of business, and smiling faces and happy homes were the rule where previously they had been the exception. "The full dinner pail," as President Harrison had aptly expressed it, is a certain result of Republican policies; for prosperity and republicanism are synonymous terms. Does any one doubt it whose memory covers the brief period from 1888 to the present day! This period embraces two Republican and one Democratic Administration, and the contrast is astonishing. Under Republican rule labor has been steadily employed and fittingly paid, while silent factories and idle workmen were eloquent testimonies to the single period of Democratic rule, or misrule, as it has been well described. Results of the Law. But the gold standard law has done more than inspire public confidence and give stability to the currency. It has resulted in the establishment of 1,019 additional national oanks, with an increase in bank capital from $616,308,095 to $675,721,695, or $59,413,600. More remarkable still has been the expansion of national bank circulation, the amount at the date this article is written being $313,609,837, or an increase in two years of $97,235,042. This means additional credit facilities for the banks of nearly $500,000,000, with the resulting advantage of lower interest rates and greater accommodation to borrowers. The statistics of the Comptroller's Office show that the Middle States have derived the greatest benefit from bank expansion. In these States the total number of new banks with a smaller capital than $50,000 is 206, and of new banks with a larger capital than $50,000 is 92, divided as follows: Ohio, 52; Indiana, 36; Illinois, 58; Michigan, 10; Wisconsin, 22; Minnesota, 47; Iowa, 62, and Missouri, 11– in all, 298 new banks, with their aid to credit and industry. The Southern States derived the second largest benefit from bank expansion. There the number of new banks with a smaller capital than $50,000 is 170, and of new banks with a larger capital than $50,000, is 95, as follows: Virginia, 22; West Virginia, 19; North Carolina, 10; South Carolina, 3; Georgia, 14; Florida, 5; Alabama, 14; Mississippi, 4; Louisiana, 9; Texas, 130; Arkansas, 3; Kentucky, 19; Tennessee, 13. Total, 265. The next is the Western States, where the number of new banks with a capital of less than $50,000 is 185, and of banks with a capital of more than $50,000 is 30, as follows: North Dakota, 20; South Dakota, 15; Nebraska, 26; Kansas, 28; Montana, 3; Wyoming, 4; Colorado, 13; New Mexico, 5; Oklahoma, 54; Indian Territory, 47. Total, 215. In the Eastern States the number of new banks with a smaller capital than $50,000 is 96, and of new banks with a greater capital than $50,000 is 93, divided as follows: New York, 36; New Jersey, 19; Pennsylvania, 116; Delaware, 2; Maryland, 16. Total, 189. On the Pacific Slope the new banks with a smaller capital than $50,000 is 19, and larger than $50,000 is 16, as follows: Washington, 7; Oregon, 3; California, 14; Idaho, 5; Utah, 2; Arizona, 2; Hawaii, Total, 35. 2. In the New England States, where a well-established banking system has existed for more than half a century, the new banks have been relatively few in number as compared with other sections where banking facilities have been more limited. The total number of new banks in New England with a less capital than $50,000 is 5, and exceeding $50,000 is 12, as follows: Maine, 4; New Hampshire, 3; Vermont, 1; Massachusetts, 5; Rhode Island, 1; Connecticut, 3. Total, 17. One result of the law that should cause every American heart to thrill with pride has been the refunding of a large part of our bonded indebtedness into 2 per cent bonds that are quoted at this writing at 110, or $10 above par. In all history this has no parallel. The credit of Great Britain has always been high, yet her 24 per cent consols are quoted at only 94%, while the German Imperial 3 per cents are below par, the recent quotations being 904. This is indeed a record to be proud of, and it is due to skillful management by the Republican party. Yet it should occasion no surprise, for since its foundation the Republican party has stood always for sound money and a sound monetary system. It established the national banking system in 1863; it enacted the legislation to resume specie payments in 1879; it strenuously opposed the free silver heresy in 1896 and for years previously, and it fought the greatest political campaign of modern times for the maintenance of the gold standard. The Democratic Record.---What has been the record of the Democratic party on the money question--the most important question in the entire range of political economy? It opposed the establishment of national banks; it opposed resumption of specie payments; it opposed the gold standard, and it tried to commit the country to a currency always debased and always fluctuating. In this, as in all matters of great legislation, its record is one of little done, and that little mischievous. Opposition to Republican politics is the measure and standard of its statesmanship. In its futile efforts to manage the affairs of a great country, it reminds one of Hogarth's whimsical picture of the man in the debtor's prison evolving a plan to pay the national debt. Its tendencies are destructive, its policies forbid the exercise of constructive skill, and its occasional victories fall like a blight on the country. BANK OPERATIONS UNDER DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATIONS. The accompanying table gives a bird's-eye view of business conditions in the United States from 1890 to 1901, as shown by the bank clearings and the total “banking funds,” which term includes in this case the ĉapital, surplus, and deposits of reporting banks and the average of these funds per capita. Attention is called to the reduction in bank clearings and in the per capita of banking funds in 1893, 1894, 1895, and 1896 as compared with the last year under a Republican President and protective tariff, and the phenomenal increase in 1898, 1899, 1900, and 1901 under a return to Republicanism and protection. Capital, surplus, and deposits of national and other reporting banks on or about June 30, 1890 to 1899, inclusive, the average of these funds per capita, and annual volume of exchanges of the clearing houses of the United States for the same period. [From Report of the Comptroller of the Currency.] The large corporations, commonly called trusts, though organized in one State, always do business in many States, often doing very little business in the State where they are incorporated. There is utter lack of uniformity in the State laws about them; and as no State has any exclusive interest in or power over their acts, it has in practice proved impossible to get adequate regulation through State action. Therefore, in the interest of the whole people, the nation should, without interfering with the power of the States in the matter itself, also assume power of supervision and regulation over all corporations doing an interstate business.-President Roosevelt, in message to Congress, December 3, 1901. NATIONAL BANKS. Number of national banks in the United States, their capital, surplus, dividends, net earnings, and ratios, yearly, 1870 to 1901. [From Report of the Comptroller of the Currency.] 1873 1882 473,097,353 109,719,615 1874 1961 488,805,637 120,791,853 48,653,350 62,499,369 10.3 9.9 7.9 10.3 10.1 7.9 9.5 48,485,271 8.2 6.4 8.6 8.6 5.3 6.1 4.8 6.2 6.7 8.4 9.5 8.6 6.4 8.6 6.9 7.3 8.5 8.8 8.7 8.6 8.9 7.8 7.4 5.6 5 5.4 The savings banks are the best barometers of the conditions of the working men who patronize them in saving their earnings. The following table gives the number of savings banks in the country, the number of depositors, the total deposits and the average for each depositor, and the per capita for the whole population. It will be seen from this table that the deposits in the savings banks fell off more than $33,000,000 in 1894, as compared with 1893, the first year of the Democratic low-tariff period, and that in 1901 they had increased $690,000,000 over those of 1896, the last year of the Democratic Administration. Number of savings banks in the United States, number of depositors, amount of savings deposits, average amount due cach depositor in the years 1820, 1825, 1835, 1840, and 1845 to 1901, and average per capita in the United States in the years given. Compiled in the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. |