Front matter (continued 5)

Mr. Merchant: For the purpose of this discussion we must assume that the business is honestly managed, and is, therefore, ordinarily sound, and confine ourselves to just the single subject of reserves, which my study leaves me to think, may be considered; 1st, from the standpoint of the single bank; 2d, from a standpoint of the community or a single city; 3d, from a standpoint of the whole country; 4th, from the standpoint of the whole world or our relation to the rest of the commercial world.

Now, generally speaking, we mean by reserves in banking that part of the capital which is retained in order to meet the average demands upon deposits. But this, of course, varies with every bank to some extent; and, while 5 per cent cash would be ample reserve for a high-class mutual savings bank, a commercial bank, in equally good standing, may require from 10 per cent reserve up to 50 per cent, according to the character of the business carried on. A country bank dealing with the farmers might require the smaller amount, while a bank dealing entirely with bankers would require the largest possible reserve, to meet any emergency at any time. Each individual bank must be judged by itself and its reserves adjusted accordingly. In the second instance, as suggested, the locality or environment must be taken into account; in many instances the character of the neighboring banks and their peculiar business are all factors of great importance, and no one of them can be overlooked. So also when the bank credit is considered as a unit of the structure of the nation, the general situation from one end of the country to the other has a bearing upon it, and from some cause terror may sweep over the entire land in a single day, and every nerve of trade be paralysed.

Then, finally, if our nation is an integral part of the commercial world, we must devise some method that will conserve our reserves when possibly for a hundred of various reasons, they may be steadily leaving us or be drawn away by foreign influences.

Mr. Banker: Your statement of the condition and forces that are always playing upon every center of credit from the single bank in the country town to the largest and strongest in our financial centers makes it necessary for the welfare of the whole people, that we should develop in the United States an atmosphere of absolute confidence that nothing can shake. Unless we can do this we shall continue to have commercial earthquakes of ever increasing violence and destructiveness.

How to develop, establish and retain a defense of impregnable confidence should be then our purpose, and if we succeed, this must be our great achievement.

Speaking of the matter in a more definite way, we must assume that from the primary form of reserve, which is what we started out with, such a part of our capital in gold as will always prove equal to the average demands upon deposits must be kept constantly available.

We must have what are aptly called secondary reserves, which will meet all ordinary, yes extraordinary, or unusual calls; but, finally we must have such access to an almost incomprehensible store of gold, as to impress and overwhelm the imagination, and place its possible exhaustion beyond human conception.

Mark this, your cash on hand of the reserve order, that is in gold coin, ought under all circumstances, to be ample to care for current requirements, while your credits, subject to call, with other banks, or arrangements for credit, ought to be ample to meet all ordinary, or seasonal, or periodic demands—and your general assets, which most of necessity be your ultimate reserve, must be of such a liquid character that if a panic comes, and the necessity arises, they can be converted into cash, of the reserve order; that is gold coin.

You perceive, of course, that such a condition assumes two things; first, that gold should always be running through the channels of trade in sufficient quantities to touch and characterize the quality of all credits; book credits, as well as note credits; both must always be equal to gold, and commerce must be kept conscious of that fact by the persistent presence of gold.

There must be kept before the business eye, the people's eye, the national eye, such a vast horde of gold concentrated for the purpose as to compel even the most timorous to feel safe, beyond a peradventure. There must be a conviction everywhere that the system cannot break down or fail.

Mr. Manufacturer: Mr. Banker, your position, or statement, is in perfect accord with Bagehot, the great banking economist of England. Here's what he said: "I have tediously insisted that the natural system of banking is that of many banks keeping their own cash reserves, with the penalty of failure before them if they neglect it." In another place he says: "Of course, in such a matter the cardinal rule to be observed is that errors of excess are innocuous, but errors of defect are destructive. Too much reserves only means a small loss of profit, but too small a reserve may mean ruin. Credit may be at once shaken, and if some terrifying accident happens to supervene, there may be a run on the banking department, that may be too much for it, as in 1857 and 1866, and may make it unable to pay its way without assistance, as it was in those years." And again he writes: "Why should a bank keep any reserve? Because it may be called upon to pay certain liabilities at once and in a moment."

Upon the same point I want to support your position by another great English economist, Stanley Jevons. He says: "There is a tendency to frequent severe scarcities of loanable capital, causing sudden variations of the rate of interest, almost unknown thirty years ago. I will therefore in the next chapter offer a few remarks intended to show that this is an evil naturally resulting from the excessive economy of the precious metal which the increasing perfection of our banking system allows to be practiced, but which may be carried too far, and lead to extreme disaster." Again he says: "The vast trade of the country cannot be placed upon a sound basis, until the force of public opinion among bankers imposes upon each member the necessity of holding a cash reserve, bearing a fair proportion to the liabilities incurred. It matters little who holds the reserve, provided it actually does exist in the form of metal, and is not evaporated away, by being placed at par, or deposited with other banks which make free use of it. In the absence of some common action among bankers, it is certain that the sensitiveness of the money market will increase, and it is probable that commercial crises will from time to time recur, even exceeding in their violence and disastrous consequences those whose history we know too well."

The want of the conservation of proper gold reserves is what has led to the weakness of the German situation today and compels them to take steps to strengthen the reserves of the individual banks in accordance with the finding of the commission appointed to revise the banking laws of Germany. The individual banks of England have also been increasing their cash reserves for several years past, recognizing the force of what Jevons wrote several years ago.

Mr. Farmer: That's all right, Mr. Banker, as a statement of principles, and I think it is perfectly clear to me just what you mean; but there is one point that I would like to have settled, and that's this: what is a reserve in the United States? That is, what can you call a reserve? You know I am a director of our little bank down in the village below. The other day I asked them what they held for reserves and the cashier brought out this list; $3,000 silver certificates; $3,500 of United States notes, or greenbacks; $4,500 National bank notes; $2,500 gold certificates; $1,500 gold coin; and some silver change. As quick as I saw that bunch of stuff, I said to myself, just what you pounded into me some nights ago, that those bank notes ought never to be held as reserves, because they were nothing but another bank's debts, nothing but another bank's I.O.U.'s. Do you know that idea never penetrated my cranium until that very minute. Now, that is an absolute absurdity, that one bank's debts should be used as another bank's reserves. Just imagine what a high old time we would have, if the banks went around the country exchanging their debts with each other for the purpose of creating reserves. The sky would be the limit. Just think of it; where would it stop?

Mr. Banker: Well, Mr. Farmer, that is precisely what the bankers of this country are doing. I know of one National banker who took $3,000,000 of his own bank notes, and put them into the reserves of a Trust Co., and all the stock of the Trust Co. was owned by his bank, and was locked up in the safe of the bank. I know another National bank that got a large Trust Co. to bury $3,500,000 of its notes down at the bottom of its reserves, so that they could not get out; and this is a fair sample of just what is going on all over this country today. This is done just to keep their notes out, so that they can make the extra 1 per cent or 1¼ on the notes in circulation, as we call it. Some one of you may say, well! these notes are secured by Government bonds. Yes, suppose they are, what of it? Congress has just passed a law providing for $500,000,000 more just like these present National Bank Notes, which are to be secured by State Bonds, Municipal Bonds, Railroad Bonds and Promissory Notes and what not, and the boast of that wonderful economist Aldrich was that you could not tell them apart. Any fraud, apparently, would suit him, so long as no one found it out. Now, I assert, and challenge any man to deny it, that if any good debt is fit to be used for reserve money, then every good debt is equally fit. If a Government debt is good reserve money, then New York State debts, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and all state debts; and if all state debts, then New York city, Philadelphia, Chicago and all city debts; and if New York, Chicago and Philadelphia debts are good reserve money, then the United States Steel, Standard Oil and all corporation debts; and if all corporation debts are good reserves, then the debts of J.P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie and all private debts are good reserves. When you stop to think of it, what a preposterous proposition it is to make any debt a reserve for another debt. The State of California has just waked up, and will not permit her state banks to hold a National Bank Note as reserve; but the great State of New York specifically provides that her banks may hold National Bank Notes as reserves.

Mr. Merchant: I must confess that I never knew that before; such a scheme as that is perfectly rotten, and it seems to me as though something ought to be done to correct so obvious an evil. Why, gentlemen, these men who are using bank notes as reserves, must have known that they were driving just that much gold out of the country, and weakening the basis of credit to just that extent.

Mr. Banker: I don't know whether they know enough to know that or not, and I don't know whether it would have made any difference with them if they did. When a man's cupidity and greed make a slave of him, they drive all patriotism out of his soul, just as debts, promises to pay, or wind money drives the gold out of the country.

