It is most surprising that with all the safeguards thrown around banking institutions, authorized to receive and handle the people's money, that it is possible for one member of a banking company to so intimídate, or hoodwink, the other members as to render It possible for him to go on extracting the money intrusted to the bank until his stealings motint up not OBly to hundreds of thousands, but millions of dollars, without the other officers and directors knowing the situation. It is surprising, too, that an official can so far domínate the cashier and other inside officials of a bank as to induce them to aid and abet him in his crooked work and doctor the books so as to hide his thieving when they fully understand and realize that they are almost certainly bringing ruin and disgrace upon themselves by so doing. It almost leads one to think that the ordinary standards of morality are in a state of decay, and that the courage to resist the most shameless dishonesty and crookedness in a superior officer is lacking in many employees. They prefer to take chances of ruin and disgrace rather than perform their plain duty, when a superior officer is the crook. In the case of the City ings bank of Detroit, the vice president seems to have controlled the entire inside rnachinery of the bank in the interest of his crooked transactions and the books appear to have been stuffed and falsified for months to cover up Frank Andrews' Napoleon rnethods of financing. Every falslfication of the books appears to be in the interest of Frank Andrews. Stock ganibling and greed for immediate riches is responsible for much of such crookedness and thieving. Men 'believe they can take the money intrusted to their care and use it in some stock gambling tion, make a fortune and return the money surreptitiously taken and no one will be the wiser.' If they make they are applauded as great financiers and no questions are asked as to tbeir nietnods. A stronger moral fibre seems to be the only preventive. How shal it be created?