The key to the almost uniform success of building and loan associations is found in the intimate relations which they hold to shareholders, and especially to borrowers. Not only do they make it possible for persons having but small incomes to build homes for themselves, by loaning money on unfinished property as the money is needed to advance the work, repaying in small instalments, but they exercise a scrupulous supervision over the interests of the borrower. The condition and situation of his property, the plans of the architect, the estimates, the character of the contractor, the building material, the work of the builder,- all are carefully inspected by competent judges and subject to their approval. The building and loan association thus forms a supervisory board whose assistance to the borrower is invaluable.

There can be nothing, or very little, of this supervision in the great "general" building associations; nor can their affairs be so strictly supervised in other respects. The more cautious experts, therefore, like Judge Dexter of Elmira and Mr. Southard of New York, pronounce against them. There are those, however, who object to the use of the term "building" in connection with the co-operative banks; and a correspondent in Rochester, N.Y., writes me as follows:

There are in the neighborhood of a hundred- not half a dozen more or less-savings and loan associations (called, for short, loan associations) in Rochester, to two of which I have belonged for a long time past; and there are several building lot associations and land associations, which, however, are nothing more than combinations of individuals for the purchase of land in a large tract and its sale by lots, so that, as you see, they have nothing whatever in common with the "building associations" of Philadelphia. Our loan associations are equally far removed from that complex system; and they are sufficiently complicated as it is (no two of them, perhaps, being exactly alike), without adding the unnecessary entanglement of a building department, in which I can see no possible advantage to either party. When we sell shares of money to an individual, we take a mortgage upon a sufficient amount of real estate (unless he borrows upon free" shares of stock already owned by him), and no one except the Committee of Appraisal cares whether his house is old or new or about to be built, or whether there is no intention on his part ever to build a house. Oftentimes, to be sure, the money is doled out to him as the house progresses, and the increased security warrants additional instalments; but the man himself builds the house: the association does not build it for him in any sense of the term, and ours is no more a "building" association than it is a horse-race association or a base-ball association.

66

All our associations, with one or two insignificant exceptions, have been successful. Of course, the dividends of all except the new ones have dropped to twelve or ten per cent.; but none of them are going out of business, and the few which were not originally "permanent" have become so. In the early part of this

year (1889), a statement was prepared of the money loaned on mortgages by our four Rochester savings-banks and by the loan. associations which may interest you. In 1886, the banks made 384 loans, aggregating $1,505,072.67; the associations, 756 loans, aggregating $970,808.80,- excess in favor of the banks, $534,263.87. In 1887, the banks made 581 loans, aggregating $1,479,648; associations, 1,254 loans, aggregating $1,795,384.70,- excess in favor of associations, $315,736.70. In 1888, the banks made 328 loans, aggregating $737,440; associations, 1,581 loans, aggregating $2,126,314.10,-excess in favor of associations, $1,388,874.10. Of course, the above has nothing to do with bank mortgages made before 1886, and still held by them, which amount to $10,000,000 or more.

The figures just given show that in some cities the new loan associations, or co-operative banks, are gaining upon and supplanting, to some extent, the old savings-banks. Perhaps this may lead the latter to establish a system of loaning to their own depositors more generally, and upon more favorable terms than they now do. As our committee had occasion to say a year ago, the general safety of our American building associations during the halfcentury they have existed is well known. No serious disaster has overtaken most of those who invested in them; and this, mainly because they were small, were carefully looked after by the investors, and did not venture into large operations. But their success has led, recently, to the formation of so-called "national" building associations, which are exposed to peculiar risk. It is to be hoped that the local building associations will maintain themselves against these intruders into their proper field, and that the noble system of Co-operative Banking will not be wounded in the house of its professed friends.

The key to the almost uniform success of building and loan associations is found in the intimate relations which they hold to shareholders, and especially to borrowers. Not only do they make it possible for persons having but small incomes to build homes for themselves, by loaning money on unfinished property as the money is needed to advance the work, repaying in small instalments, but they exercise a scrupulous supervision over the interests of the borrower. The condition and situation of his property, the plans of the architect, the estimates, the character of the contractor, the building material, the work of the builder,- all are carefully inspected by competent judges and subject to their approval. The building and loan association thus forms a supervisory board whose assistance to the borrower is invaluable.

