But by way of condemning the system as far as possible, he says:—
"Mr. Spooner, however, can, we think, make no claim to originality, so far as the general principle is concerned. The famous bank of John Law, in France, was essentially of the same character." (p. 413.)
No, it was not essentially of the same character. One difference—to say nothing of twenty others—between the two systems was this: that Law's bank issued notes that it had no means to redeem; whereas Mr. Walker himself admits that "Mr. Spooner's system makes no promises that it cannot fulfil." That is to say, it purports to represent nothing except what it actually represents, viz.: property that is actually on hand, and can always be delivered, on demand, in redemption of the paper. Is not this difference an "essential" one? If Mr. Walker thinks it is not, he differs "essentially" from the rest of mankind. What fault was ever found with John Law's bank, except that it could not redeem its paper? Will Mr. Walker inform us?
FOOTNOTES
[A] By the State valuation of May, 1871, the real estate of Boston is estimated at $395,214,950.
[B] By the State valuation of May, 1871, the real estate of the Commonwealth is estimated at $991,196,803.
[C] The amount of circulation now authorized by the present "National" banks of Massachusetts, is $58,506,686, as appears by the recent report of the Comptroller of the Currency.
[D] There would always be a plenty of specie for sale, in the seaports, as merchandise.
[E] Exclusive of the so-called "gold" banks, which are too few to be worthy of notice.