Year: 1878

A respectable evening contemporary,
whose views on certain subjects have al
ways strong doctrinaire tinge, asserts that
it is no part of the duty of Congress to pro-
vide substitute for insecure savings banks.
Banking business of any kind" it says,
sis not proper function of the federal
government" We wish our intelligent con-
temporary would define its position with
more precision than it has done in these
vague declarations. Of course it would
scorn to found serious argument on
the popular use of the word bank to
designate savings institutions. If we pene-
trate through words to things the question
resolves itself into the expediency of the
federal government providing a depository
for the money of the public when it can
thereby promote both it's own convenience
and that of the people The federal govern
ment receives deposits of gold coin and is
sues certificates thereon which pass from
hand to hand as o substitute for gold pay
ments. Does our contemporary approve of
this? The law by which this is done has
been in operation for many years, with the
approval of the whole business commu-
nifty, and, so far as we can recol-
lect, our scrupulous contemporary has
never made any objection. If the
federal government cannot go into 'bank-
ing business Of any kind" how is the law to
be defended that makes the Treasury a re-
ceiver of deposits, payable on demand,
which is one Of the functions of an ordinary
bank? If our contemporary approves of
this practice, as the unanimous business
immunity does, how will it be made to
appear that the government may legiti-
mately receive and repay the money of
merchants and bankers, but is precluded
from receiving and paying the money of
laborers and artisans? Will the Erening
Post state the principle by which it justifies
so odious discrimination?


Again, we have never observed that our
contemporary has expressed disapproval of
the postal money orders which are SO great
o convenience to the public In transact
ing this business, as in taking gold depos-
its, the government is performing one of the
ordinary functions of bank. If citizen
of New York desires to make payment in
st. Louis he may make deposit Of the
sum in New York bank and receive a
draft on q st. Louis bank which he sends to
the person to whom the payment is to be
made, OF he may deposit the sum in the
New York Post Office and receive money
order which he sends in like manner and
with the like effect. The two transac-
tions are perfectly identical, and our
contemporary must perceive that its
objections to postal savings banks ap-
ply with equal force to postal
money orders. Will it tell us whether it
accepts the logical consequences of it's own
principle? We assert confidently that it is
impossible to insert any constitutional or
metaphysical scissors between the princi-
pie which justifes postal money orders and
the principle which justifies postal savings
banks.


Of course the government is not expected
to render this service gratis. 1t can employ
the large sums which will be always on
deposit for calling in and paying the five-
twenty six per cent bonds, and will make
an annual saving of two per cent. Instead
of paying six per cent to the present bond
holders it will pay less than four per cent
to the depositors in the postal savings
banks,