(2.) If the National Banks were abolished, would it not be a matter of convenience in business transactions, be necessary, to have private banks? (3.) Can you furnish back-numbers, from the beginning of your paper? These questions are frequently asked by the common people, and some of us are puzzled to know how to answer satisfactorily. Grover Cleveland, I think, once said, that however money might be created, the middle-man, by trusts, monopolies, and speculations, would take the advantage and oppress the poor and needy, just the same. If you think the above questions worthy of notice, please answer in your February number. I am glad to note the contemplated improvement in your Magazine. I will do my best to get you more subscribers. Yours respectfully, ⸺ ⸺. ANSWER The National Banks now have outstanding notes to the amount of $550,000,000 in round numbers. If the privilege of issuing these notes as money were taken away from the National Banks, the paper money now in circulation would be reduced to $550, 000,000. Suppose the Government should issue an equal sum in its own notes to take the place of the National Bank notes—how could the Government put its own notes into circulation? (1) It could _immediately_ put the entire amount in circulation by applying it to the part payment of the public debt. We are the richest nation on earth: the richest that history knows anything about—yet we keep ourselves mortgaged with a perpetual National Debt because the favored few demand bonds to bank on. If National Banks were abolished, as real Democracy always sought to do, there would be no further excuse for keeping the Bond-Mortgage on the National estate. (2) It could put the entire amount $550, 000,000, in circulation _gradually_ by paying the national expenses with it. (3) It could put the money in circulation by building Government railroads with it. (4) And my opinion is that the whole sum could be benevolently assimilated by that Panama Canal business which the sleek Cromwell and his Varilla unloaded on the impulsive Roosevelt. Second Question: Yes. We wage no war on private banks. As long as banks confine themselves to legitimate banking, loans, discounts &c., they are not a source of national danger. It is only when a certain class of bankers, like the National Bankers, usurp the Governmental function by supplying the country with money, that they are, as Jefferson said, more dangerous to Republican institutions than standing armies. Question 3: Yes. * * * * * MEMPHIS, TENN., Nov. 30, 1905. _Hon. Thomas E. Watson, New York._