Part 10
A manufacturer of woolen goods at Lancashire, England, sold to a wholesale merchant on the other side, $10,000 worth of goods on three months' time. The wholesale merchant sold the goods for $12,000 to an English exporter on three months' time. The English exporter sold the goods to an American importer for $20,000, duty paid; the importer sold them to an American jobber for $22,000; the jobber sold them to me for $24,000. All these sales occurred within thirty days, and not a single man paid a cent of money on account of his purchases. By way of payment, this is what happened. I gave my note due in ninety days to the jobber, and he discounted it at his bank. The jobber gave his note due in ninety days to the importer, and the importer discounted it at his bank; the English exporter sent over a draft upon the American importer at ninety days sight, and he accepted it and it was returned to England, where the exporter discounted it at his bank. In the meantime, the wholesaler drew a draft on the exporter at ninety days sight, and he accepted the draft, whereupon the wholesaler discounted the draft at his bank. At the same time the manufacturer drew on the wholesaler at ninety days sight, and the draft was accepted by the wholesaler, and was discounted by the manufacturer at his bank. Thus we see that goods which sold originally for only $10,000 went through five different hands and became the basis upon which credits were granted for $88,000, and debts were created for $88,000. Every single debt was sold just as though it was so much woolen goods. Every man had his money and not one of them had paid his debt, and yet every transaction was legitimate and in the ordinary course of business.
Within sixty days I shall have turned these goods into clothes and sold and delivered them, giving my customers in turn credit upon my books, or will have accepted their promissory notes, which I may discount at my bank if I should need the money in my own business. Now mark and note this. If I should deliver to the American jobber my check today, and he should send his check to the American importer and the American importer should send a draft to the English exporter, and the English exporter should deliver his check to the wholesaler, and the wholesaler should send his check to the manufacturer, debts amounting to $88,000 would have been paid and credit amounting to $88,000 would have been canceled; and yet not a single cent of cash in the form of coin or currency has been used.
Every one of the checks, notes or drafts taken in the transaction is property, just as much as the note taken for a single sale of the goods would have been property. Indeed, every one of the five notes or drafts was just as much property as the goods themselves were, and could be bought and sold just as well as the goods themselves could be bought and sold. Now it must be evident to all of you that in the production, transportation and distribution of commodities, credit performs exactly the same function as money. So far, therefore, credit is in all respects equivalent to money. So long, therefore, as the operations through credit are successful, everything goes well.
MR. BANKER: Precisely so, Mr. Manufacturer, so long as the operations are successful, everything goes well; but it is the sudden breaking of the chain of credit that brings or precipitates a disturbance.
MacLeod uses this language in referring to the destruction of confidence: "It is the sudden failure of confidence and extension of credit which produces what is called in commercial language, 'a pressure on the money market' and which causes money to be 'tight.' When money is said to be scarce, it does not mean that there is a smaller quantity of money actually in existence than before; there may be more, or there may be less in the country; no one can tell what the amount of money in existence is, but a great amount of credit which serves as a substitute, and was an equivalent of money, is either destroyed altogether, or is suddenly struck with paralysis, as it were, and deprived of its negotiable power, and therefore, practically useless. A vast amount of property is expelled from circulation, and money is suddenly called upon to fill the void."
It must be observed and noted right here, therefore, that streams of gold, of gold, I say, must be constantly and swiftly running through the channels of trade, and so intimately connected with a practically unlimited supply or an inexhaustible reserve of gold, in the form of a central reserve for the whole country, to immediately extinguish any conflagration of credit as soon as it breaks out, precisely as a flood of water extinguishes a fire when it first makes its appearance.
For the past ten or fifteen years, the banks of England have realized the necessity of pursuing this principle, by carrying their own individual reserves, and accordingly have been gradually accumulating cash reserves of their own, instead of depending upon the Bank of England, except as a last resort.
Germany, too, within the past year, has suffered severely because adequate reserves have not been present in her channels of trade; and having discovered this weakness in her banking practices, appointed a commission to pass upon that and other questions. The commission reported that the individual banks should carry their own reserves; and Herr Havenstein, President of the Imperial Bank, a short time ago demanded that the banks of Germany should carry their own cash reserves up to 15 per cent of their liabilities.
How much more important, then, gentlemen, must it be that we, when you consider the extent of our country, our vast and varied banking interests which are being carried on by 25,000 or 30,000 individual or independent banks, should require everyone of these banks to be in a position to test its credits with the touchstone of gold, and at the same time take the precaution of protecting itself by a central reserve of gold far beyond any possible demand that may be made upon it.
