View PDF

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

/

\

/




\

/

\

/

\,

\

7T
7 V

/

\

Annual Report 1969
Comptroller of the Currency




The Administrator of National Banks

William B. Camp
Comptroller of the Currency




For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $2.75




Letter of Transmittal
T H E DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,
OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY,
WASHINGTON, D.C., SEPTEMBER 305 1970

SIRS : Pursuant to the provisions of Section 333 of the United States
Revised Statutes, I am pleased to submit the 1969 Annual Report of the
Comptroller of the Currency.
Respectfully,
WILLIAM B. CAMP,

Comptroller of the Currency.
T H E PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE
T H E SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Contents
Title of Section

I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.

Condition of the National Banking System
Income and Expenses of National Banks
Structural Changes in the National Banking System
Bank Examinations and Related Activities
Litigation
Fiduciary Activities of National Banks
International Banking and Finance.
Administrative and Management Developments
Financial Operations of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.. .

Page

1
3
5
13
14
18
19
21
24

Appendices
A. Merger Decisions, 1969
B. Statistical Tables
C. Addresses and Selected Congressional Testimony of the Comptroller of the
Currency

29
219
291

Index

317




Statistical Tables
Table No.
Title
1 Assets, liabilities, and capital accounts of National
banks, 1968 and 1969
2 Income and expenses of National banks, year ended
December 31, 1969
3 National banks and banking offices, by States,
December 31, 1969
4 Applications for National bank charters, and
charters issued, by States, calendar 1969
5 Applications for National bank charters to be
issued pursuant to corporate reorganizations, and
charters issued, by States, calendar 1969
6 Applications for conversion to National bank
charters, and charters issued, by States, calendar
1969
7 Branches of National banks, calendar 1969




Page
i
4
6
7

8

9
10

Table No.
Title
Page
8 De novo branch applications of National banks, by
States, calendar 1969
11
9 De novo branches of National banks opened for
business, by community size and by size of bank,
calendar 1969
12
10 Mergers, calendar 1969
12
11 Foreign branches of National banks, by region and
country, December 31, 1969
20
12 Office of the Comptroller of the Currency: balance
sheet, 1968 and 1969
25
13 Office of the Comptroller of the Currency: statement of revenue, expenses and Comptroller's
equity, 1968 and 1969
26
14 Office of the Comptroller of the Currency: statement of source and application of funds
26

I. Condition of the National Banking System
The year 1969 was characterized by a continuing intensive demand for funds. With deposit rate ceilings
below rates on competitive instruments, National banks
had to resort to a variety of alternative sources of funds
in an attempt to meet the loan demand of their
customers.
The changes in balance sheet accounts during 1969
reflected the tightness of the markets for funds. In
sharp contrast to 1968, which saw a 13.8 percent increase in total time and savings deposits, those deposits
declined 6.4 percent during 1969. The 4.8 percent increase in demand deposits during 1969 did not quite
offset the decrease in time and savings deposits; the
total deposits of National banks at year-end 1969 stood
at $256.4 billion, compared to the $257.9 billion figure

of a year before.
Certain nondeposit liabilities, including Eurodollar
borrowings, other borrowings, and Federal funds purchased, increased substantially. Funds from these
sources, combined with a sizable net sale of investment
securities, allowed National banks to add 10.9 percent
to their gross volume of outstanding loans. Total gross
securities held declined 8.8 percent during 1969.
The combined effect of the indicated shifts was to
slow the rate of asset growth of National banks from
12.6 percent, in 1968, to 5,9 percent, during 1969. At
year-end, total assets of the National Banking System
had reached $314.0 billion. On the same date, total
capital of the system aggregated $23.3 billion, having
increased 8.0 percent during 1969.

TABLE 1

Assets, liabilities, and capital accounts of National banks, 1968 and 1969

[Dollar amounts in millions]
Dec. 31, 1968,
4,716 banks
Amount

Cash and due from banks

$54, 727

I Percent
i distribution

17.43

Change, 1968-69

Amount

I Percent

3, 774 i

7.41

Federal funds sold and securities purchased under agreements to resell
,
Direct lease financing. . . .
...
Loans
.
Fixed a s s e t s . . . . . . . . . .
Customers' liability on acceptances outstanding
Other assets
,..

17. 18

35, 300

11.90

29, 589

9.42

-5,711 !

5, 160 I
34,704 I
1,707

1.74
11.70
.58

4,640
34, 526
1,362

1.48
10. 99
.43

-520
-178
-345 j

76, 871

Total securities.




Amount

\
j

i $50, 953

U.S. Treasury securities
Securities of other U.S. Government agencies and corporations.
Obligations of States and political subdivisions
Other securities

Total assets

Percent
distribution

Dec. 31, 1969,
4,669 banks

25.92

70, 117

22. 32

-6,754

1 48
.
18
52.21
1 47
.
43
I 13
!

5, 809
696
171,702
5, 280
1,838
3, 879

1. 85
. 22
54! 67
1.68
.59
1.24

1,412
154
16,840
917
563
548

32. 11
28.41
10. 87
21.02
44. 16
16.45

100. 00

17,454

5.88

4,397
542 i
154,862 !
4,363 !
1,275 !
3,331
296,594

100.00

314,048

-16. 18
-10.08
-.51
-20.21
-8.79

TABLE—Continued
Assets, liabilities, and capital accounts of National banks, 1968 and 1969
[Dollar amounts in millions]

Amount

Change, 1968-69

Dec. 31, 1969,
4,669 banks

Dec. 31, 1968,
4,716 banks
Percent
distribution

Amount

Percent
distribution

Amount

Percent

LIABILITIES

Demand deposits of individuals, partnerships, and
corporations
Time and savings deposits of individuals, partnerships,
and corporations
Deposits of U.S. Government
Deposits of States and political subdivisions
Deposits of foreign governments and official institutions,
central banks, and international institutions
Deposits of commercial banks
Certified and officers' checks, etc

$101, 765

34.31

$105, 961

33.74

$4, 196

4.12

Demand deposits
Time and savings deposits

Federal funds purchased and securities sold under agreements to repurchase
Liabilities for borrowed money
Acceptances executed by or for account of reporting
banks and outstanding
Other liabilities
Total liabilities

Minority interest in consolidated subsidiaries

36.32
1. 11
7.44

103, 238
3, 175
19, 569

32.87
1.01
6.23

-4,478
-113
-2,513

3,196
15, 303
4,534

1.08
5. 16
1.53

2, 138
16, 649
5,696

.69
5.30
1.81

-1,058
1,346
1,162

—33. 10
8.80
25.63

257, 884

Total deposits

107, 716
3,288
22, 082

- 4 . 16
-3.44
-11.38

86.95

256, 426

81.65

-1,458

-.57

134,629
123,255

45.39
41.56

141, 092
115,334

44.93
36.72

6,463
-7,921

4.80
-6.43

5,234
689

1.77
.23

9,947
2,284

3. 17
.73

4,713
1,595

90.05
231.49

1,290
9,973

.43
3.36

1,880
16,472

.60
5.24

590
6,499

45.74
65. 17

275, 070

92.74

287, 009

91.39

11,939

4.34

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

3,698
87

1.17
.03

3,698
87

—

1,256
58
5, 694
9,747
4,051
718

.42
.02
1. 92
3.29
1.37
.24

1,120
62
6, 166
10, 488
4,707
711

.36
.02
1.96
3.34
1.50
.23

-136
4
472
741
656
-7

-10.83
6.90
8.28
7.60
16. 19
-.97

21,524

7.26

23, 254

7.40

1,730

8.04

296, 594

100. 00

314,048

100. 00

17, 454

5.88

RESERVES ON LOANS AND SECURITIES

Reserves on loans
Reserves on securities
CAPITAL ACCOUNTS

Capital notes and debentures
Preferred stock
Common stock
Surplus
Undivided profits
Reserves
Total capital accounts
Total liabilities and capital accounts

NOTES: The 1968 data reflect unconsolidated, bank-only data. The 1969 data reflect consolidation of all majority-owned bank premises subsidiaries and all significant domestic majority-owned subsidiaries, with the exception that Edge Act subsidiaries are excluded.
The consolidation requirement necessitates creation of the new acccount "Minority interest in consolidated subsidiaries."
A second change is that the 1968 securities and loans totals are net after deduction of related reserves, while the 1969 totals are
gross. The offsets for the 1969 data are the new headings "Reserves on loans" and "Reserves on securities," found between the
liability and capital accounts.
Data may not add to totals because of rounding. Dashes indicate amounts of less than $500,000.




II. Income and Expenses of National Banks
The total operating income of National banks
reached $18.2 billion in 1969, a gain of 21.5 percent
over 1968. The reported total operating expense of
$14.3 billion for 1969 is not fully comparable with
1968's figure of $11.5 billion, because the later figure
includes a provision for loan losses of $296 million.
Adjusted for that change, total operating expenses in
1969 increased 21.7 percent over the prior year. When
the same adjustment is made in 1969's "income before
income taxes and securities gains or losses" of $3.9 billion, the figure exceeds 1968's "net current operating
earnings" by 20.7 percent.
Gross loan income spurted by 22.2 percent, to $12.5
billion. Loan income accounted for 68.6 percent of
operating income in 1969, compared with 68.2 percent
in 1968. The share of operating revenue accounted

383-814




for by interest on securities fell from 20.3 percent in
1968 to 17.4 percent in 1969, reflecting the relative
shift from securities.
Interest paid on time and savings deposits accounted
for a smaller share of total operating expenses in 1969
than in 1968; the figures were 42.2 percent and 46.1
percent, respectively. The shift from savings deposits
to costlier time deposits resulted, however, in an absolute increase in interest expense of 13.8 percent, despite
the decline in total time and savings deposits.
The 1969 results also reflect a reporting change
which required applicable taxes to be presented on a
current basis. As a result, net income after taxes for
1969 cannot be precisely compared with that of prior
years. The respective totals reported for 1968 and 1969
were $1.9 billion and $2.5 billion.

TABLE 2

Income and expenses of National banks * year ended Dec. 31, 1969
[Dollar amounts in millions]
Amount

Number of banks.
Operating income:
Interest and fees on loans
Income on Federal funds sold and securities purchased under agreements to resell.
Interest and dividends on investments:
U.S. Treasury securities
Securities of other U.S. Government agencies and corporations
Obligations of States and political subdivisions
Other securities
Trust department income
Service charges on deposit accounts
Other service charges, collection and exchange charges, commissions, and fees
Other operating income
Total operating income.

Operating expense:
Salaries and wages of officers and employees
Pensions and other employee benefits
Interest on deposits
Expense of Federal funds purchased and securities sold under agreements to repurchase.
Interest on borrowed money
Interest on capital notes and debentures
Occupancy expense of bank premises, net
Furniture and equipment, depreciation, rental costs, servicing, etc
Provision for loan losses (or actual net loan losses)
Other operating expenses
Total operating expense.

Percent
distribution

4,669
$12,492.6
473.2

68.55
2.60

1,524.7
264.2
1,302.2
81.6
562.4
659. 1
426.8
434.5

8.37
1.45
7. 15
.45
3.09
3.62
2.34
2.38

18, 221. 2

100. 00

3, 402. 6
530.0
6, 036. 2
777. 1
255.8
56.3
618.8
467.4
296.2
1, 865. 6

23.78
3.71
42. 19
5.43
1.79
.39
4.33
3.27
2.07
13.04

14, 306. 0

100. 00

Income before income taxes and securities losses.
Applicable income taxes
Income before securities losses
Net securities losses (after tax effect)
Net income before extraordinary items
Extraordinary charges or credits
Minoritv interest in consolidated subsidiaries

3, 915. 2
1, 259. 1
2, 656. 1
125.7
2, 530. 3
4.0

Net income.

2, 534. 3

Cash dividends declared:
On common stock. . .
On preferred stock. .

1, 063. 7
4.4

Total cash dividends declared.

Ratio to income before income taxes and securities losses:
Applicable income taxes
Net securities losses
Extraordinary charges or credits
Ratio to total operating income:
Salaries and wages
Interest on deposits
All other operating expenses.
Total operating expenses

Net income.

1, 068. 1

32. 16
3.21
. 10
18.67
33. 13
26.71
78.51
13.91

NOTE: The information in this table is not directly comparable to that for 1968, due to a change in report format. Dashes
indicate amounts of less than $500,000.
*Includes all banks operating as National banks at year end, and full year data for those State banks converting to National
banks during the year?




III. Structural Changes in the National Banking
System
There were 4,669 National banks in operation at the
end of 1969, compared to 4/716 a year earlier. Of these,
1,590 banks operated 11,552 branches. The remaining
3,079 banks were unit banks, leading to a total of
16,221 offices of National banks. Total branches of National banks increased by 752, or 7.0 percent, during
1969.
The 752 net new branches in the National Banking
System represented the sum of 579 de novo branches
opened during the year plus 299 branches entering the
system via merger or conversion, less 126 branches
closed during the year. Of the 579 de novo branches,
only 174, or 30.0 percent, were in cities with populations of 50,000 or more. Three hundred twenty-eight,
or 56.6 percent were located in communities having
fewer than 25,000 people.




Thirty-three applications for charters to form new
operating National banks were given preliminary approval, and 16 charters were issued for newly-organized
banks. In addition, 61 charters were issued as steps
toward corporate reorganization, primarily the formation of one-bank holding companies. In 15 cases, charters were issued pursuant to the conversion of State
banks to National banks.
In mergers, consolidations, or purchases involving
two or more operating banks, 80 transactions were
consummated in which the resulting bank was a National bank. This compares with 67 in 1968, and 84 in
1967. In addition, during 1969, there were 59 mergers
carried out pursuant to corporate reorganization and
involving only one operating bank.

TABLE 3

National banks and banking offices, by States, Dec. 31, 1969
National banks
Number of
branches
Total

Unit

offices

With
branches

3,079

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida

88
5
4
68

48
0
2
35
12
118

coo

4,669

CO O

United States

1,590

11,552

16,221

173
47
199

78
2,293
2

261
52
203
146
2,361
122

205
3
64
0

232
8
75
209

30
1
6

155
7
106

215
8
114

44
318
51

462
440
151
199

40
5
2
33
56
2
21
2
10
0

27
5
11
209

44
71
39
27

36
15

44
34

27
135
167

4

17

91

112

47
86
98
197
38
97

District of Columbia—all *

51
61
145

21

South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Virgin Islands

374

80
49

New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina.
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island

30
0

418
122
100
172

.

6
3
1
209

60
1
8

Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana....
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire

Number of

14
21
27
195
7

33
65
71
31
20

239
406
533
6
127
20

1
21
3

1
22
56

286
492
631
203
165
117

23

45

739
100
1,336
518
51
909
255

2

2

215
216

50

77
47
105
1
27

137
33

28
9

109
24

173

72

101

19
9

602
67
1, 163
495
9

142
37

692
37

7
155
5

240
979
88

251
1,294
93

16
9
60
0

222
55
262
0

242

4
14

61
45

71
71

103
27
81
121
40
1

4
24
17
529
6
12
27
11
81
89
40
0

76
16
0
32
0
1

438
414
0
57
0
6

541
441
81
178
40
7

14

1

13

97

111

48

126
4

23
42
217
218

11
315
5
20
33
77
529
10
26

4
33
75
181
4
160
0

49
148
60

95

88
339
529

• Includes National and non-National banks in the District of Columbia, all of which are supervised by the Comptroller of the
Currency.




TABLE 4

Applications for National bank charters,* and charters issued,* by States, calendar 1969
Abandoned

Rejected

Approved

Received]

33

24

2

Alabama
Alaska.. .
Arizona....
Arkansas....
California. . .
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida

1

s

0

0

0

0
0
20

0
0
8

0
0
5

0
0
0
1
0

0
0
0
4
1

0
0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
1

0
0

0

0

0

0
1
1
0
1
0

0
0

0
0
3
0
0
2

OOO-H

0
0
8

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

o

0
0
0
0
0

2
1
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

o
0

0
3
0

0
1
5
2
2
3

0
0
1

0
0

0
0
. . . .

0

0
1

.. . .

0
0

8

0
0

11
0

2
0

1
0

9

1
I

2
0

0
1

3
1
0
0
0

,

..... .

0
0
0
0
0

1
0
0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
1
21
1

0
0
0
7

0
0
0
7
1

0
0
0
1
0

0
0
1
6
0

0

4
3
2
2
0

^Excludes conversions and corporate reorganizations,
flncludes 26 applications pending as of Dec. 31, 1968.




0
0

0
0
1

CO C

0
0

Maryland . . .
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada..
New Hampshire

South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

1
0
0
1
0

0
0
3

O O

..
. . .
.

.

New Jersey....
New Mexico..
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania. .
Rhode Island.

1
0
0
5
1

0

0
0
1
1
2
0

oooo

.

0
0
0
4
0

1

0
0
0
0
0
0

o oooo

1
1
8
0

16

o ooo c

Georgia
Hawaii...
Idaho....
Illinois....
Indiana...
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine

o

45

O OOOCMO

104

Charters
issued

OOOOCMO

United States

Pending
Dec. 31,1969

0
0

0
0

1

0

0
0
0
2

o
0

0

(3

0

o
0

1
0
2
2
0

2
1
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

1
2
0
0
0

0
1
2
1
0

TABLE 5

Applications for National bank charters to be issued pursuant to corporate reorganizations, and charters issued, by States,
calendar 1969
Received*

United States

55

Rejected

Approved

Abandoned

0

54

Pending
Dec. 31,1969
1

61

Charters
issued

Alabama
,
Alaska.
,
Arizona
,
Arkansas
California
,
Colorado
Connecticut
,
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
5
0
1
0
0
0

Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

2
0
0
4
2
2
2
0
0
1

Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

1
3
0
0
0
3
0
1
0
0

New Jersey...
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0

1
0
6
1
0
3
5
0
6
1

South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

2
0
1
5
0
0
3
0
0
0
0

•Includes 13 applications pending as of Dec. 31, 1968J




TABLE 6

Applications for conversion to National bank charters, and charters issued, by States, calendar 1969
Rejected

Approved

Received*

Abandoned

Pending \
Dec. 31, 19691

Charters
issued

15

United States.

22

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California. .
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia.
Florida

1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1

Georgia..,
Hawaii. ..
Idaho
Illinois. . .
Indiana...
Iowa
Kansas. . .
Kentucky.
Louisiana.
Maine.. . .

2
0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

Maryland
Massachusetts. .
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire .

0
0
1
2

0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0

New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina.
North Dakota. .
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania. ..
Rhode Island...

1
0
1
0
0

South Carolina.
South Dakota..
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia. .
Wisconsin
Wyoming

o

0
1

h\
2
0
0
1

1
1

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1

0

* Includes 4 applications pending as of Dec. 31, 1968.




13

0
0
1

0
0
0
0
0
1

0
1

0
0
0
0
0
1

1
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1

3
0

TABLE 7

Branches of National banks, calendar 1969

Branches in
operation
Dec. 31, 1968

De novo
Existing
Branches
branches
branches
acquired
opened for
discontinued
through
Branches
or consolidated
business
in operation
merger or
Jan. 1-Dec. 31,
Jan. 1-Dec. 31, Dec. 31, 1969
conversion
1969
Jan. 1-Dec. 31,
1969
1969

United States.

10,800

579

299

126

11,552

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia.
Florida

165
186
76
2,218
0
191
4
59
0

7
3
14
3
70
2
14
0
2
0

1
3
0
0
12
0
5
0
4
0

0
0
1
1
7
0
5
1
1
0

173
47
199
78
2,293
2
205
3
64
0

Georgia..
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois. ..
Indiana..
Iowa....
Kansas...
Kentucky.
Louisiana.
Maine. . .

147
41
103
25
305
50
27
127
156
87

10
1
5
19
13
3
1
8
12
5

0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0

2
35
2
0
1
2
1
1
1
1

155
7
106
44
318
51
27
135
167
91

Maryland
Massachusetts...
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire.

227
388
511
6
117
20
1
20
55
33

11

17
23
0
8
0
0
3
1
7

1
1

0
0
5
0
3
0
0
1
0
0

239
406
533
6

New Jersey
New Mexico...
New York
North Carolina.
North Dakota..
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania...
Rhode Island. .

518
60
1, 108
••327
9
644
36
236
939
58

46
7
43
35
0
43
1
4
50
2

10
28

1
0
5
4
0
2
0
0
20
0

602
67
1, 163
495
9
692
37
240
979
88

South Carolina.
South Dakota. .
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia..
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Virgin Islands..

214
52
247
0
57
41
423
392
0
48
0
5

10
1

4
2
0
0
1
1
4
5
0
1
0
0

6
0
0
0
0
0
16
1
0
0
0
0

222
55
262
0
61
45
438
414
0
57
0
6

District of Columbia—all*.

41

96

15
0
3
3
27

18
0
8
0
1

4
0
5
0
0
0
0
5
39
0

17
137
0
7
0
0

127
20
1
22
56
45

97

* Includes National and non-National banks in the District of Columbia, all of which are supervised by the Comptroller of
the Currency.
r
Revised.

