Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1908-08-28

than one-tenth of j per cent OF the de- |
posts, and the loss to the fund in |
Oklahoma under better regulations and
restrictions has been absolutely moth |
ing during the six months in which the
law has been in operation.
THE republican platform is silent on
the subject, and the republican candi-
date not only does not advocate a
compulsory system, but specifically and
emphatically opposes it. He says
The democratic platform recon-
mends a tax upon national banks and
upon such state banks as may come in,
in the nature of enforced insurance to
raise guaranty fund to pay the de-
positors of any bank which fails
And then he questions the right of
the government to enact such law,
saying:
How state banks can be included
in such scheme under the constitution
is left in the twilight zone of state
rights and federalism so frequently
dimming the meaning and purpose of
the promises of the platform. If they
come in under such system, they
must necessarily be brought within the
closest national control, and so they
must really cease TO be state banks
and become national banks
Is Not Consistent.
His solicitude for the state bank
will hardly impress the country, for
he is quite Indifferent to states and
| their reserved rights when he deals
with other subjects. When congress
is in control of those who want to leg
islate for the whole people rather than
| for the few, it will not be difficult to
frame a law under which state banks
can avail themselves of the advantages
| of federal law guaranteeing the de-
posits of national banks, just as it was
easy in Oklahoma to frame a law
which permitted national banks TO take
advantage of the state guaranty Sys-
TEN. 1t will also be easy TO enact 4
federal law which will permit national
banks to avail themselves of state
guaranty systems until national sys-
TEN can be secured. Attorney General
Bonaparte's ruling, whether it correct
ly interprets the law or not, would not
bring such CONSERVATION as it does if
the republican candidate favored a
law allowing national banks to take adj
vantage of state systems for the protec-
ton of depositors, but Mr.. Tafts hos
tility to all guaranty Systems is shown
in the objection which he offers:
THE proposition is TO tax the hon.
est and prudent banker to make up foI
1.-The dishonesty and imprudence of 9th
ers. No one can foresee the burden
which under this system would be i'm
posed upon the sound and conserva
Tive bankers of the country by this OBJ
legation to make good the losses caused
by the reckless, speculative and dis
honest men who would be enabled tC
secure deposits under such a system
on the faith of the proposed insur
d anee; as in its present shape the pro
posaI would remove all safeguards
against recklessness in banking, anC
the chief, and in the end, probably the
only, benefit would accrue to the spec
Iulator who would be delighted to entel
the banking business when it was Ger
= tain that he could enjoy any profit tina
would accrue, while the risk would
t have to be assumed by his honest ant
Woodworking fellow
Pictures Dire Disaster.
"He even pictures dire disaster ant
= declares that if the proposal wer,
= adopted exactly as the democratic plat
form suggests, it would bring the Who'll,
banking system of the country down il
9 ruin
Gas an afterthought he suggests tina
a voluntary system might be tolerated
but as his objections to a compulsor
@ system apply just as well to volur
F.; tary system, we may fairly count hir
t against all legislation which has TO
t its object the guaranty of depositors.
S LAS Mr.. Taft's argument is that pre-
$ scented by the big banks which pu
l. their own selfish interests above tn
welfare of the depositors and the safe
Il ty of the community. it is worth Will
$ to answer the several proposition
> which he advances.
{ LET us take the first sentence, tina
i the honest and prudent banker woul
|, be taxed to make up for the dishol
l. Iesty and imprudence of Others Is nc
IL this true of all restrictions on banl
= ling? Does not the honest and pruder
e banker under existing laws suffer
t lorder that the depositor may be pr'
r Itected from the dishonest and impTl
1 ldent? If we had no banking laws {
all, and banking was done by privat
e individuals, the honest and pruder
= banker would save the money that b
II now pays for enforced examinations {
his bank and he could at times max
ejinterest on a part of the money whic
, he is now required to keep in his vau
II as rigid reserve. But because som
: bankers are not prudent. these law
iplace burden upon the good as we
IL as upon the bad, it being difficult
e distinguish the prudent banker fro
q the imprudent one until bank actua
1 ly fails.
4 I'm like manner it might be sal
II that if all people were careful abol