FINANCIAL CENTRE (with one hundred banks), CLEARING HOUSE COMMITTEE (without law), CLEARING HOUSE BANK EXAMINER (without law), CLEARING HOUSE RESERVES (without law), CLEARING HOUSE CERTIFICATES (in defiance of law). If this system has been the means of purging the banks coming within its influence and jurisdiction and strengthening the situation, wherever adopted, and if no city where it has been in practice, of which there are now more than twenty, would not give it up, let any man say why this safe principle should not now be extended until every bank in the United States is brought within its beneficial influence. However, this result can only be attained by having a uniform and truly national banking system. As was pointed out only a moment ago, that if the national banking powers mentioned are granted to the national banks, no bank can afford to remain outside of the system, because the advantages gained by going into it are so great. However, if there are bankers, who by running double-headed or triple-headed institutions believe that they cannot then do some things that they are now doing, and which they, therefore, probably should not do, should undertake to argue that banking cannot be brought under national supervision and control, let them consider the following facts: _First_: That the United States Government put a tax of 10 per cent upon all State bank notes and that they died a natural death. Of course, it is true they were suffocated. But would any one go back to the days when they had to pay exchange upon a bank note every time they crossed a State line? Would anybody take a step that would substitute a local currency for a national currency of uniform character and quality? Let every antagonist mark this, and remember it well that the same power that put a tax of 10 per cent upon bank note issues can also put a tax of 10 per cent upon deposits for any one of a number of good reasons; for example, it could and should impose such a tax, if necessary, to compel all the banks of the country to carry their part of the commercial burden in the shape of equal and adequate reserve. _Second_: Can any one give a single reason, valid reason, why the postal savings bank was made a national institution that would not apply with equal, if not greater, force to the $17,000,000,000 individual deposits of which $6,480,000,000 are savings? _Third_: Can any one deny that it is interstate commerce for note brokers to ship millions, yes billions upon billions, of promissory notes, or so-called commercial paper, from one State to another by express, mail or freight? Will any one deny that promissory notes are property? Will any one assert that shipping promissory notes differs in the slightest degree from shipping eggs, apples, potatoes, cotton, grain or live stock on the ground that promissory notes are not property, but that eggs, apples, potatoes, cotton, grain and live stock are property?