Mr. Manufacturer: This scheme of banks exchanging their promissory notes or their debts for the purpose of making reserves is a new one to me, too. But, if any one thing can be much worse than another, it must be this scheme.

Gentlemen, a true reserve must be the measure and touchstone of credit, therefore a reserve cannot be a credit itself nor a debt created by granting credit. Now, what is the thing by which we are measuring the value of all credit? Indeed, the thing by which we are measuring the value of everything? It is gold, is it not? Then certainly gold is the only thing that ought to be considered as a reserve.

Mr. Banker: Right you are, Mr. Manufacturer, no greater economic truth was ever uttered, or better said, than you have just put this one. In support of that, I want to read something just written by Joseph T. Talbert, Vice-President of one of our greatest banks. It is this: "What is a Bank Note? It is the available gold behind a Bank Note that gives it value. Substitution of any form of credit paper, the greenback, for instance, is a substitution of a deferred promise of a thing, for the thing itself. A statute which forces such notes upon the people as a legal tender, works a fraud and vitiates all reason in regard to money and banking. It perverts the moral sense of right and justice."

Mr. Farmer: There is no doubt whatever that all the true reserves that that little country bank really had, was only the gold and gold certificates amounting to $4,000 out of the total of $14,250, the rest being only a substitution of some form of credit which must itself be redeemed by gold which is certainly the only redeemer. We settled that a long time ago, but it never came home to me until right now. This thing is growing on me so rapidly that I shall soon be a real, unregenerate Gold Bug. I guess I am that now. But, how plain and self-evident that truth is when we get close to it. We are living and teaching a gigantic economic fraud, an economic lie.

Mr. Banker: Some reference may have already been made to this fact; however, it will do no harm to repeat it right here because of its force and great importance. Under the English Bank Act of 1844, permission was given to count silver as one-quarter or 25 per cent of the reserves of the Bank of England; but it has never done so, since it is regarded as an economic falsehood. The reason is obvious. If the bank today held $50,000,000 of silver and $150,000,000 of gold, the gold would not only have to carry the $50,000,000 of silver, which is nothing but another form of credit money, because actually worth only 50 cents on the dollar in bullion, but the gold would also have to carry $150,000,000 additional; that is, all the credit based upon this $50,000,000 of silver, a condition that is wholly misleading; for the silver instead of being a reserve at all, as it seems, or pretends to be, would actually be, so to speak, a bundle of dynamite under the whole structure of English credit.

So, in the United States our $346,000,000 of United States Notes, or greenbacks, instead of being an actual reserve to that extent, are not only a burden resting upon our gold, to the amount of their face value; but the burden our gold is carrying is multiplied to the extent of all the credit that is resting, or is based upon these United States Notes, which may be anywhere from one billion to three billion according to the per cent of the reserves the banks using them carry. They may be used as a 5 per cent reserve, and carry twenty times the amount of the reserves, or more than six billion; it is possible that they may be carried as a 17 per cent reserve, the average of all the National Banks, or only 7 per cent, the average reserves of all the other State Banks, excluding the Mutual Savings Bank.

Mr. Merchant: What's that? Do you mean to say that the State Banks do not carry more than an average of 7 per cent reserve, and that the National Banks carry an average of two and a half times as much or 17 per cent cash?

Mr. Banker: I have the statement of the Comptroller right here, which shows that the average cash reserves of all the State Banks is 5 per cent, including the Mutual Savings Banks, but excluding them, only an average of 7 per cent, and that the average reserves of all the National Banks is 17 per cent.

The report of the Comptroller also shows this fact, that while all other banks than the National Banks, excluding the Mutual Savings Bank, hold only 7 per cent cash reserves of their individual deposits, or demand liabilities, they have 24 per cent of their assets invested in bonds and other securities, which must of necessity be slower than current commercial paper, while the National Banks, which hold 17 per cent in cash of their individual deposits, have invested only 17 per cent of their assets in bonds, or other securities.

The inconvertibility of a great per cent of the assets of the State institutions is another burden then, thrown upon the total cash bank reserves of which the National Banks carry $996,000,000, with $5,825,000,000 individual deposits, while the other banks, excluding the Mutual Savings Banks, have only $577,000,000 cash reserves, with individual deposits amounting to $7,589,000,000.

The average cash reserves of the United States therefore are only a trifle over 11 per cent, when they should not be less than 16 per cent under any circumstances at the low level, reaching nearer 20 per cent at the high level. That is, reserves should be held for use, not ornament. There should be such an elasticity in the use of reserves, as to enable any community or section of the country to adjust itself to the ever-changing conditions of trade.

Let me make this point perfectly clear by giving you an illustration. Under the law of today, our bank carries 6 per cent cash, which amounts to about $120,000. There are times of the year when I could carry $180,000 or even $200,000 a good deal easier than I could carry $60,000, or even $50,000 at another time. Common sense would say that I ought to be able to adjust my business and my reserves somewhat to the varying conditions, but no, I am tied down by a cast-iron rule, so that I cannot bend without breaking the law. There is no doubt that my reserves ought to average for the year fully 6 per cent cash. In addition to this, I ought to carry at least 10 per cent more that I know absolutely is available at any time. Yes, and this should be so carried with the combined reserves of my fellow bankers all over the United States, as to make any amount available that could possibly be necessary at any time under any circumstances. This is the principle of the elasticity of reserves.

The wide variation between the State reserves and the reserves of the National banks is not difficult to explain. There are eighteen states today which have no reserve requirements at all. In the remaining states, the reserve requirements range all the way from 5 per cent to 25 per cent. The reserve laws in some of the states are excellent, just as good as that of the National Bank Act, while in an adjacent state, there may be no provision whatever requiring reserves. The result is that half of the banks of the country which are compelled to carry adequate reserves are carrying the other half, a condition that is unfair, unjust and manifestly unsound.

Mr. Merchant: It is not only manifestly unfair as between the bankers themselves, but such a condition imperils the banking situation as a whole, and more than any other single cause, brings on a general commercial disaster, as things now stand. The banking of the United States and all the productive and transportation interests are, comprehensively speaking, but one single business, so intimately associated and interwoven are their affairs. The banks put up their capital as an insurance fund, to protect their customers, and should handle their resources, and should keep such an amount of reserves on hand or at their command as to guarantee the payment of all depositors upon demand, or in accordance with their contracts. Since the banks, commerce and the people are all bound up together, the contracts of the banks with the people should take one common form, and each bank, from one end of the country to the other, should be compelled to assume its proper share of the burden, both as to paid-up capital and as to reserves.

It is interesting to note that the capital of the 7,312 National banks amounting to $1,033,000,000 is just about equal to the capital of the other 17,804 banks, outside the National System reporting, and the estimated capital of $70,000,000 of the non-reporting banks, $1,047,000,000.

The surplus of the National banks is 92 per cent of their capital, and strange and fortunate to say, excluding the Mutual Savings bank, the surplus of all other state banks is exactly 92 per cent of their capital.

That is, the National banks have $1,983,000,000 capital and surplus to insure $5,825,000,000 individual deposits and $2,178,000,000 due to the other banks, or a capital and surplus to all deposits of nearly 25 per cent, while all the other banks have $2,010,000,000 capital and surplus to insure individual deposits $5,089,000,000 and $454,000,000 due to banks, or a little over 24 per cent. Insurance expressed in capital and surplus, therefore, is about equal, but a great and serious divergence comes, as we have seen, in the average cash reserves of the two classes of banks.

Mr. Manufacturer: This is the weakness of the present situation from the standpoint of reserves, and some of the states are beginning to realize the importance of protecting the well-conducted banks from the consequences of those recklessly or dishonestly managed; and they are passing laws compelling all persons or firms doing a banking business to submit to State supervision and control. They are compelling them to incorporate their business within a reasonable time. These States do not propose to have the innocent depositors swindled through a misuse of funds; nor do they propose to permit bankers to so conduct their banking business within their borders, that they can, if they so desire, commit gigantic frauds, or by the misuse of the people's deposits, bring on bank panics and a complete paralysis of business. I think that Ohio has just passed such a law and that Illinois is about to put the same kind of a statute into operation. The people of all the states are beginning to understand that banking is a quasi-public business, and that the banker, though not strictly speaking a trustee, is in fact a quasi-trustee, and must conduct his business upon that basis.

