What he has already done was planned from the point of view of the interest of the professional financier. It is readily granted that Mr. Warburg desired to organize American finances into a more pliable system. Doubtless in some respects he has wrought important improvements. But he had always the banking house in mind, and he dealt with paper. Now, if taking up a position outside those special interests, he would address himself to the wider interests of the people—not assuming that those interests always run through a banking house—he would do still more than he has yet done to justify his feeling that he really had a mission in coming to this country. Mr. Warburg is not at all shocked by the idea that the Federal Reserve System is really a new kind of private banking control, because in his European experience he saw that all the central banks were private affairs. In his essay on “American and European Banking Methods and Bank Legislation Compared,” Mr. Warburg says: (the italics are ours) “It may also be interesting to note that, _contrary to a widespread idea, the central banks of Europe are, as a rule, not owned by the governments_. As a matter of fact, neither the English, French, nor German Government owns any stock in the central bank of its country. _The Bank of England is run entirely as a private corporation_, the stockholders electing the board of directors, who rotate in holding the presidency. In France the government appoints the governor and some of the directors. In Germany the government appoints the president and a supervisory board of five members, while the stockholders elect the board of directors.” And again, in his discussion of the Owen-Glass Bill, Mr. Warburg says: “The Monetary Commission’s plan proceeded on the theory of the Bank of England, _which leaves the management entirely in the hands of business men without giving the government any part in the management or control_. The strong argument in favor of this theory is that central banking, like any other banking, is based on ‘sound credit,’ that the judging of credits is a matter of business which should be left in the hands of business men, _and that the government should be kept out of business_.... The Owen-Glass Bill proceeds, in this respect, more on the lines of the Banque de France and the German Reichsbank, the presidents and boards of which are to a certain extent appointed by the government. _These central banks, while legally private corporations_, are semi-governmental organs inasmuch as _they are permitted to issue the notes of the nation_—particularly where there are elastic note issues, as in almost all countries except England—and inasmuch as _they are the custodians of practically the entire metallic reserves of the country and the keepers of the government funds_. Moreover in questions of national policy _the government must rely on the willing and loyal co-operation of these central organs_.”