View original document

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

BDARD DF GOVERNORS
OF THE

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Office Correspondence
TQ

Chairman Ecoles
MT>. y ^ p p

Date ***<& 17,1947
g u kj ec t ; National Advisory Council
meet ing of March 18.

Up to now, nothing very important has been placed upon the
agenda for the National Advisory Council meeting tomorrow. The following items are listed:
(1) Iranian request for increased quota in the Fund. At
Bretton Woods, Iran was assigned a quota of 25 million dollars in the
Fund and 24 million dollars in the Bank. The Iranian representative
protested at the time and, like France and India, accepted the result
only with specific reservations. At the Governors1 Conference in September,
Iran raised the question of an increase in its Fund quota, but the matter
was referred to the Executive Directors for study and report. The U.S.
Executive Director is now requesting guidance on this matter from the Council,
Studies by the research staff of the Fund and by the Staff Committee indicate that the Iranians may have a reasonable claim to a slightly
higher Fund quota. The Staff Committee therefore recommends (as it did in
the case of the French quota last Fall) that the Council approve having the
Executive Directors in the Fund consider the Iranian case "on its merits11,
providing that if any increase is made in Iranfs quota in the Fund a proportionate increase should be made in Iran*s subscription to the Bank.
(2) Request of Holland-Colombo Trading Society, IncĀ« for W.A.A.
credit. This corporation is seeking a 1 million dollar credit with the
guarantee of the Dutch Government, and the Staff Committee proposes to
handle the matter simply by having the secretary report orally to the
Council to ascertain whether any member has any objection. I do not beliove any objection should be made.
(3) Terms for Netherlands lend-lease and surplus property credit.
This subject is back on the agenda after the inconclusive discussion last
week in which Mr* Thorp, Mr. Harriman and yourself appeared to favor the
Staff Committee's recommendation that the Netherlands1 agreement (like the
French agreement) include provision for the postponement of instalments by
mutual agreement, whereas Mr. Snyder and Mr. Martin appeared to oppose this
action. I continue to believe that the Staff Committee1s recommendation
should be adopted (a) because it is better to have a provision for agreed
postponement than to risk an unnecessary open default, and (b) because it
is difficult to withhold from the Netherlands the terms already granted in
the French War Settlement and already assured even to the Netherlands on its
lend-lease settlement.