MR. MERCHANT: Mr. Banker, from what you have been telling us it is perfectly clear that every promissory note, check, draft, or bill of exchange, which are acknowledgments of debt, are just as much property as land, houses, cattle, corn, iron, or anything else material that can be bought and sold. Credit itself is merchandise and the subject of a gigantic commerce of its own.
"A well-managed credit amounts to tenfold the funds of a merchant; and he gains as much by his credit as if he had ten times as much money." This maxim is generally received among all merchants. Credit is, therefore, the greatest wealth to every man who carries on commerce.
Demosthenes says: "There being two kinds of property, money and general credit, our greatest property is credit."
Again he says: "If you were ignorant of this, that credit is the greatest capital of all toward the acquisition of wealth, you would be utterly ignorant."
So Melon says: "To the calculation of values in money, there must be added, the current credit of the merchant, and his possible credit."
So also Dutot says: "Since there has been regular commerce among men, those who have need of money have made bills, or promises to pay in money. The first use of credit, therefore, is to represent money by paper. This usage is very old; the first want of it gave rise to it. It multiplies specie considerably. It supplies it when it is wanted, and which would never be sufficient without this credit; because there is not sufficient gold and silver to circulate all the products of nature and art. So there is in commerce a much larger amount in bills than there is specie in the possession of the merchants."
MR. BANKER: While it is true, as a general principle, that by the sale and transfer of the same property, as we have seen in the case of the woolen goods, many credits are granted and a corresponding amount of debts are created, it is also true that a single debt in the form of a promissory note, check, draft or bill of exchange, may be the medium of exchanging or transferring many different pieces of property. This is just the reverse of the transaction that Mr. Manufacturer has explained to us.
MR. FARMER: That is right. I want to tell you fellows something. One day about six months ago I was thinking of taking an automobile trip, but hesitated on account of the weather signs. I hung around town here for an hour or two and happened to drop into the office of a certain lawyer (I never go there any more now). We talked politics. While there, I asked him what he thought of the weather, and the political situation, and then went out. At the end of the month I got a bill from that lawyer for $50. I called upon the gentleman (I suppose I have got to call him a gentleman on account of his neighbor here) to find out what his bill meant, and he claimed that while we talked about politics, the Presidential election prospects and the weather, that I had pumped him about some very important legal matters upon which he had given me valuable advice. Upon my soul I never knew it, but what could I do. My only possible escape was to pay some other lawyer, possibly Mr. Lawyer over there, $100 to defend the case. As is the practice nowadays, I took the short cut and paid it by sending him my check. That lawyer indorsed and gave that check to a neighbor of mine for a Jersey cow. My neighbor indorsed and gave the check to a country grocery store out there and paid his bill with it. The country storekeeper indorsed and gave the check to Mr. Merchant over there for $50 worth of boots and shoes. Mr. Merchant indorsed and gave the check to Mr. Manufacturer for $50 worth of clothing. Mr. Manufacturer indorsed and deposited that check with Mr. Banker, right here, who charged it up to my account. Now, by Jove, you wouldn't think that was possible, but here is the check with those five indorsements.
Mr. Manufacturer has just given us an instance where the same identical property worth only $10,000 in Lancashire, England, was sold five times, and that credits amounting to $88,000 were being granted, and a corresponding amount of debts were created. Now here is a case where my debt to that blasted lawyer acknowledged by my check, paid him $50; paid my neighbor for a Jersey cow $50; paid the country grocery store for groceries $50; paid Mr. Merchant for boots and shoes $50; paid Mr. Manufacturer for clothing $50; paid the bank on account of Mr. Manufacturer's debt $50; or six separate debts in all, amounting to $300. And the joke is, I never ought to have given the check at all. This is the reverse side of the use of credit. The instance given by Mr. Manufacturer was one illustrating the tremendous expansion of credit. The instance I have given is one of the contraction of credit.
MR. BANKER: Right on that point Mr. MacLeod says that sixty years ago almost the entire circulating medium of Lancashire, England, consisted of bills of exchange in no way different from Mr. Farmer's debt, and that they sometimes had as many as 115 indorsements upon them before they came to maturity. So that the useful effect of a bill of exchange is indicated by the number of indorsements upon it, supposing that every transfer is accompanied by an indorsement, which is not always the case. We see here the fundamental difference between bills of lading and bills of exchange, because the indorsements on the former denote the number of transfers of the same identical property; the indorsements on the latter denote the number of transfers of distinctly different property.
MR. MERCHANT: Mr. Banker, in every form of credit granted so far and debts created, we have certainly been dealing only in a legitimate way with consumable commodities, the necessities of life, and ordinarily, if not always, this kind of credit will take care of itself. And yet the marvelous facility and power of credit has been illustrated so vividly, that I am sure all of us appreciate it and can readily see how it might be abused and lead to disaster if not confined to the actual production of articles of food, clothing and daily use, or, in a word, to the production of the necessities of life.
