<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0">
  <teiHeader>
    <fileDesc>
      <titleStmt>
        <title>Banking theories in the United States before 1860</title>
        <author>
          <persName>
            <forname>Harry Edward</forname>
            <surname>Miller</surname>
          </persName>
        </author>
      </titleStmt>
      <publicationStmt />
      <sourceDesc>
        <bibl>
          <msIdentifier>
            <idno>1755492553</idno>
          </msIdentifier>
        </bibl>
      </sourceDesc>
    </fileDesc>
  </teiHeader>
  <text>
    <body>
      <div>PRINCIPLES OF NOTE ISSUE 161 
embodying his viewpoint. His Credit System in France, Great 
Britain, and the United States (1838) is a unique argument for a 
policy of complete laissez faire with respect to banking. Not the 
least remarkable feature of it is Carey’s confident assertion (one 
year after the panic of 1837) that our own banking system was 
easily the best in the world, by an arithmetic law based upon 
relative freedom from restriction. Like Hildreth, Carey thought 
that “there is no more propriety or necessity for regulating who 
shall or who shall not issue his note, to be exchanged with those 
who are willing to take it, than there is for regulating who shall 
or who shall not grow potatoes or make shoes.” ! With the de- 
velopment of the idea of a bond-secured note issue, free banking 
upon the condition that security be offered for circulation became 
generally popular. 
Restriction of banking privileges to corporations with exclusive 
charters was defended by relatively few writers. Gallatin thought 
that the power of note issue should be so restricted, but that the 
other operations of banks should be left free to all.2 Tucker re- 
futed the absurdities of Hildreth and Carey by observing that the 
interest of the community is not served when the banker manu- 
factures his product in as large quantities as possible? And the 
holders of bank notes are unable to exercise much choice as to the 
notes they will receive. H. F. Baker objected to the free banking 
system as adopted in New York and elsewhere on the score that 
it “invites the inexperienced, as well as others, to enter upon a 
business which requires skill, experience, and talents.” 
The defenders of free banking had to contend, in order to be 
logical, that multiplying the number of banks within the limits 
to which private capital found it profitable to do so would be ad- 
vantageous to the community. At the very beginning of our 
national history some seem to have believed that the Bank of the 
* Carey, The Credit System, etc. (1838), p. 118. 
* Gallatin, Considerations (1831), p. 95; ““ Suggestions” (1841), Writings, iii, 446. 
* Tucker, Theory of Money and Banks (1839), p. 244. 
\ Ibid., p. 245. 
’ H.F. Baker, “Banking in the United States,” Bankers’ M agazine (July, 1854), 
Xs. 14.</div>
    </body>
  </text>
</TEI>
