Gilpin observer., 1908-10-01
PROTECT DEPOSITS
GUARANTEE PLANK ONE OF Mr..
ERYAN's WINNING CARDS.
The Object Lesson In Oklahoma and
Convincing Men that their Savings
In Banks Should be Protected a.
Well as Government Deposits.

1"'oiS Suarahteeu Dank deposits; the
Republican platform is silent on that
subject. Mr.. Bryan heartily cham
pions the plan; Mr.. Taft is strongly
opposed to It,
Mr.. TAFT and Guaranteed Deposits.
In his speech OF acceptance Mr.. Taft
puts himself squarely on record as be.
ing opposed to guaranteed deposits.
He says: "The Democratic platform
recommends tax upon national
banks and upon such state banks az
may come in. in the nature of en-
forced insurance to raise guaranty
fund to pay the depositors OF any
bank which fails. The proposal is
wholly impracticabe unless 1t is to
be accompanied by complete revo-
luton In our banking system, with
supervision so close as practically to
create government bank. II the
proposal were adopted exactly as the
Democratic platform suggests. 1t
would bring the whole banking system
OF the country down in ruin"
Why seek to confuse the people on
simple proposition? We are sun
posed to have Government super.
vision OF national banks now. Super.
vision does not mean a government
bank; 1t simply means that the na.
.tlonal bank inspectors will do just as
they are expected to do under exist
ing law-make their examination OF
banks thorough and make prompt and
effective correction Of any IRREGULAR.
ties discovered. So It will be difficult
to frighten the people by the claim
that guaranteed deposits means tho
rough supervision OF banks. That's
just exactly what the people want
1t is absurd to say that guaranteed
deposits would bring the whole bank
ing system OF the country down to
ruin"
What does guaranteed deposits
mean? 1t means that the savings OF
the masses shall be secured so that
when men and women deposit their
hard-earned money in banking insti.
tutions, they need not worry for fear
1t will be lost through the reckless.
ness and dishonesty of bank officials.
The Federal Government demands Of
these banks security for the money
1t deposits. AS rule state govern
ments and county governments AMI
municipal governments make similar
requirements. But now that It is pro
posed that depositors generally shall
haze some such assurance for the
safe keeping OF their wealth. we are
told by the Republican candidate for
the Presidency that the adoption CT
such a plan would bring the who'll
banking system OF the country dow
to ruin
: okiahonna's Object Lesson.
Oklahoma has the guaranteed de
posit plan and the following Associat.
ed Press dispatch tells OF Its opera
tion in the first bank failure since the
law went into effect:
Guthrie. Okla, May 21, 1908
Within one hour from the time II. Fl.
Smock. Oklahoma banking commits
sioner, had taken charge of the In
ternational Bank Of Colgate he had
authority to pay the depositors in full,
though the banks cash and available
funds in other banks fell $22 900 short
OF the total amount Of deposits. The
commissioner was enabled to do this
under the operation OF the new bank
ing law. and this is the first time 1t
has been called into use. Under the
operation of the guaranty banking
law OF Oklahoma a tariff Of 1 cent is
levied upon the average annual de-
posits OF the banks. and this money
is used in payment In full of all de.
positors Of an insolvent state bank.
after the funds have been exhausted"
VIII the Banks Answer ThIs7
In addition to the arguments al.
ready presented in favor OF the guar.
anteed bank. the following is sub.
mitted:
The United States Government re.
quires deposit Of specific security
when It deposits money in a national
bank; the state also requires secur-
ity. and the county and city deposits
are secured either by bonds or by the
deposit Of specific securities.
Now the question arises, II the
United States Government. which can
at any time inspect a bank and find
out Just what It is doing and how its
business is being conducted, requires
security for its deposits. why should
not security be given to the depos.
itor who cannot examine for himself
and does not know anything abou.
the banks solvency or methods? And
loss to the national government. to
the state. to the county or to the city
would be borne by all the people and
thus be small upon each one, while
the loss to the individual has to be
borne entirely by himself and may
wipe out his entire savings. Is not
the argument stronger in favor of the
protection OF depositors than It is In