MR. FARMER: I object to your including that lawyer's bill as one of the necessities of life.
MR. LAWYER: I beg your pardon, but we lawyers are a necessity. Possibly necessary evils, but nevertheless, I insist that we are necessary.
MR. BANKER: Passing over this little quarrel between Mr. Farmer and Mr. Lawyer, Mr. Merchant has hit upon the vital distinction that should always be maintained in commercial banking as distinguished from investment banking as we shall soon see.
MR. LAWYER: There is not one man in a thousand that comprehends the distinction that you have just called our attention to, and I include the bankers when I say that, too. I did not appreciate it myself a week ago, but it is fundamental and must not be overlooked. I want to call your attention to one form of credit that does not grow out of actual transactions in the production and distribution of consumable commodity, and that is accommodation paper.
MR. LABORINGMAN: Accommodation paper? It strikes me as though that was just the kind of paper I wanted. I certainly will take any accommodation that Mr. Banker over there will give me.
MR. LAWYER: Speaking of accommodation paper, Mr. MacLeod says: "We now come to a species of credit which will demand great attention, because it is the curse and plague spot of commerce, and it has been the great cause of those frightful commercial crises which seem to occur periodically; and yet, though there can be no doubt that it is in many cases essentially fraudulent, yet it is of so subtle a nature as to defy all powers of legislation to cope with it."
The obvious distinction between accommodation paper and promissory notes or bills of exchange here referred to, and all legitimate commercial paper, is this: the accommodation paper represents a future transaction, something to be done, while the true commercial paper represents a past transaction, or something that has been done; for example, goods that had been manufactured and are ready for sale or have been sold and shipped.
MR. BANKER: Mr. Lawyer, will you allow me to illustrate that distinction?
MR. LAWYER: Certainly.
MR. BANKER: If Mr. Manufacturer there should make ten different sales of clothing of $5,000 each, and then send out ten drafts to his ten customers, who accepted them and returned them, these ten drafts would be called real bills of exchange, or let us call them true commercial bills, because the ten men have purchased and agreed to pay for the goods received by them. Should the ten men have sent their promissory notes to Mr. Manufacturer, they would be identically the same thing as the drafts which they had accepted, and answer identically the same purpose.
The real beneficiaries in these ten transactions are the ten purchasers of the goods which they have received; and if Mr. Manufacturer should sell me these ten bills of exchange or promissory notes as the case might be, with his indorsement, the ten men would all individually regard themselves as primarily liable; and they will, therefore, each of them, prepare to pay his note when it comes due, although Mr. Manufacturer is the guarantor. But if Mr. Manufacturer should go to these same ten men and ask each of them as a favor or _accommodation_ to him to accept the draft or indorse his note for the same amount of $5,000, each due in 90 days, no goods having been purchased by any one of them, all these drafts would be accommodation paper, and no one of these men would look upon his note as his debt, and therefore would expect that Mr. Manufacturer would take care of the paper when it came due.
In the latter case, Mr. Manufacturer, having gotten the money and the ten men having no interest in the transaction, except as an accommodation to Mr. Manufacturer in the form of a favor, Mr. Manufacturer becomes the real maker of the ten notes, and the ten men who are indorsers are, as I have said, without any interest in the transaction, except that of accommodation acceptors.
Mr. MacLeod has described this whole transaction so fully and forcibly I want to read it to you: "There is in fact only one real principal debtor and ten sureties. Now these ten accommodation acceptors are probably ignorant of each other's proceeding. They only give their names on the express understanding that they are not to be called upon to meet the bill: and accordingly they make no provision to do so. If anyone of them is called upon to meet his bill, he immediately has a legal remedy against the drawer (or the note maker). In the case of real bills, then, the bank would have ten persons who would each take care to be in a position to meet his own engagement; in the case of accommodation paper there is only one person to meet the ten engagements. Furthermore, if one of the ten real acceptors fails in his engagement, the bank can safely press the drawer: but if the drawer of the accommodation bill fails to meet one of the ten acceptances, and the bank suddenly discovers that it is an accommodation bill, and they are under large advances to the drawer, they dare not for their own safety press the acceptor, because he will, of course, have immediate recourse against his debtor, and the whole fabric will probably tumble down like a house of cards. Hence the chances of disaster are much greater when there is only one person to meet so many engagements, than when there are so many each bound to meet his own.