10



TABLE 8

De novo branch applications of National banks, by States, calendar 1969
Abandoned

Rejected

Approved

Received*

Pending
Dec. 31, 1969

831

200

94

266

18
10
27
5
212
7
21
1
8
0

10
3
22
4
116
4
11
1
3
0

3
1
2
1
49
0
2
0
1
0

1
0
0
0
17
0
1
0
1
0

4
6
3
0
30
3
7
0
3
0

Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine

17
3
8
14
26
5
3
11
13
10

15
3
4
11
18
4
3
9
11
7

0
0
2
1

0
0
0
0

0
0

2
0
2
2
3
0
0
1
2
2

Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire

41
24
74
0
23
2
0
3
6
9

21
17
38
0
13

1

4
1
1
0
2
1
0
0
1
0

14
6
9
0
4
0
0
1
0
1

New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island

208
10
141
77
0
52
5
19
94
5

111
5
62
50
0
42
4
13
68
3

40
0
14
5
0
3
0
2
10
0

39
0
12
3
0
2
0
0
0
0

18
5
53

South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Virgin Islands

16
2
35
0
8
5
60

15
2
25
0
2
4
32
26
0
3
0
1

0
0
4
0
1
0
7
11
0
2
0
0

0
0
2
0
1
0
2
1
0
0
0
0

1
0
4
0
4
1
19
6
0
3
0
0

1

1

United States

1,391

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida

District of Columbia—allf

44
0
8
0
1

1
0
2
5
7

4
1
0
0
0
1
2
0
26
0
4
0
0
0
0

1
0
0

1

19
0
5
1
4
16
2

^Includes 261 applications pending as of Dec: 31, 1968.
f Includes National and non-National banks in the District of Columbia, all of which are supervised by the Comptroller of the
Currency.




11

TABLE 9

De novo branches of National banks opened for business, by community size and by size of bank, calendar 1969
Population of cities
Less than 5,000
5,000 to 24,999
25,000 to 49,999
50,000 to 99,999
100,000 to 249,999
250,000 to 499,999
500,000 to 1,000,000
Over 1,000,000

branches
131
197

77

50
41
26
24
33

Total

Total resources of banks {millions of dollars)

Less than 10.0.
10.0 to 24.9
25.0 to 49.9
50.0 to 99 9
100.0 to 999 9
Over 1,000.0
Total

579

579

TABLE

Mergers,*

10

calendar

1969
Transactions
involving
two or more
operating banks

Applications carried over from 1968
Applications received 1969
Disposition of applications 1969:
Approvedf
Abandoned
Applications pending December 1969
Transactions completed 1969:
Mergers
Consolidations
Purchase of assets

Other, pursuant
to corporate
reorganizations

22
84

12
58

88
4
15

66

58
7
15

57
2
0

80

Total completed

59

3

The aggregate total capital stock and capital accounts for the certificates issued are as follows: %
Charter or
purchasing bank

Capital stock
Capital accounts

$565, 061, 989
1, 961, 390, 191

Merging^ consolidating, or
selling bank

$46, 153, 559
150, 524, 413

Combined

$612, 384, 611
2, 094, 421, 432

*Includes mergers, consolidations and purchase and sale transactions where the resulting bank
is a National bank.
•("Includes 3 applications approved but withdrawn due to litigation.
\Includes only those transactions involving 2 or more operating banks.

12



Branches
60
95
59
67
181
117

IV. Bank Examinations and Related Activities
The National Bank Act requires that each National
bank be examined twice in each calendar year, but
the Comptroller may, at his discretion, waive one such
examination in a 2-year period or may make more frequent examinations if considered necessary. In addition, the District Code authorizes the Comptroller to
examine each non-National bank and trust company
in the District of Columbia.
This year was the most active in the history of the
Comptroller's Office. During the year ending December 31, 1969, the Office examined 6,647 banks, 14,621
branches and facilities, 1,746 trust departments and
branches, and 194 affiliates. Three hundred and eightynine special examinations and visitations were made,
investigations wrere conducted in connection with applications for 63 new charters and 1,021 de novo
branches, and 18 State banks were examined in connection with conversions to National banks.
Commercial examinations are made primarily to
determine if a bank is solvent and operating within
the framework of applicable banking laws. The appraisal of a bank's loans and lending policies, investments and investment policies, and the ability and
capacity of its management constitute the most exacting phases of examination work. The examination
encompasses every phase of banking activity. The result is an evaluation of asset soundness, liquidity, internal and external controls, earnings, capitalization,
and management.
In 1969, new examination procedures were effected
in response to new public lawrs, notably the Bank Protection Act and the "Truth in Lending" Act. Changes
in banking techniques required modifications of the
commercial report of examination. The report of condition, income report, and form of financial statements required by Part 18 of the Comptroller's Regulations, were revised to provide uniform accounting
and reporting to the three bank supervisory agencies
for all banks in the dual banking system. For the first
time in history, call reports, income reports, and financial statements were prepared on a year-end consoli-




dated basis. The commercial report of examination
includes figures of the head office and domestic and
foreign branches. The fully consolidated section includes these figures plus data on domestic and foreign
subsidiaries.
Efforts were continued to improve the quality and
efficiency of examinations, The Office is in process of
preparing programmed instructions for training new
recruits, and monitored on-the-job training is provided
for new assistant examiners. This training and instruction is supplemented by AIB and other appropriate
bank schools. A comprehensive Examiner's Handbook
covering all areas of bank examination and examiner's
conduct was published in 1969 for internal use.
The first advanced school for newly-commissioned
examiners was held in 1969, and added significantly
to our educational program. Well qualified instructors
taught courses covering all facets of commercial bank
examinations, with special emphasis on the analysis
of loans and investment securities. Considerable time
was also devoted to courses on appraisal of asset quality, diversification of risk, liquidity, capital adequacy,
earnings, future prospects and bank management.
An EDP Committee and three subcommittees were
formed in 1969, to write standardized examination
procedures, set minimum standards of output, and
revise our EDP examination report forms. These committees will communicate with banks, Federal supervisory agencies, and the National Association of
Supervisors of State Banks (NASSB) in developing
examination policies and procedures for EDP
facilities.
In 1969, the Comptroller's Office was placed under
an employment ceiling as part of the government's
efforts to hold back Federal employment and expenditures in the war against inflation. This required a reduction of personnel by attrition and curtailment of
employment until a designated level was reached. This
level is substantially below the estimated number of
examiners needed to comply with statutory examination requirements for the 1970-71 examination cycle.

13

V. Litigation
There was a sharp rise during calendar 1969 in the
number of cases filed challenging administrative actions or rulings of the Comptroller. Twenty-four cases
were filed, more than were filed in 1967 and 1968 combined. There were 29 cases pending on January 1,
1969; 14 cases were terminated during the year; and
31 cases were pending at the end of calendar 1969. Of
the 14 cases terminated, in only one was the Comptroller's ruling overturned by the courts. The more significant cases involved the following subjects:

A. Incidental Powers Cases
Three cases brought by competitors of National
banks, alleging that the activities of particular National banks exceeded the authority contained in the
incidental powers clause of the National Bank Act, 12
U.S.C. § 24 (Seventh), were decided by the Courts of
Appeals. The only issue reached in each of these decisions was the standing, or the capacity of the bank's
competitor to maintain the litigation. In two identical
cases, challenging the right of a National bank to offer
data processing services to other banks and bank customers as permitted by the Comptroller, the Courts
of Appeals disagreed on the standing of data processing service bureaus to bring the actions. In A DAP SO
v. Camp, 406 F. 2d 837, the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals ruled that the action could not be maintained;
while, in The Wingate Corp, v. Industrial National
Bank of Rhode Island, 408 F. 2d 1147, the First Circuit Court of Appeals found that data processing service bureaus were permitted to bring such actions because of the Bank Service Corporation Act of 1962.
In the same opinion, however, the First Circuit denied
standing to travel agents who contended, contrary to
the Comptroller's ruling, that National banks lacked
the incidental power to operate a travel agency; but
who could show no Congressional intent in the incidental powers clause, or any other statute, to protect
travel agents from competition. Arnold Tours, Inc. v.
Camp, 408 F. 2d 1147. All three cases were pending
before the Supreme Court at the end of the year, and
14




the ADAPSO case had been argued and was awaiting
decision.

B. Other Banking Powers
1. Collective Investment Funds.
The Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the
authority of a National bank possessing trust powers to
operate a commingled managing agency account.
Camp v. Investment Company Institute, D.C. Cir. No.
21,662. The case involved a common agency fund established by First National City Bank of New York
with the specific approval of the Comptroller, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve Board. Two judges
of the Court expressed "reservation amounting to virtual disbelief" in the standing of the plaintiff mutual
fund industry to bring this action. Chief Judge Bazelon
noted that the commingled managing agency account
was "a descendent of the individual managing agency
account and the common trust fund, fitting within the
traditional authority of banks to manage other people's
money in a fiduciary capacity." All three judges concurred in finding that the approval given by each of
the Federal agencies involved was within its respective
statutory authority. The Investment Company Institute and the National Association of Securities Dealers
each petitioned the Supreme Court for review, but, as
of the end of the calendar year, the Supreme Court
had not determined whether it would hear the case.
2. Acting as Insurance Agent.
The Solicitor General determined not to seek certiorari from the decision
of the Court of Appeals in Camp v. Georgia Association of Independent Insurance Agents, 399 F. 2d 1010
(5th Cir. 1968), and that decision thus became final.
3. Receiving Interest on Credit Card Transactions.
The State of Idaho brought two actions
against the Comptroller and two National banks headquartered in Boise, Idaho. Idaho v. First Security Bank,
N.A. and Camp, Civil No. 1-69-83; Idaho v. The
Idaho First National Bank and Camp, Civil No.
1-69-101. The State contends that each of the Na-

tional banks involved charge, on certain credit card
transactions, an interest rate higher than that which
State banks could charge on similar transactions. The
Comptroller is made a defendant because he has interpreted Section 30 of the National Bank Act, 12
U.S.C. § 85, to permit National banks to charge the
same interest rate as any competing State institution,
e.g., a small loan company, could charge on similar
loans. No proceedings other than the filing of the complaints occurred during 1969.

C. New Banks
1. Cases Brought by Competitors.
Three cases
were filed against the Comptroller's Office by existing
banks who alleged that the Comptroller's chartering of
a new competing National bank was unlawful. In
Oceanside Bank v. Camp, S.D. Fla., Civil No. 69-533,
the complaint alleged that the new bank, because of
its affiliation with existing banks through common
stock ownership, created a monopoly of the greater
Pompano Beach banking market in violation of the
antitrust laws. The action against the Comptroller was
dismissed because the plaintiff competing bank lacked
standing, and because the action constituted an unconsented suit against the United States. The other
two cases, Sterling National Bank of Davie v. Camp,
S.D. Fla., Civil No. 69-654; and Humble State Bank
v. Camp, S.D. Texas, Civil No. 69-H-1209, were
pending at the end of the year on motions by the
Comptroller to dismiss for lack of standing, or, in the
alternative, to grant judgment for the Comptroller
because the record developed by the Comptroller's
Office in processing the applications showed the Comptroller's decision to be rational and lawful.
2. Cases Brought by Applicants.
At the end of
1969, three actions were pending by organizers of proposed National banks challenging the refusal of the
Comptroller to charter applied-for banks. Olsen v.
Camp, E.D. Mich., Civil No. 31804; Klanke v. Camp,
S.D. Texas, Civil No. 69-H-1033; and Pitts v. Camp,
D. S.C., Civil No. 69-979. In the Olsen case the Comptroller asked the court to dismiss the complaint, contending that the National Bank Act gives the Comptroller exclusive and unreviewable discretion to reject
a National bank charter application. The district court
ruled against the Comptroller on that issue, but, at the
end of the year, was considering the Comptroller's motion for reconsideration or, in the alternative, for an
appeal on this issue to the court of appeals. There were
no proceedings, other than the filing of the complaints,
in the other two cases during 1969.




The Comptroller, in his capacity as a director of
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, was also
named a defendant in a suit in Michigan, alleging that
the FDIC had improperly failed to grant insurance to
a newly-chartered State bank. Blackwood v. FDIC,
E.D. Mich., Civil No. 32998. The FDIC approved the
application for insurance after the litigation was filed,
and the suit was dismissed. Of incidental note, a bank
affiliated with the applicants in the Olsen and Blackwood cases brought a similar action against the Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve Board, alleging
that the Board had improperly denied a branch application, and this action was still pending at the end of
the year. State Bank of Michigan v. Board of Governors, W.D. Mich., Civil No. 6053.
These five actions are believed to be the first ever
brought against the Comptroller's Office, the FDIC, or
the Federal Reserve Board by rejected applicants for
new banks or branches.

D. Main Office Relocations
Five cases were pending against the Comptroller at
the end of 1969 involving the Comptroller's approval
of the relocation of a National bank's main office. In
Marion National Bank v. Camp, 7th Cir., Nos. 17078
and 17114, the Court of Appeals held that the Comptroller could not approve simultaneous applications by
a State-chartered bank to convert to a National associtation, to relocate its main office to the county seat, 12
miles away, and to retain a branch at the site of its
former main office. The Court of Appeals opinion apparently did permit the conversion and relocation of
the bank, if the branch application were withdrawn.
A contrary result was reached in The Ramapo Bank
v. Camp, D. N J., No. 18,022, where the court upheld
the Comptroller's approval of a National bank's simultaneous applications to relocate its main office to a
different town, 2.3 miles away, and to retain its former
main office as a branch. The Ramapo case was appealed, and, at year-end, was awaiting decision by the
Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Three other similar
actions were filed in New Jersey in 1969, and were still
pending at year-end.

E. Branches
The Supreme Court, in Camp v. Dickinson, O. T.
1969, No. 34, ruled that an armored car, used by a National bank in Florida to pick up and deliver funds
from customers of the bank, and an off-premises night
15

depository, each constituted a "branch/ 5 as that term
is defined in the National Bank Act, 12 U.S.G. § 36 (f).
The Court rejected the argument advanced by the National Association of Supervisors of State Banks, in an
amicus curiae brief, that State law defined what was
a branch of a National bank, but held that the armored
car and receptacle were branches because "deposits"
were received, within the meaning of 12 U.S.C.
§ 36 (f). The opinion has created some confusion as
to whether similar armored car operations would be
branches in States where armored cars may be operated by State banks.
In First Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. Camp, 409 F.
2d 1086 (4th Cir.), the Court of Appeals upheld the
Comptroller's approval of branches of two National
banks based solely upon court review of the record developed by the Comptroller's Office in processing the
two applications. The Court of Appeals reaffirmed its
earlier determination in First National Bank of Smithfield v. Saxon, 352 F. 2d 267 (4th Cir. 1966), that the
Comptroller need not conduct a formal adversary hearing, but overruled its holding that the Comptroller
need not, in approving a branch of a National bank,
make the same findings, concerning need for the new
branch, that the State Bank Commissioner would have
to make in approving a branch of a State-chartered
bank. The decision in a similar case involving this issue,
Industrial State Bank and Trust Co. v. Camp, 284 F.
Supp. 900 (W.D. Mich., 1967), became moot when
the contested branch application was withdrawn, and
the Court of Appeals directed that the lower court decision be vacated.
In Ohio Bank & Savings Co. v. Tri-County National
Bank, 411 F. 2d 801 (6th Cir.), another branch
approval by the Comptroller was upheld solely upon
review of the record of the proceedings before the
Comptroller. The court held that the Comptroller had
correctly interpreted the Ohio statute to permit the
bank involved to branch in three different counties.
The Comptroller's interpretation of State statutes, similarly, was upheld in Leuthold v. Camp, 405 F. 2d 499
(9th Cir.), and in Oakland National Bank v. Camp,
E.D. Mich., Civil No. 32133. In the Oakland case the
court held that a branch bank might be established
just across the boundary of a city in which the branch
would have been prohibited.
A new branch statute became effective in New Jersey on July 17, 1969, and on that day the Comptroller
approved 48 applications for branches by National
banks in New Jersey, and disapproved 18 such applications. Three of these approvals resulted in lawsuits
by competing or potentially competing banks challeng16



ing the Comptroller's action as arbitrary or otherwise
unlawful. Montclair National Bank & Trust Co. v.
Camp, D. N.J., Civil No. 1004-69; Pompton Valley
Bank v. Camp, D. N.J., Civil No. 1049-69; Springfield
State Bank v. National State Bank of Elizabeth, D.
N.J., No. 846-69. All three cases were still pending,
with no decision, on December 31, 1969.

F. Merger Cases
In 1969, the Comptroller was a party to five merger
cases. Three of these cases were litigated to judgment
and the district court, in each case, upheld the Comptroller and found the merger to be lawful. One of the
other two cases is presently being prepared for trial,
and the last was settled by consent decree.
One of the three cases won in the trial court has been
terminated, with no appeal by the Antitrust Division.
In another, the Justice Department has noticed an
appeal and filed its jurisdictional statement. In the
third, time for appeal has not yet run, and the merger
has been stayed pending decision by the Justice
Department.
On June 27, 1969, U.S. v. The First National Bank
of Jackson, 301 F. Supp. 1161 (S.D. Miss. 1969) was
decided in favor of the Comptroller and the banks.
This was a potential competition case involving the acquisition of a small rural bank by the larger First National Bank of Jackson. In its opinion upholding the
merger, the court found, in essence, that the area of
the acquired bank was overbanked so First National of
Jackson was not a likely potential de novo entrant, and
thus there could be no adverse effect on potential competion. The court further found that the entrance by
merger of the Jackson bank would meet the convenience and needs of the area of the acquired bank and
the State of Mississippi as well, clearly outweighing any
assumed anticompetitive effects. In a judgment entered the same day, the court dissolved and lifted the
automatic injunction and the merger was consummated. The decision was not appealed.
United States v. The First National Bank of
Maryland (Civ. No. 19801 D. Md. 1969) was a second
potential competition case involving a large Baltimorebased bank acquiring a leading bank in a suburban
county. The district court found, among other things,
that it was not economically feasible for the Baltimore
bank to branch de novo into the county, and that such
a branch might subject First National to lawsuits
brought by any of the other three similarly-named
county banks, under a Maryland statute prohibiting

confusion of names, and that the entry of the Baltimore
bank would not raise barriers to the entry of any other
banks. The banks were not potential competitors, and,
therefore, the merger did not have the anticompetitive
effects proscribed by § 7 of the Clayton Act. The court
further found that even assuming the existence of the
anticompetitive effects alleged by plaintiff, such effects
were clearly outweighed by the merger in meeting the
convenience and needs of the community. The banks
have consented to the continuance of the automatic
stay during the 60-day appeal period. The Department of justice has not yet made a decision on an
appeal.
In U.S. v. Phillipsburg National Bank and Trust Co.,
Civil No. 56-68 (N.D. N.J. 1969), the court found
that, even though the merging banks were across the
street from one another, they were so small that the
merger had little, if any, anticompetitive effect. The
court pointed out that the merger would allow for the
hiring of competent management personnel and provide much needed trust services and a higher lending
limit, thus meeting the convenience and needs of the
community, and clearly outweighing any anticompetitive effects. In entering judgment in favor of the
defendants and intervenor, the court limited the automatic injunction to 40 days pending appeal. The
Department of Justice has filed notice of appeal.
On December 26, 1969, a consent judgment, agreed
to by the Department of Justice and the banks, was
entered in U.S. v. Deposit Guaranty National Bank,
S.D. Miss. Civil No. 4311. The judgment allowed the
merger, but required defendant Deposit Guaranty, for
the next 10 years, to obtain permission from the Attor-




ney General before
Mississippi banks.

acquiring

any

additional

G. Miscellaneous Litigation
Protracted litigation brought by the creditors of the
San Francisco National Bank, declared insolvent by
the Comptroller on January 22, 1965, was finally
settled by order of the United States District Court on
January 13, 1969. In another case involving a receivership, the court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review
the Comptroller's finding of insolvency of a National
bank and subsequent appointment of a receiver. State
National Bank of Lovelady v. Kennedy, E.D. Texas,
Civil No. 4999. In a somewhat analogous case, the
courts refused to overturn the Comptroller's appointment of a conservator of a National bank and the
conservator's subsequent sale of the bank's assets. In
the Matter of the Conservatorship of the Wellsville
National Bank, 409 F. 2d 223 (3d Cir.).
The procedures for approving bank mergers were
challenged in two cases brought by dissenting shareholders of the acquired bank. The court, in Cooke v.
Camp, W.D. N. C , Civil No. 1063, dismissed a complaint alleging that the Comptroller had failed to
grant plaintiff a hearing, and had failed properly to
investigate the proposed management of the merged
bank. The courts also rejected, in Rogers v. First
National Bank of St. George, 410 F. 2d 519 (4th Cir.),
a complaint alleging irregularities in the shareholder
vote, certified to the Comptroller as approving the
merger by the necessary majority.

17

VI. Fiduciary Activities of National Banks
During 1969, National bank trust departments continued the significant growth which has been characteristic of recent years, recording increases in both
amounts of assets held, and numbers of accounts administered. Asset holdings became increasingly complex, reflecting, in part, a movement toward more
growth-oriented accounts, in response to customer demand. A number of National banks decided to apply
for permission to open trust departments. During the
year, 52 National banks made application for fiduciary
powers, and 34 were approved. In addition, six State
banks with trust departments converted to National
charters. Taking into account losses through mergers
and consolidations, the number of National banks authorized to exercise fiduciary powers had, by year-end,
risen from 1919 to 1932.
The Trust Division took several steps designed to
keep pace with these trends and to improve the Office's performance of its responsibilities in that area.
The Manual of Instructions for Representatives in
Trusts was revised to update instructions and references, and to incorporate new standards and procedures. This included additional instructions on the
examination of smaller trust departments, which simplify reporting procedures. Revised procedures for the
examination of employee benefit trusts administered
by National banks were also included to permit continued careful scrutiny of these accounts, even though
numbers and asset totals continue to climb. Statistics
will be gathered from these examination figures, and
useful information from them may be published periodically. It is appropriate that this Office should pro-

18




vide leadership in the field of employee benefit trusts
because it supervises trust departments with more such
accounts, holding more assets, than any other banking
agency.
In October, a week-long workshop was conducted in
Washington for the senior trust examiners from each
Region; 34 attended. The primary purpose was to provide instruction in investment analysis, a field where,
because of the appearance of non-rated securities in
investment portfolios, increased capability is desirable.
The implementation of the revised employee benefit
reporting system was also discussed and explained.
There was also an in-depth analysis of current examination problems, and a minimum standard of output
for computerized departments was developed.
During 1969, three persons were promoted to the
position of Representative in Trusts, the highest level
of qualification for trust examiners, and 15 were advanced to the intermediate position of Associate in
Trusts. Plans were made for a school for new assistants, to be held in 1970, in Washington, D.G.
As a result of continued close cooperation with the
Federal Reserve Board and the FDIG, the uniform
trust department annual report, first employed for
1968, was utilized by the agencies for the year 1969,
with only minor modifications. Based on the responses
to the previous report, the agencies jointly published a
booklet, entitled Trust Assets of Insured Commercial
Banks—1968, which provided comprehensive data on
the nature and amounts of trust department holdings.
It is hoped that such publications may, hereafter, be
made regularly.

