But the chances are not so fearful as some imagine. Quite apart from psychological considerations, there is the country itself, the Government, behind the banking system. The country, the Government, cannot afford to see that system come to ruin. It is not as if the Government would be helpless. The Government has the power, and it should use the power to prevent the ruin. Moreover, it is the duty of the Government to prevent it. It is the Government’s duty because the Government does not allow free banking in this country. This may seem a startling assertion. Let us examine it. If the Government enacts that gold shall be legal tender, and that banking deposits must be repaid on demand in their entirety in legal tender, then banking is fettered by law. It is not free banking in the full sense of the term. If banking is fettered by the capricious output of gold, it is not free banking; and if the commerce of the country is fettered by the capricious output of gold, then its freedom of expansion is fettered. If the output of legal tender currency cannot keep pace with the needs and requirements of commerce, then the limitations imposed are not in accord with true notions of freedom. We must work and progress as best we can within those limitations, whether they be wise or unwise. Since the war the Government appears to me to have recognized this by the issue of Treasury notes. Had these notes not been issued, then it would have been the duty of the Government to have suspended the Bank Act. Having issued these notes, the Government could conscientiously ask the banks to assist in a time of crisis traders and others with the utmost liberality. If they were not so assisted, the bankers justly deserved admonition. But had the Government not have issued the notes and therewith have provided legal tender currency in ample measure, then it could not, conscientiously and justly, have bidden the banks to lend freely irrespective of their gold reserves. If, however, these reserves were to be replenished, then the banks were sufficiently safeguarded. There was no excuse for ultra-caution and timidity then. I repeat, therefore, that what the Government has done once by way of duty and by way of wisdom and foresight, it can do again, and should do. The country must not come to ruin merely in deference to the apprehensive theories of some people, whose theories so far, though long and tenaciously held, have been like the passing nightmares of affrighted men.