"We see, then, that the real danger to a bank in being led into discounting accommodation paper is that the position of principal and surety is reversed. They are deceived as to who the real debtor is, and who the real surety is, being precisely the reverse to what they appear to be, which makes a great difference in the security to the holder of the bills...." In carrying on a legitimate extension of credit, the bank never permits the advance to exceed a certain definite limit; but it never can tell to what length it may be inveigled to discounting accommodation paper until some commercial reverse happens, when it may discover its customer has been carrying on some great speculative operation with capital borrowed from it alone....
"This is the rationale of accommodation paper; and here we see how entirely it differs from real commercial paper. Because with real commercial paper, and bona fide customers, though losses may come, still directly the loss occurs, there is an end of it. But with accommodation paper the prospect of a loss is the very cause of a greater one being made, and so perpetually in an ever-widening circle till at last the canker may eat into a banker's assets to any amount almost."
"The insurmountable objection, therefore, to this species of paper, is the dangerous and boundless facility it affords for raising money for speculative purposes."
MR. MERCHANT: That is absolutely true. Accommodation paper and speculation go hand in hand. They are twin sisters. Siamese twin sisters. Pardon me, if I take a moment to demonstrate its terrors by relating the experience of a friend of mine who was led into an irrigation scheme:
"My friend was in the grocery business in a western town and had a stock of groceries worth $75,000, and he had $25,000 cash in the bank. The dam and water ditch was to cost $100,000. My friend sold off a part of his goods, realizing $25,000 of additional cash. He moved the balance of his goods out to the point where the dam was to be located, forty miles away, and began operations. He succeeded in finishing the dam after paying out for work all that he had, and in securing indorsers up to $100,000 upon accommodation paper in the city where he had carried on the grocery business. Two hundred thousand dollars had been paid for groceries and clothing. The laborers had gone to his store and obtained food and clothing during the two years he was engaged in constructing the work, and they had consumed all their wages in living, and more, too. He put an issue of bonds on the dam but could not sell them; therefore he could not pay the banks. His indorsers could not pay the banks, and most of them were ruined because of their indorsements for accommodation purposes. He was wiped out. He turned over everything to the bank, bonds and all. The banks had to carry those bonds ten years before they could sell them."
MR. BANKER: Mr. Merchant, you have given a splendid illustration of the result of accommodation paper, but you have proved far more than you set out to demonstrate. You have not only shown the ruin wrought by the $100,000 of accommodation paper, but also the extreme danger accompanying accommodation paper, when the proceeds go into a real estate investment or improvement; especially an irrigation enterprise that usually requires a long time to reach results. The same is true with regard to railroad investments, town lots, or any kind of real estate investments. Your friend put into that grocery store from first to last $200,000 worth of groceries and clothing, and the laborers who did the work ate up the groceries and wore out the clothing.
MR. MERCHANT: That is just what they did, for he simply gave them credit at the store for their wages, and they were charged for what they bought, and at the end of two years, the $200,000 worth of groceries and clothing were consumed and converted into that dam and ditch. He used to say he was ruined by the dam ditch.
MR. BANKER: Now you have proved another thing by your illustration and that is this. When the $200,000 worth of food and clothing represented by two years' work of 100 men were converted into a real estate improvement, instead of into consumable commodities, the necessities of life, you have, so to speak, destroyed that much commercial capital, by converting or changing it into fixed capital. This is true because your friend could not begin and build another dam, for he had no money with which to do it.
MR. MERCHANT: But, Mr. Banker, he could sell his bonds.
MR. BANKER: If he could, yes, but you just said he could not, and that he turned everything over to the bankers and that they carried the bonds for ten years. Now suppose that a flood should have come and taken out his dam and destroyed his irrigation ditch, it would then be perfectly clear to all of us, would it not, that $200,000 worth of food and clothing had gone down the stream and had been forever lost; completely wiped out, just as completely as if the goods had been consumed by fire.
MR. MERCHANT: That is perfectly plain, but suppose that he could have sold the bonds, he would have gotten his money back, would he not?
MR. BANKER: Yes, we would say in that case, that he had gotten his money back, but he could not get the $200,000 of food and clothing back, for they are in the dam and ditch. The $200,000 he gets for his bonds, if he sold them for that price, is an entirely different $200,000, as you must admit after a moment's thought. Your friend had groceries and clothing which he could sell for $200,000 in money. Now, suppose that you had had at the same time, $200,000 in your business. Your $200,000 with the $200,000 your friend had put into the dam, when finished would amount to $400,000. Now, if he had come to you to dispose of his bonds, and you had thought well enough of them to sell out your business and buy them, your $200,000 bonds would represent the food and clothing in the dam and ditch, and are no longer cash capital any more than a farm is cash capital, and it might take you longer to sell your irrigation bonds than to sell a farm. You said it took the bank ten years to get rid of them.