VII. International Banking and Finance
In contrast to 1967 and 1968, 1969 was a year of
cautious adjustment and consolidation for the world
of international finance. The two major currency
realignments of 1969 did not generate disruption like
that following the devaluation of sterling in 1967.
Both the devaluation of the French franc, by 12.5
percent, effective August 11, and the revaluation of
the Deutsche mark, by 9.29 percent, effective September 29, followed months of consideration and discussion. The world's financial community had come to
regard the changes as inevitable and, as a result, there
was no overreaction, nor was there a rush, by closely
related economies, to follow suit. Perhaps the best
indication of the relative stability of the exchange
markets is that the free market price of gold dipped
below the official price support level of $35 per ounce
in late 1969.
Against this background of international monetary
developments, National banks continued their overseas
expansion. Seventy-four new foreign branches were
opened by 27 different National banks, 21 of which
were branching overseas for the first time. One branch
was converted into a subsidiary. Foreign branches of
National banks now total 428, and account for 93
percent of the total foreign branches of U.S. banks. On
December 31, 1969, the total resources of foreign
branches of National banks were $28.2 billion, compared to $16.0 billion in 1968. Nassau was the site of
great branching activity in 1969. A total of 20 branches
of National banks were in operation at year-end, and
another 10 were pending. London is now the site of
14 branches of National banks, with 4 more pending.
During 1969, American banks continued to utilize
their foreign branches as a source of Eurodollars to
meet loan demands abroad, and to provide temporary
additions to head-office liquidity. At the end of the




year, head office "borrowings" from foreign branches
of National banks totaled $8.5 billion, up from $3.5 billion the year before. This increase occurred despite
restrictive revisions of regulations D and M by the
Federal Reserve Board which made such funds more
expensive. Checks issued by, or on behalf of, foreign
branches against their accounts at their head offices
were included in gross demand deposits when computing reserve requirements, in an attempt to restrict
Eurodollar float. Furthermore, deposits obtained from,
and assets placed with, foreign branches by their
head offices, in excess of their May 1969 level, have
been made subject to reserve requirements.
During the year the number of National banks
operating Edge or agreement subsidiaries increased
from 28 to 32. A total of 41 Edge corporations and
two agreement subsidiaries were maintained. In addition, a number of regional National banks participate
in a jointly-owned Edge Act subsidiary conducting an
international banking business headquartered in New
York City.
U.S. banks have continued to join with their counterparts around the world in establishing development
and medium-term credit banks. However, they demonstrated even greater interest in establishing networks
of "financieras," or personal loan and leasing companies, in given countries,. A major new frontier of
international banking in 1969 was the offshore mutual
fund. A number of applications to invest in management companies have been approved, and various proposed links with funds are pending approval. During
1969, National banks also launched a concerted effort
to penetrate the Australian market through the
medium of merchant banks, finance companies, and
medium-term credit institutions.

19

TABLE

11

Foreign branches of National banks, by region and country, Dec. 31, 1969
Region and country

Number

Central America

41

El Salvador
Guatemala
Honduras
Mexico
Nicaragua
Panama

1
3
3
5
3
26

South America

130

Argentina
Bolivia
Brazil
Chile
Colombia
Ecuador
Guyana
Paraguay
Peru
Uruguay
Venezuela

38
4
15
18
23
9
1
6
8
4
4

Carribean
Antigua
Aruba
Bahamas
Barbados
Curacao
Dominican Republic. .
Jamaica
Trinidad
St. Kitts & Anguilla. .
Virgin Islands (British)
Europe
Austria
Belgium
England
France
Germany
Greece
Ireland
Italy

20



56

1
1
24
3
1
11
3
6
3
3
80

21
9
14
8
2
3

Region and country

Number

Europe—Continued
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Northern Ireland.
Switzerland
Africa.
Liberia.
Nigeria.
Near East. . .
Lebanon
Saudi Arabia..
Trucial States.
Far East.
Hong Kong.
India
Indonesia...
Japan
Korea
Malaysia. . .
Pakistan
Philippines..
Singapore. .
Taiwan. . . .
Thailand. ..
Viet-Nam. .
U.S. overseas areas and trust territories.
Canal Zone
Guam
Marshall Islands
Okinawa
Puerto Rico
Truk Islands
Virgin Islands
Total.
Military banking facilities.

3
2
1
73

13
11
6
12
3
5
4
4
9
2
2
2
40

2
3
1
2
18
1
13
428
31

V I I I . Administrative and Management
Developments
During 1969, the Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency continued to refine administrative operations and procedures. The five divisions under the
Administrative Assistant to the Comptroller worked
together to achieve a sound administrative program
for the Office.
The Fiscal Management Division has attempted to
provide the Office with a comprehensive and timely
financial management information system. By the beginning of 1969, such a program was operational. That
program has sought out areas of inefficient operation
in order to produce an effective and sound financial
management system.
The year 1969 saw the conversion from manual to
machine accounting. This was accomplished with a
minimum of difficulty, and the rest of the year was
spent refining machine programs and operations to
obtain output as efficiently as possible. The format of
reports has been revised and expanded to improve the
quality of financial and budget data. Further refinements of the means of collecting and processing data
were under way at the end of 1969 and are to be completed in 1970.
Several subsidiary programs in the mechanization
of accounting operations were completed. The most
significant of those was the inventory of capitalized
nonexpendable property. Results of a complete physical
inventory were reconciled with existing manual files;
machine listings, showing information such as property
number, description, initial cost, depreciation, etc.,
were obtained. These accounting controls, along with
improved property management procedures, are intended to simplify property management.
One of the Fiscal Management Division's most
important responsibilities is employee travel. This involves a continuous review of ti~ave! policies and regulations as well as payment of employee travel expense
claims. Evaluation and refinement of the previous
year's new travel regulations was the major concern in
1969, although some basic policy changes were
instituted.




The Fiscal Management Division continued its
intensive review and analysis of cash forecasting and
cash flow in order to maximize investment income.
This program, in conjunction with unusually high
interest rates, has produced not only the highest dollar
investment income in the history of the Comptroller's
Office, but also the greatest percentage increase in any
one year.
Since its inception, the Fiscal Management Division
has absorbed three statutory pay increases and has
reduced salary costs by approximately $60,000 by reducing its work force by nine employees through
attrition.
The year 1969 was the first full year of a computerized payroll operation. That program, a joint effort of
Fiscal Management, Management Services, and Personnel Division, was nationwide. The initial conversion required complex coordination, yet there were
only minimal problems, and the entire operation began
on schedule. That conversion has proven extremely
beneficial to the Comptroller's Office. In addition to
cost and manpower savings, the system provides management and supervisors with additional useful
information.
The Personnel Division continued to explore new
programs to provide for a more progressive personnel
management program. A merit promotion program
was established for non-examining personnel to insure
that employees were made aware of promotion opportunities, and that selections were made from among
the best qualified.
The Trainee Progress Report for Assistant National
Bank Examiners was revised and the procedures
streamlined. All essential information for quarterly
reporting and for the 6-month progress report is now
recorded on a single form and submitted to Washington for easier processing, evaluation, and storage.
A cooperative work-study program, launched early
in 1969, sought to train and develop college calibre
individuals for future professional positions with the
Office. The program was designed to employ junior

21

and senior college students on an alternating work and
study schedule. By the end of the year the Office had
30 financial interns.
A review of administrative organization and positions was completed, resulting in new functional and
organizational charts. Descriptions were developed for
most positions, duties clarified, and surplus positions
and workload needs identified. The documentation of
positions also served to identify pay inequities, and provided a more meaningful basis for recruitment, promotions, and performance requirements. A study of
clerical positions in two regions was initiated to identify those functions and positions common to all
regions. The objective is to document the duties and
responsibilities of standard positions and to develop
appropriate grade patterns and career ladders.
Fact finding was completed and recommendations
were made to provide a formal pay policy for all
positions. Those recommendations have been made to
provide a systematic approach to determine grade
levels for all positions while retaining the flexibility to
meet any management needs peculiar to the Office of
the Comptroller of the Currency.
Fact finding was completed on a study of Bank
Examiner positions in one region. In conjunction with
the Regional Administrator, a proposed regional
staffing pattern was developed to determine grade pattern and manpower requirements based on workload.
The implementation of that proposal will result in a
more equitable pay system for Bank Examiners, and
produce more effective manpower utilization. One
aspect of that study was to explore the concept of the
Examiner-in-Charge in large examinations, to determine if sufficient emphasis is given to the "managerial"
function.
A supervisory handbook, outlining supervisors' basic
responsibilities in personnel and other administrative
functions, was drafted in 1969. It emphasized the objectives, principles, and guidelines to be followed in
day-to-day dealings with employees. The handbook
supplements a basic training course for supervisors
currently being developed.

22



In 1969, space management continued to be a prime
activity of the Administrative Services Division. Four
regional offices were relocated and commitments were
made to move another three, thus completing a major
relocation program initiated in 1964. Four new subregional offices were established and several others
were relocated. Renovation and space reassignment in
our Washington offices resulted in a more efficient
utilization of space, facilities, and personnel.
The reorganization of the Administrative Services
Division, begun in 1968, has been completed. New
positions in the area of supply and property management have been established and filled by qualified
personnel, thus increasing efficiency. A program of
firm internal operating procedures and publication of
directives implementing those procedures began in
1969. The program of records management and disposal progressed satisfactorily during 1969.
During 1969, the Internal Audit Division expanded
its area of inquiry into financial matters, organizational
entities, and operations. Professional accountants were
recruited to alleviate the need for highly qualified personnel. The audit staff was individually scheduled for
senior and semi-senior audit training classes presented
by the Interagency Auditor Training Center.
In 1969, the Management Services Division
broadened its scope of activities to include visitations
to regional offices for purposes of analyzing and improving administrative procedures in the field. During
those field visits, attempts were made to assess regional
needs as they relate to the Washington office, and to
set goals that ultimately will improve operations
nationwide.
In automation, computer programmers were selected
to provide greater support services to other elements of
the Office. Certain manual operations, including
selected call report items, foreign branch records,
assessment returns, audit, and other economic and
statistical reports, were computerized. At year-end,
automation of other major projects was under
consideration.

I X . Financial Operations of the Office
of the Comptroller of the Currency
Financial operations during calendar 1969 resulted
in the further strengthening of the financial stability
of this Office. Total income amounted to $32.6 million,
a new high and an increase of 23.5 percent over 1968.
This growth in income was largely due to the $33.2
billion rise in assets of the National Banking System
and the increase in the semi-annual assessment rate
which became effective with the June 1969 call report.
Assessment income totaled $27.9 million, which
amounts to an advance of $5.2 million over the previous year.
Another income item showing substantial improvement over 1968 was interest on investments, which advanced to $1,375,000, an increase of 34.2 percent for
the year. The increment in investment income came as
a result of continued close scrutiny of cash requirements and, of course, the unusually high interest rates
experienced during the year. Investment income contributed more than a third of the $3.8 million net income for 1969.
Income from trust examinations showed an increase
of $352,000 as a result of a greater number of examinations during the year, coupled with higher fees, effective July 1969, to cover advancing costs. Branch
investigation income was up by $179,000, owing to a
25 percent increase in branch applications and the
establishment of a fixed fee, at midyear, for each
application received.
Income from charter and merger and consolidation
fees was another major source of income and amounted
to $447,000. Applications for new bank charters
showed a small increase over the previous year. Income

24




derived from special examinations continued to contribute to income growth. For the most part, all other
income categories revealed modest gains for the year.
Expenses for the Office aggregated $28.8 million, a
16.9 percent increase over the $24.6 million in 1968,
but a lower rate than the increase in income. This
represents a reversal over the past 2 years, during
which expenses increased at a higher rate than did
income.
Salaries, personnel benefits, and travel expenses
amounted to $27.0 million, which was 94 percent of
the total expenses for the year. These expenses accounted for 93 percent of the increase in operating
costs for the year. Contributing factors to this rise
were: (1) a full year under the pay increase granted
in 1968 and 6 months under the final increment of the
Postal Revenue and Federal Salary Act of 1967, which
averaged 10 percent for this Office; (2) a 3.6 percent
rise in the total number of employees; and, (3) an
upward adjustment of per diem and other travel allowances to adequately compensate employees for substantially higher costs of traveling.
The remaining expenses totaled $1.8 million, an increase of $285,000, consisting mainly of higher office
rental costs, renovation and relocation of some regional
offices, and increased printing requirements.
This equity account is in reality a reserve for contingencies. At $17.3 million, the equity represents a 6%
month's reserve for operating expenses, based on the
level of expenses over the last 6 months of 1969. Net
income in 1969 amounted to $3.8 million.

OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY
Chart of Organization

Comptroller
of t h e
Currency

National Advisory
Committee on
Banking Policies
and Practices

Deputy
Comptroller
(Economics)

Administrative
Assistant to the
Comptroller

First Deputy
Comptroller

-

Special
Assistant
ICengressional
Affairs)

Law
Department

Director
Management
Services
Division

Special
Assistant
(Public Affairs]

Dept. of
Banking &
Economic
Research

Statistical
Division

I ADVISORS 1




Deputy
Administrative Asst.
(Fiscal Management)

Director
Administrative
Services
Division

Deputy
Comptroller
[FDIC Affairs)

Deputy
Administrative Asst.
(Personnel)

•ADMINISTRATIVEI

TABLE

12

OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY
BALANCE SHEET
December 31
Assets
Current assets:
Cash
Obligations of U.S. Government at cost (approximate market value)
Accounts receivable
Accrued interest
Travel advances
Prepaid expenses and other assets

1969

1968

$196,540
8, 419, 153
77, 015
321, 764
375, 598
53, 494

$68, 784
5, 036, 543
43, 499
215, 758
342, 261
31, 342

9, 443, 564

5, 738, 187

13, 115, 282

12, 388, 124

779, 966
389, 679
1, 169,645

721, 106
374, 314
1,095,420

481, 757

397, 648

687, 888

697, 772

23, 246, 734

18, 824, 083

Current liabilities:
Accounts payable
Salary deductions and withholdings
Accrued travel and salary

201,387
78, 139
1, 393, 328

106,073
80, 928
1, 143, 142

Total current liabilities
Accumulated annual leave.
Closed receivership funds

1, 672, 854
1, 577, 011
2, 708, 387

1, 330, 143
1, 358, 428
2, 708, 266

5, 958, 252
17, 288, 482

5, 396, 837
13, 427, 246

23, 246, 734

18, 824, 083

Total current assets
Obligations of U.S. Government, at cost (approximate market value $11,976,000 and $11,691,000).
Fixed assets, at cost:
Furniture and
Office machinery and equipment

fixtures

Less accumulated depreciation

Total assets

..
Liabilities and Comptroller's Equity

Total liabilities
Comptroller's equity
Total liabilities and Comptroller's equity..




25

TABLE

13

OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY
STATEMENT OF REVENUE, EXPENSES
AND COMPTROLLER'S EQUITY
Year ended December 31
1969
Revenue:
Semi-annual assessments
Examinations and investigations
Examination reports sold
Revenues from investments
Other

1968

$27, 939, 249
2, 525, 087
497, 560
1, 374, 760
288, 224

$22, 702,406
1, 922, 967
511,860
1, 024, 660
259, 173

32, 624, 880

26,421,066

21, 133, 705
1, 568, 850
2, 838, 279
1, 470, 600
366, 699
69, 551
333, 246
115,328
94, 375
90, 246
306, 600
123, 334
135,007
117,824

18, 046, 635
1, 357, 766
2, 373, 267
1, 361, 706
300, 057
68, 214
262,317
100, 899
27, 634
102, 436
235, 565
77, 182
181,978
110,487

28, 763, 644

24, 606, 143

Excess revenue over expenses
Comptroller's equity at beginning of year

3, 861, 236
13,427,246

1, 814, 923
11,612,323

Comptroller's equity at end of year

17,288,482

13,427,246

Expenses:
Salary
Retirement and other contributions
Per diem
Travel
Rent and maintenance
Supplies
Printing, reproduction and subscriptions.
Depreciation
Remodeling
Office machine repairs and rentals
,
Communications
Moving and shipping
Employees education and training
Other

TABLE

14

OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY
STATEMENT OF SOURCE AND APPLICATION OF FUNDS
Year ended December 31
1969
Funds were provided by:
Excess revenue over expenses
Add charges not requiring current outlay of funds:
Depreciation
Net increase in accumulated annual leave
Net loss on pales of fixed assets
Net decrease in investment in long term U.S. Government obligations
Net receipts of closed receivership funds
Total funds provided
Funds were applied to:
Net increase in investment in long term U.S: Government obligations
Purchases of furniture and
fixtures
Purchases of machinery and equipment
Total funds applied
Excess of funds provided over funds applied, representing an increase in working capital

26



1968

$3, 861, 236

$1, 814, 923

115,328
218, 583
12, 679
121

100,899
132, 800
3, 765
1, 771, 609
3, 739

4, 207, 947

3, 827, 735

727, 159
92,483
25, 639

68, 834
66, 592

845, 281

135,426

3, 362, 666

3, 692, 309

OPINION OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT
To the Comptroller of the Currency
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
In our opinion, the accompanying balance sheet, the related statement of revenue, expenses and Comptroller's equity and the statement of source and application
of funds present fairly the financial position of the Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency at December 31, 1969 and the results of its operations and the supplementary information on funds for the year then ended, in conformity with generally
accepted accounting principles applied on a basis consistent with that of the preceding year. Our examination of these statements was made in accordance with
generally accepted auditing standards and accordingly included such tests of the
accounting records and such other auditing procedures as we considered necessary
in the circumstances.
PRICE WATERHOUSE & CO.
WASHINGTON,,

D.C.

February 20, 1970

383-814




27




APPENDIX A

Merger Decisions, 1969

Merger* Decisions, 1969
/.

Mergers consummated, involving two or more operating banks*

Jan. 6, 1969:
The First and Farmers National Bank of Somerset,
Somerset, Ky.
Peoples Bank, Science Hill, Ky.
Purchase.
Jan. 10, 1969:
Somerset Hills National Bank, Basking Ridge, N.J.
County Bank and Trust Company of Somerset,
Franklin Township, N.J.
Merger

Page

37

38

Jan. 17, 1969:
Cumberland County National Bank and Trust
Company, New Cumberland, Pa.
Peoples Bank of Enola, Enola, Pa.
Merger

40

Feb. 1, 1969:
The Citizens and Southern National Bank of South
Carolina, Charleston, S.G.
The Peoples National Bank of Conway, Conway,
S.C.
Merger

41

Feb. 5, 1969:
Lakewood Colorado National Bank, Lakewood,
Colo.
The Rocky Mountain Bank, Lakewood, Colo.
Purchase
Feb. 21, 1969:
The First National Bank and Trust Company of
Crawfordsville, Crawfordsville, Ind.
The Farmers State Bank, New Market, Ind.
Purchase
Feb. 24, 1969:
The Citizens and Southern National Bank of South
Carolina, Charleston, S.C.
The Merchants and Planters National Bank of
Gaffney, Gaffney, S.C.
Merger
Feb. 28, 1969:
Royal National Bank of New York, New York,
N.Y.
United Bank and Trust Company, New York,
N.Y.
Merger
Feb. 28,1969:
The First National Bank of Erie, Erie, Pa.
First National Bank of Meadville, Meadville, Pa.
Consolidation
Mar. 1, 1969:
National Valley Bank and Trust Company, Chambersburg, Pa.
The Farmers Bank of Mercersburg, Mercersburg,
Pa.
Merger

43

43

44

46

47

49

*Includes mergers, consolidations, and purchase and sale
transactions where the emerging bank is a National bank.
Decisions are arranged chronologically by effective date.

