The Idaho scimitar. [volume] (Boise, Idaho) 1907-1908, 1908-09-05
Guaranteed Deposits.

week. for his subject the platform plank of
his party that proposes to guarantee the re-
turn of money placed in banks by depos1tors
He asked why should not the individual have
as much protection as the government, the state,
the county or the city When the general govern
ment places money in national bank it requires ade
quate security, although it enjoys safeguard denied
the individual depositor-the examination of the
books of the bank any time it may elect State gov
ernments the security that is denied the lndvld-
ual when placing money in a bank and usually
ties and ctiec demand protection against loss Every
patron of bank is made secure except the individ
ual and in proportion that the general government,
the state government, the county and the city
made secure the individual is made insecure After
secured patrons have been made wholly, the indvid-
ua patrons have to take what is left if anything, and
divide it among themselves Mr.. Bryans plea was
democratic 1t was for equal chance for ALL coun-
try state, county, city, individual That would be
genuine square deal Mr.. Bryan described the oper-
alton of the Oklahoma law
The experience of Oklahoma furnishes proof that
depositors do not feel that their money is safe in
unreserved banks. On the 18th of December, 1907,
the Oklahoma legislature enacted depos1tors guar
anty law which became operative February 18th, 1908
By the provisions of this law all state banks and as
many national banks desire to avail themselves OF
the law, are taxed per cent on their deposits,
and the money thus collected is put into guaranty
fund The banking board is authorized to make
additional assessments from time to time to keep the
fund I'D to this amount, and is directed to take
possession of any insovent bank pay the depostors
in full and reimburse the fund by collecting the
assets of the failed bank Five hundred and htty-tlve
banks, including 81 national banks had come under
the provisions of this law on the 18th OF last May,
leaving but 225 unsecured banks Gall nat1ona IN the
state. Statements made by the banks IN Decem-
Der and May. Between these periods the secured
banks gained in deposits $4,237 76522 while the I'M
secured banks all national showed decrease IN de-
posts of 81 1O 8O7.76 large part of this increase
represented money brought from hiding or from
without the state but the decrease in the unsecured
banks can only be explained in one way. A large
number of depostors withdrew their money from the
unsecured banks and this, too in spite OF the tact
that in order to prevent withdrawals the unsecurea
banks in some instances, offered higher rate OF
interest than the secured banks were permitted to
pay and it must be remembered also that the banks
which suffered loss of deposits were all national
banks And to make it certain that the difference
was caused by the guaranty law the secured national
banks gained while the unsecured national banks
lost While the deposits were increasing. IN
the guaranteed banks of Oklahoma, they were failing
In the state banks and trust companies of Kansas
the decrease being $1,153O26S7 between March 31st
and June 18TH
Mr. Taft has used for campaign purposes the
plea that a system of guaranteed deposits would
cause honest bankers conservative bankers to lose
through the operations of dishonest and reckless
bankers But Mr.. Bryan thinks not. He believes
that when banks become mutually responsible Tor
each others deposits they will be sufficiently inter
ested in each other favor better regulations and
greater restrictions" An opinion from one side is as
good as an opinion from another, and Mr. Bryans
opinion rests on desire to make secure the clentage
of the entire banking world, while Mr.. Tafts opln-
ion would protect only a few individuals engaged
in the business of becoming rich on the capital OF
their customers. 1t is the capitalists that furnish
the money for the operations of the bankers that
Mr. Bryan would secure from the ravages OF 1nsol-