As the valuation of property with a view to the assessment of taxes is at least 25 per cent. below its actual value, we add to the above sum one-fourth part or 25 per cent. in order to get at the true amount of property real and personal in the three states above named, which is, Actual amount, 377,666,310 $1,888,331,553 The population of the states before mentioned, according to our estimate of population submitted with the crops, (for which see ante,) is as follows; viz: Dividing the aggregate amount of property by the aggregate population of the three states, and the result is $279 69 per head. We have also the valuations of two slaveholding states, Kentucky and Maryland, for 1846. They are as follows, viz: Kentucky, Valuation in 1846. $242,388,967 $419,944,813 12,598,344 108,135,789 $540,678,946 To this sum we add three per cent., the ratio of increased population, in order to bring it up to 1847, which is, And twenty-five per cent. for under valuation, as in the case of the three free states, which is Making in the whole The population of Kentucky and Maryland, in 1847, according to our estimate, is as follows, viz: Dividing the aggregate amount of the property by the aggregate population of the two states last mentioned, we have $400 for each individual. Now, it cannot be supposed that the assessors of taxes in the states of Kentucky and Maryland, have over-estimated the property to be taxed. And admitting that they have not under-estimated it, the result would give a little over $320 per head of the population. Adhering to our belief that property in the states of Kentucky and Maryland would be as likely to be under valued for taxation, as in the states of New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio; but believing that, in consequence of slaves being subjects of valuation and taxation, more property is visible and therefore more readily assessed than in the three last, we adhere to the allowance of 25 per cent. for under-valuation. We therefore, take for the basis of the table above, the sum of $400 and apply it to the population of the whole union. The result is, $8,298,560,000 We think it will not be contended that the amount of property, per head, is less in the free than in the slave states. On the contrary, it is probably more, and making a reasonable allowance for the difference, we believe we may safely estimate the property personal, real, and mixed, or the aggregate capital of the United States, in 1847, at $10,000,000,000.* In reference to the table above it is proper to remark that we have no means of separating the real from the personal property, and therefore have made no distinction between them in our estimates. BANKING SYSTEM OF PENNSYLVANIA. From the Philadelphia Bulletin. A friend has placed in our hands the May number of "the Banker's Magazine," a most respectable periodical, in which the editor has done us the honor to copy our remarks, made in the Bulletin some time since, relative to the monopoly system of banking which exists in this State, and the free system of Rhode Island, in which we gave a decided preference to the latter. The able editor, in giving place to our observations, says, however, that he must not be understood as sustaining those views. He continues: "Our columns are open to a liberal discussion of the comparative merits of the banking systems of the several States, with a view to elicit correct views and sound opinions from those who have reflected upon these subjects. "The bank capital of Rhode Island is large when compared with Pennsylvania, and its proportion of circulation to population is much greater. Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Population. 1,800,000 Banking cap'l. In the free states there is more concentrated capital than in the slave states-in other words more money invested in stocks, merchandise, banks, insurance companies, loaned at interest, &c. In these forms it is to a great extent invisible, and out of the reach of the assessor of taxes. Whereas, in the slave states, the capital consists in real property and in slaves, which are visible and tangible, and cannot be concealed from the assessor. These facts account for the apparent fact that the proportion of capital in the slave states, is more per head than in the non-slaveholding states. Pennsylvania, Circulation. $11,000,000 or $6 to 1. "Pennsylvania is better adapted for bank circulation, as all agricultural States are, the population being extensively diffused, and less facilities for concentrating bank issues at one place." We do not know that we understand the precise drift of the above remarks, but suppose them meant to imply that the banks of Rhode Island are relatively more expanded than those of Pennsylvania, inasmuch as the circulation of the former banks bear a ratio 3 times as great to the population of the State as that of the banks of Pennsylvania. But it seems to be quite lost sight of that while the ratio of circulation is 3 times as great, the ratio of capital is 9 times as great as ours. We may observe that the expansion of the banks of a State is to be determined, not by the ratio of circulation to population, but by the ratio their circulation and other demand liabilities bear to their capital. Our object in making the comparison we did between the workings of the different systems in the two States, was to show the insufficiency of the banking capital of this State as compared with the amount of business transacted, and the consequent insecurity of our currency, and harassing alternations