Fifty years in Wall Street

by Henry Clews

I should not be surprised if very soon even the ladies who have lost at the fashionable game of bridge will blame Mr. Roosevelt for their losses. Everyone, nowadays, dumps his misfortunes upon Roosevelt, and attributes the cause to him. I recently heard of a man who had been doing a thriving business on Long Island shore catching eels and selling them in the New York market. Lately the eels have stopped going into his pots to be caught, so he is now going about howling against Roosevelt for ruining his business. That is no more ridiculous than many other things for which he is blamed, without having had anything to do with them. In thus complaining they overlook the long train of causes and events that led up to this year’s disturbances in Wall Street.

The public must have a scapegoat in times of excitement and discontent, and many of our wealthy people thoughtlessly held the President responsible for the disturbances and unsettlement we have witnessed, and their own losses and disappointments, because he had taken the initiative in calling upon the law officers of the Government to prosecute the railway and industrial corporations known to have violated the law. They seemed unaware that he did this to stop those illegal practices which had made enormous fortunes for the favored few, and enabled them to crush or impoverish their competitors and impose upon the people. He was the people’s champion.

He did not advise these prosecutions without good cause, for in every instance where a case was tried on its merits the Government secured a conviction. Fines of large, but not enormous, amounts were levied accordingly against many of our principal railway companies, including the New York Central, and against large industrial corporations, including the Sugar Trust, for rebating and accepting rebates. But as the punishment was always by fining the corporations, and never by the imprisonment of the officers, who were the actual violators of the law, the masses of the people complained that while they themselves would have been sent to jail if guilty of criminal offences, these high and mighty railway and Trust officials were not, and that by fining the corporations only the innocent stockholders were made to suffer instead of the individual wrongdoers. Their complaint was just.

I trace the causes of this year’s state of affairs as far back as the failure in London of Baring Bros. & Co., in 1890, for that unexpected event gave a shock to confidence, and curtailed credits all over the world. Indeed, the long career and prestige of that celebrated and honorable house gave it a credit in both hemispheres that was second only to that of the Bank of England, and its collapse wiped out of existence the immense amount of credit and the banking facilities that it had enjoyed so long. This involved a corresponding international contraction of the medium of exchange, and tightened the purse strings of the world, and it continued to do so long after the failure had passed into history.

The Boer war involved, in another way, great and prolonged depression in England. It drained her of an immense amount of money, and drained her also of a vast number of men whose labor was needed at home. To raise the sinews of war, she had to issue from time to time large amounts of consols, and these, being in excess of the power of investors to absorb them, steadily declined, and now—years after the war—they are still heavy. It naturally surprised the world when last August they reached 81, the lowest point in their long decline, and John Bull was sorely puzzled to define the cause.

The Russian-Japanese war was another very costly and depressing factor, and adversely affected international money markets because it involved immense borrowing by both Russia and Japan, and their bonds are still helping to glut the European markets, and to some extent our own, as many of the Japanese bonds are held here. At the same time France is particularly unfortunate in being burdened with a vast amount of Russian securities, far more than ever before, which leaves her correspondingly powerless to make other investments, or extend assistance, when needed, to other countries.

Then came our Pacific coast disaster, the earthquake and fire at San Francisco, which involved enormous losses there, and struck Wall Street and its speculative capitalists a tremendous blow, for the latter were about as heavily loaded with stocks at that time as before the March crash, and these had a severe break in consequence. It also involved English and German as well as American fire insurance companies in heavy losses.

The effect of this train of disastrous events, both here and in Europe, has been more or less cumulative, and their influence was so great and far reaching that it is still being felt, especially by our rich and speculative Wall Street men, with little of their wealth in the liquid form they would prefer, notwithstanding their heavy liquidation. They are still tied up with large amounts of stocks and bonds, bought long ago at higher prices, and for which there is but a limited market. As the same condition of affairs exists in Europe, they may find some comfort in that fact, for we are told misery loves company. They certainly have plenty of it.

Fortunately the reports of the National and State banks all over the country show that they are in a sound and strong condition, the result of proper conservatism, and in protecting themselves they have protected their depositors and stockholders. So the banks have escaped being involved in serious losses through the crisis in the stock market, and are in a position, now that the depression, if not over, is at least no longer acute, to lend assistance in the recovery that sooner or later inevitably follows such a cyclone and excessive decline in prices as we have witnessed.

The banks, however, have in common with all other holders of stocks and bonds suffered loss by the depression in price of the securities owned by themselves, this being, as I have shown, particularly the case with the savings banks, and it may possibly, if not soon recovered, lead to a reduction of their dividends. If it should so eventuate, it would be an object lesson that would show the poor man that even his savings bank deposit was not beyond the depressing influence of a Wall Street crisis. But let us hope that there will be no such far-reaching result. The savings banks have, however, already deducted large amounts from the value of their holdings of securities on account of the past and present year’s depreciation. Few of their depositors understand this, and where ignorance is bliss ’tis folly to be wise.