Adhering to traditional New England architecture the new building of the HartfordConnecticut Trust Company deserves to be classed among the finest examples of banking construction in the country. In close proximity to the old Hartford State House the new building appeals to the eye not only because of its commanding position in the Hartford skyline, but also because of its graceful proportions, its bright contrasts of red brick, cream colored facings and polished granite base. Surmounting the struc ture is a gabled crown, reminiscent of that old Boston masterpiece, the State House, which may be sighted for many miles around.

The Hartford-Connecticut Trust Company building is a worthy home of the largest and oldest trust company organization in Connecticut. It is 17 stories in height, above a two-story basement, containing about 78,275 square feet of rental space, exclusive of the three first floors to be occupied by the trust company. The three lower stories are treated in Indiana limestone, resting on

a polished granite base. The main shaft of the building is red brick with light creamcolored window frames, conveying, an unusually attractive impression. The left main banking room is finished in travertine stone and American walnut, having a simply panelled ceiling with decorated mouldings and rosettes. A large chandelier suspended from the center provides general illumination, although, by day, the room is brilliantly lighted by numerous large windows. The bank screen is of walnut on a black and gold marble base, surmounted by a screen of wrought iron and glass with old brass ornamentation. A feature is the use of bullet-proof glass as a protection against holdups. The officers' quarters, at the northerly end, are readily accessible to the public. The bookkeeping department, situated on the mezzanine floor, is provided with sound absorbing devices so as to avoid the noise of mechanical appliances.

The trust department occupies the entire second floor. Centrally located on the lower level is the splendid vault equipment em

bodying the very latest and approved methods of vault construction. The company vaults are located in the basement with safe deposit capacity of from 5,000 to 11,000 boxes. Comfortable rooms are provided for patrons of the safe deposit department. Ample provision is also made for the comfort and health of employees, including automatic devices for purifying air and all necessary sanitary arrangements. Two thousand tons of steel were used in the construction of the building, thirty miles of electric wiring, 1,700 tons of crushed stone, nine carloads of I plumbing supplies, four carloads of glass and 40,000 cubic feet of limestone.

The Hartford-Connecticut Trust Company is today one of the largest trust companies in New England and is an example of the highest stage of efficiency attained in trust company administration. The company has been especially successful in developing fiduciary services, the volume of its trust responsibilities mounting into many millions, and including numerous important estates. The company is the outgrowth of a merger, effected in July, 1919, between the two oldest trust companies in Connecticut, namely, the Connecticut Trust and Safe Deposit Company and the Hartford Trust Company. The strength of the institution is evidenced

by its capitalization of $2,000,000; surplus and undivided profits of $2,668,000 and total resources of $19,830,000, exclusive of the large volume of business transacted through the trust and various other departments.

The Hartford-Connecticut Trust Company preserves the traditions and excellent policies which characterized the respective units of the merged companies. The Hartford Trust Company received its charter as far back as 1867 and had among its presidents, Charles M. Pond, R. W. Farmer, William Faxon, Henry Kellogg, Ralph Cutler and Frank C. Cutler.

The Connecticut Trust and Safe Deposit Company received its charter from the General Assembly in 1871. Its first presidents were Edward B. Watkins and William J. Wood, the latter succeeded by Meigs H. Whaples in 1888, who continued as president up to the time of the merger.

The Hartford-Connecticut Trust Company is particularly fortunate in its executive personnel and the spirit of co-operation which is preserved between officers and employees. The chairman of the board, Meigs H. Whaples, dean of Connecticut bankers, has been foremost in financial and civic affairs of the city and State. He became teller of the Connecticut Trust and Safe Deposit Com

MAIN

ENTRANCE (INSIDE) ΤΟ THE NEW BANKING QUARTERS OF THE HARTFORDCONNECTICUT TRUST COMPANY

The president of the Hartford-Connecticut Trust Company, Mr. Frank C. Sumner, also has a distinguished record in Hartford banking annals. The Hartford Trust Company had been doing business for less than three years, when he entered its employ as a messenger in 1871, advancing by gradual degrees to the office of president. He has occupied many positions of responsibility in public and civic bodies. Other officers of the company are: Nathan D. Prince, vicepresident; Henry H. Pease, vice-president; Arthur P. Day, vice-president and trust officer; Homer P. Redfield, treasurer; Warren T. Bartlett, secretary; Allen H. Newton, assistant treasurer; Albert T. Dewey, assistant secretary; J. Lincoln Fenn, associate trust officer, and Clark T. Durant, attorney. The Hartford-Connecticut Trust Company enters upon a new chapter of its splendid career with the formal opening of the new home.

AMERICAN

TRUST COMPANY

Member Federal Reserve System

50 STATE STREET BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS

Chartered 1881

Transacting a General Banking Business

Capital, $1,500,000.00

Surplus, 2,000,000.00

The

WASHINGTON LOAN

and TRUST COMPANY

WASHINGTON, D. C.

900-902 F Street, N. W.

618-620 17th St., N. W.

JOHN B. LARNER, President

KEEPING FAITH WITH EUROPE

(Continued from page 364)

can investor countless attractive opportunities which, as time goes on, he cannot afford to neglect, if once Europe gets together on safe, sane and practical lines. That such a movement is going on on the Continent is without question.

