During the week preceding July 31st, therefore, in the face of a practical suspension of dealings in the other world markets, the New York market stood its ground wonderfully. The decline in prices, though it became violent on July 30th, showed no evidence of collapse. There was a continuous market everywhere up to the last moment, and call money was obtainable at reasonable prices. Here was a perplexing problem when the closing of foreign Bourses raised the question of how long we should strive to keep our own Exchange open. To close the recognized public market for securities, the market which is organized and safeguarded and depended upon as a standard of values, is an undertaking of great responsibility in any community. To take this step in New York, which is one of the four preeminent financial centers of the world, involved a responsibility of a magnitude difficult adequately to estimate. Upon the continuity of this market rest the vast money loans secured by the pledge of listed securities; numberless individuals depend upon it in times of crisis to enable them to raise money rapidly by realizing on security investments and thus safeguarding other property that may be unsaleable; the possessor of ready money looks to it as the quickest and safest field in which to obtain an interest return on his funds; and the business world as a whole depends upon it as a barometer of general conditions. Add to this the fact that speculative commitments by individuals from all over the world, which have been based upon the expectation of an uninterrupted market, are left in hopeless and critical suspense if this market is suddenly removed, and it becomes apparent that to close the Exchange is manifestly to inflict far-reaching hardship upon vast numbers of people. It is also sure to be productive of much injustice. In bad times sound and solvent firms are anxious to enforce all their contracts promptly so as to protect themselves against those that are overextended; an obligatory suspension of business compels these solvent firms, in many cases, to help carry the risks of the insecure ones and deprives the provident man of the safety to which he is entitled. When such facts as these are duly weighed by the agencies having the authority to close the stock market, it becomes clear that duty dictates a policy of hands off as long as a continuous market persists and purchasers continue to buy as the decline proceeds. This was well illustrated in the acute panic of 1907 when an enormous open market never ceased to furnish the means by which needy sellers constantly liquidated, and the possessors of savings made most profitable investments. To have closed the Exchange during that crisis--assuming it to have been possible--would have been an unmixed evil. The violent decline in prices was the natural and only remedy for a long period of over-speculation, and it would have been worse had it been artificially postponed.