Mr. Banker: Mr. Manufacturer, you are quite right in what you have said, but you have not gone far enough; nor as far, I am sure, as you will be inclined to go when I have outlined the necessity of a police regulation of the banking business, from a National rather than from a State point of view. Just stop and think the matter over. To use your own observation with regard to the action of the state, no one will deny that a state has the right to supervise every person, firm or corporation that takes deposits under the name of bank, or banker, with a view of protecting the people against foolish or dishonest bankers. By the same course of reasoning, the United States, or National Government, has the right, and it is clearly its duty, to protect one state against the unwise and dangerous course of some other state and one section of the country against misconduct in the banking business in some other section of the country. Bad banking is not only a local mishap, but a national misfortune. Nine-tenths of the country might be under such supervision and control of its banking business as to insure practical immunity from such conditions and practices as breed panics and the remaining tenth be so conducted as to preclude the possibility of a day's freedom from the danger of a commercial cataclysm.

Will anyone say that such a condition should continue for a day, or a year, or for ten years, or for a hundred years, or for a thousand perchance, because the general Government has no right or power to act in the matter for want of constitutional authority? Let me ask you, Mr. Lawyer, whether there is anything that will so certainly conserve the peace, the prosperity and the "general welfare" of the United States as a sound and uniform financial banking system extending over the whole country.

Mr. Lawyer: I certainly cannot conceive of anything of so much importance as a sound and uniform banking system for the whole country. If there is one single factor in our life that is distinctly national in its character and scope, it is this.

During the past week, I devoted much time to that phase of this question, because, as we have gone along during the last two or three months, and this problem has been under discussion, I have become more and more impressed with its vast importance, and above all with its distinctly national character. I have not butted in tonight, as you will observe, as I was anxious to see how you gentlemen would treat this subject of Reserves, whether from a standpoint of individual banks, or from the standpoint of the community, the commercial center, or our country as a whole, or upon the broad proposition that gold today constitutes the world's banking reserves and that we are a very great part of that commercial world. For my own part, I had come to the conclusion that there could not be a system of reserves established that would be efficient and of the highest use, and really protective unless it were national in its extent, and universal in its application. Therefore, realizing the absolute necessity of some common power to control all reserves, in order to compel each bank to perform its part by carrying its share of the burden that commerce imposes, I have been unable to find any solution, except in a uniform national system; and why not? Certainly the National Government could compel every bank to carry certain specified reserves, and failing to do so to pay a tax of 10 or 20 per cent per annum upon all deposits not so protected; that is, upon all deposits in excess of the required reserve. This could be done under the taxing power of the Government, precisely as a tax of 10 per cent was put upon all bank notes. Would any patriotic banker refuse to coöperate with his fellow bankers in such a reform, unless he wanted some unfair advantage by compelling the other bankers to carry his load for him?

You gentlemen will remember that the National Government was given jurisdiction of the Postal Savings Banks under these words which it was understood at the time were written by the President: "Sixty-five per cent of the deposits could remain with the banks as a working balance, and also a fund which may be withdrawn for investment in bonds or other securities of the United States, but only by direction of the President, and only when in his judgment 'the general welfare' and the interests of the United States so require." Similar words could be used with regard to a per cent of the surplus of the banks, and if the one was tenable, certainly the other would be especially so, since the latter involves seventeen billion of individual deposits, of which six billion four hundred and eighty million ($6,480,000,000) are savings deposits. Again Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, empowers Congress "to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states and with Indian tribes."

Upon this clause of the Constitution rests the Anti-Trust Law. What have we not done under this clause of the Constitution and the general welfare clause?

We have passed the Food and Drugs Act, giving the Government power to stop the use of poisonous substances in food products and drugs:

The Insecticide Act, giving the Government power to determine what kind of poison shall be used to annihilate bugs:

The Plant Quarantine Act, giving the Government power to regulate the importation of nursery stock and other plants and products and to enable the Secretary of Agriculture to establish and maintain Quarantine Districts for plant diseases and insect pests:

The Livestock Quarantine Act, to enable the Secretary of Agriculture to effectually suppress and extirpate contagious pleuro-pneumonia, foot and mouth diseases and other dangerous infectious and communicable diseases in cattle and other live stock:

The Meat Inspection Act that, for the purpose of preventing the use in Interstate, or Foreign Commerce, of meat and meat food products, which are unsound, unhealthy, unwholesome, or otherwise unfit for human food, the Secretary of Agriculture at his discretion may cause to be made, by inspectors appointed for that purpose, an examination and inspection of all cattle, sheep, swine, and goats before they shall be allowed to enter into any slaughtering, packing, meat-canning, rendering or similar establishments in which they are to be slaughtered, and the meat and meat food products thereof are to be used in interstate or foreign commerce.

The twenty-eight Hour Law by which the Government compels the humane treatment of cattle:

Employers' Liability Act:

The Safety Appliance Act:

The Hours of Service Act:

The Transportation of Explosives Act:

The Newspaper Publication Act:

The White Slave Act.

Can anybody doubt that we shall have a "National Health Act" by which the Government can stop the invasion of this country by yellow fever, cholera, bubonic plague, or any other scourge that may possibly visit our shores, and sweep over the land?

Can anybody doubt that we shall soon have a National Child Employment Act by which the childhood and youth of the land may be protected against those labor practices that imperil our chief national resource, the human resource?

Can anyone doubt that we shall soon have a National Woman's Employment Act that future generations may not be pauperized in health, strength and character?

Can anyone doubt that we shall soon have a National Workmen's Employment Act to the end that American citizens in all parts of the United States engaged in our productive industries shall have equal opportunities in matters of hours of labor?

The general welfare of this nation demands strength, power and greatness; but the strength, power and greatness of this nation reside and consist in the character, health, strength and power of the people, and therefore conservation of our greatest national resource is the conservation of our human resource. The citizen is a national asset.

Can anyone doubt that justice between the employers of labor in our various states, and the general welfare of this republic, demand uniform health and labor laws to the end that the citizenship of this republic may be the best product of the human race?

Gentlemen, if all these things are done, can be done and ought to be done by the National Government, can anyone doubt the soundness of this proposition: That it is interstate commerce to ship by mail, or freight, any kind of property?

What is property? "Property is a thing or things subject to ownership; anything that may be exclusively possessed and enjoyed; chattels, lands, possessions." Gold, gold certificates, silver, silver certificates, United States notes, checks, drafts, promissory notes are all certainly within this definition.

H.D. MacLeod, the highest authority I know of on banking economics, says: "Property, therefore, in its true sense, means solely a right, interest or ownership, and consequently to call goods or material things property is as great an absurdity as to call them right, interest or ownership.

"To call goods themselves property is, comparatively speaking, a modern corruption, and we cannot say when it began."

Therefore, property is primarily and essentially the very things with which banking is solely concerned.

Will anyone deny that gold is property? Remember that when gold is shipped in large quantities, it is by weight and not by count.

Will anyone deny that gold certificates are property?

Will anyone deny that silver is property?

Will anyone deny that silver certificates are property?

Will anyone deny that United States notes are property?

Will anyone deny that promissory notes are property?

Can anybody have the hardihood to say that if a note broker in New York ships a million dollars' worth of commercial paper to purchasers in the west upon a commission of a quarter or a half per cent, and receives his payment, for the sake of the argument, let us say, by a shipment of gold coin, that such broker is not engaged in Interstate Commerce? Does this transaction become a different transaction, forsooth, because it is carried out by a banker?

Will anybody deny that checks and drafts and bills of exchange are property?

Will anybody deny that a bank has property, although it may be the owner of one million dollars' worth of promissory notes?

Will anybody declare that a bank has no property when it has a million dollars' worth of gold coin in its vaults?

If a bank in Chicago should by any chance own one million dollars' worth of wheat, and should sell and ship the same to a New York bank, and the New York bank should ship the Chicago bank one million dollars' worth of gold, will anybody deny that they are engaged in interstate commerce? Now, suppose that the Chicago bank should sell the wheat in Chicago to Mr. Armour, instead of shipping it, for his promissory note for one million dollars, due in thirty days, and that the Chicago bank should then sell, and mail the note to the same New York bank, and the New York bank should ship the Chicago bank one million dollars in gold, in payment for the note, will anyone have the hardihood to assert that this transaction is not interstate commerce?

Will anyone deny that the sale and shipment by note brokers of billions upon billions of promissory notes from one state to another every year is not interstate commerce, but that to ship eggs, apples, potatoes, chickens, grain, cotton and live stock is interstate commerce?

