“The three big bank WRECKS which are still fresh in the public mind on account of their size and recent date are: the Enterprise National Bank of Allegheny, Penn.; The First National Bank of Topeka, Kans.; the FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MILWAUKEE, WIS.!” Then in a tabulated statement, the “special” gave sums which were classified as “losses.” In this separate list of “losses” occasioned by “THE BANK WRECKS,” the First National Bank of Milwaukee, heads the table with $1,450,000. Therefore, instead of my statement in the Magazine being reckless and false, it was carefully based upon a “special” sent out from Chicago in December, which at the time my paragraphs were written had gone unchallenged for more than a month. Even when corrected by Mr. Sturtevant, how much good is done to the National Banking system whose claim to be “the best on earth” I was ridiculing? My point was that the lootings of this boasted “best system on earth” were so frequent and so colossal that it was absurd to claim that the system was “the best on earth.” How does the Waupaca Champion of looted banks improve matters by explaining that the president of the bank merely stole a million and a half from _the stockholders_? How does he weaken my attack by saying that the bank was able to stand the huge robbery? Is bank rottenness saved from denunciation because the looted bank happened to be rich enough to survive the blow? Is bank gutting made respectable because the stockholders alone were gutted? Suppose the stockholders had not been rich enough to make good the loss; suppose the bank had not possessed “a surplus” of that immense size—wouldn’t “the loss” have fallen upon “the people,” and wouldn’t the bank have “burst”? Ah, Mr. Sturtevant! When you say that a National Bank has gained such tremendous profits out of the privilege of creating money and lending it to the people at high rates of interest that a robbery which runs up into the millions does not stagger it in the least, you simply convince the intelligent reader that National Banks reap far greater gains out of Special Privilege than their champions are in the habit of admitting. As to the “other” reckless and libelous statements which the Waupaca Editor says I have been making in the Magazine, I can only invite him to name them. The Magazine is here to stay, and it is not conscious of having made reckless and libelous statements. The columns are open to brother Sturtevant, and to all others, who wish to challenge any statements made therein. Whenever I am shown to be wrong, I will gladly make correction, and, if need be, apology. If, on the contrary, the other fellow happens to be wrong, I will endeavor, in a mild, conciliatory but earnest spirit to show him his error. Brother Sturtevant, of Waupaca, asserts that I am constantly doing grave injury to many people. I appeal to Sturtevant to furnish me a list—a partial one, at least—of the people whom I am constantly injuring so gravely.