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...
oberendly intended to mean "of not less salux til is impracticable to expect to fet coins from 2 differe. 1 - Countries of laallly identical
valve.
Then
as
to the discussion
as to its being taken by count or weins - the point appear tone of not much attual importance in the actual state of the circulation.
The treasung assunder that what Me
Fremantle calls "the universally known & Allohnigst weight " of the "Hongkong Mexican Dollar in the actual standard of valere, but they ignore the wils arising from the absence in the Neler in Council of any clauses Specifying the limit of weight- & forbidding cirenlation of chopped coin: As Freed the various letters from the Banks Espeeches atte Chamber of Commerce the practical sta dand
in the I valve is not one Mexican doller
Commercial world
94
being of the same fineness could fwould be thrown into the same sebules without increasing the difficulty -
M. Fremantle in saying that no law or prodemation is at hand defining the weight &f Fincress Atc Mexican doller" & the trecanorty
in Laying to M. Bremantle in their letter of 84 October 1874 "the weight composition of the Merican dollar has not been defined in any proclamation legalizing its corentation in the Colonies" appear tome to have strangely overlooked the Irdinance regulating the Straits Currency which makes the standard of value The dollar iomed from HM. Mint at Stonstong the silver dollar of Spain, Mexico, Peru, & Bolivia tany other silver dollar
of same fincses &
intrinsic valve
of not less than 415 grainers
Prey weight - not injured or defaced". this is a definite auit, while the Imgkong standard
is 5. if the Colonists cannot manufacture a clean dotter
simply undefined : As Isaid on 5586/716,
"but a "certain weight of then chopped dunchopfeed being thrown wit the scales together, the American trade dollars
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.