fineness of the Mexican dollar, and the Treasury in laying stress on Mr. Fremantle's statement in their letter of 24 October 1874, "the weight composition of the Mexican dollar has not been defined in any proclamation legalizing its circulation in the Colonies", appear to me to have strangely overlooked the Ordinance regulating the Straits Currency which makes the standard of value the dollar issued from H.M. Mint at Hong Kong, the silver dollar of Spain, Mexico, Peru, & Bolivia, or any other silver dollar of same fineness & intrinsic value of not less than 415 grains Troy weight - not injured or defaced". This is a definite unit, while the Hongkong standard is simply undefined. As I said on 5586/716, "but a certain weight of chopped dollars being thrown with the scales together, the American trade dollars...