There can be nothing, or very little, of this supervision in the great "general" building associations; nor can their affairs be so strictly supervised in other respects. The more cautious experts, therefore, like Judge Dexter of Elmira and Mr. Southard of New York, pronounce against them. There are those, however, who object to the use of the term "building" in connection with the co-operative banks; and a correspondent in Rochester, N.Y., writes me as follows:

There are in the neighborhood of a hundred- not half a dozen more or less — savings and loan associations (called, for short, loan associations) in Rochester, to two of which I have belonged for a long time past; and there are several building lot associations and land associations, which, however, are nothing more than combinations of individuals for the purchase of land in a large tract and its sale by lots, so that, as you see, they have nothing whatever in common with the "building associations" of Philadelphia. Our loan associations are equally far removed from that complex system; and they are sufficiently complicated as it is (no two of them, perhaps, being exactly alike), without adding the unnecessary entanglement of a building department, in which I can see no possible advantage to either party. When we sell shares of money to an individual, we take a mortgage upon a sufficient amount of real estate (unless he borrows upon "free" shares of stock already owned by him), and no one except the Committee of Appraisal cares whether his house is old or new or about to be built, or whether there is no intention on his part ever to build a house. Oftentimes, to be sure, the money is doled out to him as the house progresses, and the increased security warrants additional instalments; but the man himself builds the house: the association does not build it for him in any sense of the term, and ours is no more a "building" association than it is a horse-race association or a base-ball association.

be compelled to list until the spring of the year 1869, which plea was held good, and they were thereupon discharged from listing. The first named society, then, in December of that year paid the assessed taxes ($339.07) under protest.

During the winter of 1868-69, meetings were held by the officers of the various associations; but the diversity of opinions expressed was so great that nothing could be accomplished. The tax-lists served upon the various organizations by the assessors in the spring of 1869 were generally left unnoticed. However, in the autumn of that year, the auditor again issued citations to the officers, who, after holding consultations in a series of meetings called for that purpose, made returns, showing that they had no other taxable values, excepting the limited amounts of cash balances in the hands of their treasurers, probably a safe, and, in some instances, a little furniture and fixtures of nominal values. These returns the auditor refused to accept. He, however, in that year made no further attempts to molest them. But, when the assessors' tax-notices in the spring of the year 1870 again remained unanswered, the auditor once more issued citations to the various societies in October, 1870, who replied in the same manner as the preceding year.

In February, 1871, the city treasurer sued for a rule (with the power of a judgment) against the several building associations of Cincinnati, for the payment and penalties of the city taxes. This brought about the organization of a union of the societies under the name of "United Building Associations of Hamilton County, Ohio," which was effected on Saturday, Feb. 25, 1871, by electing H. A. Rattermann president and Adolph Sommer secretary. It was also voted that an executive committee should be elected, with full power to act or to call general meetings at their discretion. This committee were Messrs. Rattermann, Carberry, Schaaf, Austing, Keck, Schuster, and Cross; and they were allowed to have power to levy assessments on the various societies, in proportion to the number and value of their shares, for the purpose of defraying expenditures. The executive committee had its first meeting on Feb. 26, 1871, and organized by electing J. P. Carberry chairman, H. A. Rattermann secretary, and Oswald Schaaf treasurer. Messrs. Stallo and Kittredge were engaged as attorneys, the former having since been United States Minister to Italy.

Mr. Rattermann goes on to show how the Executive Committee, with their counsel, defeated the purpose of the city authorities to tax the mortgages of the Hamilton County Co-operative Banks, to an amount estimated at $265,000, and then adds: —

The Executive Committee held their final meeting Oct. 14, 1878, after the last of the associations, from whom they held their mandates, had become extinct. As no report of the committee

The key to the almost uniform success of building and loan associations is found in the intimate relations which they hold to shareholders, and especially to borrowers. Not only do they make it possible for persons having but small incomes to build homes for themselves, by loaning money on unfinished property as the money is needed to advance the work, repaying in small instalments, but they exercise a scrupulous supervision over the interests of the borrower. The condition and situation of his property, the plans of the architect, the estimates, the character of the contractor, the building material, the work of the builder,- all are carefully inspected by competent judges and subject to their approval. The building and loan association thus forms a supervisory board whose assistance to the borrower is invaluable.

There can be nothing, or very little, of this supervision in the great "general" building associations; nor can their affairs be so strictly supervised in other respects. The more cautious experts, therefore, like Judge Dexter of Elmira and Mr. Southard of New York, pronounce against them. There are those, however, who object to the use of the term "building" in connection with the co-operative banks; and a correspondent in Rochester, N.Y., writes me as follows:

There are in the neighborhood of a hundred- - not half a dozen more or less-savings and loan associations (called, for short, loan associations) in Rochester, to two of which I have belonged for a long time past; and there are several building lot associations and land associations, which, however, are nothing more than combinations of individuals for the purchase of land in a large tract and its sale by lots, so that, as you see, they have nothing whatever in common with the "building associations" of Philadelphia. Our loan associations are equally far removed from that complex system; and they are sufficiently complicated as it is (no two of them, perhaps, being exactly alike), without adding the unnecessary entanglement of a building department, in which I can see no possible advantage to either party. When we sell shares of money to an individual, we take a mortgage upon a sufficient amount of real estate (unless he borrows upon "free" shares of stock already owned by him), and no one except the Committee of Appraisal cares whether his house is old or new or about to be built, or whether there is no intention on his part ever to build a house. Oftentimes, to be sure, the money is doled out to him as the house progresses, and the increased security warrants additional instalments; but the man himself builds the house: the association does not build it for him in any sense of the term, and ours is no more a "building" association than it is a horse-race association or a base-ball association.