Barbour County index. [volume] (Medicine Lodge, Kan.) 1880-current, 1908-11-25

tion of guaranty of bank deposits has
been decided by the voters of the
United States and by the voters of
Kansas against the depositors and
further discussion, at least before the
country experiences another object
lesson, is probably out of season, but
it feels impelled, Notwithstanding,
to challenge few assertions made by
! its esteemed contemporaries Cres-
set-relative to statements made in
these columns on this subject. In an
effort at wit, the Cresset says that the
Index is worried because the banks
and their patrons, of Barber county
are not compelled to make good the
losses of depositors of the failed bank
at Arkansas City. The point sought
to be brought out is that one COM
munity would bear the losses of anoth-
er in the event of bank failure, I'M
der guaranty deposit law. An ar
gument of that kind is extremely un-
tenable. Every bank would be requir-
ed to pay an amount sufficient to Sc
cure it's own depoSitors and no more.
under guaranty deposit law. Does
the property owner in Barber county
who carries fire insurance on his prop
erty reason for a moment that he
is imposed upon because the company
in which he insureS occasionally has
to pay a loss elsewhere? Certainly not.
Hn hoe GUolIln l.
MUM when the insurance company
carries his risk and there is no room
for controversy. So in the bankers
case: he would merely be paying what
it costs to secure his own depositors
and no more. Had there been a law
to compel the Arkansas City bank to
have done this, it would have paid
sufficient amount in premiums, if you
please, to have made it's depositorS
whole. 1t should be understood that
the depoSitors, where there exists a
guaranty law, pay no part of this eX-
penSe. The banks use the money Of
the depositors, loan it out and realize
double compound interest. Is it not
fair that they should put aside very
small portion of these enormous prof !
its to make their depositors secure?
What they would thus put aside |
would be more than gained by bring
ing money out Of hiding places,
which would result in profit to both j.,
banks and depositors. But whether |
fhiC iC fair I1nfoir IL 10 70 ivo1r
patent to every reasoning mind that |
the deposition could not bear the bur- +
den in any degree and it is right that |
he should not, for he has performed |
his entire duty when he has given
the bank the free use of his money.
The claim that to guarantee deposits |
is on plane with a guaranty of a
corn crop or calf crop or guarantee
ing laporing man job is hardly de-
servant of reply. 1t is the empty
of the ignorant curb-stone
rabble and has no application to the !,
subject matter. When a man deliv-
ers his money to bank he has passed /
the speculative point. 1t is his re-
CARELESS of what the seasons may
bring forth-he has realized on his
energy and the money has been earn
ed. He has entrusted it to another
and he is entitled to know that he
can procure it when he wants it. On
the crop proposition it is different.
He plants in the hope Of raising a
crop but hasn't earned it until it is in
the bin. In other words, when he
plants, he merely has prospect and
must depend on the elements and his
own energy for returns, but when he
deposits his money he has an actuality
and depends solely on his bankers
honor. A guaranty law will not in
lure the honest banker and it will re-
strict the dishonest banker and that
S the situation in nutshell.