I assert that it is just as proper and important that the National Government inspect this paper, and the banks that create it, or ship it, or buy it, as it is to inspect the sheep, hogs, cattle, slaughterhouses and the meat they turn out in order that it can protect the people of the United States. If the paper so shipped is infected by the hand of a rotten maker, commercially speaking, and the bank sending it out and responsible for it is not carrying an adequate reserve to meet the paper, should the maker fail to pay it, the harm done is vastly greater than that resulting from slightly infected meat. How much infected meat would it take to do the harm, the damage to the American people that resulted from the panic of 1907? And yet, if we had had a wise, national financial and banking system, we need never have passed through that harrowing, wasting panic that resulted in destroying property values into the billions; in the death of thousands of the people directly and indirectly; in the ruined health of tens of thousands more; in the non-employment of hundreds of thousands; and in the unknown and immeasurable suffering that ensued.

Such a national system must be supported by every banking unit; by every individual bank carrying its part of the commercial burden, and providing its proper share of the insurance of commercial safety by contributing its proper proportion of the necessary reserves, both local and national.

Mr. Merchant: Mr. Banker, I heartily approve of every word that you have said, and there can be no possible doubt about the result of a discussion of this phase of this question by the American people.

There is one question, however, that I desire to ask you before we pass on, as we may overlook it. Is it not true that our National Banks are now carrying 20 per cent reserves of which 17 per cent are cash? Are not these reserves large enough to meet all emergencies?

Mr. Banker: I presume you gentlemen all know just how the National Banks carry their reserves; but fearing that you do not, I will explain the system to you. All so-called country banks are required to carry 15 per cent reserves; that is $15,000 cash against every $100,000 of deposits; that they may send 9 per cent or $9,000 for every $100,000 of deposits away to what we call reserve cities. Now, there are 320 banks in 48 of these reserve cities. These reserve cities are required by law to carry a reserve of 25 per cent, or $25,000, for every $100,000 deposits; but they may send away 12½ per cent, or $12,500, for every $100,000 of deposits to a central reserve city, of which there are three: New York, Chicago and St. Louis.

These central reserve cities must carry 25 per cent cash reserves or $25,000 in cash for each $100,000 of deposits. Experience shows that these 320 banks in the 48 reserve cities and these 55 banks in the three central reserve cities keep all of their money loaned out all of the time; that is, right up to the reserve limit. Since they have no margin, when called upon for anything more than the usual daily current requirements, something extraordinary must be done to meet the demand. Loans must be called in and paid off. But since these same banks that are calling loans are supposed to be carrying the real, the final, the ultimate reserves, a deadlock follows, and the borrower is up against it; rates go almost anywhere that the banks want to put them; from 1 per cent to 10 per cent, to 20 per cent, to 100 per cent, or even 1,000 per cent; I believe that's the record rate. In other words, we have no true, final reserves in this country at all, for you cannot break the Government limit fixed by statute, and therefore we have a complete lockup all along the line, until through straining, something breaks somewhere.

There is absolutely no use of sending a part of your reserves away, if you cannot get them when you want them; for then it is no reserve at all, and that is the actual position or situation in the United States today. Our so-called central reserves are not reserves; it may be written down as a purely fictitious scheme, for there cannot be found a single year in which any substantial arrangement has ever been made by running the reserves up in the central reserve cities until they amounted to an average of 35 or 40 per cent, which would be the only practical way of providing for the crop-moving period.

If there is one thing more barbarous in our banking practices than a bond-secured currency, it is our system of superimposed bank reserves, especially in connection with the fixed limit, established by the Government. What would you think of a railroad company which ran out through the wheat country, having one-quarter of all its freight cars idle all the time as a reserve, and yet when thrashing time came, refused to use them, although the wheat was rotting on the ground, because the management of the road demanded that the railroads should always have at least one-quarter of the cars idle, as a reserve to meet the demands during the crop-moving period. Wouldn't you think that that was idiotic?

Mr. Laboringman: Well, I should say so.

Mr. Lawyer: Mr. Banker, there is another point in that connection, and that's this. You started off to get a central reserve, a true reserve, as I supposed, as distinguished from the reserves of the National Banks that are all loaned out all the time. Then, your reserves were all broken up in the end, first into three hundred and twenty banks, and at the end into fifty-five banks, located in New York, Chicago and St. Louis. What we must have, it seems to me, is a real central reserve in the form of unloaned gold, and then permit the banks to use their cash reserves, if by any chance they needed them in part at least.

I notice that you carry about $100,000 in accordance with the legal requirement. Now, just as you said a while ago, there are times of the year when you could easily carry $200,000; but again there are times when you want to use a part of the $100,000, possibly as much as $75,000 of it. Why should you not do it, and then accumulate the necessary excess in the slack time to make up your average for the year.

Mr. Banker: That is precisely what we ought to be permitted to do.

Mr. Lawyer: Then, Mr. Banker, instead of sending as you now do, 9 per cent of your deposits, or $175,000, to a reserve city, and that city in turn sending a part of it to some central reserve city, your balance with your reserve city should be sufficient to carry your exchange account, and the balance go to a great central gold reserve, upon which you and your fellow bankers throughout the country could rely absolutely when the emergency came.

Mr. Manufacturer: I have been listening to you gentlemen with intense interest, and must say that you have worked this plan out completely and practically.

I see what an enormous advantage it would be to a bank to use its reserve as a reserve should be used, and what an absolute guarantee of protection it would be to have all the reserves of all the banks centralized, and ready to help anyone of them in need of gold, because the gold was actually on hand, and had not been loaned out as the banks now do; but I have been wondering where the State Banks and Trust Companies were going to get 10 per cent more reserves of their demand deposits to put up in this central gold reserve. You must remember that they have five billion of deposits.

Mr. Banker: I can tell you how to do that; that is very easy.

When the State Banks come into the National system as they certainly will, if you have the right kind of a system, they will exchange their notes for the gold or gold certificates that are now in circulation, as they come in over their counters. You see that all the gold and gold certificates that are now held by the banks only amount to $879,000,000, although there is in the country $1,850,000,000 of gold, practically one billion of gold, or $10 of gold for every man, woman and child out in the corn, cotton and wheat fields; in the mining camps, when as a matter of fact, this gold should be in the reserves of our banks, protecting our bank credits; and bank notes should be in the corn, cotton and wheat fields, in the mining camps filling the true function of currency, and where gold, or gold certificates are not at all needed.

Mr. Lawyer: Now, wait a moment, Mr. Banker, and let me see if I grasp that. It is very important that we should all understand this. I am exceedingly anxious to, and it strikes me that we are at a mighty interesting juncture of this subject. If a State Bank with a reserve of $70,000 came into your National system and had to increase its present reserve, which is only 7 per cent, by as much as 10 per cent, it could do so by simply retaining the gold and gold certificates as they were deposited from day to day, and pay out its bank notes to the extent of one hundred thousand dollars. The result would be that the bank would increase its liabilities by $100,000, but it would also increase its reserves by $100,000. That is certainly a perfectly sound proposition. Before the bank came into the system, its reserves were only 7 per cent, or $70,000, since its deposits were $1,000,000. After it goes into the National system, it has changed $100,000 of its notes for $100,000 of gold, or gold certificates, as they came in over the counter; it now owes $1,100,000, of which $100,000 is of notes, but it now has $187,000 of reserves of all of its demand liabilities, or 17 per cent, instead of $70,000, or 7 per cent, as before.

Mr. Merchant: Isn't that a simple and very easy thing to do? And what tremendous strength it would give to the whole banking situation immediately.

Mr. Manufacturer: Then when you think of it, what a stupendous piece of folly it is, to have all this gold floating around the country, doing no possible good, when a piece of credit paper, or bank note, would do the work just as well.

Mr. Laboringman: Anybody can see that. A man that can't ought to be arrested for want of brains. He'd have to plead guilty. Putting that gold that you need in your bank reserves at the rate of one dollar of gold for five or six dollars of credit into the streets, cotton fields, corn fields and in the mines, is no greater piece of folly than it would be to send a six-horse team to haul Mr. Farmer home, when one horse would do just as well.

Uncle Sam: Mr. Laboringman has got this thing dead right. In fact, in my judgment, he has the horse sense of this crowd. Give him a show, I'll bet on him every time, he always takes a short cut, and hits the nail square on the head.

Mr. Merchant: Suppose, Mr. Banker, that all the banks of the country should come into the National system, and put up, say 10 per cent, as you suggested a while ago, of their demand or individual deposits, and 5 per cent of their savings deposits, what would your central gold reserve amount to?

Mr. Banker: On June 14, 1912, the Comptroller of the Currency reported that the individual deposits amounted to ten billion five hundred million ($10,500,000,000), and that the savings deposits, outside of the mutual savings bank, amounted to two billion eight hundred and seventy-two million ($2,872,000,000).