of abundance and scarcity of money to which our merchants and traders were thereby subjected. This we accomplished by placing the operations of the Pennsylvania, or monopoly system banks, in broad contrast with those of the Rhode Island, or free system banks, for the years 1845 and 1847. In the comparison thus drawn we showed that while the capital of the Pennsylvania banks exceeded those of Rhode Island but about $6,000,000, the oscillations of the former, within the two years stated, had amounted to more than twelve and a half millions, whereas those of the latter had been less than one million and a half. We showed that the total movement of the Pennsylvania banks was 317 per cent. on their capital, whilst that of the Rhode Island banks was but 53 per cent.! and that whilst the former draw interest on investiuents to the extent of 136 per cent. beyond their capital, the investments of the latter amount to but 50 per cent. beyond their capital! We further showed that in 1847, the circulation and deposits of our banks amounted to $29,215,925, and those of the Rhode Island banks to $3,925,997, being in the ratio of one to nearly eight, while their capitals were in the ratio of one to one and a half; and that the bank currency of Pennsylvania in 1847 was $4,278,000 more than in 1846, while that of Rhode Island varied in the same period but $130,000; and that the result in Rhode Island of banking with actual capital was to restrain the profits of the business for that year to an average of about six per cent., whereas our system of banking, chiefly on credit, because of the insufficiency of our capital, led to vast overtrading by the banks, and to their dividends reaching in the same year from seven to fifteen per cent., averaging from 8 to 9. In view of these astounding results, we denounced the monopoly system of banking in this State as unwise, and urged the superiority of a freer system which should invite capital into that employment, so that there should be actual money to lend and not merely credit which should pass for money because of the talismanic power given to it by our laws. We believe every point made and every position assumed by us in the above article to be sound. In reply to the strictures of the editors of the Bankers Magazine, we have to state, that bank circulation is, of necessity, in the ratio of the exchanges effected by the population among whom the institutions are placed. The exchanges of a manufacturing population, where sums of money are constantly passed from hand to hand, and raw materials transmuted into fabrics of greatly enhanced value, cannot but be much more numerous than those of an agricultural population of equal number. The farmer who cultivates two hundred acres of land, and raises wheat, rye, corn, hay, &c., sees and needs but very little currency. If remote from a town, whilst he feeds his family upon the products of his garden, his poultry, pigs, &c., at the nearest village store he obtains his groceries, articles for clothing, and other matters, all of which are furnished on credit, and settled for, in most instances, as may suit his convenience, by means of a portion of his crops. His wants of currency, it will be seen, are exceedingly small. Not so with the manufacturer. His family cannot eat his cotton and his wool; he has nothing to pass off for his necessities in the way of barter; the storekeeper with whomhe deals, whatever credit he may give him, expects payment in cash or bank currency when his account is settled. Thus it is obvious that a cotton mill employing two hundred operatives, will require more currency than a thousand small farmers and their families. Where there are the fewest banks in proportion to a business population, there will be the largest circulation; and for this reason every trader and mechanic requires currency with which to purchase the articles in which he deals, and if no bank is close at hand he must retain in his own possession an amount beyond his immediate wants. These individual reserves form the most important portion of bank note circulation.-Where banks are convenient to the residences of traders and mechanics, all surplus funds are left in their keeping. The man who can put his money in a place of safety, and get whatever portion of it he wants when he wants it, will hardly risk keeping it about him. Thus it will be seen that the requirements for currency in Rhode Island are far greater than in Pennsylvania; and that, as nearly all the population of the former State are engaged in avocations requiring its constant use, it is only because of her numerous banks and their proximity to every man's door, that the ratio of circulation is not far greater than has been stated. And we trust we have made it clear in this hurried article, that the ratio of circulation to population in our own State, which is essentially agricultural, though numerically smaller, is in a politico-economical sense much larger than that of Rhode Island, and that the assumption that an agricultural State is better adapted for bank note circulation than a manufacturing one, is essentially erroneous. We trust too, that our readers will admit that the ratio which circulation and other immediate liabilities bear to bank capital, is the true light in which this subject should be viewed, so far as regards the solidity of the institutions, and the convenience of the public. Much more night be said to illustrate the propriety of the ground we have taken, but we have not the requisite space at our command now. |