Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1908-08-28
BRYAN TALKS FINANCE
Pleads for Guaranty of All
Bank Deposits.
EXPLAINS PARTY PLANK
Only Alternative Is Postal Savings
Banks, He Says.
ANSWERS TAFT; WARNS NATION
''Why Not Make Depositors Secure
When Government Requires
securityP" He Asks.
ANSWERS TAFT; WARNS NATION

lOI Gh<As hdLs., August Aso-bciotc O."
audience which filled the Auditorium to
overlooking W. ]. Bryan spoke last night
on the subject of guaranty of bank de-
posits.
Kansas is regarded next to Oklahoma.
where the plan is already in operation, as
the state most enthusiastically in favor
Of the plan. and long time ago Mr..
Bryan picked out this state for his first
official declaration on this subject. He
added last night a postscript dealing with
the action Of the republican state conven-
ton here.
He delivered his address at the Auditor
ium to 5000 people. He said in part:
Mr.. Bryan's Address.
why not make the depositor secure?
The United States government requires
the deposit of specific security when 1t
intrusts money ito a national bank. al
though 1t can examine the bank at any
time; the state requires security when
1t deposits money in a bank; The county
requires security and the city requires
security; even the banks require secur-
ity from the officials who handle money.
Why should the depositor be left to take
his chances?
IF you want to find whether banks are
absolutely secure ask the directors to give
you their personal note to secure your
deposit. and you will learn that they will
not bear the risk which they ask you to
bear.
mo amount Of criticism of the timid
depositor can change the facts; the peo-
pie who deposit money want. more Sc
curity than the laws at present give them.
They will change banks to get more Sc
curity. and. If necessary. they Iill send
their money to another state"
His Answers to Taft.
In answering the objections set forth
by Mr.. Taft to the guaranteeing Of bank
deposits Mr.. Bryan said:
Let us take the first sentence, that
the honest and prudent banker would be
taxed to make up for the dishonesty and
imprudence of others Is not this true
Of all restrictions on banking? Does not
the honest and prudent banker under ex
listing laws suffer in order that the de-
positOr may be protected from the dis
honest and imprudent?
MIR. Taft complains that mo one can
foresee the burden which under this sys-
tenn would be imposed upon the sound
and conservative bankers Of the country
by this obligation to make good the losses
caused by the reckless, speculative and
dishonest men,, etc. We have the past to
guide us. and we have reason to believe
the loss will be less in the future than in
the past, because when banks become
mutually responsible for each others de-
posts they will be sufficiently interested
in each other to favor better regulation
and greater restrictions
Ignorance Shown by Taft.
'In declaring that the system proposed
by the democrats would remove all safe
guards against recklessness in banking,
Mr.. Taft betrays an ignorance of the SUBJ
ject. for the plan does not propose the
removal of any safeguards. In fact. 1t
contemplates stricter regulations Of the
banks, and Oklahoma has already made
the banking regulations stricter.
HE declared that the only benefit
would accrue to the SPECTATOR. who would
be delighted to enter the banking bust
ness when 1t was certain that he could
enjoy any profit that would accrue, while
honest and Woodworking fellow The
present banking law requires that GER
tain amount Of capital shall be invested
in the business. and that law would still
stand. To enter the banking business,
therefore, man would either have to
confidence of men who had the capital.
And this capital, together with the 100
per cent liability. would be guarantee
that the stockholders would not inten-
tionally select careless officials. Why
would Spectator be delighted to enter
the banking business under the guaran-
tee system? He is not relieved from pc
cuniary obligation, nor is he relieved from
criminal liability. He would have moth
ing to gain by carelessness, nor would
the stockholders have anything to gain
by indifference.
Bankers, Too, Would Gain.
1.-THE banks ought to be compelled to
insure their depositors against loss, even
IL it could not be shown that such in
surance would bring compromising ad-
vantage to the bank. The bank charter
has a value; If it were not valuable the
bank would not be organized. The bank
charter Is gift from the people through
the law. and the people who authorize
the establishment of a bank have a right
to demand, in return. that the bank shall
keep the pledge which it gives when it
invites deposits. and make good its prom
tses of security to those who deal with it,
But as a matter of fact, the banks
will. as a rule, gain more from the law
than they will lose by the tax imposed
by the law. The experience of the Okla
homa banks shows this. The interest COL
lected upon the increased deposits will
far more than pay the losses occasioned
by insolvency. But two banks nave failed
and the assets have in both cases been