But not all countries have central banks. Siam has no central bank, the treasury regulating currency with the aid of the branches of foreign banks in Bangkok. The United States and India ought to be good parallels for China for several reasons. In the case of the United States there is similarity with regard to the distances to be traversed. In spite of all the great development in the States that country is still a debtor - owing as much as $2,000,000,000 to Europe. Although the States has no chaos of currency as in China, American financiers have long complained of the plurality of banks of issue; and some proposed a central bank. The Honourable George A. Roberts, President of a Commercial National Bank of Chicago, stated before the Currency Commission that "the first argument for a central bank is that such an institution, organized into, and made a part of, our national banking system, is needed to complete the latter, and all the more needed if important new powers as to currency issues are to be conferred upon the individual banks. The defects and weakness of the national system to-day are due to the isolation of, and lack of cohesion among, the great number of scattered units. The system of independent banks without a central organization is costly to the country in requiring an unnecessarily large gold reserve." In spite of the fact that Wall Street preferred a central bank, we know that the United States Government have, in the interest of the public, as against that of individual powerful financiers, passed the Federal Reserve Act "to provide for the establishment of Federal Reserve Banks, to furnish an elastic currency, to afford means of re-discounting commercial paper, and to establish a more effective supervision of banking in the United States." Under this law which came into force in September 1914 no less than eight and no more than twelve Federal Reserve Banks are in the course of establishment and, in due course, will undertake the issue of bank-notes.