There are innumerable instances where these silent forces-constructive, friendly, co-operative-are actively at work. A loan to Austria guaranteed by her former enemies; German Treasury Notes assumed by British and Dutch banks; a French group and a German group coming together in an effort to effectuate on a practical basis the reparations in kind; the Soviet government recognizing the vested rights of a British corporation; Austrian banks re-establishing their branches in the succession states; are facts which show that Europe is fast coming back to her senses. These are not quixotic or fantastic suggestions. Europe is putting herself in line with them.

Keep faith with Europe? Surely there is no other way out either for Europe or ourselves. From the ethical point of view, our duty to stand by Europe attains the heights of a moral law, which we cannot possibly escape. I think that it was Plato who said that the man who could live alone was either a god or a beast, and this is as true of nations as it is of men. From the cultural point of view, America refuses to turn her back on the nations which have shared with her their art and their learning. America's soul, so full still of the poetry, the songs, the legends of the old countries, can never give up her yearning for the European shores. America must keep, will keep faith with Europe, but Europe must do her part and keep faith with herself.

Statement of the Ownership, Management, Circulation, etc., Required by the Act of Congress of August 24, 1912, of TRUST COMPANIES, Published Monthly at New York, N. Y., for October 1, 1922

State of New York County of New York:

Before me, a Notary Public in and for the State and county aforesaid, personally appeared Christian A. Luhnow who, having been duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that he is the Publisher of the TRUST COMPANIES MAGAZINE and that the following is, to the best of his knowledge and belief, a true statement of the ownership, management (and if a daily paper, the circulation), etc., of the aforesaid publication for the date shown in the above caption, required by the Act of August 24, 1912, embodied in section 443, Postal Laws and Regulations, printed on the reverse of this form, to wit:

1. That the names and addresses of the publisher, editor, managing editor, and business managers are:

Publisher, Christian A. Luhnow, 55 Liberty St.
New York City, N. Y.

Editor, Christian A. Luhnow, 55 Liberty St.,
New York City, N. Y.
Managing Editor, None.

Business Manager, C. M. Donohue, 55 Liberty St.,
New York City, N. Y.

2. That the owners are: Christian A. Luhnow, 55 Liberty St., New York City, N. Y., Sole Owner.

3. That the known bondholders, mortgagees, and other security holders owning or holding 1 per cent. or more of total amount of bonds, mortgages, or other securities are: None.

CHRISTIAN A. LUHNOW, Publisher. Sworn to and subscribed before me this 28th day of September, 1922.

INHERITANCE TAX ON TRANSFER UNDER
TRUST DEED

(Inheritance tax in effect at time of death applies to transfer under trust deed which reserves income to donor during his life.)

A decedent of Ohio, who died in Decem ber, 1919, had executed a trust deed dated January 14, 1915, by which he transferred to a trust company in New York certain securities including shares of stock in New York corporations, in trust, to collect the income and after paying all proper charges to apply the remaining income to the use of the donor during his lifetime, but not subsequent to August 10, 1923.

Upon his death or upon the last mentioned date, if he should then be living, the trustee was to pay the income in equal parts to two sons of the decedent for their respective lives.

It was contended that the liability for inheritance tax was to be determined by the law in effect at the time of the execution and delivery of the trust deed. At that time the statute did not authorize a tax on a transfer by a non-resident decedent of shares of stock in a New York corporation. The trust instrument contained reservation of the absolute right to alter, modify or revoke the trust in whole or in part and to control the investment and reinvestment of the fund, and to substitute a trustee in place of the trust company designated in the deed. These reservations make the instrument testamentary in character. (In re: Schmidlapp's Estate, 196 N. Y. Supp. 108.)

TAXATION OF VOTING TRUST CERTIFICATE (Interest in a voting trust certificate is as much subject to inheritance tax as the stock itself.)

William A. Johnson of New York left, upon his death, a voting trust certificate is

sued by the Girard Trust Company of Philadelphia against 1,740 shares of stock in the S. S. White Dental Manufacturing Company, a Pennsylvania corporation. Question arose as to whether this voting trust certificate was subject to the inheritance tax of the State of Pennsylvania..

In holding that it was thus taxable, the court points out the fact that the Pennsylvania inheritance tax law imposes a tax upon any interest in stock of corporations organized under its laws; that the transfer is not against the stock certificate, but against the intangible property right, which is as much evidenced by a voting trust certificate as by the stock certificate itself.

The court refers to the New York decision of United States Radiator Company vs. State (135 N. Y. Supp. 981), applying the New York law in the same manner.-(Commonwealth vs. Johnson, Jr., executor, The Legal Intelligencer, September 29, 1922.)

OVERDRAFT OF JOINT ACCOUNT

(An overdraft of a joint account constitutes a joint debt of both depositors.) An account was opened in a California bank under the name of Lenora S. Popp and J. Popp with money belonging to Lenora, who only drew a few checks against the account. Her husband drew most of the checks and overdrew the account.

The California Supreme Court holds that the overdraft was as much her indebtedness as that of her husband, and since an existing debt is sufficient consideration for a note under the laws of that State, a note given by her to cover the overdraft was binding.

Another question in the case involved the validity of the pledge of certain corporate bonds belonging to children of the depositors. The court holds that the fact that the names of the minor children were written on the