The Waterbury Democrat., 1932-10-04

Los Angeles, October 4 - Ob- servers of the successful opera ton of the dual system of state and national banks have little pa- tience with the element now trying to put forward the so-called uni fled system and do away entirely with the state supervised institu- tions," L. A. Andrew, vice-presi- dent First Bank and Trust Com pany, Otumwa, Iowa, told the
 meeting of the State Bank Divis- ion of the American Bankers As sociation convention here today.
 He pointed out that state banks comprise two-thirds of all banking institutions, serve three-fourths oI the area of the United States ana have aggregate resources Of $36'- 5OO,OOO,000, or 55 per cent in ex- cess of the $24,700,000,000 aggre-. gate resources of the natlonal banks, He described the two sys- tems as both having good points and serving as beneficial checks on each other, and declared that "any proposition that would place all the banking resources under bureaucratic control in washing ton. where it would be subject to CndHkGS osAOA ~A~ W. the pull and avarice of politicians, would be against the tenets of good banking and good pnublic policy. MT Andrew said in part:
 "The development of thousands of communities has depended almost entirely upon the efficient service rendered by banks under state supervision. Nearly all state banks are of>the strong unit type, owned by local people, directed by prominent investors in their terri tory and with local executive off, cers and employees. The forty eight states, having prospered and developed with such a banking system, are naturally jealous of their rights. The banks have pros- pered as their communities have prospered and suffered as their communities have suffered. It IS no more fair to say the unit bank . ing system has proved a failure than to say business has proved a failure.
 Banks under state supervision have been working side by side with banks under national super vision and the dual system has proved a success. Each system has been a check on the other for the good of both, each side having many good points. Both have def- mite wrok to do and have done it well. Those who have worked for years on such a system and tried to be close students of the results have, perhaps, too littl patience with the element now trying to put forward the so-caleld unified sys- tenn and do away entirely with the state supervised institutions.
 Those who believe in greater centralization of power in Wash ington and those who, mainly for selfish reasons, wish to SC e the destruction of our grerat system of state banks, seem now to have united on a program of what they call the 'Unification of Our Bank ing Systems Many of our best posted ecoonmie writers are right in their belief htat one of the main troubles at the present time is the growing tendency toward a cen tralization of control of American business by government bureaus and other agencies which have taken such a strangle-hold on | many lines, making it impossible | for them to function profitably. This has also resulted in a grow ing tax burden which has become almost too oppressive for Ameri- can business to bear.
 Many government authorities wonder why banks cannot con- mence making loans and aid in the early restoration of business. When some spokesmen are advocating the destruction of two-thirds of the banking units of this country, it is not surprising that banks con- tinue to tighten up credit as very naturally they wonder what the re- suit of such a program will be on their very existence. Any so called 'unification' of our banking systems , which wuold place all banking re- sources under bureaucratic control in Washington, where it would be subject to changes in administra-