Democratic banner., 1846-08-24
D%EMOgRATIG BAN NR R.
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED
Regularly on erery Monday Morning
By JOHN F. THOMAS.
LOUISIANA, PIKE COUNTY, Missouri.
SAMUEL F.. MURRAY, Ed'sOr.
INDEPENDENT TREASURY.

to reopen their batteries uponthe Democ-
racy. The bitterness oftheir assaults, indi.
cate how deeply they were interested in
procuring, if possible. the defeat of this
leading mearure of democracy. They e.
ven 90 so far as to assert that it has been
condemned and repudiatedIby the people; to
prove which they refer to the Presidential
election of 1910. But they must know
well that the Independent Treasury bill re-
csived the signature of President Van Blu
rem on the 4th of July 1910. We believe.
had the Presidential election come off in
June, instead of November, the result
would have been the same. We therefore
deny that the enactment of the bill in July
had a.Preponderating influence in bringing
about that disastrous result. The truth is,
there wa a great combination. of circum-
stances; the principal of which was, the de-
preston in business brought about by CONF
mercial revulsion of 1887. The Wings
had thrown, many hurnbugs into the contest,
that when the result was ascertained, they
could not attribute it to any one of their
hobbies. The northern Wings insisted that
their success was owing to making the
tariff question an issue. The southern
Wings declare that the United States Bank
question had given them their triumph.
Some relied upon the standing Army
others on the Subtreasury, and some even
ON the "'Hooe Case" As they never could
agree among themselves, in regard to the
causes that brought about that result, we
can safely deny them the benefit of a YER
dict, in favor of either or any of their meas
ures. That result was a necessary conse-
queuce of a variety of causes, many Of
them not political, and it never can be ia
ken for ssthe second sober thought of the
people,
The New Era of this city predicts that the
word "Swartwouting" will again cume In
vogue when the "Indpendent Treasury bill
goes into operation. Will the New Era
inform its readers, whether the term oIigina-
ted under the operation Of the ~Indepenent
Treasury system, or prior to its enactme 1t,
under the very system now advocated by
the New Era. The Independent Treasury
system was in operation only about IA
months, during which time the Govern
msnt lost not a single dollar by embezzle-
ment; becau e the law itself made it felony
for a Government Agent to convert the
public:funds to privated purposes. So effe-
ctivc has this provision of the Independent
Treasury bill been in preventing embezzle-
ment, that even the Wings themselves did
not repeal the section making provision to
punish, as icons, unfaithful public offers.
1t is well known that the only difference
between the Independent Treasury system,
and the Deposit Bank system is, that agents
selected by theaGeneral Government, who
have given heavy bonds for the faithful
discharge of their duties, are made dcfaul-
tsrs, but Deposit Banks are not.
If the former arc unfaithful, they are dis
and punished, for the responsibility
can be made to rest upon them. But, if a
bank is unfaithful, you can neither fix dis
grace upon, nor mete out punishment to il.
for there is d divided responsibility. The
corporation is s~oulless and intangible: you
can neither arrestnor imprison it and when
you descend to its managers, there the re-
sponsibility is so divided, that the crime
can be fastened upon no individual what
ever. The fact, however, is, that banks
have "swartwouted" the government of more
money than ever individuals did. Can the
New Era give US any assurances that what
has occurred may not occur again. Or,
does it hold to the doctrine that it is less
wrong for corporations to "swartwout,' -
than for individuals? Perhaps, as the latter
have souls to lose, the New Era would
rather that those who have no souls should
beprivilegedto commit crime, as the catas-
trophs which would occur in one case
not IN the other.-[St. Luois Union.