If the State Banks and Trust Companies should become National Banks, and bring their reserves up to the National standard, by exchanging their notes for gold; that is, exchanging $468,000,000 of their notes for that much gold, the result would be as follows:

Individual

Deposits $10,500,000,000 @10% $1,050,000,000

Savings

Deposits 2,872,000,000 @ 5% 143,600,000

Bank Notes 1,219,000,000 @10% 121,900,000

———————

Making a total central gold reserve of $1,315,500,000

This is just double what the gold reserve of France is, the largest gold reserve in the world today, but when you consider the fact that our banking resources are 45 per cent of the total banking resources of the world, it should be even more than that. It is interesting to note that in making this readjustment for a central gold reserve it would be just $100,000,000 larger than our bank note circulation.

With this central reserve of gold created, the United States could then control the inflow and outflow of gold to and from the United States, precisely as England controls the movements of gold today by fixing the rate of discount or a price for the use of gold.

Uncle Sam: Well, boys, if there is one phase of this question that you have treated with a greater thoroughness and more satisfactory results than any other, to my mind, it is your plan for protecting our bank credits with ample gold reserves. They are so disposed of as to keep at all times all bank credits in touch with gold, and therefore as good as gold; at the same time have developed a great central gold reserve in harmony with the practice of the great commercial nations of the world, and commensurate with my importance as a banking power in the world. You have made this subject so clear and conclusive that I need not restate the points you have made.

I hope our next night will be as satisfactory as this has been.

Good Night.

ELEVENTH NIGHT

THE BANK

Uncle Sam: At our last meeting you considered the very important element in banking, of reserves, and seemingly the final factor that enters into the structure of a bank. You have run the whole schedule off, I think. Standard of value, money, currency, exchange, capital, credit, government credit as money and as currency, land credit as money and as currency and reserves. What else can there be?

Mr. Banker: I do not think there is any particular topic for us to tackle now, but the bank itself, and I want to be permitted in the outset to describe just what a bank is, and what it does. I do not think there is any single thing in business life that is so misunderstood. People think of a bank as a kind of mystery.

The banker is a merchant in money and credit, and precisely as you can say that a man is a hardware merchant, cotton goods merchant, grain and flour merchant, so you can say that the banker is a money and credit merchant. He deals in these two things.

Let me illustrate this in a simple way. If Mr. Farmer should come to me to borrow a thousand dollars for three months, and I should make him the loan, as we say, I, as a banker, would buy his note, due in three months. That is just what happens every time a bank makes a loan; it simply buys the note. Now, in all probability I would not give Mr. Farmer any actual money, but would simply give him credit for one thousand dollars on the books of the bank, so that he could draw his check against it. In other words, I would owe him one thousand dollars. I have created a debt to him of one thousand dollars; in short, I have traded debts with him. He has given me his note, which is a debt for one thousand dollars due in three months, and I have given him credit on the books of the bank, a debt due to him on demand. The transaction does not differ in the slightest degree from the trade of horses for cattle. Let me demonstrate this. Suppose that Mr. Farmer came to me and offered me two of his Jersey cows for my horse and buggy, because he does not want the cows, but does want the horse and buggy to do a lot of running around. I want the cows to milk, and so make the exchange with him. He gets something that meets his pressing needs in the horse and buggy, and I get something from which I receive an income, the cows from which I get milk. This corresponds to the interest on his note, and by the way, the cream would be my profit.

Mr. Laboringman: That's it; you bankers are always milking the public, and the interest you get is all cream; all profit.

Mr. Banker: Oh, no! it is not as bad as that. Don't make such a mistake. The average cost to the bankers of the country, outside of any losses, is about 4 per cent upon their deposits for interest paid on deposits, rent for building, clerk hire and other general expenses. So you see that it is not all profit by any means.

But let me get right back to what I was saying. The banker is nothing but a trader who keeps an open shop for the purpose of trading his debts for the debts of his depositors; or to put it in another way, for the purpose of exchanging his credit for actual money which is deposited with him, or for checks and drafts that are deposited with him, or for promissory notes which he buys when he loans money to his customers, and gives them credit on his books for the amount of the loans. All these different things, money, checks, drafts and promissory notes are bought by the banker with his credit, and the greater the amount he buys with his credit the greater will be his debt. But, you will probably say these are his deposits. Very true, but his deposits are his debts. Don't forget that.

Mr. Lawyer: Mr. Banker, you have accurately described the situation, just as it exists today, and that, of course, is what we are interested in; but it seems to me as though it would be a great help to us to follow the development of banking, as we have it now.

MacLeod, the highest authority upon banking credit, and the theory of banking, used this language: "The first business of a banker is not to lend money to others, but to collect money from others."

Bagehot used this language, in describing the business of the bank: "Thus, a banker's business—his proper business—does not begin while he is using his own money; it commences when he begins to use the capital of others."

Many writers have maintained that a bank should only be allowed to create exactly as much credit as the specie paid in, and that its sole function should be to exchange its credit for coin, and coin for credit; and that the quantity of the bank's credit should always be exactly the same as the coin it displaces. This principle is called the currency principle.

Many banks in the world's history have been constructed on this principle, especially those famous banks at Venice, Hamburg, Amsterdam and several others.

These cities, small in themselves, were the centers of great foreign commerce; and as a natural consequence, an immense quantity of coin and denominations of all sorts of different countries was brought by the foreigner who resorted to them. These coins were, moreover, greatly clipped, worn and diminished. The degraded state of the current coin produced intolerable inconvenience, disorder and confusion among merchants, who, when they had to make or receive payment of their bills, had to offer or receive a bag full of all sorts of different coins. The settlement of these bills, therefore, involved perpetual dispute—which coins were to be received, and which were not, and how much each was to count for. In order to remedy this, it finally became absolutely necessary that some fixed uniform standard of payment should be devised, to insure regularity and a just discharge of debts. In order to do this, the magistrates of those cities instituted a Bank of Deposit, in which every merchant placed all his coins of different kinds and nations. These were all weighed, and the bank gave him credit, either in the form of notes, or a credit on their books, exactly corresponding to the real amount of the bullion deposited. The owner of this credit was entitled to have it paid in full weighted coin on demand. These capital credits, therefore, always insured a uniform standard of payment; and it was enacted that all bills upon these respective cities, above a certain amount, should be paid in these Bank Credits, which were called Bank Money. The consequence was evident, as this Bank Credit, or Bank Money, was always exchangeable for money of full weight on demand; it was always at a premium.

These banks professed to keep all the coin and bullion deposited with them in their vaults. They made no use of it in the way of business, as by discounting bills. Thus the credit created was exactly equal to the specie deposited and their sole function was to exchange specie for credit and credit for specie.

These banks were examples of the currency principle; they were of no further use to commerce than this, that they served as a safe place to keep money in—and they insured a uniform standard of payment for debts. They made no profit by their business, but those who kept their accounts with them paid certain fees to defray the expenses of the establishment.

Later and during the civil war in Great Britain the goldsmiths of London began to receive the cash of the merchants on deposit. They not only agreed to repay it on demand, but to pay 6 per cent per annum for the use of it. Consequently, in order to enable them to do that, the deposits necessarily became their property to trade with as they thought best.

When, therefore, these goldsmiths received this money on deposit, they gave in exchange for it, or issued to their customers a credit, or right to demand back an equal amount of money at will. And it must be noted that it is this banker's credit which in banking language is termed a deposit. The money itself is called an asset, or resource.

MacLeod says that in practice it will be found that in ordinary times a banker's balance in cash will seldom differ by more than one thirty-sixth part from day to day. So that if he retains one-tenth part of his cash to meet any demands for payment that may be made, that is ample and sufficient in ordinary times.

The banker, therefore, can see that if an amount of cash was sufficient to support ten times the amount of his liabilities, he might safely buy debts to several times the amount of cash in his hands.

From this you see clearly by evolution a banker is a trader, just as Mr. Banker said a few moments ago, whose business consists in buying money and debts by creating other debts. If he has taken actual money on deposit, he has bought it, and if he has received checks and drafts on deposit, he has bought them likewise with his credit.

Thus, it is seen that the essential and distinctive feature of a bank and a banker is to issue credit payable on demand, and that this credit may be put into circulation and serve as money.

First: They might demand payment in cash; if they did so, the banker canceled his debt.

Second: The banker, if his customer wished it, gave him his promissory note to pay him or the bearer on demand such sum as he might wish; this neither created nor extinguished a deposit, it merely recorded it on paper for the convenience of transferring it to someone else. This promise to pay was at first called a "Goldsmith's Note," and is now called "A Bank Note."

