The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1908-09-03
LEADERS
PROMISE BRYAN A
MAJORITY
Of 10000 in Kansas
on Visit There
Six thousand Crowd
Auditorium to Hear
Him Discuss Guaranty
Bank Deposits = An
Overflow Meeting.
Overflow Meeting.

| NOt Ilo" "ISSttIIAs
Topeka, Kans., Aug. 27.-William j.
Bryan made four addresses here today,
speaking tonight to 5000 people in the
Auditorium and the fourth at an over
flow meeting. The other addresses were
made from the balcony of his hotel to
crowds in the afternoon. He left at
midight for Lincoln. Democrats
thronged Topeka from all sections of
the state and leaders promised him
majority of 10000 in Kansas.
At the Auditorium he spoke on
guaranty bank deposits and said in
part:
Why not make the depositor Sc
cure? The United States govern
ment requires the deposit of specific
security when it entrusJs money to
national bank, although it can ex-
anime the bank at any time; the
state requires security and the city
requires security; even the banks re-
quire security from the officials who
handle money. Why should the de-
posltor be left to take his chances?
Not only is the depositor without
protection, but the security given to
nation, state, county and city lessons
his security. They are preferred
creditors; they have mortgage on
the gilt edged assets and the deposi-
tor must get along as best he can
with what remains. Why are the in
terests of depositors thus neglected?
A
ry that the depositor is sure of the
return of his money, and the laws
ought to make the facts conform to
the theory. The depositor, the COM
munity and the banker himself will be
benefited by legislation which will
give to every depositor the assur-
ance that that which is committed to
the keeping of the bank will be
available to meet his needs at any
time. Such is not the case today, for
while all banks are reasonably Sc
cure, they are not absolutely So
No amount of criticism OF the tim
id deposttor can change the facts;
the people who deposit money want
more security than the laws at pres
ent give them. They will change
banks to get more security and, If
necessary, they will send their money
to another state.
For many years efforts have been
made in congress and in the various
states to secure a law guaranteeing
deposits, but the influence of the
great banking institutions has been
sufficient to prevent action. Last fall,
however, when the banks by con-
checks, the depositors were every
where brought to a realization of the
fact that their deposits are in fact
loans, payable on demand under Or
binary circumstances, but payable at
the will of the bank in emergencies.
The depositors suffered a consider
able loss during the suspension Of
payments, and they have not forgot
ten the lesson which they then learn
ed. The democratic party, being
more free than the republican party
to respond to the needs of the mass
es of the people, inserted the follow
ing plank in it's national platform:
we pledge ourselves to legisla-
tion by which the national banks
shall be required to establish a guar
anty fund for the prompt payment of
the depositors of any insolvent ma
tional bank, under an equitable sys-
tenn which shall be available 60 all
state banking institutions wishing
to use it,"
This principle has been applied in
Oklahoma and the results have been
very satisfactory. The average an
nual loss to depositors in national
banks during the last forty years has
been less than one-tenth of one per
cent of the deposits, and the loss to
the fund in Oklahoma under better
regulations and restrictions has been
absolutely nothing during the six
months in which the law has been in
operation.
The republican platform is silent on
the subject and the republican can
didate not only does not advocate a
compulsory system, but specifically
and emphatically opposes it.
AS Mr.. Taft's argument is that pre-
sented by the big banks which put
their own selfish interests above the
welfare of the depositors and the
safety of the community, 1t is worth
while to answer the several PROPOSE
tions which he advances.
Let us take the first sentence, that
"the honest and prudent banker
would be taxed to make up for the
dishonesty and imprudenee OF 9TH
ers." Is not this true of all restric-
tions on banking? Does not the
honest and prudent banker under ex-
isting laws suffer in order that the
depositor may be protected from the
dishonest and imprudent? II we had
no banking laws at all, and banking
was done by private individuals, the
honest and prudent banker would
save the money that he now pays for
enforced examinations of his bank,
and he could at times make interest
on part of the money which he is
now required to keep in his vault as
a rigid reserve. But because some
bankers are not prudent, these laws
place a burden upon the good as we'll
as upon the bad, ii being difficult TO
distinguish the prudent banker from
the imprudent one until bank actu-I
ally fails.
In like manner II might be said that
IL all people were careful about fire
fire insurance rates need not be as
high as they are, but the careful
have to pay higher rates than they
should because some are not careful.