Conferences between representatives of the United States and various European powers for the discussion of united action with reference to monetary matters were held in 1867, 1878, 1881, and 1892. France, on completing the Latin Monetary Union (q.v.), indulged in the hope that other nations might join the union, and brought the matter to the attention of other governments through diplomatic channels. France called the conference of 1867 during the exposition of that year with the thought of furthering this project. Nineteen States were represented at the conference. 

The first question debated was whether an existing system or a wholly new one was best adapted to secure international coinage. The answer was in favor of an existing system, and it was admitted that the system of the Latin Union would probably be best adapted to this purpose. A Second question was : "Is there a possibility of establishing at this time identities or partial coincidences of monetary types on a wide scale, on the basis and with the condition of the adoption of the silver standard exclusively?' A third question repeats this inquiry for the gold standard exclusively, and a fourth for the double standards with a common ration. 

These questions were discussed together, but the debate was not properly one of standards. The conference declared unanimously in favor of the gold standard as a basis of an international coinage. But in this conference the whole question of standards was incidental. Whether a unit should be adopted for all the nations or whether coincidences in the value of the coins should be effected were the most important questions considered. Finally a resolution was adopted that all gold coins which were multiples of 5 francs should have legal circulation in all the contracting States. The work seemed to be complete and the conference adjourned with mutual congratulations. But there the matter ended, as no treaties to carry out the plans were contracted.

Quite different was the purpose of the conferences of 1878, 1881, and 1892. A fall in the value of silver as compared with gold had taken place and the silver currency threatened to depreciate seriously and perhaps endanger the monetary systems of those countries in which the double standard existed. In 1867 the ratio between silver and gold, which for many years had been below the French ratio of 1 to 15 1/2, rose above it and in 1874 rose above the American ratio of 1 to 16, and by 1878 had reached 1 to 17.94. In the meantime prices had begun to fall.

The initiative for the conference of 1878 proceeded from the United States. The coinage law of February of that year authorized the President to invite "the governments of the countries composing the Latin Union so called, and of such other European nations as he may deem advisable to join the United States in a conference to adopt a common ratio between gold and silver, for the purpose of establishing, internationally, the use of bimetallic money, and securing fixity of relative value between those metals." In response to the invitation of the United States, the principal nations except Germany sent representatives to the conference which met in Paris in August, 1878.

Considerable solicitude was expressed at the conference lest silver should be wholly discarded, though no agreement could be reached on bimetallism. This in particular was the attitude of Great Britain, concerned as she was for the currency of India. The most bitter hostility to bimetallism was exhibited by Belgium and Switzerland, while France, their partner in the Latin Union, was distinctly in favor of it. In its advocacy of the principle the United States was handicapped by the fact that it was on a paper basis and that it was a producer of silver. The proposals of the United States were rejected, the European nations uniting in the declaration "that it is necessary to maintain in the world the monetary functions of silver as well as those of gold, but that the selection for use of one or of the other of the two metals, or of both simultaneously, should be governed by the special position of each State or of each group of States." The conference was thus without result.

In 1881 another conference was held at Paris. Events were rapidly proving that the alleged scarcity of gold was a fact. The United States began to import gold and this drew upon the European stock. The Bank of England saw its gold reserves diminish and seemed unable to check the outflow. In France the reserve of gold in the Bank declined, while silver increased. As the proportion of silver in the metallic reserve increased doubts began to be expressed whether gold payments would be maintained. 

Germany saw the completion of her monetary reform indefinitely postponed by her inability to sell her stock of silver coin except at a great sacrifice. In the United States the pressure for free silver continue. France was the prime mover in this conference, though the United States joined in issuing the invitations. Great Britain exhibited great reserve in the conference and the delegates of other States declared themselves bound by strict instructions. The discussions were able and learned, but fruitless, and the conference adjourned without result.

It was not until 1892 that another effort was made to effect monetary reform by means of a conference. In 1891 the President was authorized to call a conference. Great Britain exhibited more interest than usual, and while she declined to join a conference whose only object was the discussion of bimetallism, consented to take part in a conference to discuss an enlarged monetary use of silver. The British Government appointed delegates in sympathy with bimetallic proposals and sanctioned the appointment 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 program 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.