30



Mar. 10, 1969:
First National Bank and Trust Company, Ontario,
Calif.
Inland Valley Bank, Hemet, Calif.
Merger
Mar. 13, 1969:
Southern California First National Bank, San Diego,
Calif.
Orange County Bank, San Juan Capistrano, Calif.
Purchase
Mar. 17, 1969:
The Hazleton National Bank, Hazleton, Pa.
The First National Bank of Nuremberg, Nuremberg,
Pa.
Merger
Mar. 31, 1969:
Peoples First National Bank and Trust Company,
Hazleton, Pa.
The Bank of Lehighton, Lehighton, Pa.
Merger
Mar. 31, 1969:
The First National Bank of Newark, Newark, Ohio
The First National Bank of Utica, Utica, Ohio
Merger
Mar. 31, 1969:
The Southern Michigan National Bank of Coldwater, Coldwater, Mich.
The First State Bank of Tekonsha, Tekonsha, Mich.
Merger
Apr. 1, 1969:
Alaska National Bank of Fairbanks, Fairbanks,
Alaska
Miners and Merchants Bank of Alaska, Nome,
Alaska
Merger
Apr. 1, 1969:
The Manufacturers National Bank of Chicago, Chicago, 111.
National City Bank in Chicago, Chicago, 111.
Purchase
Apr. 24, 1969:
Clinton National Bank and Trust Company, St.
Johns, Mich.
The Union State Bank of Laingsburg, Laingsburg,
Mich;
Merger
Apr. 30, 1969:
First Citizens National Bank, Tupelo, Miss.
First Citizens National Bank, Belmont, Miss.
Purchase
Apr. 30, 1969:
Massanutten Bank of Shenandoah Valley, N.A.,
Strasburg, Va.
People's Bank, Mount Jackson, Va.
Merger
May 5, 1969:
First National Bank in Orangeburg, Orangeburg,
S.C.
First National Bank of St. George, St. George, S.C.
Merger

page

51

52

53

54

56

57

58

60

61

63

64

65

May 15, 1969:
The Old Line National Bank, Rockville, Md.
University National Bank, College Park, Md.
Merger
May 19, 1969:
Community National Bank, Bakersfield, Calif.
Community National Bank of Fresno County, Mendot a, Calif.
Merger

Page
66

67

May 23, 1969:
Farmers and Merchants National Bank, Winchester,
Va.
The Citizens National Bank of Front Royal, Front
Royal, Va.
Merger

68

May 27, 1969:
Southern National Bank of North Carolina, Lumberton, N.C.
Bank of Varina, Fuquay-Varina, N.C.
Merger

69

May 29, 1969:
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., San Francisco, Calif.
Channel Islands State Bank, Ventura, Calif.
Merger
June 14, 1969:
The Clinton County National Bank and Trust
Company of Wilmington, Wilmington, Ohio
The First National Bank of Sabina, Sabina, Ohio
Purchase
June 16, 1969:
Commonwealth National Bank, San Francisco,
Calif.
Lincoln National Bank, Santa Rosa, Calif.
Merger
June 27, 1969:
First National Bank of Jackson, Jackson, Miss.
The Bank of Greenwood, Greenwood, Miss.
Merger
June 30, 1969:
The First National Bank of Quincy, Quincy, Mich.
Peoples State Bank of Bronson, Bronson, Mich.
Merger
June 30, 1969:
The Fulton National Bank of Lancaster, Lancaster,
Pa.
Keystone Trust Company, Harrisburg, Pa.
Merger
July 31, 1969:
Adams County National Bank, Cumberland Township, Pa.
The First National Bank of York Springs, York
Springs, Pa.
Merger
July 31, 1969:
The First National Bank of Scottsboro, Scottsboro,
Ala.
The American National Bank of Bridgeport,
Bridgeport, Ala.
Merger
July 31, 1969:
United National Bank of Vermillion, Vermillion,
S. Dak.
United National Bank of Brandon, Brandon, S. Dak.
Lyman County Bank. Kennebec, S. Dak.
Merger
Aug. 8, 1969:
The Indian Head National Bank of Nashua, Nashua,
N.H.
The Salem Trust Company, Salem, N.H.
Merger
........'.




Aug. 15, 1969:
The Laconia National Bank, Laconia, N.H.
The Peoples National Bank of Laconia, Laconia,
N.H.
Merger
Aug. 15, 1969:
Virginia National Bank, Norfolk, Va.
Commonwealth National Bank of
Arlington, Va.
Merger

Page

83

Arlington,
85

Aug. 18, 1969:
The National State Bank, Elizabeth, N.J.
First Bank and Trust Company, N.A., Fords, N.J.
Consolidation

71

86

Aug. 29, 1969:
First National Bank of Eastern North Carolina,
Jacksonville, N.C.
Home Bank and Trust Company, Hendersonville,
N.C.
Merger

87

Aug. 29, 1969:
First National Bank of Hattiesburg, Hattiesburg,
Miss.
First National Bank of Biloxi, Biloxi, Miss.
Merger

88

Sept. 6, 1969:
Colonial National Bank, Haddonfield, N.J.
The First National Bank of Westville, Westville,
72

N.J.
Merger

74

75

75

76

Sept. 8, 1969:
First National Bank & Trust Co., Washington, Pa.
First National Bank, Charleroi, Pa.
Merger
Sept. 9, 1969:
The Merchants National Bank of Burlington,
Burlington, Vt.
First National Bank of Bristol, Bristol, Vt.
Merger
Sept. 12, 1969:
Union National Bank in Kansas City, Kansas
City, Mo.
The Columbia National Bank of Kansas City,
Kansas City, Mo.
Consolidation

90

91

93

94

Sept. 15, 1969:
First National State Bank of New Jersey, Newark,

N.J.
Suburban Bank of Livingston, N.A., Livingston,

N.J.
78

80

81

82

Purchase
Sept. 15, 1969:
First Union National Bank of North Carolina,
Charlotte, N.C.
The Peoples Bank, Roxboro, N.C.
The Bank of Franklin, Franklin, N.C.
Merger
Sept. 22, 1969:
North Carolina National Bank, Charlotte, N.C.
State Bank & Trust Company, Greenville, N.C.
Merger
Sept. 30, 1969:
The New Carlisle National Bank, New Carlisle,
Ohio
The Guardian Bank, Springfield, Ohio
Merger

96

101

Oct. 18, 1969:
Pittsburgh National Bank, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Mount Pleasant State Bank, Mount Pleasant, Pa.
Purchase

103

97

99

31

Oct. 31, 1969:
Page
The First National Bank of Monroe, Monroe,
Mich.
Peoples State Bank of Maybee, Maybee, Mich.
Merger
104
Nov. 14, 1969:
Crocker-Citizens National Bank, San Francisco,
Calif.
Coast National Bank in Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg,
Calif.
Merger
106
Nov. 14, 1969:
National Newark & Essex Bank, Newark, N.J.
Washington Trust Company, Washington, N.J.
Merger
107
Nov. 14, 1969:
Peoples National Bank of New Jersey, Westmont,

N.J.
The Farmers and Mechanics National Bank of
Woodbury, Wood bury, N.J.
Merger
Nov. 15, 1969:
First National Bank of Orrville-Dalton, Orrville,
Ohio
Bank of Mount Eaton, Mount Eaton, Ohio
Merger
Nov. 21, 1969:
Monroe County Bank, Sparta, Wis.
The Farmers National Bank of Sparta, Sparta,
Wis.
Merger
Nov. 28, 1969:
First Trenton National Bank, Trenton, N.J.
The Lambertville National Bank, Lambertville,

108

110

112

N.J.
Merger
Nov. 28, 1969:
The National Bank of Commerce of Seattle, Seattle,
Wash.
State Bank of Wilbur, Wrilbur, Wash.
Purchase
Nov. 28, 1969:
The Second National Bank of Nashua, Nashua, N.H.
The Mechanicks National Bank of Concord, N.H.
The Manchester National Bank, Manchester, N.H.
Merger
Nov. 28, 1969:
Security National Bank, Huntington, N.Y.
The Oceanside National Bank, Oceanside, N.Y.
Merger
Nov. 28, 1969:
South Jersey National Bank, Camden, N.J.
The Millville National Bank, Millville, N.J.
Merger
Nov. 29, 1969:
Seattle-First National Bank, Seattle, Wash.
Bank of Tacoma, Tacoma, Wash.
Purchase
Dec. 12, 1969:
Hartford National Bank and Trust Company,
Hartford, Conn.
Lincoln Bank and Trust Company, Stamford, Conn.
Merger
Dec. 19, 1969:
Virginia National Bank, Norfolk, Va.
The First National Bank of Quantico, Quantico, Va.
Merger
Dec. 26, 1969:
The First Jersey National Bank, Jersey City, N.J.
Bank of Commerce, Newark, N.J.
Merger
Dec. 29, 1969:
United States National Bank, San Diego, Calif.
Bank of Santa Ana, Santa Ana, Calif.
Merger

32



113

115

117

119

120

122

124

126

127

130

Dec. 30, 1969:
Old National Bank of Washington, Spokane, Wash.
Kennewick National Bank, Kennewick, Wash.
Purchase
Dec. 30, 1969:
Zions First National Bank, Salt Lake City, Utah
Utah National Bank of Provo, Provo, Utah
Purchase
Dec. 31, 1969:
Bellefontaine National Bank, Bellefontaine, Ohio
The Farmers Banking Company, West Liberty,
Ohio
Merger

Page
132

133

135

Dec. 31, 1969:
Deposit Guaranty National Bank, Jackson, Miss.
City Bank & Trust Company, Natchez, Miss.
Merger

136

Dec. 31, 1969:
First National Bank of South Jersey, Egg Harbor
Township, N.J.
The Salem National Bank & Trust Company,
Salem, N.J.
Consolidation

137

Dec. 31, 1969:
Marine Midland National Bank of Southeastern
New York, Poughkeepsie, N.Y.
Marine Midland Trust Company of Rockland
County, Nyack, N.Y.
Merger

139

Dec. 31, 1969:
The Citizens National Bank and Trust Company,
Wellsville, N.Y.
Olean Trust Company, Olean, N.Y.
Consolidation

139

Dec. 31, 1969:
The First National Bank of Anchorage, Anchorage,
Alaska
The First Bank of Valdez, Valdez, Alaska
Purchase
Dec. 31, 1969:
The First National Bank of Oakland, Oakland, Md.
The Citizens National Bank of Westernport,
Western port, Md.
The First National Bank of Barton, Barton, Md.
Merger
Dec. 31, 1969:
The First National Bank of Riceville, Riceville,
Iowa
Riceville State Bank, Riceville, Iowa
Purchase
Dec. 31, 1969:
The Harrisburg National Bank and Trust Company, Harrisburg, Pa.
The Conestoga National Bank, Lancaster, Pa.
The First National Bank of York, York, Pa.
Consolidation
Dec. 31, 1969:
The Millikin National Bank of Decatur, Decatur,
111.
The Millikin Trust Company, Decatur, 111.
Merger
Dec. 31, 1969:
The National Bank of Logansport, Logansport, Ind.
The Twelve Mile State Bank, Twelve Mile, Ind.
Merger
Dec. 31, 1969:
The Union National Bank of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Peoples Union Bank and Trust Company, N.A.,
McKeesport, Pa.
Consolidation

141

141

143

144

150

151

153

//. Mergers consummated pursuant to corporate reorganization, involving a single operating bank*
Jan. 17, 1969:
The First National Bank of Memphis, Memphis,
Tenn.
The Second National Bank of Memphis, Memphis,
Tenn.
Merger
,.
Feb, 26, 1969:
First & Merchants National Bank, Richmond, Va.
Main Street National Bank, Richmond, Va.
Merger
Feb. 28, 1969:
Southern California First National Bank. San
Diego, Calif.
First National Bank of San Diego, San Diego, Calif.
Merger
Feb. 28, 1969:
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., San Francisco, Calif.
WF National Bank, San Francisco, Calif.
Merger
Mar. 14, 1969:
First National Bank of Eastern North Carolina,
Jacksonville, N.C.
Financial National Bank, Jacksonville, N.C.
Merger
Mar. 21, 1969:
Worcester County National Bank,Worcester, Mass.
County Bank of Worcester, N.A., Worcester, Mass.
Merger
Mar. 24, 1969:
National Bank of Commerce Trust and Savings
Association, Lincoln, Nebr.
Capital City National Bank, Lincoln, Nebr.
Merger
Mar. 27, 1969:
Houston National Bank, Houston, Tex.
Milam National Bank, Houston, Tex.
Merger
.
Mar. 31, 1969:
American National Bank and Trust Company of
Chicago, Chicago, 111.
American National Bank of Chicago, Chicago, 111.
Merger
Mar. 31, 1969:
Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust
Company of Chicago, Chicago, 111.
Continental National Bank, Chicago, 111.
Consolidation
Mar. 31, 1969:
National Bank of Tulsa, Tulsa, Okla.
Union Security National Bank of Tulsa, Tulsa,
Okla.
Merger
Mar. 31, 1969:
Southern National Bank of Houston, Houston,
Tex.
Southern Bank, N.A:, Houston, Tex.
Merger
Mar. 31, 1969:
Western Pennsylvania National Bank, Pittsburgh,
Pa.
William Penn National Bank, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Merger
Apr. 1, 1969:
Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association, San Francisco, Calif.
B.A. National Bank, San Francisco, Calif.
Merger

Page

157

Page

167

Apr. 8, 1969:
The First National Bank of Atlanta, Atlanta, Ga.
Atlanta National Bank, Atlanta, Ga.
Merger

167

Apr. 21, 1969:
Crocker-Citizens National Bank, San Francisco,
Calif.
Crocker Bank, N.A., San Francisco, Calif.
Merger

168

159

Apr. 30, 1969:
Hartford National Bank and Trust Company,
Hartford, Conn.
Pearl Street National Bank, Hartford, Conn.
Merger

169

160

Apr. 30, 1969:
Maryland National Bank, Baltimore, Md.
Bay National Bank, Baltimore, Md.
Merger

169

Apr. 30, 1969:
National Bank and Trust Company, Charlottesville, Va.
NB National Bank, Charlottesville, Va.
Merger

170

Apr. 30, 1969:
Pittsburgh National Bank, Pittsburgh, Pa.
New National Bank, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Merger

170

May 1, 1969:
The Fulton National Bank of Atlanta, Atlanta, Ga.
The Bank of the South N.A., Atlanta, Ga.
Merger

171

May 1, 1969:
The Johnson County National Bank and Trust
Company, Prairie Village, Kans.
Johnson County Bank, N.A.., Prairie Village, Kans.
Merger
\

172

May 12, 1969:
The Indiana National Bank of Indianapolis,
Indianapolis, Ind.
Tower National Bank, Indianapolis, Ind.
Merger

172

May 29, 1969:
Rhode Island Hospital Trust Company, Providence, R.I.
Rhode Island Hospital Trust National Bank,
Providence, R.I.
Merger

173

May 29, 1969:
The First Jersey National Bank, Jersey City, N.J.
Second Jersey National Bank, Jersey City, N.J.
Merger

174

May 31, 1969:
Commonwealth National Bank, Boston, Mass.
Commonwealth Bank, N.A., Boston, Mass.
Merger

174

May 31, 1969:
Newport National Bank, Newport Beach, Calif.
Newport Bank, N.A., Newport Beach, Calif.
Merger

175

158

159

161

161

162

163

163

164

165

165

166

•Includes mergers and consolidations where the emerging
bank is a National bank.




Apr. 7, 1969:
The Mechanics National Bank of Worcester, Worcester, Mass.
Mechanics National Bank, Worcester, Mass.
Merger

33

June 2, 1969:
Canal National Bank, Portland, Maine
Middle Street National Bank, Portland, Maine
Merger
June 2, 1969:
The American National Bank of Austin, Austin,
Tex.
Ambank, N.A., Austin, Tex.
Merger
June 4, 1969:
The Chase Manhattan Bank, (N.A. ),New York, N.Y.
The Chase Bank of New York, N.A., New York,
N.Y.
Merger
June 17, 1969:
Lincoln National Bank, Philadelphia, Pa.
Locust Street National Bank, Philadelphia, Pa.
Merger
June 20, 1969:
The Peoples National Bank of Long Island, Patchogue, N.Y.
Peoples Bank of Long Island, N.A., Patchogue, N.Y.
Merger
June 30, 1969:
The Citizens and Southern National Bank of South
Carolina, Charleston, S.C.
Citizens National Bank, Charleston, S.C.
Merger
July 1 1969:
The First National Bank and Trust Company of
Tulsa, Tulsa, Okla.
The First Bank and Trust Company of Tulsa, N.A.,
Tulsa, Okla.
Merger
July 19, 1969:
The First National Bank of South Carolina,
Columbia, S.C.
Washington Street National Bank, Columbia, S.C.
Merger
July 31, 1969:
St. Louis County National Bank, Clayton, Mo.
County National Bank, Clayton, Mo.
Merger
Aug. 13, 1969:
Provident National Bank, Philadelphia, Pa.
Sower National Bank, Philadelphia, Pa.
Merger
Aug. 15, 1969:
The First National Bank of Chicago, Chicago, 111.
First Chicago Bank, N.A., Chicago, 111.
Merger
Sept. 2, 1969:
The First National Bank and Trust Company in
Steubenville, Steubenville, Ohio
Second National Bank in Steubenville, Steubenville,
Ohio
Merger
Sept. 2, 1969:
The Merchants National Bank of Cedar Rapids,
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
I owa National Bank of Cedar Rapids, Cedar Rapids,
Iowa
Merger
Sept. 8, 1969:
The Boatmen's National Bank of St. Louis, St. Louis,
Mo.
Riverfront National Bank, St. Louis, Mo.
Merger
Sept. 22, 1969:
Franklin National Bank, Mineola, N.Y.
Franklin Bank of New York, N.A., Mineola, N.Y.
Consolidation

34



P«Qe
176

Sept. 26, 1969:
National Bank of Westchester, White Plains, N.Y.
National Bank of Westchester, White Plains, White
Plains, N.Y.
Merger

Page

186

Sept. 30, 1969:
Central National Bank and Trust Company of Enid,
Enid, Okla.
Broadway National Bank of Enid, Enid, Okla.
Merger

186

Sept. 30, 1969:
Central National Bank in Chicago, Chicago, 111.
Central Bank of Chicago, N.A., Chicago, 111.
Merger

187

Sept. 30, 1969:
Central-Penn National Bank of Philadelphia, BalaCynwyd, Pa.
Broad and Walnut National Bank, Bala-Cynwyd,
Pa.
Merger

188

Sept. 30, 1969:
First Security National Bank of Beaumont, Beaumont, Tex.
Security National Bank, Beaumont, Tex.
Merger

188

Sept. 30, 1969:
The Security National Bank of Sioux City, Sioux
City, Iowa
Iowa Security National Bank, Sioux City, Iowa
Merger

189

180

Oct. 1, 1969:
The Liberty National Bank and Trust Company of
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma City, Okla.
Liberty Bank, N.A., Oklahoma City, Okla.
Merger

190

180

Oct. 31, 1969:
Lincoln National Bank and Trust Company of
Fort Wayne, Fort Wayne, Ind.
Allen County National Bank, Fort Wayne, Ind.
Merger

190

176

177

178

178

179

181

182

182

183

184

184

185

Nov. 1, 1969:
The Philadelphia National Bank, Philadelphia, Pa.
PNB National Bank, Philadelphia, Pa.
Merger
Dec. 1, 1969:
First National Bank of Huntsville, Huntsville, Tex.
Walker County National Bank, Huntsville, Tex.
Merger
Dec. 5, 1969:
Scarsdale National Bank and Trust Company,
Scarsdale, N.Y.
The Scarsdale National Bank & Trust Company,
Scarsdale, N.Y.
Merger

191

192

192

Dec. 5, 1969:
The First National Bank of Topeka, Topeka, Kans.
The Second National Bank of Topeka, Topeka,
Kans.
Merger

193

Dec. 5, 1969:
The Fulton County National Bank and Trust
Company of Glovers ville, Gloversville, N.Y.
The Fulton County National Bank and Trust
Company, Gloversville, N.Y.
Merger

194

Dec. 19, 1969:
The City National Bank and Trust Company of
Kansas City, Kansas City, Mo.
City Bank, N.A., Kansas City, Mo.
Merger

194

Dec. 31, 1969:
Commercial National Bank & Trust Company,
Muskogee, Okla.
Commercial Bank, N.A., Muskogee, Okla.
Merger

Page

195

Dec. 31, 1969:
Farmers and Merchants National Bank, Winchester, Va.
Apple City National Bank, Winchester,, Va.
Merger

Page

196

B. Approved, but abandoned after litigation
Mar. 6 1969:
Crocker-Citizens National Bank, San Francisco,
Calif.
Bank of Sonoma County, Sebastopol, Calif.
Merger

207

Apr. 14, 1969:
The Connecticut Bank and. Trust Company, Hartford, Conn.
The Connecticut National Bank, Bridgeport, Conn.
Consolidation

209

Apr. 15, 1969:
The National Bank of Manassas, Manassas, Va.
The First National Bank of Quantico, Quantico,
Va.
Merger

216

196

/ / / . Additional approvals
A. Approved, but in litigation
Jan. 22, 1969:
The Idaho First National Bank, Boise, Idaho
Fidelity National Bank of Twin Falls, Twin Falls,
Idaho
Merger
Sept. 26, 1969:
The First National Bank of Sunbury, Sunbury, Pa.
Snyder County Trust Company, Selinsgrove, Pa;
Merger
Mar. 21, 1969:
National Bank & Trust Company of Central Pennsylvania, York, Pa.
The Reading Trust Company, Reading, Pa.
Lancaster County Farmers National Bank, Lancaster, Pa.
Consolidation

3S3-814—7(



199

202

35

I. Mergers consummated, involving two or more operating banks
T H E FIRST AND FARMERS NATIONAL BANK OF SOMERSET, SOMERSET, K Y . , AND PEOPLES BANK, SCIENCE H I L L , K Y .
Banking offices

Total assets

Name of bank and type of transaction

In
operation

Peoples Bank, Science Hill, Ky., with
was purchased Jan. 6, 1969, by The First and Farmers National Bank of Somerset,
Somerset, Ky. (3832), which had
After the purchase was effected, the receiving bank had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On August 26, 1968, The First and Farmers National Bank of Somerset, Somerset, Ky., applied to the
Comptroller of the Currency for permission to purchase
the assets and assume the liabilities of the Peoples Bank,
Science Hill Ky.
Both the buying and selling banks are located in
Pulaski County which contains an estimated population
of 38,400 people. Somerset, the county seat and home
of the buying bank, is the largest city in the county,
with a population of approximately 14,000 people.
Agriculture, with tobacco the primary crop, remains
the major source of income, although its importance
has diminished in recent years as a result of resort development and the addition of new industry to the
area. Somerset is located just 4 miles from Lake Cumberland, the largest man-made lake east of the Mississippi River. Substantial sums of money are being added
to the county economy by expenditures by vacationers
and resort visitors. Major employers in Somerset include : The Palm Beach Co., a clothing manufacturer,
employing almost 700 people; an automobile parts
manufacturing company, employing 500 people; and
the General Electric Co., employing 100 people.
Science Hill, with a population of 450 people, is
the home of the selling bank and is located 7 miles
north of the buying bank. The economy of the area
is based on agriculture with many of the residents
commuting to Somerset for employment.
The First and Farmers National Bank, with IPC
deposits of $21.5 million, is the dominant financial in-




To he
operated

$1,987,511
29, 904, 740
31,892,251

stitution in Pulaski County. The bank's primary competition is derived from the $13.2 million Citizens
National Bank and a $13 million savings and loan
institution, both of which are located in Somerset.
In addition, the $2.1 million First State Bank in Eubank provides some competition in its market area.
The selling bank, with IPC deposits of $1.6 million,
was organized as a State-chartered institution in 1906.
Its trade area is limited to Science Hill and the immediate environs. The bank has long been one of the
primary sources of funds to local farmers and 55.6
percent of its loan portfolio constitutes agricultural
loans. Although the selling bank's asset condition is
considered sound, it has been unable to attract competent management in recent years. Because of this
situation certain operational deficiencies have developed, particularly in the area of account posting.
To view this merger entirely in the light of statistical
analysis is to ignore the reality of the banking situation in Pulaski County. There are presently only four
commercial banks in the county. Competition in the
Science Hill trade area is necessarily limited, both by
population and by the laws of Kentucky, which prohibit expansion into Science Hill through branching,
even if it were economically justified. As mentioned
previously, the selling bank has encountered certain
operational problems in recent years, and correction of
these problems does not appear to be in prospect, except through merger with a larger institution or liquidation. The latter alternative is certainly not
attractive because it deprives the residents of Science
37

Hill and its immediate service area of a convenient
banking alternative.
It appears that neither of the other two banks in
the county is capable, either in terms of financial resources or managerial depth, of acquiring the selling
bank and maintaining an office in Science Hill.
Competition between the buying and selling banks
has been minimal. The president and chairman of the
board of the selling bank is a director of the buying
bank, and the chairman of the board of the buying
bank is a director of the selling bank.
It appears that any banking competition eliminated
by this merger is so slight that it is clearly outweighed
by the public's interest in having the problems of the
Peoples Bank resolved before they worsen. The application is, therefore, approved.
DECEMBER 5,

1968.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

The two merging banks would appear to be direct
competitors; First and Farmers' two offices in Somerset
are 7 miles south of Science Hill and there are no banks
in the intervening area. The proposed merger would
eliminate any competition between the merging banks.

