Bluefield evening leader. [volume] (Bluefield, W. Va.) 1906-1911, 1908-08-27
Bank Insurance
MR. BRYAN DISCUSSES THE GUARANTY BANK DEPOSITS
SHOWS THE FALL4aCY TAFTs ARGUMENTS IN op
fosiroN-EXPERENCE SHOWS BE LESS THAN
ONETENTH ONE PER CENT


money orders prefer to lose the in
terest and. in addition to that pay
the price OF the money order in or
der TO secure the government's
guaranty.
Fourth: National banks confess
that their banks are not secure
when they oppose the guaranty OF
state banks on the ground that Il
would lessen the deposits in national
banks; and state bankers confess
that their banks are not secure
when they oppose a national guar
anty system on the ground that il
will draw deposits away from state
banks. If you want to find whether
banks are absolutely secure, ask the
directors to give you their personal
note to secure your deposits and
you will learn that they will not
bear the risk which they ask you
to bear.
Fifth: The experience of Okla
homa furnishes conclusive proof
that depositors do not feel that their
money is safe in unsecured banks.
On the 18th OF December, 1907. the
Oklahoma legislature enacted a de-
positors guaranty law, which be-
came operative February 4th. 1908
BY the provisions of this law, all
state banks, and as many national
banks as desire to avail themselves
of the law. are taxed one per cent
on their deposits. and the money
thus collected is put into n guaran-
ty fund. The banking board is au-
thoriZed to make additional assess
ments from time TO time to keep
the fund up to this amount. and Is
directed TO take possession of any
insolvent bank, pay the depositors
in full. and reimburse the fund by
collecting the assets OF the failed
bank. Five hundred and fifty-five
banks, including ffty-four national
banks, had come under the provis-
ions of this law on the 14th OF last
May leaving but 255 unsecured
banks (all nationaD in the state.
Statements are made by the banks
in December and May. Between
these periods the secured banks
gained in deposits s4.237, 1922,
while the unsecured banks. all ma
tional, showed a decrease in deposits
OF $1.1O1 ,S07.S6. A large part of
this increase represented money
brought from hiding or from with
out the state, but the decrease in
the unsecured banks can only be ex-
planned in one way large num-
Der OF depositors withdrew their
money from the unsecured banks.
and deposited 1t in the secured
banks. and this. too, in spite OF the
fact that in order 10 prevent with
drawals, the unsecured banks. In
some instances, offered higher
rate of interest than the secured
banks were permitted to pay; ani
it must be remembered also that the
banks which suffered loss OF de
pos!ts were all national banks. And
to make 1t certain that tho differ
ence was caused by the guaranty
law. the secured national banks
gained. while the unsecured banks
lost. While the deposits were In
creasing in the guaranteed banks OF
Oklahoma. they were falling In the
state banks and trust companies of
Kansas-the decrease being $1,153-
O26 27 between March 31st and
June 18th.
No amount of criticism Of the
timid depositor to chage the facts;
the people who deposit money want
moro security than tho 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
ett fGrfruf rrnxrouf ocffpp