Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:06:18.987Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mutual Savings Bank Depositors in New York*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2012

Alan L. Olmstead
Alan L. Olmstead
Affiliation:
Associate Professor of Economics, University of California, Davis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Contrary to their traditional image as institutions operated exclusively for “frugal workers,” mutual savings banks in New York were also a haven for the savings of many middle and upper class persons, whose accounts comprised a substantial proportion of the banks' funds. Thus these intermediaries presumably improved the efficiency of the savings and investment process, allowing middle class people to allocate their resources between fixed and liquid assets better than would otherwise have been possible.

Type
Research Article
Information
Business History Review , Volume 49 , Issue 3 , Autumn 1975 , pp. 287 - 311
Copyright
Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Davis, Lance E. and Payne, Peter L., “From Benevolence to Business: The Story of Two Savings Banks,” Business History Review, XXXII (Winter, 1958), 386CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Olmstead, Alan L., “Investment Constraints and New York City Mutual Savings Bank Financing of Antebellum Development,” The Journal of Economic History, XXXII (December, 1972), 811–840CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Previous writers never offered explicit definitions of the terms they relied on, such as, “frugal workers,” “indigent poor,” or “industrious laborers,” to describe mutual customers. Keyes defined “industrious and thrifty toilers” as steadily employed workers who, although poor, were not hovering on the brink of pauperism; “Though poor they were independent, because their labor was in regular demand, and their impulse was to industry and thrift.” Keyes, Emerson, A History of Savings Banks in the United States (New York, 1878), II, 527Google Scholar.

4 Payne and Davis were obviously correct in the sense that no hypothesis can be proved, but the two alternatives that they presented suggest that they were asking wrong questions of Keyes' original hypothesis. Payne, Peter L. and Davis, Lance E., The Savings Bank of Baltimore 1818–1866, A Historical and Analytical Study (Baltimore, 1956), 29Google Scholar. Also see Redlich, Fritz, The Molding of American Banking: Men and Ideas, 2d ed. (New York and London, 1968), I, 228Google Scholar. None of the writers mentioned above hazarded a guess as to exactly how many years passed before this change from indigent poor to industrious toilers took place. More recently Professor Redlich has revised his position: “In a paper entitled ‘The Trustee Savings Banks 1817–1861” in the Journal of Economic History, XXI (1961), 26 ff.Google Scholar, Albert Fishlow has shown that English savings banks, established to assist the poor, actually became a boon for the lower middle classes. This article should inspire young American historians to make similar investigations into the early American savings banks, if the extant material permits. I would not dare make guesses in advance as to the result.” Ibid., p. xv(a).

5 Davis and Payne, “From Benevolence to Business,” 388.

6 For example: “The bank conveniently gathered the savings of laborers, seamstresses, chambermaids, cooks, clerks, nurses, boot cleaners, preachers of the gospel, and others of comparable income.” Miller, Nathan, The Enterprise of a Free People (Ithaca, N.Y., 1962), 89Google Scholar. Also see Teck, Alan, Mutual Savings Banks and Savings and Loan Associations: Aspects of Economic Growth (New York, 1968), 11Google Scholar. One of the few scholars to question this traditional description of mutual customers is Krooss, Herman in “Financial Institutions,” in Gilchrist, David T., ed., The Growth of the Seaport Cities, 1790–1825 (Charlottesville, Va., 1967), 107–108Google Scholar.

7 It must be emphasized that these reports listed only new depositors. In 1868, at the request of the superintendent of banking, some of the State's mutuals supplied lists of all their customers' occupations. Comparing this list for the Bank for Savings with the Bank's annual report for 1864 (the closest report I had to 1868), shows that the occupations of people opening accounts that year were proportionally representative of all the Bank's customers four years later.

8 A list of the specific occupations in each category is available from the author.

9 The occupation of the minor's father often was listed in the Original Test Book. In many cases a parent opened separate accounts for each member of the family.

10 Pintard, John, Letters from John Pintard to His Daughter Eliza Noel Pintard, Vol. II in the New York State Historical Association Collections, Vols. LXX–LXXIII (New York, 1937–1940), March 22, 1827, 340Google Scholar. Pintard, one of the Bank for Savings' most active trustees, was vice-president of this society and took a personal interest in his servants' savings habits. He undoubtedly felt that his cook's achievement reflected his wise counsel. Prior to the founding of the Bank for Savings, Pintard personally kept her savings and paid her 7 per cent interest per annum. Pintard, Vol. IV, November 5, 1833, 185.

11 Minutes of the Trustees of the Bank for Savings in the City of New York, Vol. I, December 4, 1824, 393. (Hereafter cited as Minutes, Bank for Savings.)