Four commercial banks operate six offices in Pulaski
County: (1) First and Farmers; (2) Peoples; (3) Citizens National Bank (total deposits, $12 million), a
unit bank located in Somerset; and (4) First State
Bank (total deposits, $2 million), a unit bank located
14 miles north of Somerset and 7 miles north of
Science Hill.
As of June 29, 1968, First and Farmers had approximately 64 percent of deposits and about 67 percent of loans in commercial banks in Pulaski County.
Peoples had about 4 percent of both county commercial
bank deposits and loans. If the proposed merger is
consummated, First and Farmers will have about 68
percent of the county's commercial bank deposits and
about 71 percent of such loans. The merger will also
entrench First and Farmers dominant position in the
county and reduce the number of banking alternatives
in the county from four to three.
Although Peoples' small size may limit its effectiveness as a competitor, there appears to be no reason why
any problems of continued viability could not be resolved by merger with a bank smaller than First and
Farmers. We therefore conclude that this merger would
have an adverse effect on competition.

SOMERSET HILLS NATIONAL BANK, BASKING RIDGE, N.J., AND COUNTY BANK AND TRUST COMPANY OF SOMERSET,
FRANKLIN TOWN SHIP , N J .
Banking offices
Total assets

Name of bank and type of transaction

In
operation

County Bank and Trust Company of Somerset, Franklin Township, N.J., with. . .
and Somerset Hills National Bank, Basking Ridge, N.J. (6960), which had
merged Jan. 10, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (6960) and title "Somerset
Hills & County National Bank." The merged bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLER'S DECISION

On September 6, 1968, County Bank and Trust
Company of Somerset, Franklin Township, N.J., and
Somerset Hills National Bank, Basking Ridge, N.J.,
applied to the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to merge under the charter of the latter and
with the title of "Somerset Hills & County National
Bank."
The Somerset Hills National Bank, with total assets
of $24 million, operates two branches. Basking Ridge,
N.J., located in the northern portion of Somerset
38



$25, 190, 763
26, 187, 310
51,378,073

To be
operated
4
3

7

County, is a high income residential community. New
home construction in the area is in the $40,000 to
$60,000 price range. There is virtually no industry in
the area. The majority of the residents in the area
commute to New York City and Newark, N.J., for
employment. The population of the Somerset Hills
National Bank service area is about 50,000.
The merging County Bank and Trust Company of
Somerset, Franklin Township, N.J., has total assets
of $23 million. It presently operates two branches and
has approval for another branch expected to be opened
prior to the effective date of the merger. Its earnings

have been poor in recent years due to high occupancy
and salary expenses. The financial condition of the
bank makes it unable to hire capable successor management.
Franklin Township, located in the southeastern part
of Somerset County, N.J., has an estimated population
of 8,170 and covers a land area of 47 square miles. The
township has been experiencing rapid growth with the
population increasing 48 percent since 1960. Light
industry has been moving into the southern part. The
homes in the area are in the $255000 to $35,000 range.
Adjoining Franklin Township is the main campus of
Rutgers, the State university, which is attracting industrial research laboratories to the area.
Keen competition in the area is furnished by the
$26 million Franklin State Bank, Manville; the $59
million Somerset Trust Company, Bridgewater Township; the $15 million State Bank of Somerset, Hillsborough; and the $17 million First National Bank of
Somerset County, Somerville. Additional competition
in the southern part of Somerset County comes from
two New Brunswick banks and a bank in Edison.
The merger will have little effect on competition.
Since the main offices of the two banks are 21.6 miles
apart, and the nearest branch of County Bank and
Trust Company of Somerset is 13.9 miles from Basking
Ridge, there is little present competition between the
merging banks. The combined service areas of the two
banks include 15 commercial banks operating a total
of 75 offices. Currently, the Somerset National Bank
is the ninth largest bank in the service area and the
County Bank and Trust Company of Somerset is
the 10th largest. The resulting bank would then become the eighth largest bank in the area.
Consummation of the merger will add strength to
the management of both banks. Recruitment and
training of personnel will be facilitated in the larger
resulting bank and the management succession problem of the County Bank and Trust Company of
Somerset will be eliminated. The resulting bank will
have a larger lending capability and will be able to




offer a broader range of new services for the greater
convenience of the banking public in the communities
it serves.
Considered in the light of the statutory criteria, this
merger is deemed to be in the public interest. The
application is, therefore, approved.
DECEMBER 3,

1968.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

Somerset Hills National Bank ("Somerset National"), organized in 1903, operates its main office in
Basking Ridge and branch offices at Bernardsville
and Bernards Township. County Bank and Trust
Company (''County Trust"), organized in 1907, operates its main office and a branch office at Franklin
Township and two additional branch offices at Bound
Brook.
Somerset National, the sole bank operating in
Basking Ridge, is the third largest of eight banks operating in Somerset County. County Trust is the fourth
largest of these banks. Somerset National and County
Trust account for 13 percent and 8 percent, respectively of the county's IPC deposits.
The principal offices of Somerset National and
County Trust are more than 21 miles from one
another; their closest offices are approximately I1/*
miles apart. Branches of the county's two largest banks,
with total deposits of $60 million and $78 million, are
located in the intervening area. Thus, while some competition may exist between the merging banks, it does
not appear to be extensive.
We understand that under recent amendments to
New Jersey law, neither Somerset National nor County
Trust could open a de novo branch in a municipality
in which another banking institution operates its head
offices. Thus, this proposed merger would not eliminate potential competition between Somerset National
and County Trust in communities where they or other
banks have head offices, but would eliminate potential
competition between them in other communities in
Somerset County.

39

CUMBERLAND COUNTY NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, N E W CUMBERLAND, PA., AND PEOPLES BANK OF ENOLA, ENOLA, PA.

Banking offices
Total assets

Name of bank and type of transaction

In
operation

Peoples Bank of Enola, Enola, Pa., with
and Cumberland County National Bank and Trust Company, New Cumberland,
Pa. (14542), which had
merged Jan. 17, 1969, under charter and title of the latter bank (14542). The
merged bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On September 4, 1968, the Peoples Bank of Enola,
Enola, Pa., and Cumberland County Bank and Trust
Company, New Cumberland, Pa., applied to the Office
of the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to
merge under the charter and with the title of the latter.
The Harrisburg urban area, the area relevant to this
proposal, includes eastern Cumberland County and the
immediate Harrisburg area. Eastern Cumberland
County, where the principal offices of the charter bank
are located, is an expanding urban area known as the
West Shore. Although principally residential, the area
is witnessing the development of more industrial and
commercial activity. This area should experience increased growth and development due to the construction of an east-west highway and a bridge crossing the
Susquehanna River from Harrisburg to the West
Shore area.
Enola, with a population of about 5,000, is a small
community situated in the northeastern periphery of
Cumberland County, along the Susquehanna River, in
a relatively isolated area. Most of its residents commute to Harrisburg and other surrounding towns
where they are employed.
The charter bank, with IPC deposits of $70 million,
was organized in 1904, and presently operates 12 banking offices. These include 10 offices in the eastern and
central parts of Cumberland County, a branch office
in Dillsburg, in northern York County, which also
serves parts of northern Adams County, and a branch
office in New Oxford, serving the east-central portion
of Adams County. The bank has followed a program
of expansion in an attempt to create a regional institution capable of competing with the larger banks in
nearby York and Harrisburg.
The merging bank is a single-office bank with IPC
deposits of $3 million. This bank, with its limited services and lending capabilities, is unable to serve ade40



To be
operated

$4, 135, 193

1

89, 979, 862

10

94,115,055

11

quately the needs of its community. It is presently
faced with a management succession problem due to
the recent death of its only executive officer.
Other commercial banks in the Harrisburg urban
area include: Dauphin Deposit Trust Company of
Harrisburg, with deposits of $175 million; the Harrisburg National Bank and Trust Company, with deposits of $156 million; the Keystone Trust Company
of Harrisburg, with deposits of $11 million; National
Bank and Trust Company of Central Pennsylvania in
York, with deposits of $211 million; and Farmers Bank
and Trust Company of Hummelstown, with deposits
of $15 million. The major New York, Pittsburgh,
Baltimore, and Philadelphia banks solicit business in
the area. The Philadelphia National Bank operates a
data processing division in nearby Carlisle.
There is presently no significant competition between the participating banks to be eliminated by this
merger. Although the charter bank's East Pennsboro
office is about 4 miles from Enola, the difference in
the size of the banks and the relative isolation of Enola
preclude any significant competition between them.
The addition of $3 million in deposits to the charter
bank will have no significant effect on the banking
structure in the Harrisburg urban area or on the
more immediately affected West Shore area. The
larger banks headquartered in Harrisburg and York
presently operate six branch offices in West Shore.
Consummation of this merger will redound to the
public interest by permitting the charter bank to solve
the problems at the merging bank and to serve effectively the present and future banking needs of the
extreme northeastern corner of Cumberland County.
The community of Enola is presently too small to
support tv/o banks.
Considered in the light of the statutory criteria, this
merger is judged to be in the public interest and is,
therefore, approved.
DECEMBER 17,

1968.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

Peoples* sole office and six of CCNB's 12 offices are
located in the eastern part of Cumberland County,
across the Susquehanna River from Harrisburg.
The nearest branch office of CCNB is less than 4
miles from Peoples, with no banks in the intervening
area, and six offices of CCNB are located within 8
miles of Peoples. Furthermore, CCNB's offices derived

about $880,000 in deposits and about $1.6 million in
loans from this area. Thus, it is clear that the proposed
merger will eliminate some existing competition between CCNB and Peoples. However, within this area,
one Harrisburg-based bank (total deposits: $176 million) operates four offices and two other such banks
(total deposits: $156 million and $207 million) each
operate one office.

T H E CITIZENS AND SOUTHERN NATIONAL BANK OF SOUTH CAROLINA, CHARLESTON, S.C.,

AND T H E PEOPLES NATIONAL BANK OF

CONWAY, CONWAY, S.C.
Banking offices
Total assets

Name of bank and type of transaction

The Peoples National Bank of Conway, Conway, S.C. (10537), with
and The Citizens and Southern National Bank of South Carolina, Charleston,
S.C. (14425), which had.
merged Feb. 1, 1969, under charter and title of the latter bank (14425). The
merged bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On September 30, 1968, The Peoples National Bank
of Gonway, Conway, S.C, with IPC deposits of $12.4
million, and The Citizens and Southern National Bank
of South Carolina, Charleston, S.C, with IPC deposits of $178.7 million, applied to the Comptroller of
the Currency for permission to merge under the charter
and title of the latter.
The Citizens and Southern National Bank of South
Carolina was organized in 1874 and obtained a National charter in 1940. Because of its aggressive and
competent management, the bank has progressed to
become a full-service institution, presently operating
41 offices in 11 counties throughout South Carolina.
Although the charter bank competes in the 11
principal counties in South Carolina, it is headquartered in the peninsula city of Charleston. Because
of its statewide market area, the charter bank faces
intense competition from South Carolina National
Bank, with resources of $468 million; First National
Bank, with resources of $205.6 million; the State Bank
and Trust Company, with resources of $114.4 million;
118 other banks, with $951 million in aggregate resources; and 73 savings and loan associations, with
resources of $1,249 billion. In addition, both charter
and merging bank receive a considerable amount of
competition from the banks in Charlotte, N.C.




$15,525,049
271,978,512
286,560, 199

48

The Peoples National Bank of Conway, the merging
bank, was organized in 1914 and presently operates
two branches at Myrtle Beach, S.C. This bank has
shown steady growth and is well capitalized through
the retention of earnings. Conway is the county seat
of Horry County, the economy of which was predominantly agricultural but is moving toward diversification in the form of forestry, varied industry, tourism, and recreation. The prospects for future industrial
growth are promising in that a new steam electric
generating plant has been constructed and the area
has sufficient water to handle industrial complexes.
Included in the service area of the merging bank is
Myrtle Beach, where its two branches are located. The
primary source of income for this area is tourism, and
on a busy weekend the population will reach 150,000
from its norm of 30,000. Of the four statewide banking
systems in South Carolina, one is located in the immediate area of the merging bank. The South Carolina National Bank, the State's largest bank, has two
branches within 1 mile of the merging bank's branches
at Myrtle Beach. In its Conway office, the merging
bank competes with Conway National Bank and one
of its branches. In addition to the competition derived
from savings and loan associations and credit unions,
the merging bank also faces competition from the
banks in North Carolina, particularly during tobacco
41

season when the merging bank's lending limits are insufficient to make the loans requested by its larger
customers.
This merger will not reduce competition since there
are no common borrowers or depositors in the participating banks. Furthermore, the main offices of the
two banks are approximately 97 miles apart and the
closest existing branches are 56 miles from each other.
Since South Carolina law permits statewide branch
banking, the charter bank could, at least conceptually,
branch de novo into this area and might, therefore,
be considered a potential competitor with the merging
bank. This concept is more illusory than real in view
of the fact that Conway has a population of 9,500 and
is already being served by the $10.2 million Conway
National Bank, with two offices; and the merging bank's
one active office and approved but unopened facility.
These four offices provide sufficient banking services for
the banking community and any additional offices
would be harmful to the area in general.
The merging bank presently operates two offices in
Myrtle Beach and competes primarily with three offices of $400 million South Carolina National Bank.
In addition to the already existing financial institutions, the Peoples Bank of South Carolina, a Statechartered institution with total assets of $12 million,
has made application to establish a branch in Myrtle
Beach. This city, with a population of 10,400, is being
served by five offices, and application has been made for
a sixth. Once again, these facts would discourage any
de novo entry into Myrtle Beach. Because of its basic
seasonal activity, the financial needs of Myrtle Beach
are such as not to require further banking offices.
The resulting bank will be in the public interest and
will be able to serve the convenience and needs of the
communities by offering specialized services in the
loan area, trust department facilities, and data processing. In addition, the resulting bank with its larger
lending limit will be able to compete more effectively,
not only with the larger banks in South Carolina, but
with the large banks in the bordering State of North
Carolina.
Applying the statutory criteria to this proposal, it is
found to be in the public interest. The application is,
therefore, approved.
DECEMBER 27,

42



1968.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

Horry County and its seat at Conway have been
rapidly expanding in population, industry, and buying
power. Prospects for future growth are good.
Citizens, the second largest of South Carolina's
four statewide banks, with about 13 percent of State
deposits, has no office in or near Horry County; its
nearest branch is 55 miles away, with several banking
offices in the intervening area. Thus, there does not
appear to be any competition between the banks proposing to merge.
South Carolina law permits statewide de novo
branch banking. Conway is served by two banks,
Peoples National and Conway National Bank (total
deposits: $8.5 million). The Myrtle Beach area along
the coast (known as the Grand Strand), located about
25 miles east of Conway, appears to be served by
three banks, Peoples National; South Carolina National Bank (total deposits: $298 million), the State's
largest bank; and Farmers Bank of Loris (total deposits: $5.3 million). Two other banks, with total
deposits of $2.7 million and $9.9 million, operate in
Horry County, within about 20 miles of Conway.
As of June 30, 1966, Peoples National held the
largest share, or about 35 percent, of county IPC demand deposits; South Carolina National Bank held
the second largest share, 31 percent, of such deposits,
and three banks held 85 percent. Considering recent
increases in industrial development, and of buying
power in Horry County, together with prospects for
accelerated future growth, the area appears to present
an attractive market for new banking entry. Citizens,
possessing about 13 percent of South Carolina's deposits, has no branches in or near Horry County; yet
that county is closer to Citizens' head office in Charleston than any other county in which the bank now
maintains branches. With its resources and apparent
interest in the area, Citizens appears to be the most
likely potential entrant into this area, either through
de novo branching or through merger with one of the
small banks in Horry County.
Thus the proposed merger would eliminate the most
likely potential entrant into banking in Horry County
through merger with the county's largest independent
bank. We conclude, therefore, that consummation of
this merger would have a significantly adverse effect
on potential competition.

LAKEWOOD COLORADO NATIONAL BANK, LAKEVVOOD, COLO., AND T H E ROCKY MOUNTAIN BANK, LAKEWOOD, COLO.

Banking offices
Total assets

Name of bank and type of transaction

In
operation

The Rocky Mountain Bank, Lakewood, Colo., with
was purchased Feb. 5, 1969, by Lakewood Colorado National Bank, Lakewood,
Colo. (15695), which had
After the purchase was effected, the receiving bank had

I
,

To be
operated

*$8, 668, 379

*OnIy a portion of Rocky Mountain Bank's assets were purchased.

Bank, Lakewood, Colo.
Due to the emergency nature of the situation, a
report on the competitive factors was not requested.
FEBRUARY 5,1969.

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

The Acting Comptroller of the Currency, on February 5, 1969, approved the purchase of assets and assumption of liabilities of The Rocky Mountain Bank,
Lakewood, Colo., by Lakewood Colorado National
#

*

•»

T H E FIRST NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY OF CRAWFORDSVILLE, CRAWFORDSVILLE, IND., AND THE FARMERS STATE BANK
N E W MARKET, IND.

Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
operation

The Farmers State Bank, New Market, Ind., with
was purchased Feb. 21, 1969, by The First National Bank and Trust Company of
Crawfordsville, Crawfordsville, Ind. (571), which had
After the purchase was effected, the receiving bank had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On October 23, 1968, The First National Bank and
Trust Company of Crawfordsville, Crawfordsville,
Ind., applied to the Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency for permission to purchase the assets and
assume the liabilities of The Farmers State Bank, New
Market, Ind.
Crawfordsville, with a population of about 14,200,
is the seat of Montgomery County and is located approximately 50 miles to the northwest of Indianapolis.
The economy of the area is primarily agricultural, with
Montgomery County ranking third highest in the State
in annual farm produce sales. Industry, which is centralized around Crawfordsville, is also thriving and
presently employs over 4,000 people and accounts for
an area payroll of $35 million. The major employer
in the area is R. R. Donnelley and Sons, Inc., a publisher, employing a current work force of about 2,400.




