A most interesting question.  Perhaps more interesting to the 
historian of banking in America than to the historian of thought. 
 
     It is possible to conceive of a case in which the Philadelphian's 
statement would be true, but were there in fact such cases? 
Certainly, there were runs on the banks.  Merchants and others who 
were neither stock holders nor debtors to particular banks were keen 
to redeem the notes they held.  Besides, if a person was only a debtor 
to a bank, and not a holder of its assets, why should they care if the 
bank failed?  Rival banks, holding the currency of any one bank, after 
calculating the possibility of a general run on the banks, might be 
pleased if one or a few competitors were driven out of business, and, 
indeed, at times they deliberately drove competitors into bankruptcy 
by presenting large quantities of their bills for redemption. 
 
     But I speak from knowledge of particular, historical cases.  Were 
there cases such as that suggested by the Philadelphian? 
 
     For the historian of thought the question would be, what were the 
circumstances prompting the Philadelphian to concoct this agrument, 
if, indeed, it was concocted?