"In forming any opinion in respect to this problem, it is important to steadily keep in mind the fact that international trade is trade in commodities and not in money; and that the precious metals come in only for the settlement of balances.... The trade between England and India is an exchange of service for service. Its character would not be altered if India should adopt the gold standard to-morrow, or if she should, like Russia, adopt an irredeemable paper currency, or, like China, buy and sell by weight instead of tale.... Unless all the postulates of political economy are false--unless we are entirely mistaken in supposing that men in their individual capacity, and hence in their aggregate capacity as nations, are seeking the most satisfaction with the least labour, we must assume that India, England, and America produce and sell their goods to one another for the most they can get in other goods, regardless of the kind of money that their neighbours use or that they themselves use." From the time of the Civil War until 1879, this country, though nominally on a gold and silver basis, was actually using a depreciated paper money. No serious inconvenience was experienced in our foreign trade during the greater part of this time; when the currency was most fluctuating, it doubtless did disturb all business, both foreign and domestic, but this was due to its great and sudden changes, and may be regarded as abnormal, and unlikely under a proper system again to occur. Walter Bagehot, in his work, "A Universal Money," observes:-- "If France and America had the same currencies as England, it would still happen, as now, that bills on Paris or New York would be at a discount or a premium. The amount of money wishing to go eastward across the Atlantic, and the amount wishing to go westward, would then, as now, settle how much was to be paid in London for bills on New York, and how much was to be paid in New York for bills on London."