To be
operated

$1,606,000
22, 447, 000
24, 053, 000

The other major businesses in the area are Mid-Steel
and Wire Co.; Raybestos Manhattan, an automotive
components plant; several steel fabricating firms; and
a firm producing intricate electronic metal parts.
The acquiring bank, with IPC deposits of $18 million, was originally organized in 1864 and presently
operates a branch office in Wingate and one in Ladoga.
The bank provides a full range of banking services
for all of Montgomery County and for those parts of
adjoining counties which lie within the general Crawfordsville shopping and service area. The only other
bank in Crawfordsville is the Elston Bank and Trust
Company, with $29 million in deposits and four
branch offices, the largest bank in Montgomery
County.
New Market, home of the selling bank, has a population of about 580 and is situated 6 miles to the south of
Crawfordsville. There is no notable industry or manufacturing in the town and most of its residents seek
43

employment in other towns or rely upon agriculturally
associated work. The two major businesses in the area,
a grain elevator company and an automobile dealer,
must resort to out-of-town banks for their credit needs
which cannot be met by the local selling bank. At the
present time, a residential lake project is at the stage
where several homes are being constructed, and a proposed $4 million high school should stimulate further
residential expansion.
The Farmers State Bank, with IPC deposits of $1
million, is a single-office bank, originally organized in
1903, and is the only bank in New Market. Because of
its limited resources and capabilities, it is unable to
meet the needs of its community. It is presently faced
with a management succession problem; all efforts to
resolve it have been unsuccessful. Faced with this situation, the directors decided to either sell the bank or
liquidate it.
There are four other banks besides the participants
in Montgomery County, viz., the Elston Bank and
Trust Company of Crawfordsville, the Linden State
Bank, the Farmers State Bank in New Ross, and the
Farmers and Merchants State Bank in Darlington.
In addition, there are three savings and loan associations, eight personal loan companies, one local insurance company, and two Federal lending agencies. Competition is also provided by the larger banks located
in Indianapolis, Lafayette, and Terre Haute, Indiana,
and in Danville, 111.
Although the acquiring bank does serve to some degree the area of the selling bank, no significant competition presently exists between them. The problems
at the selling bank and its limited resources restrict
its ability to compete.
Consummation of the proposed transaction will redound to the public interest by permitting the acquiring bank to solve the problems at the selling bank and

to serve effectively the present and future banking
needs of the New Market area. It will introduce, in
New Market, a bank with full banking services and
better able to meet the capital requirements needed
for the residential constructions underway and the
larger farm operations in the area. The resulting bank
will be in a stronger position to serve its broad market
vis-a-vis the larger out-of-county banks.
Considered in the light of the statutory criteria, this
merger is judged to be in the public interest and is,
therefore, approved.
JANUARY 21,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

The head offices of the banks are 7 miles apart, with
no banks operating in the intervening area. Moreover,
State Bank is located about 6 miles west of First National's Ladoga branch, and again there are no banks
in the intervening area. Thus, it seems clear that there
is direct competition which will be eliminated by the
proposed acquisition.
Twelve banks operate 17 offices in the relevant market, an area within a radius of about 20 miles of Crawfordsville; this market has total deposits of $79.6 million. The two banks headquartered in Crawfordsvilkj
First National, and Elston Bank and Trust Company (total deposits: $29.3 million), hold 29 percent
and 37 percent respectively, of deposits in the area.
The third largest bank holds 8 percent of deposits in
this area.
The proposed acquisition would combine the second largest bank in the area and the ninth largest,
which holds 1.8 percent of the total commercial bank
deposits in the area, and would increase the combined
share of such deposits held by the area's two largest
banks to 68 percent.

THE CITIZENS AND SOUTHERN NATIONAL BANK OF SOUTH CAROLINA, CHARLESTON, S.C.,
NATIONAL BANK OF GAFFNEY, GAFFNEY, S.C:

AND THE MERCHANTS AND PLANTERS

Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

The Merchants and Planters National Bank of Gaffney, Gaffney, S.C. (10655),
with
and The Citizens and Southern National Bank of South Carolina, Charleston,
S C (14425) which had
merged Feb. 24, 1969, under charter and title of the latter bank (14425). The
merged bank at date of merger had

44



To he
operated

$15, 408, 501

3

278, 991,885

48

294, 400, 386

51

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On July 2, 1968, The Citizens and Southern National Bank of South Carolina, Charleston, S.C., with
IPC deposits of $149.8 million, and The Merchants
and Planters National Bank of Gaffney, Gaffney, S.C.,
with IPC deposits of $6.6 million, applied to the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to merge under
the charter and with the title of the former. A hearing
on this application was held in Atlanta, Ga., on October 29, 1968.
Gaffney, located in the northwest sector of South
Carolina, had a 1960 population of 10,435, which has
increased slightly to a present estimate of 12,531. Annexation has been primarily responsible for the population increase. Textiles account for approximately 60
percent of the area's industrial development and defense work provides an important source of area income. Cherokee County, in which Gaffney is located
and whose north border is the State of North Carolina,
had a 1960 population of 35,205 and is presently estimated at 36,300. The county, however, has not grown
as rapidly as other counties in the area.
The merging bank, chartered in 1914, has its main
office and two branches in Gaffney, while the charter
bank's home office is located in Charleston, S.C., 200
miles to the southeast. Citizens and Southern's nearest
branch office to Gaffney is located in Spartanburg,
Spartanburg County, some 20 miles to the west. In
addition to the merging bank, the area is also served
by the $5.2 million Bank of Gaffney; a branch of the
$205.6 million First National Bank of South Carolina
located at Cowpens, 9 miles to the west; the $2.5 million Blacksburg State Bank at Blacksburg, 10 miles to
the northeast; and the $2.3 million Chesnee State
Bank, Chesnee, S.C., 14 miles to the northwest. Commercial bank competition in the area is also derived
from offices of the large and aggressive North Carolina
banks located in Charlotte, Kings Mountain, Gastonia,
and Shelby some 50, 21, 30, and 18 miles, respectively,
from Gaffney.
Like many of its counterparts throughout the Nation, the merging bank is in dire need of top management. At present the bank is headed by a 64-year-old
president who is anxious to retire since he has been
with the bank for 46 years, and has been its chief
executive officer since 1942. The testimony at the hearing clearly established that the merging bank is strictly
a one-man bank. The executive vice president and
cashier are past normal retirement age. Attempts to
recruit younger management have been unsuccessful
and there is no one within the bank capable of accept-




ing the reins of the presidency. The merging bank did
not install a pension plan until 1962, which has hindered their recruiting efforts and compelled the older
officers to continue work. An inadequate salary scale
and unattractive banking facilities have also hindered
the recruiting of successor management.
The merging bank offers no trust services and grants
no home improvement loans, medical loans, or educational loans, even though Limestone College is located
in Gaffney and there have been a number of applications for educational loans by students. The deposit
growth rate of the merging bank during the past 5
years has been only 32.1 percent compared to 57.67
percent for the Bank of Gaffney, 63.17 percent for
the Chesnee State Bank, and 87.5 percent for the
Blacksburg State Bank. The fact that the loan-todeposit ratio of the merging bank is only 36.6 percent is
a strong indication that it is not fully servicing its area.
A review of the merging bank's loan portfolio reveals
that it is heavy in mortgage lending, with a minimum
volume of commercial and industrial loans. Its credit
files are inadequate and hand posting of savings ledgers
is still currently used.
Since at present no competition exists between the
charter and merging banks, none will be eliminated by
this proposal.
Entry into Gaffney by de novo branching has been
considered and rejected by the management of Citizens
and Southern as not being feasible because of the lack
of area growth. Contributing to this decision has been
the application for a branch in Gaffney, filed by the
very aggressive $58 million Southern Bank and Trust
Company, Greenville, S.C., on September 3, 1968, and
its approval on November 6, 1968. With the entry of
Southern Bank and Trust Company's branch, the
population per banking office in Gaffney will be decreased to 2,506, and 5,186 per banking office in the
county, compared with 5,812 per banking office in the
State.
The present lending limit of the merging bank is
$150,000, which has caused a number of local accounts
to go outside of the area for credit. The lending limit
of the resultant bank will be $1,850,000, which should
aid the large local businesses in acquiring their credit
needs locally, thereby contributing to the convenience
and needs of the community to be served.
The testimony at the hearing demonstrated that the
charter bank's entry, by merger, into other communities
of the State has resulted not only in a sharp increase
in banking competition, but also in additional banking
services being made available to the townspeople, with
a concomitant decrease in loan rates and service
45

charges. After the merger, payroll and general computer services, as well as full trust services, will be offered in Gaffney for the first time. It is expected that
with the approval of this application competition in
Cherokee County and the surrounding area will be
increased and intensified.
In view of the record before this office and applying
the statutory criteria, we find that the benefits to the
convenience and needs of the community clearly outweigh any anticompetitive effects that may exist. Accordingly, the application to merge, being in the public
interest, is approved.
JANUARY 22,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

Citizens has about 13 percent of the State's total
deposits and is the second largest of the four statewide
commercial banking systems in South Carolina.
Gaffney (population 19,000), the seat of Cherokee
County (population 36,000), is located in the northwest sector of South Carolina, where the State's industry is concentrated. Textiles account for
approximately 60 percent of industrial development in
this area, with defense establishments also providing
an important source of income. The economy of the
Gaffney area alone is dominated by three textile mills.
The nearest office of Citizens to Gaffney is 20 miles
to the west in Spartanburg County, and a branch of
the First National Bank of South Carolina, the State's
third largest bank, is located in the intervening area.

Although Citizens has several very large accounts which
originate from the Gaffney area, there does not appear
to be any substantial competition between the banks.
South Carolina law permits statewide de novo
branch banking. Gaffney is now served by two banks,
Merchants and Bank of Gaffney (total deposits: $5.7
million). The county is also served by one other bank,
Blacksburg State Bank (total deposits: $2 million), located 9 miles northeast of Gaffney. As of June 30, 1966,
Merchants held 67 percent of county IPC demand deposits, Bank of Gaffney held 21 percent, and Blacksburg State Bank held 12 percent. Given its present
population, the large textile manufacturers located
there, and its prospects for future growth, Gaffney
would appear to be an attractive market for new banking entry. Citizens, the second largest bank in the State,
with about 13 percent of the State's deposits, already
has branches throughout this area of the State, including the counties contiguous to Cherokee County on the
east and west. With its resources and apparent interest
in this area, Citizens appears to be one of the most
likely potential entrants into this area through de novo
branching or through merger with one of the two
smaller banks located there.
The acquisition of Merchants, by far the largest bank
in this growing area, by Citizens would further entrench Merchants in its dominant position and eliminate one of its most likely potential competitors. We
conclude, therefore, that consummation of this merger
would have a significantly adverse effect on potential
competition.

ROYAL NATIONAL BANK OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK, N.Y., AND UNITED BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, NEW YORK, N.YJ
Banking offices
Total assets

Name of bank and type of transaction

In
operation

United Bank and Trust Company, New York, N.Y., with
and Royal National Bank of New York, New York, N.Y. (15029), which had
merged Feb. 28, 1969, under charter and title of the latter bank (15029). The
merged bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On November 19, 1968, the Royal National Bank
of New York, New York, N.Y., with IPC deposits
of $186 million, and the United Bank and Trust
Company, New York, N.Y., with IPC deposits of $7
million, applied to the Comptroller of the Currency
46



$10, 969, 090
255, 798, 381
266,767,471

To be
operated

1
10
11

for permission to merge under the charter and with
the title of the former.
The Royal National Bank of New York, New York,
N.Y., was organized in 1925, and converted to a National charter in 1962. This bank now maintains 10
offices in New York City, of which four are located in
Manhattan, four in the Bronx, one in Queens, and one

in Brooklyn. The bank's service area is densely populated, with a population of approximately 8 million,
and enjoys a diversified economy which includes industrial, financial, advertising, and commercial activity.
The charter bank encounters intense competition from
other commercial banks, including some of the largest
banks in the Nation, and ranks 14th in terms of total
resources of the 20 commercial banks located in New
York City.
The United Bank and Trust Company, New York,
N.Y., was organized in 1929 as an industrial bank, and
acquired a commercial bank charter in 1968. The merging bank operates one office in Brooklyn, which has
a population of approximately 2.5 million. The bank's
service area is predominately a residential area with
considerable retail activity and some heavy industry.
Although the merging bank draws most of its business
from its immediate service area, it has not proved to
be an effective competitor. It is the smallest commercial
bank in New York City.
The nearest offices of the participating banks are
located about 2.6 miles apart in Brooklyn. There is
no actual or potential competition between the two
banks, which have a substantial common ownership.
If this application is approved, it is anticipated that
the merging bank wTill be able to compete more effectively with the offices of the much larger commercial
and savings banks located in the area.
When the merger is consummated, sendee to the

public in the merging bank's service area will be improved through the increased lending limit of the resulting bank, and the availability of the computer
facilities, corporate trust, and international banking
services of the charter bank.
Applying the statutory criteria, we find that it is in
the public interest, and the application is, therefore,
approved.
JANUARY 29,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

The only office of United and the only Brooklyn
office of Royal are located within a few miles from
each other near the East River, with numerous banks
operating in the intervening areas; both offices of the
merging banks are surrounded by branch offices of
much larger banks. Thus, competition between the
banks probably is not substantial.
On the other hand, it seems likely that Royal, the
15th largest bank headquartered in New York City,
would expand by de novo branching into the Williamsburg area, if prevented from acquiring United. Royal's
application states that it "is desirous of expanding its
services in the borough of Brooklyn where it now
maintains only one office." Thus, it appears that this
merger will eliminate potential competition between
these two banks. However, after this merger there will
still be numerous other large potential de novo entrants
into this area.

THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF ERIE, ERIE, PA., AND FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MEADVILLE, MEADVILLE, PA.

Banking offices
Total assets

Name of bank and type of transaction

To be
operated

In
operation

First National Bank of Meadville, Meadville, Pa. (4938), with
and The First National Bank of Erie, Erie, Pa. (12), which had
consolidated Feb. 28, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (12) and title "The
First National Bank of Pennsylvania." The consolidated bank at date of consolidation had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On October 18, 1968, the First National Bank of
Meadville, Meadville, Pa., with IPC deposits of $30
million, and The First National Bank of Erie, Erie, Pa.,
with IPC deposits of $112 million, applied to the
Comptroller of the Currency for permission to consolidate under the charter of the latter and with the title




!
I
|
j
|

$40, 007, 811 |
145, 880, 855 j
!
I
185, 888, 666 I.

10 j .
I
!

14

"First National Bank of Pennsylvania," with its main
office in Meadville.
The city of Erie, with a population of 138,000 and
currently enjoying urban redevelopment and revitalization, is located in Erie County, physically the far
northwestern projection of Pennsylvania. The State's
third largest city and one of the largest inland seaports
in the world, Erie's position on both Lake Erie and the
47

St. Lawrence Seaway is unique within Pennsylvania
and has attracted diverse industries which recently
have been prospering and expanding. The county's
recent population growth, though lower than the national trend, has exceeded the statewide rate to some
degree. The local economic market has, in the past,
been somewhat limited by Erie County's geographical
borders: Lake Erie on the north; the nearby State
lines of Ohio on the west, and New York on the east;
and, the southern border along Crawford County.
In the last decade, the county's economic growth
has been at a greater rate than other metropolitan
areas of the State, and there is presently a need for
concomitant banking growth. The local banks, which
are presently too small to serve all the needs of local
industries now in operation and those soon to be in
operation, can expand only to the south which is still
largely undeveloped industrially. Nevertheless, banking competition within the Erie market can be characterized as lively. The charter bank, which has been in
continuous existence as a National bank since its
organization in 1863, under Charter Number 12, is the
largest: of eight banks headquartered in the county,
holding 30.8 percent of the total deposits of the eight.
However, it does not dominate the local banking market. The next largest bank is within approximately
three percentage points in total deposits, and the third
and fourth largest are relatively close in size. In addition to the four remaining banks headquartered in the
county, a nonresident bank, the Pennsylvania Bank and
Trust Company, with IPC deposits of $64 million, has
two of its eight branches within the county. Competition from savings and loan institutions, which have
$139 million in resources in Erie County, is intense,
while commercial banks in Pittsburgh and other cities
compete aggressively in the Erie County banking market. Through August of 1968, Pennsylvania banks outside the county made mortgage loans within the county, equivalent to 125 percent of those of the charter
bank.
Meadville, approximately 40 miles south of the city
of Erie, is in Crawford County, contiguous to, and
south of, Erie County. The Meadville bank maintains
its head office and a drive-in facility in Meadville
and an additional branch and drive-in facility in
neighboring Venango County. The combined population of this essentially rural two-county area is 145,000,
and the economy of the area is primarily agricultural,
although it is fairly well supported by a mixture of some
industry and commerce. Improved highways and a
degree of population growth in Crawford County,
approximately twice the statewide rate, are beginning
48



to attract industry, with consequent commercial development and economic acceleration. The manufacturing growth rate has exceeded the statewide growth
rate in recent years, and new major facilities are scheduled to begin operation in the near term. Of the nine
banks headquartered in Crawford and Venango counties, the Meadville bank is relatively small, ranking
fourth. Its three largest banking competitors each have
over $100 million in resources. Additionally, as with the
banks in Erie County, the banks in Crawford and
Venango counties experience intensive competition
from banks outside the area, as well as from savings
and loan associations and other nonbanking financial
institutions.
There is no competition between the applicant
banks. Historically and geographically their markets
have been separate, and their closest offices are 24 miles
apart. Of the 31 banking offices operated by the four
Erie banks, only one is located outside Erie County,
making it clear that little overlap in the respective
service areas of the applicant banks has occurred.
Additionally, no likelihood exists that the banks would
become competitors in the future. The Meadville bank
has limited resources available for expansion, especially into Erie County where larger banks with a
greater range of services are well established. The
charter bank has no plans to open costly de novo
branches in Crawford and Venango counties, where
the scattered population and relatively low average
level of deposits in all banks there discourage new
entrants by making de novo branching not economically feasible. Aside from the unfavorable economic
climate, the conflict of names between these two banks
would militate against approval of an application by
First National Bank of Erie to establish a branch in
the service area of First National Bank of Meadville.
Because the banking structure in western Pennsylvania has evolved into two separate and distinct banking regions, with Allegheny County as the focus of
the southwestern region, and Crawford County as the
logical core of the northwestern region, comprised of
Erie, Crawford, Mercer, Venango, and Warren counties, assessment of the proposed consolidation in light
of its regional aspects is appropriate. A superior highway network is being developed in this five-county
area, and, as industrialization develops, Crawford
County will assume greater importance as a commercial and transportation center for the region. Its
present banking resources are inadequate to meet the
demands of a resurgent and expanding economy. Currently, local banks must rely on participations in many

cases. In others, potential customers utilize the greater
resources and services of larger banks situated outside
northwestern Pennsylvania. The addition of the proposed consolidated bank to this region will stimulate
competition within the region and increase the banking services available to a growing economy.
Consummation of this proposal will clearly be in
the public interest from many aspects. In addition to
the foregoing, the residents of the Crawford-Venango
area will acquire access to the greater size and capacity
of the consolidated bank, which will bring a full-service
trust department, electronic data processing services,
the ability to satisfy the local demands for larger loans,
and a full panoply of other sophisticated banking services to its present and potential customers in that
area. As previously stated, a new bank more able to
compete with the large banks already there will be
located in the center of a region that is expected to
expand rapidly in the near future—a bank with the
management and progressive outlook needed to assist
in developing the potential that exists in the northwestern Pennsylvania economy. Under State law, the
resulting bank would also be able to later expand its
operation into five contiguous counties as industrial
needs develop there.
Applying the statutory criteria, we conclude the consolidation is in the public interest, and the application
is, therefore, approved.
JANUARY 22,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

The main offices of the banks are 38 miles apart and
their closest offices are about 24 miles apart; with
several banking offices in the intervening area. Thus
there does not appear to be significant existing competition between the banks.
As of June 30, 1966, Meadville Bank held the third
largest share, or 19.5 percent, of IPC deposits in
Crawford County as a whole. In Meadville, itself,
Meadville Bank is the second largest bank (out of
three) in terms of total deposits but the largest in
terms of local operations, with about 38 percent of
IPC deposits held in Meadville. As of June 30, 1966,
Meadville Bank also had the second largest share, or
about 30 percent, of IPC! deposits held by the five
banks operating in western and central Crawford
County, and two banks held about 62 percent of IPC
deposits.
Pennsylvania law would permit Erie Bank to establish de novo branches in Crawford County. Erie Bank,
with about 31.5 percent of Erie County commercial
bank deposits, is the largest bank in Erie County, and
the largest bank legally eligible to branch into this
county. Thus Erie Bank appears to be the most likely
potential entrant into Meadville and the western part
of Crawford County, which appear to be concentrated
banking markets. This merger with the county's third
largest bank would eliminate this potential competition. For these reasons, we believe that this merger
will have a significantly adverse effect on competition.

NATIONAL VALLEY BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, CHAMBERSBURG, PA., AND THE FARMERS BANK OF MERCERSBURG,
MERCERSBURG, PA.
Banking offices

Total assets

Name of bank and type of transaction

To be
operated

In
operation

The Farmers Bank of Mercersburg, Mercersburg, Pa., with
and National Valley Bank and Trust Company, Chambersburg, Pa. (593),
which had
merged Mar. 1, 1969, under charter and title of the latter bank (593). The merged
bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On October II, 1968, the National Valley Bank and
Trust Company, Chambersburg, Pa., and The Farmers
Bank of Mercersburg, Mercersburg, Pa., applied to the
Comptroller of the Currency for permission to merge
under the charter and with the title of the former.




