clearing the business of the country is attended with some expense, as well as with much profit. One of the most vexatious of these expenses has been the cost of collecting country checks.... Under these circumstances they have adopted a rule imposing such charges on country checks as to compel a large part of the remittances to be made in the form of bank drafts on New York city, rather than individual checks on country banks supposed to have accounts with some New York bank. This rule will save the New York banks something like two million dollars annually. It will not prevent any solvent man from making remittances, for if he has a deposit in his local bank and his local bank has a deposit in New York he can buy a draft to send as a remittance, which will pass through the New York Clearing House without question or expense. Yet, in spite of these plausible arguments, we believe the action of the New York banks to be a mistake of very serious magnitude, an inconvenience to the public, a probable loss to deposit banking in the long run, and, worst of all, a serious blow to the cause of sound currency throughout the country. It seems to us, in short, a case where narrower duties and economics have been allowed to crowd broader ones out of sight." The review then goes on to show how great an amount of inconvenience and loss of time in the aggregate the new rule is going to cause, and finally says: "In a popular government the greatest safeguard against soft money--we may fairly say the _only_ real safeguard--is to prevent the growth of a demand for soft money. And of all the means of prevention at our command the most effective is the encouragement of the habit of paying by checks. The habit of paying by check is very general in all large business centers, and has been rapidly extending into the smaller centers, and the most serious public danger in the action of the New York banks is that it seems likely to deal a severe blow to such progress."