Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1836-12-30


visions of this act in consequence two grea
an accumulation of depostes in any Banl
such transfers shall be made to the nea,
est deposite Banks which are considere,
safe and secure !" and although the supple
ment says that nothing shall prevent hin
from making transfers from State 10 Stat
"mhen required to prevent large and incon
renient aecHmaidtions in particular places
or in order to produce due equality an,
Just proportion according 10 the provision
Of that act" the general policy of the Law
TO keep the deposites together, unless unde
peculiar emergencies, remains unchanged
Under this law his duty was as clear a
possible. He was 10 see that no Banl
should have a deposite of more than thre,
fourths of its capital. The revenue in IN,
great cities then. should be divided amont
the Banks in those cities--there being il
each of them solvent Banks enough to re
ceive il. There was no necessity for send
ing n dollar Of it out of those cities. In N
York, alone, says he, the operation will re
qulre the transfer of something like eiph
millions OF dollars from the old deposit,
Banks to new ones either in the State or on
Of IT," But why out Of it ala Why coulc
not the revenue already received 10 n. Y
and falling due in New York, be divided
among the New York Banks TO support the
trade Of New York; Why not let it re-
main active there up 10 the last hour when
II was payable TO the States2 But the law
required that there should be at least one
deposite Bank in each State Be il So
Then make deposite Bank in each State, il
there be not one already. and give it de.
posiie, which while il satisfies the law, will
not carry away into inactivity funds tina,
might be useful in places of business
There was then no necessity to send dol
lar from New York or the other CONNER.
cial cities. merely for the purpose of pre-.
venting any other Bank from having more
than three fourihs Of its capital. That is
clear.
Nor was it more necessary for the purpose
OF distribution among the States The law
says:
THAT the money which shall be in the
Treasury OF the U. States on The LIST of jan
nary, 1897, shall be deposited with such Of
The several States as shall by law authorize
heir Treasurer or other competent authori.
lies 10 receive the same--and the Secretary
Of the Treasury shah deliver the same 10
such Treasurer or other competen, auihori-
lies on receiving certificates Of deposiles
therefor" This is the whole law. Now
what does it contemplated
The money must be an he Treasury on
he Isl Of January, 1887, because up 10 that
line ii is not known whether the States will
axe it, Technically and legally the Treas
Try is at Washington--praciically the
Treasury is wherever the deposiies of the
public monies are But the Secretary of the
Treasury is an official person whose only
official residence is Washington Accord
ngly Treasurer of State goes to the
ecretary at Washing,on-and presents TO
him the certificates Of Deposite The Sec
'etary thereupon delivers" 10 the Treasurer
lis States quota Blu, how does he deliver
{? By an actual manual counting out of
hese dollars Mo. BY check on the
Opposite Bank at Washington mo. But
lie delivers to the State Treasurer as he does
o any other person receiving money, a
iraft for the amount on some one or more OF
he repositories which compose the Treasu.
". Is not such draft the usual and prop
n mode Of making public payments 2 I'm
And when we come to the real
question. Was it necessary to make in adj
'ance any transfer of funds whatsoever into
he several States merely because they had
he option, on certain conditions of receiv-
ng them If there was no such necessity,
hen the twelfth section OF the law makes
hese transfers illegal. Now there is clear
y no such necessity. The money was to
,e deposited WITH the States not IN Them
t was necessarily paid in Washington by
traits on other places. If you say that the
Secretary must pay it into the State Treasu-
y, it is not enough 10 bring il into the State
he must take it to the seats of Govern
nent. Pennsylvania must have her share
mot in Philadelphia, but in Harrisburg.
New York must be paid, no. in the city Of
New York, but in Albany. II the place
,e not fixed by law, the mutual convenience
# the parties will designate it. Now there
S no individual and no State in the Union
hat would not prefer payments in NJ York
'r the north Atlantic cities, 10 payment any
where else and for this obvious reason
hat money is worth more there than any
where else. II the State of Ohio, for in
lance had draft on New York, it could
ell it TO its citizens, usefully to them and
to the Treasury, 1t does not
want the money brought to Ohio. Every
nile it comes on the road lessons its value
We may safely conclude then that there
vas no necessity of sending dollar of pub
ic money from New York or the CONNER
ial cities for the purpose either of equaliz-
ng funds among Banks-or distributing
hem through the States.
The true theory Of the case, therefore,
vas simply to let the excuses of revenue in