Birmingham state herald. (Birmingham, Ala.) 1895-1897, 1896-12-20
MISERABLE DODGrNG.


| Advertiser:
| like to have the Montgomery Advertiser
| to point specifically the time and place,
when and where the democratic party
abandoned its opposition to national
banks. OF course We know the Adver-
tiser will have no hesltancy in assert
ing that as a matter Of fact it is no
longer democratic to oppose the national
banking system, but it is not assertions
we are asking for. We want facts"
Our reason for having asked the ques
ton is this: Since it has evoluted into
republican organ the Advertiser has
grown to be great admirer Of the pres
ent national banking system. It INDUCES
daily in the advocacy of republican doc
trine8 and policies, but keeps up the
howl that it is q democratic paper,
1t being a fact known of all men that
the democratic party has always opposed
the present national banking system,
both in it's platform declarations and by
the votes of its members in the house
and senate, we thought it fairly good
opportunity to have the Advertiser eX-
plain how it was that though loudly pro-
claiming its own fealty to true demo-
cratic principles, 1t was daily advocating
the present national banking system.
After having waited long enough to
have had an answer to our question ana
receiving none, we called attention to
the fact that we had propounded the
question and announced that il 1t was
ever answered we would inform our
readers Of the fact. This no doubt riled
the Montgomery republican organ, and
Yesterday we found the following in that
paper, which we will not now denounce
either as ridiculous or Ignorant
'.rhe above is an extract from that
| ridiculous paper, the Birmingham state
| Herald. 1t is perhaps not more rlaicu
! lous than ignorant 1t is very evident
| that ii fails to comprehend the dlherehce
between the United States bank against
which Jackson warred and the natlonal
bank system now in operation. Ihey are
as different as night from day OF az an
intelligent paper is from the Blr1nlhsnaii
paper The United states pank was II,
mart a government institution, the united
States being a large stakeholder ana rep
resented in the directory. IL was tnI I
Governments fiscal agent, but the OIL
under which the second United states
bank was incorporated after the eXplIa-
tion of the charter of the nfst pdhh,
was approved by President Madison IL
was a single colossal institution WIN
branches throughout the country an
practically under the supreme direction
of a small executive Doalu loc'I0" III
The national banks under the present
e,eiern. are private institutions under
the MANAGEMENT of board or olrectoIs'
all Of whom are elected by the slocHholu-
ers. The banks are under Federal SUI
pervision but this supervisors 10 s oiiJ ~.
The safeguards of those persons naVins
dealings with the banks, especially the
danosltOrs The bank notes secured ny u
dppOeit with the government Oh Otl'ec
states bonds and while the deposit OF
these bonds makes the notes perfectly
enc,re if is one Of the Objectionable fea-
lures of the law, with many abe eco1l-
omsts. ,4t.,,
There has never been any declaration
with respect to the present national pahA
system in any national democratic PlaL-
| form. What the Advertiser asserts with
| ra-nect TO the present national bank sys-
| tenn is that it affords tho people pet
! Ter currency than the present demand
| notes of the government, and suostllu-
| ton of these notes for gfeenpdchs anu
| treasury notes would take the govern
! mnnf ont OF the banking business.
We do not feel called upon to denounce
| the Advertiser as being either 'ridicu-
lous" or Ignorant" However, If our
readers will only go with us a brief whlle
| we will note the reply it makes to a
plain question and when we get through
1 1
I vertiser both ridiculous" and ignorant
/ why. it will be no fault of ours.
FIRST, We did not ask the Advertiser
| ANYTHING about the Omitted States
hank, We did not ask it to explain the
| difference between the present national
| banking system and the United States
! bank We asked 1t nothing Whatever
about who were stockholders or directors
| in the United States bank, we made no
| inquiry as to whether or not the Unit
| ed states bank was the governments fis-
| cal agent. We did not inquire about the
| incorporation OF the second United states
bank. or who approved the act under
| which it was Incorporated. we surely
| did not ask the Advertiser whether or not
the first or second United States bank
| was Colossal institution or how many
| "branches" either or both of them had,
| or whether it or they were under the
| sunreme direction of a small executive
| board" either located in Philadelphia
! or elsewhere.
| Second: We did not ask the Advertiser
| whether national banks under 1.-THE pres
| ent system" are private institutions" or
| not. We made no inquiry as to how they
were managed" or who selected their
| 'boards of directors" Everybody knows
| national banks "are under federal super
vision" and about that we did not inquire
of the Advertiser. We said not word
about "the safeguards of those persons
having dealings with the banks" Every
body knows national bank notes are Sc
cured by deposit with the government of
United States bonds" and on that sub
ject we made no Enquiry of the Adver-
| tiser. We did not attack the national
| bank notes as not being perfectly Sc
cure" and therefore our question called
| for nothing on the subject.
| Third: We did not ask for bold asser-
| lions. we asked for facts, and therefore
| this unfounded assertions was not asked
| for. "There has never been any declara-
| ton with respect to the present national
| bank system in any national democratic
| pls form" We did not ask the Adver-
| tiser anything about what it asserts
| with respect to the present national bank