364 CONSOLIDATION OF NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATIONS 
Mr. Rats. If such a law should not be enacted in a State, I will 
admit that the national banks could not then carry on branch banking 
in that State. 
Senator Grass. No; nor could the State of Wisconsin except under 
penalty of exclusion from the Federal reserve system: is that correct? 
Mr. Rarwse. That is correct. 
Senator Grass. That is to say, in other words, you are attempting 
by a Federal statute to control the banking system of the States. 
Do you think we ought to have the United States composed of one- 
half branch banks and one-half not branch banks? 
Mr. Rarmie. As I stated in the beginning, I really believe that 
the branch bank is very dangerous in this country because we have 
now been established for so many years as an mdependent bank, 
30,000 banks, and to have branch banks established and put into 
competition with these independent banks, would certainly be very 
ruinous. 
Senator Grass. Can you justify a proposition that a national bank 
in the State of Ohio, for instance, should have the privileges of 
establishing branches and the national banks in the State of tes 
should be denied the privilege of having branches? 
Mr. Ratnse. Yes, because in the State of Ohio the State law per- 
mits it. 
Senator Grass. I know, but we will assume that hereafter the 
State of Illinois will permit the establishment of branch banks among 
its State banks, can you then justify the denial of that right in Illinois 
to a national bank and the granting of the right in the national bank 
of Ohio or Indiana? 
Mr. Range. Of course it is a problem that would have to be 
worked out, and we gave up; we wanted to pass legislation to prevent 
branch banking entirely. 
Senator Grass. Yes; and do you not think that would be better 
than to have one half of the United States with a branch bank system 
and the other half denied the privilege? 
Mr. Rataie. Well, these banks that establish branches, of course 
think it is very unfair to have their branches uprooted. 
Senator Grass. I am asking you your opinion. You knew that 
the States themselves eould not have a nation one-half slave and 
one-half free. Do you think we could have a United States with 
one-half branch banks and one-half not branch banks? 
Mr. Rataoe. Yes; I think those States that have established 
branches can carry on as they are doing now and allow the States 
that have not established branch x Cu to act independently 
without branches. They are getting along splendidly. 
Senator Grass. What is your justification for denying the national 
banks in one State the privilege that is granted in another State? 
Mr. Rataie. Because it is unfair competition to the banks that 
have been established by the State but where the State law does not 
ermit it. For instance, it would be very unfair to give the national 
Dh the privilege of establishing branches in the State of Illinois 
where the Sato law does not permit it. 
Senator Grass. Would it not beside give the national banks the 
privilege of establishing branches in any State that permits that 
privilens to State banks? . 
Mr. Ratage. Yes: I think this bill does it.