, 1879-05-02

Tho net which Inns Just passed tho Illinois
Senate under tho title of IAN Act for tho
Protection of Dank Dopositors," and which
is likely to become a Inv, may DO considered
rathor harsh in its tarms ii compared with
tho loose and Irresponsible banking methods
which have heretofore boon tolerated IN this
State. but experience has proved TINT, II
tho Stato undertakes to provide my protec-
tlon for bank dopositorB, aud especially for
tAoao WHO trust their funds to savings inasi-
tutlons, 1t IL necessary to impose strioter
rules and mora sovere penalties for their
fraudulent or caroloss intraotion. tits prof.
able TINT tho terms Of the net In question
would novor reach any ono conducting a
strictly honest and snfa banding business,
and II only tho speculative aud dishonest
bankers, who simply establish a nominal
banking bnsinoas as means Of attracting
dopoaits which they may uso for their own
purposes md as their own money, shall be
affected by tho law, thero Ia no reason 10
complain Of It.
Tho first section Of this net provides that
any bank or banker that receives a deposit at
time when satd bank or bankor is insolv-
Ont, whereby tho deposit shall he loRt to its
rightfnl ownor, sa!d bunker or tho pf1lcer of
said bank receiving such doposit Hhdl ho
doomed guilty Of emlozzlemont, and, upon
conviction, shall bo hnotl double the amount
OF tho sum thus deposited and lost, aud may
also bo imprisoned in the Ponitentlary for
not loss tllan ono nor moro than thrao years.
Tho same section also provides that tho fall
uro Of said bank or banker within thirty days
from the time Of receiving such deposit shall
DO 1,rifna Jncia evidence Of m intent to do.
fraud. It is this provision which will proba-
b1y ho regarded o. uuroasonably severe II
not actually un1ust. But, as nlnttor of
faot, no banking business wlliol. Is conducted
on safo and conservative priuciplos Gun be
surprised with sudden failnre oxoopt In tho
caso Of general pnnlc. In that event, tho
reception Of deposits within thirty dnys Of
actual failure, though prima .ftscn evidence
undor the not, will not compel Court aud
Jury to convict ot fraudulent intont. In tho
general rrlu Of bunk. failures, however, Tho
condition Of tho business iB Ruch that lis
managers or ofilcora muat 10 awaro Of i'm
ponding failure aa muol. aa thirty days proyi-
Gus to tho aotual collapse, md the now not
will impose upon such persons tho duty Of
rejecting current deposits until thoy shall
become aatis1el tint tho bank ia solvent.
As most saviugs-banks may claiu,, unltr
thoit charter, tho privilege Of requiring a
uixty days' NOTICE of TIM withdrawal Of de-
rosits, it is certainly not too u,uoh to oxaot
from them sixty.days' notice to dopositora
not to trust tholr money to Institutions ou
the yorgo Of bankruptcy. Tho second SEQ
tfou Of tho nav Hunk act provides that wA4n
any bunker or manager, officer or agout Ct
any banking institution shalt fraudulontly
convert to his own private uso any funds dc.
posited with him, ho shall bo doomed guilty
Of larceny, aud, upon conviction, suffer tho
penalties attached to that crime by statute,
Tie existence and enforcement of such q
statute rs this would probably have restrained
tho absconded 8pxNorR aud so,uo otEes
equally gttlty bankers from using the tun6s
Of dopositors for speculative purposes, and, 4
1t had not prevented auoh misuse Of trus /
funds, II would at least have enabled tho
State 10 pursue, apprehond, and punish the
mon Who deliberately robbed those who had
trusted tAon. The third section prohibits