MINUTES OF EVIDENCE 653
One moment. In your book you actually give the name of the Bombay financier who suggested it and you give the name of the Finance Minister of the Government of India who turned it down ?—Yes.
Then in your book you also give the name of a wellknown politician who as recently as 1907-08 suggested the same thing and again it was turned down by the Government of India and as recently as 1919, you give a reference to another well-known economist. Then why do you repeat the statement to the Chairman that the administrators of the Government of India have not thrown overboard or turned down the suggestion when as a matter of fact you know that the administrators of the Government of India have turned it down repeatedly when it has been put forward by wellknown Indian financiers ?—My reply to that is this : that somehow if you read the speeches in the budget delivered by every Finance Minister, for instance, I forget the names now, gentlemen who preceded Sir Edward Law; I think I can cite instances.
Sir James Westland and Sir Clinton Dawkins ?—But they never agreed with that.
No; it was suggested by an Indian to Westland who turned it down and again to Dawkins who turned it down ?— With due respect to your interpretation, Sir Edward Law did say that there should be gold standard sufficient to back all the rupees and the notes. I do not deny that. But I simply say this ; that other financiers stated that no reserve was wanted and the rupee would maintain itself and Sir Edward Law stated that the reserve was wanted and he coined rupees because he wanted the reserve. In fact, I have paid sufficient compliments to the training and the notions of Westland and Dawkins for turning down the proposals. I say they were right and Sir Edward Law was certainly wrong.
Sir Edward Law did not say that he coined rupees in order to provide the reserve. He said that he should hold it as a backing against the issue. It is you that put in the interpretation that he did coin rupees for the other purpose ?— He says that in the despatch. Before the Fowler Committee there