The Jeffersonian. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1907-1917, 1914-08-27

mold some views you express Iii CndC
articles. You say "The difficulties
arise partly out of the
class of securities which the farming
population normally has to offer for
leans" You imply by this that
lands, live stock, cotton, corn and
neat are not first class security for
money loans. Your position here
puzzles me in view of the opinions
Of many other high authorities.
You say also "The Federal Re-
serve Act was passed with view to
the improvement of the banking con-
ditions of the country in the interest
Of all the classes" I am puzzled why
you now so talk, when for many
years you have taught us that it was
a reversion of the proper order of
things for prosperity to be made to
tnckle down through big business
upon the heads of the common peo-
pfc Besides this when the Federal
Reserve Act was being discussed NO
one contended the banks needed
help, but small business, especially
agricultural classes, needed relief.
The relief needed by farmers as we'll
as many other classes was relief
from high interest rates, and there
is not a line in the bill which
promises reduction in interest rates
TO any class. This puzzles me again.
You also say "The Federal Re-
serve Act is not a bankers nor
business mans law" and yet the
Vice President of the Chamber of
Commerce of the u. S. says he went
before the Senate Committee and
;o+ Ivy oil
the recommendations that we're made
by this U. S. Chamber of Commerce"
I am sure you do not believe the
u. S. Chamber of Commerce went
before the Senate in the interest of
the common people. You certainly
know they were there to plead for a
more effective way for the banks and
merchants to reap interest and
profits from the producing masses.
Six Of the nine directors of each Pc
serve Bank are named by ctockhold-
ing banks. Does not this of itself
place the whole scheme of the Re-
serve Act under the administration
OF the bankers of the country? This
same Chamber of Commerce authOri-
ty says it does.
In view of these facts I am
puzzled at your contentious. Again,
you cite us to the permit given by
the bill for Reserve Banks to dis
count or rather rediscount notes,
etc, drawn for Agricultural pur-
poses" In view of the fact that
banks in the past have, when they
SO desired, always found a way Of
discOunting such paper, why is there
any advantage to the farmer for the
bill to say the banks may continue
to do so? If the bill had in some
way limited the amount of such dis
count which banks and money lend
ers charge upon such paper, then the
farmer would have had reason to be
proud. You also try to soothe us
by saying amy Agricultural Bank
under this provision may loan on
farm lands" Now / have never
heard of any special difficulty in my
state in getting discounts on good
vendors lein notes against land.
Banks through their agents or CO.
workers are always ready to take up
good agricultural paper of various
kinds. The amount of interest or
the amount Of discount charged is
the thing that has ruined us in the
past and this Federal Reserve Act
gives no promise in any way of re-
lief in this respect. / am puzzled to
know why you think it will help
us.
Banks in the past have usually
found a way to handle any "cOm-
vii Il SpI 1ct4, snJ I&Yrx