Third: If the customer wished to make a payment he might write a note to his banker desiring him to pay the money to some particular person, or to his order, or to bearer. These notes were then called "Cash Notes," but are now called "Checks."

Now, it is perfectly clear that neither a bank note, nor a check creates any new right; it merely records on paper a right to have money which already exists, and it is used for the purpose of transferring that right to have money to someone else.

It will be noted now, and I want you to keep this observation clearly in mind, that all banks are banks of issue, that is issues of credit. MacLeod says that the very meaning of the words "To Bank" is to issue a right of action or a credit, in exchange for money or other debts; and when once the banker has issued this right of action, or right to have money, to his customer by writing it down to his credit, it makes not the slightest difference as to his liability whether he delivers his own promissory note, that is a bank note, to his customer, or whether he merely creates the credit, and gives him the right to transfer it to someone else by means of a check.

When a person deposits money at the bank, it is not his intention to deprive himself of the use of it; on the contrary, he means to have as free use of it as if it were in his own purse. The depositor, therefore, lends his money to his banker, but yet at the same time has the free use of it, as the bank employs that same money in promoting trade; upon the strength of the money being deposited with the bank, it buys debts with its promises to pay, either in the form of "Bank Notes," or of credit on its books, several times exceeding the amount of the cash placed with it; and the depositors who sell the bank their debts, have the free use of the very same coin which the depositor has the right to demand; thus the lender that is, the depositor, and the borrower that is, the banker, have the same right at the same time to the free use of the same money. All banking depends on the calculation that only a certain small portion of each set of depositors will demand the actual cash, but that the majority will be satisfied with the mere promise, the "Bank Notes" or the credit on the books of the bank.

Banking is a species of insurance; it is theoretically possible that a banker may be called upon to pay all his deposits at once, just as it is theoretically possible that all the lives insured in an office may end at the same instant; or it is theoretically possible that all the houses insured may be burned at the same hour. The depositors and noteholders of the Bank of England could demand payment the same day. All the depositors and noteholders of the Bank of France could demand payment the same day. All the depositors of any bank could demand payment the same day. But all banking, as well as all insurance, is based upon the expectation that these contingencies will not happen, and the average experience of life proves that they do not happen. A banker multiplies his debts to be paid on demand and keeps buying a sufficient amount of cash to insure the immediate payment of all claims which are likely to be demanded at one time. If a pressure comes upon him he must sell some of the securities he has bought, or borrow money on them.

When the customer discounts a note at his bank he parts with the property in it, just as when he sells any other article. The note becomes the absolute property of the banker and he may sell it again, or pledge it, or deal with it in any way that suits his own interests best.

The notes in the safe of a banker are exactly similar to the goods in the shop of a retail dealer. The retail dealer buys the goods from the wholesale dealer and sells them at a higher price to his customers; and, as he makes a profit by doing so, the goods are capital to him. Notes likewise are goods, or merchandise, which the bank buys from its own depositors at a discount, or bearing interest for a time, and as the bank makes a profit by so doing, the notes are capital to the bank precisely in the same way that the goods in the shop of the retail dealer are capital.

Now, lest we shall be misled, I want to call your attention to an error which is very common. Many persons not being aware that the word "Deposit" in banking language means the credit created in exchange for money, checks, drafts or notes bought, when they hear or read that a bank has such an amount of deposits conceive or suppose that the bank has that amount of cash on hand to trade with.

When it is said that a bank has $10,000,000, $50,000,000 or $100,000,000 or $200,000,000 of deposits, they are not deposits in cash at all; they are almost entirely pure credit, and are exactly equivalent to just as many "Bank Notes." They are nothing but an enormous superstructure of Credit built up on a comparatively small basis of reserves exactly like the note circulation. These figures do not show the quantity of cash at the command of the bank that can be traded with; but they show the quantity of business the bank has done, and the debts or liabilities it has created. These deposits, then, which so many think are cash, are in fact nothing but the credits the banks have created in exchange for the cash and notes which figure on the other side of the balance sheet as assets or resources.

This play of bank credit has been graphically described by Joseph T. Talbot, the Vice-President of one of our largest National Banks; he says: "A customer holding a bank note may present it for deposit and credit, instead of demanding redemption in cash. In this case, there is a conversion from the circulating form of credit, payable to bearer, back to a 'Book Credit,' payable to order, as was ordinarily the case. Thus it will be seen that all these forms of 'Bank Credits' are interchangeable, one for another, at the pleasure of the holder of the credit. The difference between these several forms of credit involves no changes whatever in the bank's liabilities. They amount to about the same difference which exists, let us say, between a coupon bond and a registered bond. The one is payable to bearer, the other is not. At one time a bank note may best serve a customer's needs; at another time he might prefer a deposit in the bank; or again he might prefer 'exchange.' All these interchangeable uses of credit actually and continuously take place. It will now be clear that a circulating 'Bank Note' in the hands of the public does not differ essentially from a 'Deposit Credit' on the bank's books.

"If one of your local bankers were asked how much he allowed his bank to issue in cashier's checks, he would tell you that he issued whatever sums his customers wanted; either against their balances, or against new loans. He would tell you the same in respect of the amount of exchange he issued; his sole rule and guide being the amount of such credit which his customers require, and which he is in position to lend afresh, and to maintain against, or to redeem in cash, if demanded. If asked how long these obligations were allowed to remain outstanding, he would tell you that he had no control whatever over the period of their circulation; that these obligations stood out just as long as the holders wanted to use them in that form, and no longer; that his only concern was in being prepared to redeem the obligations on demand in cash.

"Thus it is that the volume of bank credits, whether in the form of deposits, checks or notes, responds in a rise or fall according as there is legitimate trade demand; and over this the bank has no control, except by ceasing to make loans. This is why deposits increase as loans increase, and these increase as the volume of business increases."

Now, if we understand the real nature of these so-called deposits, the reason for their diminution is plain. Deposits fall because loaning stops. When you stop loaning, you stop creating credit. You can readily see that it is not a diminution of deposits in cash, but it is a contraction of credit, a refusal to make loans.

This erroneous notion of the real meaning and nature of deposits in banking language may lead to very great mistakes in estimating the stability of a bank. That a bank's stability depends on a due proportion being kept between the deposits or the liabilities and the cash; and it may very well happen that while the deposits are apparently mounting high, and might lead many persons to believe that the actual quantity of cash was increased, it might be nothing, perhaps, but a dangerous extension of credit. And if this were carried too far, the bank might be in the most dangerous position just when it was apparently most flourishing.

Now, let us consider how a banker who has purchased either money or notes from his customers by creating deposits or debts, may be used by his depositors. That is how the depositors may use these credits. Of course, every banker does business exactly in the same way, or practically so, and when their customers begin to use checks these different results may follow:

First: The actual money may be drawn out.

Second: The credit may be transferred to the account of another depositor of the same bank.

Third: The check may be an order to pay another bank. But in this case, if the first bank is ordered to pay the second bank so much, the chances are that the second bank will be ordered to pay the first bank practically the same amount. If the claims of the two banks on each other were exactly equal, the respective checks or orders are interchanged, and the credits readjusted to the different customers' accounts accordingly, without any payment in money. If it should happen that the claims of all the banks against each other exactly balanced, any amount of business might be carried on, without requiring a single dollar of gold coin. If the mutual claims of the different banks against each other do not exactly balance, it is only necessary to pay the differences in coin.

Now, exactly to the degree that banks are brought into a closer relationship with each other by such means, the smaller is the quantity of coin required to carry on the business of the country; or the more gigantic is the superstructure of credit which can be reared upon a given reserve.

From what I have already said, you must all see that a merchant deals with credit; but a banker is a dealer in credit. A merchant brings his notes or debts, that are payable some time in the future, to the banker for sale, and the banker buys them for credits in the form of deposits, or debts payable instantly, which have precisely the same effect in commerce as so much gold. He reaps exactly the same profit by creating a credit in favor of his depositor as if he gave him the actual cash. The checks drawn against these credits so created by the banker circulate commodities in trade precisely in the same way that bank notes do which circulate commodities precisely in the same way that gold coin does. Consequently, these bank credits so created by the banker, whether upon his books subject to check, or in the form of bank notes, are exactly equal in their practical effects, so far as exchanging commodities is concerned, to the creation of so much gold coin.

This being true, you must realize how absolutely essential it is that every bank credit must be kept as good as gold by current redemption in gold everywhere, whenever demanded.

Mr. Banker: Mr. Lawyer, in all that you have said you have only affirmed what I said in the outset; the banker is a shopkeeper, a trader exchanging his credit for money and debts.