12 Ibid., 389–390.

13 The report listed only account numbers and balances. To find a person's occupation, it was necessary to check the account numbers in the Original Test Book. The conclusion that the children and females who held these large balances were of middle and upper class families rests on more than the plausible inference that it would have been very improbable that the children, wives, and widows of the working class could have accumulated balances in excess of $500. Several threads of evidence support such as inference. First, it was Bank policy to record the occupation of each depositor at the time the individual opened an account. If the females had been working as domestics or if the children had been working as chimney sweepers, it most probably would have been recorded. Since no occupations were listed for this elite group of depositors, we can reasonably assume that the overwhelming majority were in fact not employed, thus increasing the probability that their balances represented gifts and inheritances rather than an accumulation of their own meager savings. Second, in a number of instances two or more children (or a wife and child) with the same last name owned consecutively numbered accounts with similar balances. In such cases the accounts most probably represented gifts. Finally, the occupations of nine of the fathers or husbands were listed. Five were clearly upper class (one M.D., one State Supreme Court Justice, and three shipmasters); another was a pilot, a highly skilled and wellpaying profession; two (a grocer and clergyman) were in occupations that fall under the merchant/professional heading; the last individual was a rigger.

14 It must be emphasized that these data refer only to individual acts of deposit; they tell us nothing directly about the total sums in accounts; nor about the number of times any individual made deposits or withdrawals. For example, in 1829 there were 1,274 deposits of between one and five dollars; 1,690 of between five and ten dollars; and 2,200 of between ten and twenty dollars, etc. At the other end of the scale, there was one deposit of between $800 and $900, two of between $900 and $1,000; and one of between $1,000 and $2,000.

The figures given in Table 3 were estimated by using the following procedure. First, starting with the largest deposit size and working down, sum the number of acts of deposit until reaching 10 per cent of the total number of deposits made that year. Second, take the mean of each deposit group (e.g. $950, $850, etc.) and multiply by the number of depositors in that group. Countinue this process until the sum represents 10 per cent of the deposits. The resulting figure is the estimate of the amount deposited by the largest 10 per cent of the acts of deposit. Divide this figure by the total amount deposited that year to get the per cent of total deposits accounted for by the largest 10 per cent of deposits. Repeat the same steps at the other end of the scale to arrive at the per cent of deposits accounted for by the smallest 50 per cent of deposits.

15 Large deposits were even more important for the Greenwich and Bowery savings banks. For example, in 1835 and 1840 the top 10 per cent of the deposits in the Greenwich Savings Bank comprised 52 per cent and 49 per cent of the money received and in the Bowery Savings Bank accounted for 55 per cent and 43 per cent. Compiled from the Annual Reports of the Trustees of the Greenwich Savings Bank, and the Annual Reports of the Trustees of the Bowery Savings Bank in New York State Documents, 1834, 1836, 1841, 1845, and 1848. For more complete data, see Olmstead, Alan Lester, New York Mutual Savings Banks, 1819–1861, forthcoming from the University of North Carolina PressGoogle Scholar.

The fact that sums of $50 or more represented a substantial proportion of a worker's annual income does not preclude the possibility that some unskilled laborers in fact made deposits of this size. Records of such transactions do exist, and they probably represent instances in which individuals deposited a stock of wealth accumulated over a considerable period of time.

16 Payne and Davis, Baltimore, 22.

17 Report Book No. 2, July, 1839 through January, 1845, Seamen's Bank for Savings.

18 Lebergott, Stanley, Manpower in Economic Growth (New York, 1964), 530, 541–547Google Scholar.

19 Fishlow, Albert, “The Trustee Savings Banks, 1817–1861,” The Journal of Economic History, XXI (March, 1961), 29–32Google Scholar.

20 Nevins, Allan and Thomas, Milton H., eds., The Diary of George Templeton Strong (New York, 1952), II, October 14, 1857, 363Google Scholar.

21 This statement assumes that the Bank for Savings' investments were large enough relative to the total market that the Bank could not make all the investments it wanted at some constant market price. This indeed was the case. See Olmstead, “Investment Constraints,” 811–840; also see Davis, Lance E., “The New England Textile Mills and the Capital Markets: A Study of Industrial Borrowing, 1840–1860,” The Journal of Economic History, XX (March, 1960), 20Google Scholar.

22 Laws of the State of New York, 1835, Chapter 257, Section 5.

23 Knowles, Charles E., History of the Bank for Savings in the City of New York, 1819–1829, 2d ed. (New York, 1936), 164Google Scholar.

24 Minutes, Bank for Savings, Vol. I, November 10, 1819, 63.

25 Pintard, Vol. I, July 10, 1820, 302.

26 Ibid., Vol. II, July 2, 1821, 57–58.

27 Minutes, Bank for Savings, Vol. I, October 12, 1824, 393.

28 Pintard, Vol. II, May 26, 1825, 164–165.

29 Ibid., Vol. II, May 16, 1827, 352.

30 Ibid., Vol. II, May 26, 1827, 355.

31 Minutes, Bank for Savings, Vol. II, May 16, 1827, 554.

32 Transfer Book A–l, Bank for Savings, Account no. 447.

33 Pilots were highly respected professionals. New York pilots had a privileged position in that they were able to limit entry into the profession by requiring association licensing. Albion, Robert, The Rise of New York Port, 1815–1860 (New York, 1839), 214–216Google Scholar.

