A Rlisle's Currency Scheme

It seems to be generally admitted that this country ought to have an improved currency system and a new law that will provide for the want. It does not need one so badly, however, that it is necessary for Congress to get behind a half debated and perhaps incompetent scheme and with a grand "Heave, ho!" shove it throngh the House, so that the nienibers can get home in time to eat Christmas dinuer. A new banking and curreucy law is of necessity far reaching in its import anee, and, the inembers of the lower liouse should accord it the consideration that any such law deserves. Even Christmas dinners may be asked to keep in the background. It is a commendable feature of the action of the House that a considerable opposition is developing against such undue haste. If the action of the banking and currency committee is any prophecy of the reception the Carlisle plan is to get in the House, the bill will have a tight squeeze, and when it gets to the Senate, if it is ever so fortúnate as to get there, it will be in a still tighter place. Not that there is no good in the scheme of Mr. Carlisle, for there undoubtedly is, but the Senate with more mature consideratiou might not be inclined to see unadulterated good in a bill so hastily devised by a committee auxious to get home for Christmas. Two main things to be debated in connection with the bill are these : Whether it will provide for any greater flexibility of the circulating medium, and whether the plan provides sufficieut security for bank notes. Like the Baltimore plan, Carlisle's scheme does away altogether with bond securities Eor national bank notes. In place of the present bond security, it is proposed ;o have a deposit of treasury notes, including the notes issued under the silver act of June 14, 1890, equal to 30 per cent. of the amount of national bank notes issued. This is preliminary in the niiud of the administration to get;ing rid of the legal tender treasury notes. The bill, as reported, limits circulation to 75 per cent. of the capital stock of a bank. It may be easily seen ïow this might provide for a greater volume of currency by lessening the amount of security, but it is not so easy o see how it will provide for any greater fiexibility in time of financial stringency. Unlike the Baltimore plan, it does not allovv the banks to increase their circulation in such emergencies from 50 to 75 per cent. of the capital stock represented. As to the second point under consideration, whether surficient security is provided, if history could be taken as an infallible guide, as Chairaran Springer and his cornmittee think and urge in belialf of the bilí, then that point could be answered in the aifirinative. For asBuming that the great crisis of 1893 is a luir test of the uieasure, the Oarlisle plan with its 5 per cent, safety fund, its 30 per cent, bond deposit and a iirst lien upou the assets of the failing bank, would have been aroply sufficient to staud tli e pressure, and this without making use of that other questionable clause of Carlisle's scheme, wherehy the national banks would be required to make up any deficiency by ineaus of un assessment. But it is doubtful if history may be relied upon, for with new conditions imposed by an entirely new currency law new exigencies uiight easily arise that are now unthought of. While the supporters of the proposed plan are trying to prove its efficiency under the conditions of the Chase national banking act, the bilí as a law would have the conditions created by its new provisions to deal with. Ie is not to be said at once whether this constitutes a valid objection to the bill or not, but it presents a point worthy to be examined. England claims to be able to beat Germany in the raising of sugar beets. That may be true, but Únele Sam has tried his rich western soil, the best in the world, and can't make inuch oí a success of it. He can raise the beets alright, but the saccharine aualities are not sufficiently saccharine to make it profitable. Some of his Senators are reputed good at it. English Socialists are not so eager for a división of property, notes the Chicago Herald, si nee a statistician recently proved that it would only give $4.75 weekly to each adult man and $3.50 to eiich adult woman in the kiugdoin. If that statement is true, there must be millions of people in Great Britain who do not possess any wealth at all. We do not believe that any such poor showing could be figured out in the United States. If there is any one memoer of the legislature, seeking the chairmanship of the committee on the Liquor Trafflc, that is just the individual who should not be given the position. The people do not want any legislation in the interest of any class, but they do want legislation in the interest of the people of the state. A level-headed man, with no axes to grind, and who has the interest of his state at heart, is the man needed for that particular place. The republican party can not afford to have any favoritism in this matter. It wants honest, conscientious work, and good, sound judgment.