The development of the banking business in the United States is most interesting, and its growth has been simply marvelous.

On Feb. 25, 1863, almost fifty years ago, when the National Banking System was inaugurated, there were in the eastern states, including New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, what are known as Mutual Savings Banks. These institutions are run solely for the benefit of the depositors. This is upon the theory that those using savings banks are the wards of the state. These Mutual Savings Banks have no capital and the trustees, or directors, serve without pay. There are today in the United States 650 of these Mutual Savings Banks, with deposits amounting to $3,608,000,000. Practically all of these Mutual Savings Banks are located in the east, there being only thirty-one west of Buffalo. These few got a start before the present conditions of banking grew up. Today it is quite impossible to start a Mutual Savings Bank anywhere, because the State Banks and Trust Companies are able to pay such high rates of interest, owing to the fact that they can conduct the Savings Bank business as a part of their regular commercial business, or as a part of their Trust Company business. That is, the Savings Bank business is incidental to their regular business, and requires no separate and special organization. If there are any extra charges they would be nominal at most. The savings business being conducted over the same counter, this particular branch of banking may be regarded as done at no cost to them. Under the circumstances it is very easy to see how the State Banks, and those banking institutions more recently organized, known as Trust Companies, have absorbed all the savings business where the Mutual Banks had not already been permanently established.

Another reason that has enabled them to do this is the fact that in most states there are no prescribed rules for the investment of savings bank deposits, and the banks are using the savings deposits for commercial purposes, and also in speculative ventures, particularly in the way of underwritings where the profits are much larger than could be realized from such funds if they were limited to investments of the highest order where, as you know, the rates of interest are comparatively much lower.

Mr. Merchant: How many such institutions are there?

Mr. Banker: There are today thirteen thousand three hundred and eighty-one State banks, with four hundred and fifty-nine million of capital and two billion nine hundred million of deposits.

Side by side with these state banks are 1,292 State Savings Banks, with seventy-seven millions of capital and eight hundred and forty-three millions of deposits. These State Savings banks differ only in name from the regular State banks. The only point to be noted in this connection is that the local statutes, or the laws of the State where the bank is located, always determine whether the name will be a State Savings bank, or a State bank. It may be assumed that whatever the name, the business carried on is practically the same all over the United States, with here and there some slight difference, but no substantial variance.

Mr. Manufacturer: These institutions you have named do not include the Trust Companies, do they? There seems to be a perfect craze to start Trust Companies now. Why is that?

Mr. Banker: Within the past twenty-five years there has grown up, almost as if by magic, the class of banks you have just mentioned, differing from State banks and State Savings banks only in one single respect, but that is an all-comprehending one. Enterprising men in almost every state have secured the passage of laws for what they call a Trust Company business. Generally speaking, what you cannot do under a Trust Company Charter is some kind of a business that has not yet been thought of.

There are 1,410 of such Trust Companies, so called, with capital amounting to $419,000,000 owing individual deposits amounting to $3,674,000,000 with $450,000,000 additional liabilities, or something over four billion dollars, all told.

This vast business has grown up outside of the National banking system, simply because the National bank could not, but these other institutions could develop along natural lines of business progress.

Notwithstanding these obstacles, however, there is no kind of a banking business that the National banks of the country are not doing in some way or other. Of course, they are not all of them doing all kinds of business, but they have worked out methods by which they can, if they desire to do so. Of the 7,397 National Banks, nearly half of them, 3,039, are now doing a regular savings bank business, without any express authority of law, and 2,340,226 depositors have deposited with our National banks $659,500,000.

Who is there who does not know that either downstairs in the same building, or upstairs in the same building, or around the corner in some other building, with the back ends of the two buildings adjoining, many, if not all, the National Banks have attachments, where they are carrying on the Savings bank business and the Trust Company business under state charters. National banks are under National supervision, while the State banks and Trust Companies, owned and manipulated by them, are under State supervision, or possibly under no supervision at all.

There are many National banks holding the stock of other banks, either Savings banks, State banks, or Trust Companies in their treasury, and some of them are holding the stock of two or more banks. Only recently it was discovered that a National bank had invested ten million dollars, directly or indirectly, in other banks throughout the country; possibly an examination would show that this ten million was partly the stock of other National banks, and partly the stock of state bank institutions such as Savings banks, State banks and Trust Companies.

Now, if there is one holding company more to be criticised, and more to be abjured than any other, it is a bank holding company, controlling the stock of a great many other banks, particularly so under different supervision.

When we behold the malformation of banking as now carried on in this country, due to the struggle of the various institutions to adjust themselves to these new conditions and to take advantage of all the opportunities in modern business, it reminds one of the crooked, twisted, knotted, and sadly misshapen tree-trunk that has grown up amidst and between huge rocks, that stand in the way of an upright and symmetrical development. These huge bowlders and rocks are the obsolete laws on our statute books, our ignorance, our selfishness, our prejudice, our political cowardice and our demagoguery.

Like our mutual savings banks, the original idea was that a Trust Company could only do a Trust business in the strict sense of that word. They could hold a railroad mortgage, and pay interest to the bondholders, perform similar functions for other corporations, and could act as a trustee in case of estates. Today you may assume that no kind of business will escape the scope of the charter of the so-called trust company, from the care of estates and the execution of corporate trusts to banking in all of its forms, and agencies of every conceivable kind. In other words, the all-round charter of the American Trust Company, popularly so called, permits it to do anything that the varied affairs of the American citizen may by any chance require.

Just as there are in the east mutual savings banks, which are relics of former days, so the Trust Companies, with their limited powers, are only a landmark in the evolution of American banking, and must disappear as a separate institution in time.

The growth and development in fifty years has produced in the United States a banking unit, doing in a conglomerate way what it ought to be doing as a departmental business, with four distinct functions: viz., a commercial business, the manufacturing of credit; a savings bank business, accumulating the savings of the laboring masses, which is a sacred trust fund that should be placed in high grade investments; a trust company business, executing trusts, and carrying on agencies of every kind; a note-issuing business, which is only another form of the commercial business, as the bank note is in fact only another form, as we have learned, of a deposit—a circulating credit in place of a check credit for the convenience of the people.

From Feb. 1, 1863, the birth of the National Bank Act, down to the present time there has not been one single change in the National Bank law worth mentioning. It is true we have dotted an "i" here, and crossed a "t" there; but as for a substantial change there has not been a single one made. Now, this is truly a most marvelous fact, when you consider how great have been the changes, especially since 1890, or during the past twenty-two years. Our banking resources have increased fourfold. In 1890 they were about six billion, today they are more than twenty-five billion.

Mr. Lawyer: This growth in our banking power is not so strange because it only reflects the growth of our business. The clearings of the United States in 1890 were only thirty-seven billion, while the clearings this year must pass the hundred and seventy billion dollar mark. The productions of the United States in 1890 were only seventeen billion. The productions of the United States in 1912 will exceed thirty-five billion dollars. The wealth of the United States in 1890 was only sixty-five billion dollars. The wealth of the United States in 1912 is estimated at about one hundred and twenty-five billion dollars. The imports in 1890 were seven hundred and eighty-nine million; the imports the present year will be one billion eight hundred million; the exports in 1890 were eight hundred and forty-five million; this year our exports will exceed two billion three hundred million dollars.

Mr. Farmer: And do you mean to say with this vast, almost incalculable increase of production and wealth and consequent increase of banking resources, there has not been a single step taken by the National Government to facilitate it?

Mr. Banker: Mr. Farmer, there has not been a single change made to facilitate the handling of this vast business. On the other hand, there seems to have been such a profound ignorance on the part of Congress, or such an abject fear, lest they might aid business, that every progressive movement of a legislative character has been left to the states, which have given us laws as varied as Jacob's coat of many colors; indeed, rivaling the fifty-seven varieties of the famous pickle man.

Not only have they left the banking business to just "grow up" like Topsy in Uncle Tom's Cabin; but the Government itself has been one of the greatest obstructionists to the national growth of our banking business in its interference with the natural movement of the money of the country which by every economic law, and business right, belongs in the channels of trade, and not in the strong boxes of the Government.

Mr. Manufacturer: That is absolutely true. I was greatly impressed only yesterday by a statement made by the Secretary of the Treasury right on that point of Government interference with current business by withdrawing money from circulation and piling it up in the vaults of the treasury. In the light of what we have learned during our talks, it is simply appalling; indeed, it does not seem possible in a civilized country.

