Altogether it would seem that branch banking is an inevitable future development in the United States and that the state and national bank laws will be liberalized in this respect. It is a perversion of justice that in New York City three national banks should have branches while the others are denied this privilege, because it is impossible for the other national banks to acquire equivalent chains by the same process as did these three. The permission granted by certain states to their state banks to maintain branches puts the state and national banks on unequal competitive planes; the obvious remedy is that the National Bank Law permit national banks in such states to have branches under the same conditions and limitations as the state banks. It is to be remembered that in Canada, where economic and political conditions are similar to those in the United States, branch banking prevails. On the whole it does not appear that branch banking conflicts with the principles of sound banking.

Another method of obtaining advantages equivalent to those of a branch bank is to create subsidiary or affiliated banks or finance houses, controlled by various corporate devices. Numerous national banks have such affiliated savings banks, trust companies, cattle loan companies, bond houses, or other commercial banks which specialize in one line of service or in service to one class of clientele. These may be run in conjunction with other banking houses. A good example is the Textile Banking Company, Inc., recently organized by officers of the Guaranty Trust Company and the Liberty National Bank of New York especially to serve the wholesale dry goods trade.