$4, 612, 759

1

58, 334, 103

11

62, 946, 862

12

The charter bank, with IPC deposits of $46.1 million, was established in 1809. Today the bank operates
11 offices serving the Chambersburg market area.
Growth since 1948, when the bank was a unit operation having $10 million in total assets, has been particularly good and is expected to continue into the
foreseeable future.
49

Chambersburg, home of the charter bank and county
seat of Franklin County, has an estimated population
of 18,000 and a trading area population of 50,000. It
lies in the south-central sector of the State, approximately 22 miles north of Hagerstown, Md., and 50
miles southwest of Harrisburg. Although the area surrounding Chambersburg is primarily rural, a number
of manufacturing and industrial plants are relocating
or establishing new facilities in the area. In addition,
two Federal installations, employing slightly more than
16,000, are located here. Banking competition for the
charter bank within Chambersburg comes from the
$20 million Chambersburg Trust Company and the
$30 million Farmers and Merchants Trust Company,
and from outside Chambersburg from the $30 million
First National Bank in Waynesboro. A number of
much larger regional institutions located in York,
Harrisburg, and Hagerstown also compete. Savings
and loan associations, personal finance companies, insurance companies, small loan companies, and direct
lending agencies of the Federal Government also operate in the area.
The Farmers Bank of Mercersburg, with IPC deposits of $3.9 million, is a unit bank which began business in 1874. Although this bank has operated satisfactorily in the past, the increased demand for large
loans coupled with the merging bank's size make future
prospects dim.
Mercersburg, the home of the merging bank, is located 18 miles southwest of Chambersburg. It has a
population of 1,800 and a trade area population of
5,000. The economy of this area is essentially agricultural. However, a tannery is located in Mercersburg, as is Mercersburg Academy. Fairchild-Hiller and
Mack Truck, in Hagerstown, and Letterkenny Army
Depot, near Chambersburg, provide employment for
some of the town's residents. The larger First National
Bank of Mercersburg provides direct local competition,
while much larger regional banks in Hagerstown, Md.,
Harrisburg, and York compete for business in the general area.
The communities in which both banks operate will
benefit from the larger lending limit of the resulting

50



bank. Present customers of the merging bank will have
readily available a full range of banking services, including the facilities of a $32 million trust department,
not heretofore available in Mercersburg.
The merger will have little effect on present competition between the merging banks, which is minimal.
At the same time, the merger will be a step forward
in helping to create a strong regional bank, better
equipped to meet the financial needs of a growing
economy and the competition supplied by larger banks
in Hagerstown, Md., Harrisburg, and York.
It is concluded in the light of the statutory criteria
that this merger is in the public interest. It is, therefore, approved.
JANUARY 22,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

National Valley Bank, and Farmers Bank are both
located in Franklin County, an area with a growth
rate more than double that of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania as a whole.
The closest offices of the merging banks are 4 miles
apart and there would appear to be substantial competition between them which would be eliminated by
the merger. Mercersburg now has two banks: Farmers
and First National Bank of Mercersburg (total deposits: $6 million). Although the application claims
that Mercersburg is already overbanked, it also states
that National Valley Bank will consider applying for
a de novo office in the Mercersburg area if its application is not approved. Thus the merger will also
eliminate the potential for increased competition between these banks in the future.
Franklin County is presently served by 11 banks
with 30 banking offices. National Valley Bank has the
largest share, or about 28 percent, of IPC demand deposits in the county, three banks have about 59 percent
of such deposits. If this merger is consummated, National Valley will hold about 32 percent, and three
banks will hold about 63 percent, of such deposits. In
our view, this merger would have an adverse effect on
competition.

FIRST NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, ONTARIO, CALIF., AND INLAND VALLEY BANK, HEMET, CALIF.
Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

Inland Valley Bank, Hemet, Calif., with
I
and First National Bank and Trust Company, Ontario, Calif. (6268), which had. .
merged Mar. 10, 1969, under charter and title of the latter bank (6268). The
merged bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLERS DECISION

On December 2, 1968, the First National Bank and
Trust Company, Ontario, Calif., and the Inland Valley
Bank, Hemet, Calif., applied to the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency for permission to merge
under the charter and with the title of the former.
The First National Bank and Trust Company, the
charter bank, serves a population of 229,000 located
in the western portions of San Bernardino and Riverside counties. The economy is diverse, consisting of
light and heavy industry, agriculture, and residential
development. Prospects for continued growth are
excellent.
The charter bank, with I PC deposits of $52 million,
operates 10 branches in its service area. Its lending
limit is adequate for most local needs and its resources
are sufficient to permit it to offer a relatively full complement of modern banking services.
Inland Valley Bank, with IPC deposits of $5.1 million, serves the Hemet Valley area, 53 miles southeast
of Ontario, where the charter bank's main office is located. This bank operates no branches although its
proposal to establish a branch 1 mile west of Hemet,
its home office location, has been approved.
The merging bank finds its lending limit inadequate
to fulfill the needs of the large and growing agricultural, industrial, and commercial accounts in the
Hemet Valley. The expected economic growth, the
development of retirement facilities, and the consolidation of agricultural units have forced local bank users
to seek outside banking sources offering larger lines of
credit and more extensive service.




$6. 505, 653
67^ 092, 206

To be
operated

2 !.

|
73, 597, 859 J.

13

The proposed merger would bring the Hemet Valley
area an additional full-service bank with sufficient resources to meet local credit needs. It would replace a
small institution, having only limited capacity to serve
the public, with a branch bank capable of competing
with branches of the large statewide systems operating
in the area.
The competitive effect of the merger will not be adverse. The applicant banks do not compete with each
other at all; their closest offices are 28 miles apart.
Neither bank dominates the banking structure in its
own area: The charter bank holds only 12 percent of
the deposits and 11 percent of the loans in its area, and
Inland Valley holds 10 percent of the deposits and 13
percent of the loans in its area.
Applying the statutory criteria we conclude that the
proposal is in the public interest. It is, therefore,
approved.
FEBRUARY 5,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

The head offices of the merging banks are about 53
miles apart. Their nearest offices are about 28 miles
apart, with numerous banking alternatives in the intervening area. Thus, it does not appear that this merger
will eliminate any significant existing competition.
California law permits statewide de novo branching.
Therefore, FNB could be permitted to branch de novo
into Hemet. However, Hemet (population 5,416) is
now served by four banks, and a fifth, Bank of America,
has an application pending to open an office there.

51

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FIRST NATIONAL BANK, SAN DIEGO, CALIF., AND ORANGE COUNTY BANK, SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO, C A L I F .

Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

Orange County Bank, San Juan Capistrano, Calif., with
was purchased Mar. 13, 1969, by Southern California First National Bank, San
Diego, Calif. (3050), which had
After the purchase was effected, the receiving bank had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On November 13, 1968, Southern California First
National Bank, San Diego, Calif., applied to the Office
of the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to
purchase the assets and assume the liabilities of Orange
County Bank, San Juan Capistrano, Calif.
Southern California First National Bank, with IPC
deposits of $422.2 million, was chartered in 1883 as the
First National Bank of San Diego. Operated as a unit
bank until 1927, it has since pursued a policy of aggressive expansion. Today it operates 34 branches in San
Diego County, four in Orange County, and five in
Los Angeles County, and has approval for two additional branches to be located in Los Angeles County,
one in Orange County, and one in San Diego County.
The market area covered by the purchasing bank
includes all of San Diego County, which has a population of about 1.3 million, half of whom reside in the
city of San Diego. It also covers Orange County and
Los Angeles County. The economy of this area is stable
and highly diversified in agriculture, industry, foreign
and domestic finance and trade, and many other commercial and service activities.
Numerous commercial banking offices compete in
the purchasing bank's service area including offices of
California's largest banks. In 1967, San Diego County
was served by 153 banking offices, while, in Orange
County, 155 branches of 25 different banks operated.
Of the latter total, 114 offices were operated by The
Bank of America, Security Pacific National, United
California Bank, and Crocker-Citizens National Bank.
Savings and loan associations, insurance companies,
credit unions, commercial credit companies, personal
loan companies, and lending agencies of the Federal
Government also operate in the area.
The selling Orange County Bank, with IPC deposits
of $8 million, opened for business in 1961. It presently
operates a branch in Costa Mesa, 45 miles northwest
of its head office, and one in Dana Point, about 7 miles
south of its head office. The bank has not experienced
52



To be
operated

$10,329, 181

3

594, 500, 249
603,463,615

46
49

growth commensurate with the growth of the area
which it serves.
The primary market area served by the Orange
County Bank, which is located 65 miles northwest of
San Diego, encompasses San Juan Capistrano, Dana
Point, and portions of Newport Beach and San
Clemente, as well as surrounding county territory. The
economy of this area is the same as Orange County
generally, and can best be characterized as dynamic.
Orange County has experienced phenomenal residential, commercial, and industrial growth since 1950.
Since that time, the population of the county has increased from 216,000 to a present 1,300,000, and the
emphasis has shifted from a predominantly agricultural economy to one which is diversified in industry,
manufacturing, services, and tourism. Competing with
the selling bank in its service area are 18 commercial
banks, numerous savings and loan associations, and a
number of other financial institutions, including credit
unions, sales finance companies, personal loan companies, mortgage companies, factors, and lending
agencies of the Federal Government. The largest commercial banks in the area are the United California
Bank, operating 26 offices which account for 37.6 percent of the area's total deposits; Bank of America,
operating 63 branches in the area, which hold 24.1
percent of the area's total deposits; and Security Pacific National Bank, operating 39 branches which
account for 12.2 percent of the area's total deposits.
The selling bank and its three offices hold total deposits
of $8.1 million, which are 0.3 percent of the area's
total.
Benefits of the combination to the community, particularly to the clientele of the Orange County Bank,
will be the availability of a larger bank which can
accommodate virtually all legitimate credit requests.
Trust services will be available, as well as the more
extended ancillary services which the combined bank
can offer.
Because of the distance between the offices of the
two banks there are only insignificant amounts of

competition between them which will be eliminated.
The small size of the selling bank in relation to the purchasing bank will result in little competitive change
in the banking structure in the San Diego and Los
Angeles service areas., In Orange County the combined bank will enhance competition by introducing
the expanding services of the purchasing bank as an
alternative to the largest banks operating there.
Considered in the light of the statutory criteria, this
merger is judged to be in the public interest and is,
therefore, approved.
FEBRUARY 6,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

Although the head offices of the applicant banks
are 52 miles apart, their nearest offices are only 5 miles
apart in Orange County; there are no banks in the
intervening area, Thus, it appears that the proposed
acquisition will result in the elimination of some direct
competition.

Moreover, the proposed acquisition will also result
in the elimination of the potential for increased competition, particularly in Orange County. Southern California Bank plans to open a de novo branch in San
Clemente, about 10 miles from a branch of Orange
County Bank; the amount of direct competition between the two will be limited because four branches
of some of the biggest California banks operate in the
intervening area. Nevertheless, the opening of this
branch does demonstrate Southern California Bank's
interest and willingness to expand its Orange County
operations through de novo branching.
As of June 30, 1966, 22 banks operated in Orange
County. As of that date, the two banks that are now
the Orange County branches of Southern California
Bank held slightly over 1 percent of the county I PC
demand deposits and Orange County Bank held
slightly over one-half of 1 percent of such deposits.
However, Orange County clearly overstates the market that will be effected by this merger.

THE HAZLETON NATIONAL BANK, HAZLETON, PA., AND THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF NUREMBERG, NUREMBERG, PA.
Banking offices

Total assets

Name of bank and type of transaction

In
operation

The First National Bank of Nuremberg, Nuremberg, Pa. (12563), with
and The Hazleton National Bank, Hazleton, Pa. (4204), which had
merged Mar. 17, 1969, under charter and title of the latter bank (4204). The
merged bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLERS DECISION

On August 28, 1968, The Hazleton National Bank,
Hazleton, Luzerne County, Pa.5 and The First National
Bank of Nuremberg, Nuremberg, Schuylkill County,
Pa., applied to the Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency for permission to merge under the charter
and with the title of the former.
The charter bank, with IPC deposits of $40 million,
is located in Hazleton, Pa., a city of about 35,000
people. Hazieton was formerly a center for the mining
and production of anthracite coal. With the decline of
the coal industry in the 1940's and 1950's, the growth
and economic stability of Hazleton was adversely
affected as people and businesses left the area and
unemployment rose to 16 percent. In the mid-1950's5




$2, 667, 097
50, 367, 934
53,035,031

To be
operated

1

6

through a progressive program, new business and capital investment were attracted, and the population increased to reflect the new industrial growth. The
management of the bank, being young and extremely
capable, is largely responsible for the bank's favorable
growth and the excellent prospects for the future.
The single-office merging bank, with IPC deposits
of $2 million, is situated in Nuremberg, Pa., a town of
some 1,000 people, located about 15 miles southwest
of Hazleton in Schuylkill County, Pa. The area is predominantly agricultural, and the bank, while trying to
meet these needs, has been slow in its growth because
the agricultural economy has been very sluggish. The
bank has only one full-time officer and his sickness or
death would leave no responsible leadership.
The area presently served by the merging banks in53

eludes portions of Schuylkill and Luzerne counties.
The applicant bank serves the city of Hazleton and an
area 5 to 10 miles beyond the city limits. The merging
bank is entirely a "local" bank limited to Nuremberg
and the surrounding farm population. The respective
areas are completely different with the applicant's
service area being highly industrialized with such
diversified businesses as plastics, electronics, clothing,
and needle companies. The merging bank's trade area,
almost solely agricultural, is presently at an economic
standstill; on the completion of two major interstate
highways, increased growth is imminent and expected.
The two banks are noncompetitive. Each is located in
separate areas some 15 miles apart.
This merger will not unduly concentrate area banking assets in the resultant bank. It will increase the
resources of Hazleton National Bank to $49.1 million,
far short of several other competitors: Northeastern
Pennsylvania National Bank and Trust Company,
Hazleton, Pa., with $268.6 million total resources; the
First National Bank of Wilkes-Barre, Pa., with $138.5
million in assets; and Pennsylvania National Bank and
Trust Company, Pottsville, Pa., with assets of $107.9
million. This merger will insure a more progressive
bank to serve the needs of Nuremberg. It will offer
increased lending limits, introduce a highly capable
and aggressive management, and extend more diversified banking services to its customers.
Applying the statutory criteria to this proposal, it
is found to be in the public interest. The merger is,
therefore, approved.
JANUARY 22,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

Hazleton and Nuremberg are located in the anthracite coal region of northeastern Pennsylvania. The
economy of Hazleton (population approximately 32,000) was hit hard when the mining of anthracite coal
declined in the early fifties. Since that period, industry
of a diversified nature has developed in the Hazleton
area and the economy is growing again. Nuremberg
(population about 1,000) is located 15 miles southwest
of Hazleton. There are five commercial banks with
11 offices in Hazleton, while Bank of Nuremberg is
the only bank in Nuremberg.
The offices of Hazleton National nearest to Bank of
Nuremberg are in Hazleton about 15 miles away. Competition between the two banks would be slight.
Nuremberg's services appear to be limited to customers
in the Nuremberg area. Some Nuremberg residents
work in Hazleton and may do business writh Hazleton
banks, including Hazleton National.
Pennsylvania law would permit each bank to branch
into the areas where the other operates offices. However, in view of the Bank of Nuremberg's limited size,
it seems quite unlikely that it would branch de novo
into Hazleton or other areas in Luzerne County. Also,
Bank of Nuremberg's modest competitive position in
Schuylkill County (as shown by the fact that it accounted for only about 1 percent of the county's commercial bank deposits) would reduce the significance
of Hazleton National's entry into Schuylkill County by
merger rather than de novo branching, even if the latter form of entry were likely. For these reasons, we
believe that the proposed merger wrould have very
little significant effect on potential competition.

PEOPLES FIRST NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, HAZLETON, PA., AND THE BANK OF LEHIGHTON, LEHIGHTON, PA.

Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

The Bank of Lehighton, Lehighton, Pa., with
and Peoples First National Bank and Trust Company, Hazleton, Pa. (3893),
which had
merged Mar. 31, 1969, under charter and title of the latter bank (3893). The
merged bank at date of merger had

54



To be
operated

$7,217,437

1

53, 077, 293

5

60, 342, 001

6

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On September 23, 1968, the Peoples First National
Bank and Trust Company, Hazleton, Pa., and The
Bank of Lehighton, Lehighton, Pa., applied to the
Comptroller of the Currency for permission to merge
under the charter and with the title of the former.
Peoples First National Bank and Trust Company,
the charter bank, with I PC deposits of approximately
$44 million, was chartered in 1888. In addition to its
main office in Hazleton, it operates four branch offices,
two in Hazleton, one in Conyngham, and one in
Freeland.
The Bank of Lehighton, the merging bank, with I PC
deposits of approximately $5.2 million, was organized
in 1949. This bank operates no branch offices.
The charter bank serves an area, comprised of
southern Luzerne County and northern Carbon and
Schuylkill counties, with a population of approximately 88,000. The area is highly diversified economically, with industries engaged in fabricating light
metals, processing and fabricating synthetic materials,
and manufacturing electrical fixtures, house and cargo
trailers, and paper packaging. There is also anthracite coal mining and processing in this area.
The merging bank serves Lehighton and the surrounding area of Carbon County, a population of approximately 14,500. The area is primarily a residential
sector with most of the labor force being employed in
the Allentown-Easton-Bethlehem labor market, 30
miles to the southeast. The mountainous areas immediately to the north and east of Lehighton have historically been a tourist attraction and, with the
development of modern highway networks connecting
this area writh metropolitan New York and Philadelphia, the demand for recreational facilities has increased. A number of out-of-area individuals are
constructing year-round residences in this sector of
Carbon County with the intention of retiring there.
The charter bank is the fourth ranked of eight
banks competing in its service area. The largest bank,
American Bank and Trust Company of Pennsylvania,
Reading, Pa., with total deposits of $329 million, operates a branch in McAdoo, 4 miles from Hazleton. The
second largest bank, Northeastern Pennsylvania National Bank, Scranton, Pa., with total deposits of $236
million, operates two offices in Hazleton. The third
largest bank, The First National Bank of Wilkes-Barre,
with total deposits of $117 million, operates branch
offices in Drum and Conyngham. Due to the size of




the merging bank, this merger will not have any significant effect on the competitive position of the charter
bank within its present service area. In fact, it will
place the locally based charter bank in a better position
to compete against the larger out-of-area based banks.
There are eight banks operating in the service area
of the merging bank, which ranks seventh in size. Five
of the seven competitors have total deposits of over
$10 million. This merger will not significantly affect
the competitive position of these banks except to introduce a new, vigorous, and aggressive competitor into
the area.
Competition between the subject banks is nonexistent. This is due to geographic barriers between
the two areas which makes customer crossover unlikely
since other banking alternatives are more readily available. These same barriers make it economically unfeasible for either of the subject banks to branch de
novo into the other's market area.
The resulting bank, with its increased lending
capacity, will be better equipped to meet the financial
needs of the industrial community of Hazleton and at
the same time provide the funds for the residential
and recreational expansion and development of the
Lehighton area. Trust services, heretofore not provided
by the merging bank, will be available, along with the
benefits of an electronic data processing system currently in use by the charter bank.
Applying the statutory criteria, it is concluded that
the proposed merger is in the public interest and the
application is, therefore, approved.
JANUARY 30,1969.
SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

There appears to be little competition between the
merging banks, which are 20 miles apart. Peoples and
Lehighton Bank are separated by mountainous terrain which apparently tends to limit customer mobility.
There are also several banks in the intervening area, as
well as in the towni of Lehighton, which compete with
Lehighton Bank.
Pennsylvania law would permit each bank to branch
into the areas wrhere the other operates offices. However, in view of the Lehighton Bank's limited size, it
seems quite unlikely that it would branch de novo into
Hazleton or other areas in Luzerne County. Also,
Lehighton Bank's modest competitive position in
Carbon County (as shown by the fact that it accounted
for only about 7.5 percent of the county's commercial
55

bank deposits) would reduce the significance of
People's entry into the Carbon County by merger
rather than de novo branching, even if the latter form

of entry were likely. For these reasons, we believe that
the proposed merger would have very little significant
effect on potential competition.

THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF NEWARK, NEWARK, OHIO, AND THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF UTICA, UTICA, OHIO

Banking offices
Total assets

Name of bank and type of transaction

In
operation

The First National Bank of Utica, Utica, Ohio (7596), with
and The First National Bank of Newark, Newark, Ohio (858), which had
merged Mar. 31, 1969, under charter and title of the latter bank (858). The
merged bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLER'S DECISION

On December 13, 1968, The First National Bank of
Utica, Utica, Ohio, and The First National Bank of
Newark, Newark, Ohio, applied to the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency for permission to merge
under the charter and with the title of the latter.
The First National Bank of Newark, with IPC
deposits of $29.2 million, was chartered in 1865. It
operates three branches, one each in the municipalities
of Newark, Heath, and Buckeye Lake. Newark, the
county seat of Licking County, is located in the geographic center of the State, about 33 miles east of
Columbus, Ohio. It has a reported population of
47,000 inhabitants, with 67,000 located in the trade
area. The economy of the Newark area is largely
dependent upon manufacturing and trucking.
The merging First National Bank of Utica, a unit
bank with IPC deposits of $5.8 million, was organized
in 1871 as a private bank and converted to a National
bank status in 1905, under its present name. Utica is
located 13 miles north of Newark near the Licking
County line. Its population approximates 2,000 while
4,500 additional residents are served in the trade area.
The economy of this area is largely agricultural
although the village has one firm with 292 employees.
There are presently 10 banks operating in Licking
County. In addition to the charter bank, the $65 million Park National Bank of Newark, operating five
branches, and the $42 million Newark Trust Company,
operating three branches, compete in Newark. The
$7 million merging bank has direct competition in
Utica from the single-office, $4 million, Utica Savings
Bank. Many other banks in the central Ohio area,
56



$6, 991, 140
39, 643, 928

To be
operated

1
4

46, 539, 404

5

including the largest Columbus banks, solicit business
from Licking County.
Competition will not be adversely affected by this
merger as there is presently little competition between
the merging banks. Because of Licking County's position in the central Ohio area, as one of the 20 counties
for which Columbus is the focal point, bank competition will be only slightly affected as a result of this
merger. In Newark, and in Licking County, the charter bank's position as third will not change. In Utica,
bank competition should be stimulated through the
introduction of additional services which can be offered
by the resulting bank.
Consummation of this merger should assure continuity of management, thereby eliminating the management succession problem present in the merging
bank. In addition, this merger will make available to
the customers of the merging bank larger loans, electronic data processing, and generally a more aggressive
banking institution.
In light of the statutory criteria, it is determined
that the merger is in the public interest and is, therefore, approved.
FEBRUARY 18,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

The First National Bank of Newark, organized in
1865, is a subsidiary of BancOhio Corporation, Columbus, Ohio, a registered bank holding company. It
operates its main office and a branch in Newark, and
two branches outside of Newark in Licking County,
Ohio.
The closest offices of the merging banks are 13 miles
apart, with no banks in the intervening area. Although

Newark Bank originates only $117,000 in IPG deposits
and $106,000 in loans from the Utica area, Utica
Bank originates $290,000 in IPC deposits and $235,000
in loans from the Newark area. Thus, it appears that
Utica Bank is a competitive alternative for residents
of the Newark area. This competition would be eliminated by this merger.
Ohio law permits de novo branching in the county
in which the bank's head office is located. Thus, either
bank could branch into the other's service area. However, it would not appear likely that Newark Bank
would branch de novo into Utica (population 2,000),
wrhich already has two banks and a small population.
Newark (population 47,000) is now served by Newark
Bank and two other banks, with total deposits of $65

million and $42 million, respectively. Utica Bank,
which has not opened a branch office in almost 100
years, does not appear to be a likely potential entrant
into Newark.
There are presently 10 banks operating in Licking
County, of which Newark Bank, with 21 percent of
county commercial bank deposits, ranks third. The
three largest banks, all headquartered in Newark, hold
82 percent of such deposits. Utica Bank, the eighth
largest bank in the county has 2 percent of such deposits. Thus, if this merger is consummated, Newark
Bank will remain the third largest bank in the county,
with 23 percent of county commercial bank deposits,
and the three largest banks will hold 84 percent of
such deposits.

