Readings in Money and Banking / Selected and Adapted

by Chester Arthur Phillips

Nor would it have been of material assistance had the organization of national banks of capitals smaller than $50,000 been allowed. As the system has worked out, the issue function has been a useless one. The compulsory deposit of bonds to secure circulation has hampered the banks in exercising this function, since the requirement to deposit bonds now cuts off all profit arising from the issue of notes. Moreover, the rural communities are those where interest is highest, and hence where notes can least advantageously be issued under the present system of bond-deposit, owing to the high price of the bonds. These difficulties probably cannot be overcome by the establishment of banks of lower capitals than now exist.

[144]At the 1910 convention of the Alabama Bankers' Association, held in Birmingham in May, one of the speakers, whose topic was "State Banks and Their Branches," closed a condemnatory address with the words: "We believe the days of the branch bank are numbered." Two months later, at Cooperstown, Hon. E. B. Vreeland told the bankers of New York State, at their convention: "No one will ever live to see the day when the branch banking system which prevails in Canada and in Germany and in England and in France will be tolerated by the people of the United States."... "The economies of the branch banking system are such that no other system can live beside it. It is just as sure as the sun will rise to-morrow that the branch banking system, if taken up in the United States, would in the end drive out of existence all the banks in every city and town in the country outside of the great financial centres. That is the experience of the world."

If this statement means anything it is a confession that the system of local single-office banks is wasteful in operation, and it seems to me that it sets forth one reason why branch banks are inevitable. When a banking system is wasteful it is the stockholders, borrowers, and depositors who suffer from the circumstance, and as soon as they realize the fact its doom is sealed.

It should be said here that it is not their economical operation alone that has enabled the branch banks to displace the small local banks in England, Germany, and France. The branch institutions are cleaner, more efficient, and they provide better opportunities for the clerks and officers; they give a better and more complete service to the localities in which they work.... Another reason is found in their stability during crises....

The New York State Bank Act of 1914[145]

In June, 1913, George C. Van Tuyl, Jr., superintendent of banks of the State of New York, appointed a commission to look into the banking conditions of the State and to make a thorough revision of the law relating to banks. This commission conducted many public hearings; sought information from banking experts in this State and in other States; made a careful study of private banking conditions, rural credits, and other special banking problems of the State; and, finally, on February 25, 1914, they presented their report in the form of a bill of some 500 pages. After a good many amendments had been made to appease conflicting interests, the bill was passed and became law April 16, 1914.

In general, the new law marks a decided improvement and shows a commendable spirit of progressiveness. Its framers believe that it is a law which may well become the model for other States, and there are some who say that it is without question the best balanced and most comprehensive state banking legislation which has ever been enacted.

The new law was the outgrowth of the general agitation for banking reform which had swept over this country following the panic of 1907. The inciting cause, however, was the passage of the Federal Reserve Act which made it necessary to revise the state law so that the state banks either might join the federal system or be in a position to compete successfully against the national banks of the State, whose powers had been considerably enlarged by this act. In part, the law is modelled after the federal act, and, in part, European experience has been drawn upon.

Under the new law the state banks will have even more importance in the competition for banking business than in the past. From the point of view of banking power, the 278 banks of deposit and discount and trust companies have aggregate deposits in excess of those of the 479 national banks in the sum of $281,786,000.[146] Furthermore, it has been estimated that the total resources of the New York state banks are equivalent to 17 per cent. of the aggregate resources of all banks in the United States, both state and national. Superiority in banking power is one element in the strong competitive position of the state banks, and another element is the privileges granted to these banks under the new law which, in some respects, are superior to those granted the national banks under the federal law. In view of the fact that the state banks can enjoy either directly or indirectly most of the advantages of the federal system and also that in some particulars the state law gives them more liberal powers, it seems probable that these banks will continue to see an advantage in their state charters; and thus the amount of defection from the state system will be negligible.