Secretary MacVeagh says in the outset, "No reform of your banking and currency system can be adequate which does not take the United States Treasury out of the banking business," and then adds:

"When the independent Treasury system was established the idea was that all the funds of the Government should be stored in the Treasury vaults in the form of money, just as the mediæval war lords kept their treasures in strong boxes. The independent Treasury system was established in troublesome financial days, when the State banks were not the safest places for the deposit of money. The people decided that the public funds must be kept in Government vaults for safety.

"In this country, with our rigid laws fixing the minimum reserves the banks must hold, any loss of cash by the banks means an instant contraction of their loaning power. If the banks of New York and Chicago lose $100,000,000 cash, they must at once reduce their liabilities by $400,000,000. This means that they must reduce by that amount their loans to the business community.

"With the volume of bank credit moving in the reserve cities four times as fast as the volume of cash, and throughout the country ten times as fast as the volume of cash, it is plain that the machinery of credit is extremely sensitive to variations in the amount of cash held by the banks. For this reason, an institution like the United States Treasury, alternately accumulating and disbursing many millions of cash, is likely to create widespread disturbance in the money market.

"The funds held by the great European Governments vary from $25,000,000 to $50,000,000. The coin, bullion, and paper money held as assets in the United States Treasury during the present Administration has varied from $300,000,000 to $350,000,000. In other words, nearly one-tenth of all the money in the country is held idle in the Treasury vaults. If this money were all deposited in the banks it would increase their reserves 20 per cent.

"The receipts and disbursements of the Treasury are most irregular. The Treasury receipts in 1907 exceeded the disbursements by $91,000,000. Two years later the disbursements exceeded the receipts by $118,000,000. For the past two years receipts have again exceeded disbursements. The general fund in the Treasury was $272,000,000 in 1907; three years later it had fallen to $106,000,000. Under our present system of keeping a large surplus Government fund idle in the Treasury these wide variations in the yearly balance not only seriously disturb the money market and the business of the country, but force the Secretary of the Treasury to enter actively into the money market as a paternal overseer of the machinery of credit.

"It not infrequently happens that surplus revenues accumulate in the Treasury just at a time when the banks are straining their resources to grant all the credits needed to finance a business boom. The Treasury then takes money out of the banks and hoards it just at the time when the country most needs it. If the business boom goes so far as to strain credit to the breaking point, then the Treasury must come 'to the relief of the situation,' by depositing some of its hoarded cash in the banks. In recent years the Treasury has been carrying a large surplus, and it has been in a position to relieve financial tension by depositing funds in the banks. In December, 1907, following the money panic, the special deposits in the banks by the Treasury had reached $256,000,000. Three years later they were reduced to $4,000,000. In the fiscal year 1908-1909, the Treasury withdrew $100,000,000 from the banks.

"This state of affairs places in the hands of the Secretary of the Treasury a power greater than any American should have. The power of the Secretary to influence the money market by deposits or withdrawals of public funds is always dangerous. No Government officer should have this power. It has been a great burden, I believe, on the shoulders of every recent Secretary of the Treasury Department.

"If the people realized how dangerous is the power in the hands of the Secretary of the Treasury, they would insist that the Treasury be at once taken out of the banking business. Accustomed as we are to Government interference with the money market, few of us realize how the Treasury in the past few years has exercised the central-bank function of regulating the discount rate. The Treasury, by alternate deposits and withdrawals of the public money in the banks, as well as by other devices, has attempted to regulate the discount rate.

"The Treasury Department should be divorced from the money market and from the banking business, and the way to effect the reform is plain. We should have in this country a quasi-public institution not only to hold the ultimate cash reserves of the banks and to regulate the rate of discount, but to act as the fiscal agent of the Government. Such an institution would hold the Government balances as deposits, and the Government could check against them just as any large business concern checks against its balances in bank. With the Government balances deposited in such an institution the business of the country would never be disturbed by the Treasury hoarding up cash, and the Secretary of the Treasury would no longer be forced to meddle in the money market.

"As long as we have the present banking and currency system, we shall have panics—and no longer. Does not this alone create a state of emergency? What doubt should there be of the urgency of this legislation? Why should it take another wasteful and degrading panic to impress Congress? Why cannot 1907 suffice? There are many other things of prime importance to be secured through monetary reform, but if nothing were to be secured but emancipation from panics there would be abundant imperative reasons for immediate action by Congress."

Mr. Merchant: This statement of Secretary MacVeagh proves absolutely just what you said a moment ago, that the situation was appalling, and when you realize that this practice has been kept up ever since 1846, when the sub-treasuries were established, it is unbelievable.

The Act of Aug. 5, 1846, declared it a felony to deposit public money in banks.

The United States Government has been committing an economic felony ever since. It has been committing an economic crime against commerce and the laboring interests of the country ever since that Act was passed, and is doing it this very hour.

The Act of Feb. 25, 1863, establishing National Banks, authorized their use as depositaries of the public money except "receipts from Customs." Forty-four years later the Act of March 4, 1907, struck out the words "except receipts from customs." By the Act of March 2, 1911, bank checks were made receivable for Customs dues, but no step has been taken by the Treasury of the United States to make them so at New York, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, New Orleans, Philadelphia, St. Louis, San Francisco and Washington, where the United States Government still has its morgues for our money. Every day the checks are presented which are sent in in accordance with the law, and the actual money is withdrawn from the channels of trade; that is, the United States Government withdraws reserve money to the full extent of every dollar that is due it.

Mr. Lawyer: While Mr. Manufacturer was reading what Secretary MacVeagh said, I have been wondering what the people would do if the United States Steel Corporation, the Standard Oil Co., J.P. Morgan or John D. Rockefeller, or any of the railroad companies, or any other great interest, should collect and hold in safe-deposit boxes hundreds of millions of money, just as the United States Treasury does.

Mr. Farmer: I'll tell you what we would do. We would blow them up mighty quick, and hang them to boot, that's what we'd do.

Mr. Merchant: Gentlemen, just think what it means to withdraw these hundreds of millions of reserve money from the channels of trade, say in the fall, keeping in mind that every dollar that the Government grabs and withdraws, will support from five to ten times that amount of credit. The withdrawal, as Mr. MacVeagh said, of one hundred million dollars, means the contraction of from five hundred million to a billion dollars; this is not only a fool's practice, but it is an actual crime against the commerce of the country; a crime against the producers, a crime against the laboring men of the country.

Mr. Lawyer: How long, O Lord, how long, shall we remain the laughing stock of the rest of the world? But, let us see, can any man here give me a single reason why the United States Government should not deposit its money with the banks, precisely as all the other governments of the world do? It seems to me perfectly clear that the United States Government should treat its income precisely as this town does, this county does, this state does. Is there any conceivable reason why it should not act in this matter precisely as New York City, Chicago, New York State and Illinois, and every city and every state does?

Mr. Banker: Not one in the world.

Mr. Manufacturer: This discussion upon the development of banking in the United States and the present treasury situation brings out the necessary reforms most vividly to my mind from these two points of view, the banks, and the treasury.

First: Assuming that we are all agreed as to the result of our talk last Wednesday night upon reserves, that they must be national to be equal and adequate, our conclusions now are inevitable, (1) we must give to the National banks the power to do a Savings bank business, as well as a Commercial business; (2) we must give our National banks the power to do a Trust Company business; (3) we must give our National banks the power to issue a pure credit Bank Note precisely like that issued by the Scotch Banks and the Canadian Banks, and was issued by the five hundred banks in New England before the war. These notes will go to the Clearing Houses every day with the checks and drafts to be cleared at precisely the same time, and precisely in the same way.

Second: We must take the United States Government out of the banking business, so that its transactions will cease to be a disturbing factor in the everyday affairs of the commercial world.

Mr. Banker: You have outlined these necessary reforms splendidly, but there are just two more points in this connection that must not escape our attention. They are these:

First: All these various forms of banking are distinct in character and economically the funds of each perform a peculiar function that must be recognized and observed or we shall make a great fundamental error in constructing what we hope will prove a sound financial and banking system. We must provide that the commercial function, the savings function, the trust function shall be kept apart by separating the funds arising from each, and keeping them completely segregated, in order that the country may always know just what its commercial fund is, as distinguished from its investment fund.

Second: There is such a great demand for Farm Mortgage Loans by those who are pursuing agriculture that I am convinced that some provision should be made whereby the farmers of this country could obtain money upon their lands, as cheaply as our great railroads and other corporations are able to do. I have given this matter much study, and as you gentlemen are aware, I am a member of the Committee appointed by the American Bankers' Association to investigate and report the best method possible to accomplish this purpose. Therefore I think that we had better consider it here.

Mr. Lawyer: I am in perfect accord with what you are aiming at, but it is almost eleven o'clock.