1862.1863.
Maine$4,047,780$6,488,478
New Hampshire2,994,4084,192,034
Vermont2,522,6875,621,851
Massachusetts19,517,30628,957,630
Rhode Island3,306,5306,413,404
Connecticut6,918,01813,842,758
————— —————
$39,306,72965,516,155
39,306,729
—————
Total increase in New England States$26,209,426

Being over sixty-six and two thirds per cent.

Similarly in New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, we find the circulation, on or about 1st January:—

1862.1863.
New York$30,553,020$39,182,819
Pennsylvania16,384,64327,689,504
New Jersey3,927,5358,172,398
————— —————
$50,865,198$75,044,721
50,865,198
—————
Total increase in New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey,$24,179,523

Being over forty-seven per cent.

Aggregate Increase in the Principal Eastern States.

1862.1863.
New England$39,306,729$65,516,155
New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey50,865,19875,044,721
————— —————
$90,171,927$140,560,876
90,171,927
—————
Aggregate increase in Eastern States$50,388,949

Being over fifty-five and three fourths per cent.

These tables speak. They show the range within which the State banks undertake to operate, and their consequent interference with the national system. If it be said that in certain parts of the country, as in New England and New York, the State banks have performed good service, I reply, that, even admitting all that is claimed, the service is local and incomplete. It does not embrace the West.