New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1908-09-19
TRE4T ANSWERS BRYAN.
Calls Bank Guarantee Scheme US
iOnary and DemOrdIiziHg.

Baltimore Sent 1S-CharIes H Treat United
States Treasurer. spoke at the dinner of the Mary
land Bankers Association tonight He cCntended
that there was no more reason why the government
should guarantee bank deposits than it should in
vestments in any other lines of business He took
exception the arguments advanced by William
J. Bryan in favor of the proposal. and declared the
entire scheme be visionary. impractical and full
of demoraizing dangers. He said in part:
Mt Bryan claims that his aim is 10 protect the
masses. His argument for the guarantee of bank
deposits would affect class and as RUE: the
richer class. for not many IaboTers nave TIC
spare money 10 keep an active bank account
The argument is frequently made that a man
who holds banknotes is secured by the guarantee
Of the government. because bonds are put up as
favorttism? II must be remembered. however,
that the relation OF the deposition TO the bank Is
fords greater opportunity for protection. bill
perhaps over the commercial world. The stock
holders and the officials of the banks and the de
posftors come together in mutual interest. but it
ers. which is only transitory and sometimes
Mr.. Bryan in a recent address said that the
United States government and the various states
and municipalities that make deposits receive
interest thereon and require a specinc collateral
preferred creditors? He overlooks the fact that
the public funds in the custody OF ofhclals
aui d 5h e ba fsfIad The oficiaI would he liable
ton unless the funds were protected oy an ade-
I realize the Importance of having the funds
that collected from taxation so utilized As
TO go back the channels of trade and COM
merCe This only be done through the in
strumentality of bank. but the official who
gives his bond for the safety Of this money Ger
tainy should not be held 70 accountability when
the deposits are made in the interest Of the pub
lie welfare
Mr. Bryan seems 70 fail to realize the difference
between ordinary deposiUor and a custodian Of
public funds The ordinary deposition should not be
classed with public official who deposits the
pUblic'S money because the ordinary depOsftor has
reciprOcatipR benefits in the safe keeping OF his
funds the collection OF his checks and the con-
venienca and economy If drawing his checks in
payment of his bills, saving rim the cost OF money
fcrds him All the benefits that he ard his deposits
are entitled to.
The fact must not lost sight that the gov
eminent derives corresponding benefit from the
loan of public funds does the Individual depOs-
itor
Mr Bryan insists that the government is always
a preferred creditor and 70 that extent IL in
trenches upon the funds that would ordinarily be
used make good the demands of the general de-
revenues but collections taken from the people
through taxation. II is the money OF the people in
charge of a custodian. for specific purposes. for
their benefit alone We apt To lose sight OF the
fact that these officials IN charge OF public funds
under u heavy bond
II is surDrising that Mr.. Bryan should advocate
such a broad proposition of paternalism. Il al
ways been claimed by him that the spirit OF DemOc-
racy Is against interference by the government in
individual affairs. insisting upon absolute freedom
To conduct its business when not against the public
tied IN bank is any more sacred than II invested