Four Years More of Deposit Guaranty

Bank Deposit Guaranty in four states, 69. — Upheld by U. S. Supreme Court, 70. — I. Oklahoma; many failures, 71. — Adverse economic conditions, 72. — Politics and the Guaranty Law, 73. — Cases of dishonesty, 74. — Details of certain failures, 75. — Insolvent banks kept going, 77. — Heavy losses in Oklahoma City, 82. — Legislation of 1911 and 1913, 83. — Powers given to State Bankers' Association, 84. — Other new provisions, 84. — The national system now gaining over the state system, 87. — People still have faith in guaranty system; its future uncertain, 91. — II. Kansas; participation optional, 94. — One guaranteed bank fails, 94. — More than one-half the state banks participate, 95. — Legislation of 1911 and 1913, 96. — Commissioner fixes maximum interest rates by counties, 96. — Progress of state and national banks, 97. — Good and bad points of Kansas system, 99. — III. Nebraska; no failures for some years, 99. — Summary of the law, 100. — Progress of state and national banks, 101. — Advantages and defects of Nebraska law, 103. — Its influence on deposits, 103. — IV. Texas, 104. — Some failures; losses relatively small, 104. — Progress of national and state banks, 106. — Most banks elect the guaranty plan, few the bond security plan, 107. — Legislation of 1913, 108. — Charters refused where no necessity for banks, 108. — The future in Texas, 109. — V. General Arguments and Conclusions, 109. — Guaranty alone does not cause failures, 109. — Large single risks and concentration of risks, 110. — Guaranty funds should be larger, 110. — Grants of power to state banking departments, 111. — Is guaranty a public need? 111. — Effect of currency legislation on sentiment for deposH guaranty, 112. — Will plan be continued where now in force, and adopted in other states? 112. — Funds should be available only in final liquidations, 113. — American banking will remain individual, 114.