The Idaho scimitar. [volume] (Boise, Idaho) 1907-1908, 1908-09-05
Gage and Fowler Quoted.

A weeks
Never lifted I'D his voice in a semi-oficial way
against the democratic proposition to guarantee the
return of money deposited in banks Not that Mr..
Never knows any more about the subject than lots
of other people that have been heard Of
but being cabinet officer it was necessary for him
to contribute something in the way of WISDOM real
or alleged to the progress of the campaign. So he
deprecated the democratic invention of guaranteed
deposits
writer in the Portland Oregonian, w. w. Cat
n whose politics unknown, takes up the subject
where Mr.. Meyer dropped it and produces we'll
sustained argument in favor of the proposed nnova-
ton Mr.. Catlin says:
Mr. Meyers knowledge of and experience in bank
ing may be profound, and he also may be OF those
who are so rich that their opinions do not need the
support of argument" but | will call as witnesses
against him two lifelong republicans, Charles N
Fowler and Lyman j. Gage.
In my opinion, Mr.. Fowler is the ableSt and best
informed man in either branch of congress on the
subject of finance; and the republican majority IN
the house has kept him at the head of the banking
and currency committee for some years MIR.
Gage has been a banker for so years. and President
Mckinley selected him to preside over the treasury
department IN his cabinet
The fact that Mr.. Fowler incorporated IN his
own bill (lnown the Fowler bi) the feature
guaranteeing deposits in national banks, is evidence
enough of his belief in it safe and wise measure;
and Mr.. Cages opinion stated in an address, or
ing and currency of the house of representatives,
February 10 last, from which l quote as follows:
'"The Chairman There is question [
would like to ask Mr.. Gage. Do you think that this
guaranteeing of deposits would lead to unsound
banking?'"
"Mr. Cage No, sir 1 think the fact that under
your bill there would be penalty for neglect OF in
spection, and that there would be the machinery for
Inspection it would lead to sound banking The only
restraint upon the bank officer really is the fear of
loss, not to his depostors but to his stockholders
That fear and restraint would be operative under
the bill it is now, and the influence of the inspec
tons and the restrictions that would be formulated by
these associates who have to bear part of the risk
that takes if he goes wrong is a pretty good
assurance that he will go right and if he goes right
he will go IN conformity with the principles of good
banking instead of going loose like wild horse
prairie. :"
person, whether depositor not (for bank failures
which involve loss to depostors many indirect
losses to those who are not depostors) especially ap
peal to the doubtful voter: National bank notes are
and always have been guaranteed. There is
difference at all in principle between the obligation
of national bank to the holder of its notes. and its
obligation to its depositors Therefore, if it is a
good thing Gas has been amply proved to guarantee
one form OF a like obligation, why should it prove
disastrous to guarantee the other form of an equal
obligation?
The government demands a guarantee for its
deposits III national banks Why should not the
individual deposltor be fully protected as the
government is In equity the individual depositor
mas stronger claim to protection than the govern
ment has, for his loss must be made I'D bv his own
efforts, while the government recoups itself by
further tax on the people
With guarantee of deposits there would neverss
be run on bank. Being secure against runs
banks could make loans with more safety And with
greater security in the making of oans banks would
ran less otten-and even when they did fail the dis
turDance to business would be small and temporary
instead OF cumulative and onp-contin11ed as now