Economics Volume II: Modern Economic Problems

by Frank A. Fetter

§ 2. #Banking from 1836 to 1863#. The Federal Government, which up to that time had deposited its funds in the central bank and its branches and in local state banks, established the "independent treasury," in 1840 (abolished in 1841 and re-established in 1846). By this plan the government kept its money of all kinds in various depositories (or sub-treasuries) in charge of public officials. While from 1792 to 1836 almost continuously a central banking system was in operation, other banks, organized under state charters, were steadily increasing in number. They received deposits, issued bank notes under state laws, and cared for local commercial needs. The abolition of the central national bank in 1836 left to the various state banks for twenty seven years all the banking functions of the country. The banks of some states (notably those of New England and New York), under careful regulation and held to strict standards by public sentiment, for the most part maintained a high credit; but many banks, under lax laws and regulations, were guilty of great abuses of credit and of downright dishonest practices. The evils were more especially evident in connection with excessive issues of bank notes.

§ 3. #National Banking Associations, 1863-1913#. The next step in federal legislation was taken in 1863 in the midst of the Civil War by chartering local "national banking associations." The purpose was in part to provide banks under national charters for banking purposes (both of deposit and of issue), and in part it was to make a wider market for United States bonds at a time when government credit was at low ebb. The plan adopted followed the experience of New York state (1829 on) with a system of bond-secured bank notes. Congress provided that every bank taking out a national charter must purchase bonds of the United States and deposit them with the treasurer of the United States, in return for which it would receive bank notes to the amount of 90 per cent of the denomination or of the market value of the bonds.[1] Bank notes issued on this plan, being secured by the bonds, rest ultimately on the credit of the government, not on the credit of the bank. They are not promptly sent back for redemption to the banks issuing them, as should be done if they were typical bank notes. They may circulate thousands of miles away from the bank that issued them, and for years after the bank has gone out of business. They are not an "elastic currency," increasing or diminishing with the needs of business. The changes in their amount depend upon the chance of the banks to make more or less in this way than by any other use of their capital, and this in turn depends largely on the price of bonds and on the rate of interest they bear. From 1864 to 1870, fortunes were made from this source, but thereafter banks could make little more from note issues than they could by investing the same amount in other ways. Many banks for a long period did not avail themselves in the least of their privilege of issue. The notes were subject to a tax.[2]

A national bank (as the law now stands) may be organized, with $25,000 capital in towns not exceeding three thousand population, with $50,000 in towns not exceeding six thousand, with $100,000 in cities not exceeding fifty thousand, and with $200,000 in large cities. Three cities, New York, Chicago, and St. Louis, have long been designated as central reserve cities, and some 47 other cities as reserve cities, in which the reserves of banks were required to bear a considerably larger proportion to their deposits than in other cities.[3] Other banks might count as part of their legal reserves their deposits in reserve city banks, up to a certain proportion. The national banks in the larger cities thus became the great capital reservoirs of cash for the whole country.

National banks have been subject to stricter inspection than have been the banks in most of the states, a fact which has strengthened public confidence in their stability. Except in this and the other respects above mentioned, a national charter offered few, if any, attractions to small banks, a majority of which have found it more advantageous to operate under state charters because of less stringent regulations as to amount of capital, reserves, and supervision.

§ 4. #Defects of our banking organization before 1913#. Taken altogether, the banks in the United States since 1868 have represented great banking power and very efficient service for the community in times of normal business. But in several respects it long ago became evident that our banks were operating less satisfactorily than those of several other countries. American banking organization had failed to keep pace with the increasing magnitude and difficulty of its task. Especially at the recurring periods of financial stress, such as occurred in 1893, 1903, and 1907, our banking machinery showed itself to be wofully unequal to the strain put upon it. Financial panics were more acute here than in any other land, and the evil clearly was traceable in large part to defects in the banking situation. In academic teaching and in public conferences of bankers, business men, publicists, and students, the subject was continually discussed after 1890. At length Congress in 1908 created a "National Monetary Commission" to inquire into and report what changes were necessary and desirable in the monetary system of the United States or in the laws relative to banking and currency. After the most extended inquiry and discussion that the subject had ever received, the commission submitted its report in January, 1912. The defects to be remedied, as enumerated in the report,[4] may be reduced to the following five headings: (a) Lack of system, (b) Inelasticity of credit, (c) Periodic local congestion of funds. (d) Unequal territorial distribution of banking facilities. (e) Lack of provision for foreign banking.

§ 5. #Lack of system#. Only in a loose sense could the banks of the United States be said (before 1914) to constitute a system at all. Both national and state laws dealt with individual banks only. It was not legal for a bank to establish branches in another city as is done in most countries. The several national banks in one city were legally quite separate. It was only by voluntary agreement that in some of the larger cities they came together into clearing-house associations. They made possible some measure of coöperation which, small as it was, proved at times of stress to be of much service within a limited sphere for the local communities. But even with the aid of these organizations the banks were unable in times of emergency to avoid the suspension of cash payments.

There was no provision whatever for the concentration of bank revenues so that each bank would be supported by the strength of the other banks, if a movement began to withdraw deposits in unusual amounts. Each bank then was compelled for self-protection to call for any sums it had deposited with other banks,[5] and to keep for its own use all the reserves it might have in excess of its own immediate needs. This threw a great strain upon the banks in the reserve cities, which in normal times had become the depositories of a good part of the reserves of the banks in other places. Thus developed a spirit of panic, like the fright of theater-goers crowding toward the door at the cry of fire.

The maintenance of the government's independent treasury contributed to the difficulties by causing the irregular withdrawal of money from circulation and thus depleting bank reserves in periods of excessive government revenues and by returning these funds into circulation only in periods of deficient revenues. Efforts to modify this system by a partial distribution of the public moneys among national banks had resulted, it was charged, in discrimination and favoritism in the treatment of different banks and of different sections of the country.

§ 6. #Inelasticity of credit#. Our banks, considered both separately and collectively, were unable to increase their loaning powers quickly and easily to respond to business needs. The need of greater elasticity of credit was felt in the more or less regular seasonal variations within the year, and in the more irregular variations in cycles of years from periods of prosperity to those of panic and depression in business. The inelasticity was necessitated by illogical federal and state laws restricting absolutely the further extension of credit when the reserves fell below the percentage of deposits (15 or 25 per cent) fixed by law. Reserves thus could not legally be used to meet demands for cash payments at the very time when most needed. This feature has been likened to the rule of the liveryman who always refused to allow the last horse to leave his stable so that he would never be without a horse when a customer called for one. The refusal of credit by the banks at such times when they still had large amounts of cash in their vaults increased the need and eagerness of the public to draw from the bank all the cash they could, and often precipitated the insolvency of the banks. Clearly some means were needed to enable the loaning power of the individual banks to be increased at such times, so that no customer with good commercial paper need fear to be refused a loan, even tho the rate of interest might have to be somewhat higher for a few days or weeks than the normal rate.

Our bond-secured bank notes lacked almost entirely the quality of elasticity needed to meet these changing business needs.[6] Their value being dependent primarily upon the amount and price of United States bonds, they might be most numerous just when least needed as a part of our circulating medium.