The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1888-08-20
SAVINGS DEPOSITS.

In one of his speeches en- route from New
York to Maine the real candidate Of the Re-
publican party, Mr.. James G. Blaine, made
the deliberate statement that the savings of
workingmen in Massachusetts, exceeded those
of workingmen in the entire United Kingdom.
The Sentinel promptly branded this statement
as a lie, while the Journal reproduced it edi-
torially, pronouncing it a splendid argument
for the monopoly tariff. The Sentinel there
upon repeated that the statement made by
Mr.. Blaine and Endorsed by the Journal was q
lie in its length and breadth. Sentinel.
The Sentinel has repeated this statement
several times, accompanying it each time with
arguments to prove that American workmen
are not as well of under protection as British
workmen are under free trade.
Mr.. Blaine did not say what the Sentinel
imputes to him. It puts words in his mouth
which he did not use, and calls him "a liar"
for saying what he did not say. The Senti-
mel has never printed Mr.. Blaine's speech,
having Gu. it out of the Associated Press dis
patches, as it does a great many other things.
The Journal did print it. The Sentinel says
Mr.. Blaine made the deliberate statement
that the savings of workingmen in Massa-
chusetts exceeded those of workingmen in the
entire United Kingdom" Here is what Mr..
Blaine said:
1.-The savings of the wage-workers of Eng
land, Scotland and Ireland, as l said to-day to
Massachusetts gentleman, are not near as
great as lie tonight in the savings banks of
Massachusetts to the credit of the wage
workers of that small State"
"Mr. Blaine did not use the term Omitted
Kingdom" he spoke Of England, Scotland and
Ireland. The United Kingdom embraces
Wales in addition. For some reason, pre-
sumably satisfactory to himself, Mr.. Blaine
did not include Wales in his statement. On
the contrary, he distinctly excluded it by
naming England, Scotland and Ireland.
Therefore. whatever the savings deposits in
Wales are, they must be deducted from those
Of the United Kingdom, as Mr.. Blaine ex-
pressly excluded that part of the kingdom
from his statement.
The Sentinel says the total deposits in the
United Kingdom in 1886 were 1886, 500, 131. 90,
and gives as authority the British Encyclo-
pedia, ninth edition, Vol. q, p. 343. Here is
what the Encyclopedia says:
.'On the Oath of April, 1886, the funds in
the hands of the National Debt Commission
ers on account of trustee savings banks were
f46, 1852, 515, and postofice savings banks
f49,e S1, 500. a total of EGG, 044,411."
This places the the total savings deposits in
the United Kingdom, including Wales, on the
25th of April, 1886, at 90, O44, All pounds ster-
ling. The English pound is 81. 81 in American
currency. 1t is often roughly estimated at So,
but in a large calculation this would make a
large error. Converting the Encyclopedias
figures into American money at So to the
pound would make $3.50, 800, O55, which near
ly taliies with the Sentiners statement; but
calling ths pound sterling at its true value, we
have $464, S54, 949 as the amount of savings
in the United Kingdom in 1886, according to
the British Encyclopedia. The sum stated in
the Encyclopedia cannot be made to repre-
sent more than this in American money, and
from this aggregate Mr.. Blaine expressly ex-
cluded the deposits in Wales.
The savings bank deposits in Massachu-
sets on Oct. 81, 1887, were 1902, 94S, 4S3.
What they are now cannot be exactly stated,
but they are increasing very fast. One year
ago they were $l6l, SOC, 466 less than the en-
tire savings in the United Kingdom, includ-
ing Wales. Deducting those of this part of
the United Kingdom from the aggregate
would bring the two sums very close togeth-
er, and, perhaps, place Massachusetts, ahead.
However that may be, it is probable that Mr..
Blaine intended to compare the savings banks
of Massachusetts with those of England,
Scotland and Ireland-banks with banks.
The statement of the British Encyclopedia
includes postofice savings banks with the
private banks. AS the former are a govern
ment institution, the like of which we do not
have in this country, it is quite likely Mr..
Blaine intended to exclude them from his
statement. The deposits in the British saw
ings banks proper in 1886 were GAG, 162, SIS
sterling, or 1923, 426, $40, which is much less
than the deposits in the Massachusetts, banks.
Or if the deposits in postal savings banks of
Great Britain are to be added to those of saw
ings banks proper, those in the national
banks of Massachusetts, should be added to
savings banks, which again would bring the
aggregate of savings in that State far above
those on the other side. At all events, Mr..
Blaine did not say what the Sentinel has re-
peatedly asserted he did, and we have no
doubt a thorough investigation will complete
ly verify what he did say.