The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1916-03-26
TRUST COMPANIES
SAFEGUARD ESTATES
A Comparison OF indiy idual and Cor
porate Responsibility and Service
In Administration.

- - Sph&tAAiNc saul ktlat tAC low
places more safeguards around mans
property after his death than during
his lifetime, To a certain extent this
is true. but like so mary OF the inn
portant things of life, 1t is the proof
found inasthes exception that conveys
the strongest impression. For in
stance. In his lifetime man-provid-
ed II cannot be shown that he is of
unsound mind---may dispose of his
personal property as he sees fit: his
wife, in most States has inalienahle
legal rights in his real estate with
which he must reckon. He may alb
soiutely disinherit his children and de-
prive his wife OF all, except her So
called dover right. provided he makes
a legal will The statute Law and the
Interpretation of what is best public
policy as laid down by the courts
very specifically declare what may and
what may not be done in making
will. There are very few. no doubt.
who do not know that WILL must be
signed Ia the presence Of AT least two
and in most States three witnesses
and that 30 witness can be a bene-
ficiaFy. And the same formality must
be observed in all codicils.
nc law however. fEdkGS HO TtStttN~
iles- as TO the testatos.s- selection of an
executor provided he name that per-
son tn legally executed viii He may
choose man, or a woman, for that
matter--a person in whom the tes-
tator alone may have confidence and
the courts will protect the choice
The testator may direct that no bond
shall be exacted OF this executor and
the courts are bound to see that the
direction is observed inviolate, except
that all creditors must be protected.
So reluctant are the courts to inter
fere with the widely recognized right
OF a man TO dispose OF his own prop
ertv that even In those cases where
undue influence is alleged very
strong and convincing evidence is re-
CURED TO set aside a will. Let man
die interstate and the State very posi-
lively directs to whom and in what
proportion his estate shall go. II Is
the probate court In such cases which
decides upon whom shall TALL the re-
sponsibility OF administration. Rare
indeed are those instances in which no
surety Is demanded. Be 1t individual
or corporation: relative or mere ac-
auaintance. the law throws around
the administrator such restrictions as
experience has taught to best conserve
property so entrusted.
1t Is In this connection with both
testate and interstate estates that we
80 often and trust companies acting.
Experience of more than century
has demonstrated the wisdom OF this
preference of the trust company over
the Individual As executor. trustee or
administrator the responsibility OF an
individual Ii necessarily limited and
closely restricted to his private for
trne which in a very few cases only
is likely to be of sufficient size TO
a ford ample protection to the bene-
ficiaries OF the estate. On the other
hand, trust companies are compelled
by law to maintain adequate capital
and reserve funds Tor this purpose.
This Is. perhaps, this leading feature
OF the service of trust companies in
the-admtnisf lon Of e9tates- The
law declares what investments may
be made. determines how accountinEs
shall be prepared and presented and
then does not stop when tho pre-
scribed course has been laid out. but
supplies In the persons Of bank COM
iniasioners and bark examinArh the
supervisory authority which assures
the fulHlIment OF the statutory re-
quirements.
And what OF the result? Trust COM
panies came into our national financial
life in 1899. In the Interval to 1918
these companies. numbering more
than 1899. have been custodtan1 Of
estates. the value. Of which can be ex-
pressed only BY hundreds OF millions,
yet so far an recorded NOT d single
instance of money held in trust h&Iv-
ing been lost through the dishonesty
OF trust company of1ciat can be
charged against the compantep. 1T IL
q record Of magnificent achievement,