Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1914-05-07
BRANCH BANKING LAW ATTACKED
IN THE ASSOCIATION CIRCULARS

| sey men acted in the matter without
consulting the parent body, the ex-
ecutive committee of which had ap-
proved both bills.
In its circular the Monmouth asso-
citation insists that had the bill intro
duced at the last Legislature session
been passed, it would have been pos
sible under 1t for a central trust COM
pany-inferentially the Fidelity Trust
Company Of this city--to buy up and
put out of business one hundred In
dependent banks. The circular also
| declares that it would have been pos
sible to establish a money and credit
trust, and 1t declares that the pres
ent law governing branch banking is
extremely dangerous to independent
banking and should be repealed"
When asked today about the matter
| by an Evening Star reporter, Uzal H.
McCarter, president of the Fidelity
Trust Company, made the following
statement:
What must appear to all fair
minded men as an unwarranted at
tack upon the motives of one of the
largest trust companies in the State
is apparently being engineered by
leading spirits in the Monmouth
County Bankers Association.
1T is asserted in inspired news
paper articles and in circulars issued
in the name of the Monmouth coun-
ty association that under a measure
introduced at the last session of the
Legislature-Assembly bill No. 537-
| it would be possible to create in New
Jersey a money and a credit trust.
Asserting that unsupported theory
as a positive fact those who have
raised up a bug-a-boo to frighten
| themselves and to alarm others de-
clare that this bill-which was not
pressed to passage-made possible the
purchase of any number of now indie
pendent banks by central trust
| company and that in this way l in
| dependent banks could be and might
| be put out of existence. causing $780,
| 000,000 capital to be withdrawn from
! legitimate banking.
Utter Absurdity.
ITO understand the utter absurdity
of that contention one need give but
moment thought to the matter.
| 1t is true that under the proposed law
branch banking was permissible in
counties other than those in which
the parent company's offices are To-
Gated, but nowhere in the bill was
anything of the kind made compul-
L
independent banks might have been
taken over by a central company, but
nowhere in the measure was there
one word that, by any stretch of the
imagination, would compel any stock
holder in any bank to part with his
holdings. To put IL in another way,
no independent bank in any part of
the State could be purchased and
operated as branch, or bought and
| put out of business" unless the
stockholders were willing to sell their
stock.
Assuming. however, that the inn
possible could be done, and that
against its wish and will, an indie
pendent bank might be taken over
by a central company, il is difficult
to understand what the latter would
gain by putting it's purchased insti-
tuition out of business. 1t would as
s,1redIy be much more to the advan-
tage of the central company to in
every way strengthen the purchased
bank and not only keep it in business,
but extend Its sphere of usefulness.
To purchase bank and put 1t out
of existence would simply mean the
clearing of the field for the estab-
lishnent of another institution to
take it's place.
"That the establishment of branch
banks would take money from the
smaller communities where it is most
needed for the conservation and
proper encouragement of local enter
prises,' is another assertion put forth
in opposition to the proposed law
and TO the branch bank act which is
now on the statute books. That claim
Is ridiculous. 1t would be absurd to
expect any bank to survive in any
community it, by the Withdrawal of
money, or for any other reason, it
was unable or unwilling to meet the
proper demands and requirements OF
local enterprises and residents. Not
to do that would be worse than folly.
1t would be suicidal.
What the slight opposition to