Thus, in our country previous to 1873, when silver was worth more than one-sixteenth of its weight in gold, uncoined silver was necessarily worth more than coined silver for some purposes, and the coins already struck were worth more in the manufacture of spoons and plate than to circulate as coins. Prior to 1853, when the half dollars, quarter dollars and dimes were coined at the ratio of sixteen to one, such coins could not be kept in circulation, for the reason that they were worth more than their face value. The law of 1853 reduced the weight of these coins so that their market value as silver was sure to remain a trifle less than their face value. The result was no further melting up of these small coins for use in the arts or for bullion. This fact is only one illustration of what is called Gresham’s law, formulated in the time of England’s base coinage during the sixteenth century, but noticed centuries earlier, that _cheap money always drives out a more costly money_. The principle is as constant as human nature, that nobody will give a greater value when a less value will serve the same purpose. For this reason, no country in recent times has been able to keep both gold and silver as the actual standards of value at the same time. Either the ratio must be changed with every fluctuation of either metal, or one of the metals must be undervalued in the system of coinage, as has been done in England for the greater part of this century; or else the total coins of the cheaper metal must be limited in amount, as has been done by the Latin Union in Europe during the last twenty-five years. In either case the tendency is toward a single standard. The commercial world prefers a stable, well understood unit to a changeable one. And while the fluctuations of gold alone affect somewhat the stability of prices, these are thought of less importance than the necessary legal adjustments for new systems of coinage.