34 Deposit and Account Ledgers, 1829 and 1830, Bank for Savings.

35 Pintard, Vol. III, January 13, 1831, 212.

36 Minutes, Bank for Savings, Vol. II, December 14, 1831, 850.

37 Ibid., Vol. II, January 12, 1831, 782.

38 Ibid., Vol. II, April 13, 1831, 803.

39 For example, the trustees granted an application in behalf of “the widow Betsy Barker” who wanted to add $100 to her account of $1,100. Ibid., Vol. II, October 13, 1830.

40 Ibid., Vol. III, June 14, 1837, 1341; Vol. V, February 14, 1849, 2326; Vol. VII, October 14, 1857, 89.

41 Ibid., Vol. VII, October 14, 1857, 89; November 11, 1857, 93.

42 Nevins, Allan, ed., The Diary of Philip Hone, 1828–1851 (New York, 1936), 257Google Scholar. Hone noted that the day before the Bank suspended payments it paid 375 withdrawals totaling $81,000.

43 Report Book No. 2, July, 1839 through January, 1845, Seamen's Bank for Savings.

44 Secretary's Minutes, Seamen's Bank for Savings, Vol. I, February 9, 1853, no page. Herbert Manchester, who wrote a history of the Seamen's Bank for Savings in 1929, stated that “the next year [1852] a committee was appointed to consider the limiting of deposits, because previously some of the deposits had been as high as $50,000.” Although it is possible that Manchester was correct, I found no record of any deposit of this size. The committee he referred to was probably a committee formed to study the impending legislation mentioned above. The sum “$50,000” appeared in the minutes quite frequently in the early 1850s because at almost every meeting the board recommended that the cash reserves be kept at that level. The cash reserves were deposited in a commercial bank, and it would have been easy for Manchester to misinterpret this as a deposit in the savings bank. Manchester, Herbert, A Century of Service; The Seamen's Bank for Savings, 1829–1929 (New York, 1929), 30Google Scholar.

45 The Bowery's original charter did not place a limit on deposits, but in 1835 the charter was amended to include a $3,000 limit.

46 Smith, Walter B. and Cole, Arthur H., Fluctuations in American Business, 1790–1860 (Cambridge, Mass., 1935), 83, 126Google Scholar. Charts 27 and 44 show discount rates peaking in 1837, 1839, 1848, and 1857.

47 Ibid.; Davis disputes the accuracy of the Bigelow series for 1848 used by Smith and Cole. Davis, “The New England Textile Mills,” 1–30. For an analysis of this controversy and of interest rates in 1848, see Olmstead, Alan L., “Davis and Bigelow Revisited: Antebellum American Interest Rates,” The Journal of Economic History XXXIV, No. 2 (June, 1974), 483–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

48 Secretary's Minutes, Bowery Savings Bank, Vol. I, November 11, 1839, 99.

49 Ibid., October 11, 1848, 243; November 8, 1848, 246.

50 Ibid., October 14, 1857, 523.

51 Ibid., December 9, 1857, 520–531.

52 Ibid., December 19, 1857, 532.

53 Secretary's Minutes, Dry Dock Savings Institution, Vol. I, December 20, 1848, no pageGoogle Scholar; Mills, Andrew, That's My Bank: The Story of the Dry Dock Savings Institution (New York, 1948), 109Google Scholar. The Dry Dock's original charter did not place a limit on account sizes.

54 The Emigrant Industrial had one account as large as $10,000 in 1857. Ernst, Robert, Immigrant Life in New York City, 1825–1863 (New York, 1949), 133Google Scholar.

55 The legislation of 1853 supposedly limited account sizes in mutuals formed after that date to $1,000, but several charters written after 1853 allowed for larger accounts, and trustees could avoid this constraint by allowing a depositor to open trust accounts.

56 Keyes, Emerson, A History of Savings Banks in the State of New York (Albany, N.Y., 1870), 142, 166Google Scholar.

57 Keyes, , United States, Vol. II, table opposite page 568Google Scholar.

58 Schenck, Henry A. (compiler), Manual of the Bowery Savings Bank (New York, 1903), 31Google Scholar.

59 Banking Department Report on Savings Banks, March 3, 1865 in New York State Assembly Documents, Vol. VII, No. 127, 6.

60 Payne and Davis, Baltimore, 32–36. The weekly limit on deposits was at different times placed at $20 (1817), $30 (1821), $10 (1822), $50 (1822), $20 (1839), $10 (1863).

61 Ibid., 34.

62 Redlich, Molding of American Banking, 224–225.

63 This is of course the type of price discrimination that banks and utility companies use today.