THE SOUTHERN MICHIGAN NATIONAL BANK OF GOLDWATER, COLDWATER, MICH., AND THE FIRST STATE BANK OF TEKONSHA,
TEKONSHA, MICH.
Banking offices
Total assets

Name of bank and type of transaction

In
operation

The First State Bank of Tekonsha, Tekonsha, Mich., with
and The Southern Michigan National Bank of Goldwater, Goldwater, Mich.
(1924), which had
merged Mar. 31, 1969, under charter and title of the latter bank (1924). The
merged bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On November 22, 1968, The First State Bank of
Tekonsha, Tekonsha, Mich., and The Southern Michigan National Bank of Goldwater, Coldwater, Mich.,
applied to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to merge under the charter and
with the title of the latter.
The Southern Michigan National Bank of Coldwater, with IPC deposits of $23.5 million, was organized in 1872. In addition to its main office, it operates
a branch in Union City and a "drive-through" branch
located on its main office premises.
Coldwater, Mich., is located in the south central
part of lower Michigan, about 12 miles north of the
Indiana State line. The population of the city is 83800
while that of the trade area is about 35,000. The economy of the area is predominantly agricultural with
industry contributing significantly. The numerous lakes
in the area result in tourism playing a role. An urban
renewal project is of special interest in Coldwater.
Principal commercial banking competition comes
from the Branch County Bank of Coldwater, which




To be
operated

$1,931,491
30, 035, 497
31,966,988

has total deposits of $20.2 million. Additional banking
competition derives from the Coldwater Township
office of the First National Bank of Quincy; the
Peoples State Bank, Branson, Mich.,; and the First
National Bank, Freemont, Ind. Savings and loan associations, small loan companies, insurance companies,
credit unions, and direct lending agencies of the Federal Government also operate in the area.
The merging First State Bank of Tekonsha, with
IPC deposits of $1.5 million, was organized in 1877
and operates no branches. Earnings of this bank have
not been particularly good because its lending limit has
not been adequate to meet the needs of larger borrowers. This bank not only faces a serious management succession problem but must also refurbish its
antiquated quarters.
Tekonsha, 12 miles from Coldwater, has a population of only 744 and a trade area population of 5,000.
Agricultural activity includes dairying and livestock
feeding. Industrial activity is negligible. Growth in this
community has been slow, and population figures have
remained steady.
The First National Bank is the only bank in Tekon57

sha. Competition comes from the banks located in
Battle Creek, Marshall, Jackson, and Litchfield, all of
which are much larger than the merging bank.
The merger will benefit the community of Tekonsha
by introducing younger and more capable management of the charter bank, a larger lending limit, more
aggressive loaning policies, and improved and expanded service.
There is otherwise only insignificant amounts of
competition between the participating banks. The
merger will have no effect on competition in Tekonsha since there is no other bank in town. The entry of
the charter bank with its greater capabilities and more
aggressive approach should offer increased competition to the larger banks from Battle Creek, Marshall,
and Jackson who canvass the area from the north and
east.
Considered in the light of the statutory criteria, this
merger is judged to be in the public interest and is,
therefore, approved.
FEBRUARY 14,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

The geographic area to be served by the resulting
bank is all of Branch County (1960 population,

35,000), plus the southern part of Calhoun County, a
predominantly agricultural region located near the
Michigan-Indiana border. The area, served by three
superhighways, is experiencing steady growth in industry, trade, and population.
State Bank is 11 miles north of Southern Bank's
main office and about 6 miles east of Southern Bank's
branch at Union City; there are no intervening banks
in this area, although there are two other banks (total
deposits, $19 million and $12 million, respectively)
operating in Coldwater. Southern Bank derives about
100 loans, totaling over $300,000 and about 175 deposit
accounts, totaling over $265,000, from the Tekonsha area. State Bank derives about 17 loans, totaling
over $45,000 and about 70 deposit accounts, totaling over $115,000, from the Coldwater area. Thus, it
seems clear that there is substantial competition between the merging banks which would be eliminated
by the merger.
As of June 30, 1966, nine banks operated within
about a 20-mile radius of Coldwater, in Michigan. As
of that date, Southern Bank held the largest share, or
33 percent, of total deposits held by these bank offices,
which share would be increased to 35 percent after the
merger.

ALASKA NATIONAL BANK OF FAIRBANKS, FAIRBANKS, ALASKA, AND MINERS AND MERCHANTS BANK OF ALASKA, NOME, ALASKA

Banking offices
Total assets

Name of bank and type of transaction

In
operation

Miners and Merchants Bank of Alaska, Nome, Alaska, with
and Alaska National Bank of Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska (14747), which had.. .
merged Apr. 1, 1969, under charter and title of the latter bank (14747). The
merged bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On November 4, 1968, the Miners and Merchants
Bank of Alaska, Nome, Alaska, and the Alaska National Bank of Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska, applied to
the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to merge under the charter and with the title
of the latter.
The Alaska National Bank of Fairbanks, with I PC
deposits of $20.2 million, was organized as a State bank
in 1940 and converted to a National Association in
1955. It operates six branches, including two in Fairbanks; one in Oak Junction, 19.7 miles southeast of
Fairbanks; one in Delta Junction, 100 miles southeast;
58



$4, 901, 927
29, 607, 689
34,509,617

To be
operated
3
6
9

one in Nevano, 60 miles southwest; and a facility operation on Eielson Air Force Base, 25 miles southeast.
Fairbanks, Alaska's second largest city, has a population of 20,000 and serves a trade area of 160,000 square
miles in interior Alaska. This area has a population of
72,000, of which 24,000 are located at three military
bases. National defense and Government spending are
the mainstays of the local economy, providing 52 percent of local wages. The University of Alaska, located
in Fairbanks, and tourism, in an increasing degree,
contribute to the economy. It is expected that the
petroleum industry will play a major role in the Fairbanks economy in the future.

The charter bank is the largest of three competing
commercial banks in Fairbanks. Its $29.5 million in
total deposits compares with $27.2 million in total deposits held by the First National Bank of Fairbanks
and $9.5 million held by the Fairbanks branch of the
Alaska State Bank, Anchorage, which, with total deposits of $31.4 million., ranks as Alaska's third largest
bank. Other financial institutions include a mutual savings bank, two savings and loan associations, insurance
companies, credit unions, sales finance companies, personal loan companies, and direct lending agencies of
the Federal Government.
The merging Miners & Merchants Bank, with IPC
deposits of $2.4 million, was chartered in 1904. It currently operates two branches and ranks 12th in size
among Alaska's 13 commercial banks. It has had difficulty in attracting management because of its remote
location and the severe climatic condition.
Nome, home-office city of the merging bank, is 540
miles west of Fairbanks, while Kotzebue and Barrow,
where the bank's branches are located, lie north of the
Arctic Circle, 447 air miles northwest, and 550 miles
north, respectively. The population of Nome and its
environs is about 5,000, while 1,800 reside in the Kotzebue area, and about 2,000 in Barrow. This portion of
Alaska encompasses 167,000 square miles and contains
an estimated 14,000 inhabitants. The economy is
largely dependent on defense and Government spending, which accounts for about 48 percent of the payrolls in Nome. Most of the area, particularly the Kotzebue and Barrow regions, is undeveloped and inhabited
by Eskimos and Indians who, untrained and unable to
locate jobs, live in poverty. There are large untapped
oil reserves and other resources which provide hope for
the future. The merging bank is the only financial institution which serves these areas.
Consummation of this merger will provide the merging bank with greater depth of management. In addition, present customers of the merging bank will have
available a wider range of banking services, including
trust services, than those now offered by the merging
bank. Also, the individual lending limit of $30,000 per

383-814—70
5



individual borrower will be increased to $160,000. The
merged institution will be a stronger institution, more
capable of meeting the needs of the Alaskan economy
in the areas which it serves.
Competition will not be adversely affected by the
merger. The two merging banks, which are quite far
apart, do not compete. The merging institution has no
competitors in the areas it; serves. The charter bank,
although presently the largest bank operating in Fairbanks, will not increase its lead significantly. Statewide,
the resulting bank will become third largest, a gain
from fifth position now occupied by the charter bank.
However, it will hold less than 9 percent of Alaska's
commercial bank deposits and less than 8 percent of the
loans. Finally, it will be better able to compete with the
first and second largest banks in the State.
It is concluded, in the light of the statutory criteria,
that this merger is in the public interest. It is, therefore, approved.
JANUARY 29,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

Nome (population 2,500) located on the Seward
Peninsula in the western part of the State, is the principal town in an area in excess of 167,000 square miles
in size, which extends to the Arctic Ocean and has a
population of about 14,000 persons; Miners and Merchants' three offices are the only banking facilities in
this area.
The nearest offices of the merging banks are about
450 miles apart. Thus, there would appear to be no
substantial existing competition between the merging
banks.
Under Alaska law, statewide de novo branching is
permitted and thus Alaska National could legally
branch de novo into the area served by Miners and
Merchants. However, considering the distances involved, as well as the fact that the area can probably
not support more than one commercial bank because
of its small and scattered population, we do not believe
that this merger will have a substantially adverse effect
on competition.

59

THE MANUFACTURERS NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO, CHICAGO, I I I . , AND NATIONAL CITY BANK IN CHICAGO, CHICAGO, I I I .
Banking offices
Total assets

Name of bank and type of transaction

In
operation

National City Bank in Chicago, Chicago, 111. (14562), with
was purchased Apr. 1, 1969, by The Manufacturers National Bank of Chicago,
Chicago, 111. (14245), which had
After the purchase was effected, the receiving bank had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On November 29, 1968, The Manufacturers National Bank of Chicago, Chicago, 111., applied to the
Comptroller of the Currency for permission to purchase the assets and assume the liabilities of the
National City Bank in Chicago, Chicago, 111.
Both the buying and selling banks are located in the
city of Chicago which contains an estimated population of 3,480,000 people. Chicago is considered the
economic, transportation, and trading capital of the
midwestern United States. The city and surrounding
metropolitan area enjoy the benefits of a diversified
economy with no single activity dominating the economic scene. In addition to its many other attributes,
Chicago can boast the world's largest railroad center,
busiest airport, and a trucking industry whose services
are more widespread than any other city's.
National City, the selling bank, with I PC deposits
of $22 million, is approximately 2 miles west of Chicago's financial district in an area known as the Near
West Side Community, much of which is devoted to
industrial use. In fact, the only residential construction in the area since the 1920's has been six public
housing projects. Development plans presently contemplated by the city of Chicago for this area would
leave the bank's office with no adjacent access streets.
The Near West Side Community showed a 20 percent
decrease in population between 1950 and 1960, and it
is currently estimated that the rate of decline in
population is even greater.
National City, founded in 1946, ranks 64th, in terms
of total deposits, of the 89 commercial banks located
in Chicago. Since its inception it has been actively engaged in the commercial lending field, with little emphasis on mortgage lending. Because of economic
conditions in the area, the bank's deposits increased
only $2 million between year-end 1963 and September
1968, and earnings declined in both 1966 and 1967,
reaching a 5-year low in 1967.

60



To be
operated

$27, 721, 000

1

81, 633, 000
94, 545, 000

1
1

Manufacturers National Bank, with IPC deposits of
$74.3 million, is located approximately 4 miles northwest of Chicago's financial district, and approximately
1.5 miles to the north of the selling bank. The bank is
located in the area known as West Town Community.
The area has shown much greater economic stability
than the Near West Side Community and residential
development has commenced only a few blocks from
the bank's office. It was estimated by the Chicago Association of Commerce and Industry that median income, in 1966, in West Town was $7,210, compared to
Near West's median income of only $4,860. Although
a substantial portion of the area is devoted to industrial
use, the structures are generally in much better condition than those in Near West Town.
Manufacturers National, which was founded in
1934, presently ranks as the 28th largest bank in the
city, in terms of total deposits. Historically, the bank
has been characterized by a high degree of time deposits, and the loan portfolio is concentrated in the
area of real estate mortgages.
Because of the varied deposit and loan portfolios of
the two banks they are not considered substantial competitors for either retail or wholesale business. The
banks, over the years, have placed emphasis on different aspects of bank lending, with Manufacturers
National concentrating on residential mortgages, and
National City concentrating on commercial lending.
Loans secured by real estate accounted for 68 percent
of Manufacturers total loan portfolio, while 67 percent of National City's loan portfolio was made up of
commercial and industrial loans.
In August 1968, the North Ogden Management
Corporation acquired 80 percent of the outstanding
shares of Manufacturers. Shareholders controlling this
corporation individually own, or control, 62 percent
of the outstanding shares of National City Bank
through a one-bank holding company, the National
City Bancorporation, Inc. Such common ownership

tends to mitigate any actual or potential competition
between the two institutions.
The resulting bank would have combined deposits
aggregating only one-half of 1 percent of total Chicago
bank deposits. Management of the resulting bank,
strengthened by the addition of officers from National
City Bank, should operate more aggressively in developing new business and expanding commercial lending
activities in response to the credit needs of retail,
wholesale, and manufacturing firms in the Chicago
area. The larger lending limit of the resulting bank
should help to attract new customers by providing
service heretofore unavailable to its merchant customers in the area, who have generally had to look
elsewhere for their commercial financing needs.
Based on the facts presented, the convenience and
needs of the community to be served clearly outweigh
whatever insubstantial adverse effects on competition
this acquisition may hold. The application is, therefore,
approved.
FEBRUARY 6,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

Chicago's Near West Side community, where National City is located, is situated approximately in
mid-Cook County, adjacent to Chicago's Loop area
on the east and to the West Town community, in which
Manufacturers Bank is located, on the north.
The merging banks are less than 1.5 miles apart,
with no banks directly in the intervening area, although
there are two banks just east of the merging banks.
Thus, although these banks appear to derive their
loan and deposits from separate geographical areas,
they are sufficiently close to be considered competitive
alternatives to each other. To this extent, this proposed merger will eliminate competition.
However, although this merger would eliminate a
competitive alternative for the people living in the
Near West Side and West Town communities, within
2.5 miles of National City and 4 miles of Manufacturers Bank, is the Loop area, with Chicago's largest
banks, including four with total deposits of over $1
billion.

CLINTON NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, S T . JOHNS, M I C H . , AND T H E UNION STATE BANK OF LAINGSBURG,
LAINGSBURG, M I C H .

Banking offices
Total assets

Name of hank and type of transaction

In
operation

The Union State Bank of Laingsburg, Laingsburg, Mich., with
and Clinton National Bank and Trust Company, St. Johns, Mich. (3378),
which had
merged Apr. 24, 1969, under charter and title of the latter bank (3378). The
merged bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On January 12, 1969, the Clinton National Bank
and Trust Company, St. Johns, Clinton County, Mich.,
and The Union State Bank of Laingsburg, Laingsburg,
Mich., applied to the Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency for permission to merge under the charter
and with the title of the former.
The charter bank, Clinton National Bank and Trust
Company, with IPC deposits of $27.8 million, is located in St. Johns, Mich., a city of approximately
6,000 people. St. Johns is the primary shopping center
for agriculturally inclined Clinton County, of which
it is the county seat, While the county's economic dependence upon agriculture is now declining due to
fewer and larger farms and the availability of jobs in




To be
operated

$1,714,959

1

37, 043, 532

10

38, 758, 492

11

nearby cities, the charter bank, through its 10 offices,
effectively competes in its trade area. Growth of the
bank has been substantial in the last 10 years; deposits
since 1959 have increased sixfold and loans eightfold.
The service history and competitive ability of the bank
indicates good future prospects.
The single-office merging bank, with IPC deposits
of $1.3 million, is located in Laingsburg, a town of
approximately 1,100 people, 18 miles southeast of St.
Johns. The area is predominantly agricultural, having
some of the most productive land in the State of
Michigan. Although the bank was. agriculturallyoriented, with a decline in agricultural activity, and
a large number of people being employed in industrial
capacities in Lansing, St. Johns, and Owosso, the bank

61

is now principally dependent on industrial activity in
these cities. In recent years the bank has not grown to
any great extent, and it is suspected that one reason
for reduced growth is the low lending limit of the
bank. In the next 2 years, the merging bank will,
through retirement, lose its principal loan officer, who
is the only person capable of undertaking management
responsibility. Considering the limited resources of the
bank, new management has not been obtained in the
last few years and prospects for the future are not
optimistic.
The; area presently served by the merging banks includes portions of Clinton and Shiawassee counties. The
charter bank, with its main office in the county seat and
nine branches scattered throughout the county, has
a trade area that approximates Clinton County proper.
The merging bank, with no branches and a low lending limit, is confirmed entirely to a local bank status,
attempting to serve the needs of Laingsburg and the
surrounding farm population. The respective trade
areas, although contiguous, do not presently overlap to
any great extent. Eighteen miles separate the main
offices, and the charter bank's Bath branch, the nearest
to merging bank, is some 7 miles distant.
Assets will not be unduly concentrated in the resultant bank through the proposed merger. Total resources of the Clinton National Bank and Trust
Company will be increased only $1.7 million, to $35.7
million, leaving it far short of several larger banks who
create intensive competition in the same area as the
resultant bank, viz., Michigan National Bank, Lansing,
with 18 offices and $1.17 billion in assets; American
Bank and Trust Company, Lansing, with eight offices
and $146 million in resources; Bank of Lansing, with
four offices and $128.5 million in assets; Citizens Commercial and Savings Bank, Flint, with 25 offices and
$359.7 million in resources; and Genesee Merchants
Bank and Trust, Flint, with 30 offices and $294.6 million in assets. The merger will insure that Laingsburg
has a more progressive and viable bank to meet its
local needs since lending limits will be increased and
more diversified banking services will be extended to
its customers.

62



Applying the statutory criteria to this proposal, it
is found to be in the public interest and the merger
is, therefore, approved.
MARCH 18,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

Clinton National, St. Johns, Mich., is the dominant
bank of Clinton County. Shiawassee County is adjacent
to Clinton County on the east, and Laingsburg, where
the sole office of Union State is located, is near the
Clinton County line.
Clinton National's branch at Bath, Clinton County,
is separated by 11 miles from Union State's sole office
in Shiawassee County. There are no banking alternatives in the intervening area. The nearest Shiawassee
County banking alternative for residents of Laingsburg
is in Perry, 12 miles to the southeast. Hence, the two
banks do serve somewhat the same region and so it
appears that this merger will eliminate some existing
competition.
Clinton National's head office is located 18 miles
from Union State's sole office. Michigan law would
prohibit Clinton National's opening a de novo branch
in Laingsburg, but Clinton National could open a
branch in Shiawassee County at any point less than
25 miles from its main office in a city or village in
which there is no State or National bank, or branch
thereof, in operation.
Although larger banks from Flint and Lansing can
enter Shiawassee County too, Clinton National is already the dominant bank headquartered in its county
and is as large as any bank in Shiawassee County.
Moreover, it has a general record of expansion, and
it has already expanded into Ionia and Eaton counties
by de novo entry. Hence, Clinton National appears as
one of the most likely potential entrants into Shiawassee County banking competition.
However, in view of the small size of the acquired
bank, we conclude that the proposed merger is not
likely to have a significantly adverse effect on competion in Shiawassee County as a whole.

FIRST CITIZENS NATIONAL BANK, TUPELO, MISS., AND FIRST CITIZENS NATIONAL BANK, BELMONT, MISS.
Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

First Citizens National Bank, Belmont, Miss. (15667), with
|
was purchased Apr. 30, 1969, by First Citizens National Bank, Tupelo, Miss. |
(15479), which had
|
After the purchase was effected, the receiving bank had
|

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On November 22, 1968, the First Citizens National
Bank, Tupelo, Miss., applied to the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency for permission to purchase the assets and assume the liabilities of the First
Citizens National Bank, Belmont, Miss.
The purchasing First Citizens National Bank of
Tupelo, with IPC deposits of $17.5 million, was
organized in 1922 as a State bank, and converted to
a National Association in 1922. It operates six branches,
three of which are located in Tupelo, and one each in
Fulton, Okolena, and Verona. This small bank has
doubled in size since 1960.
Tupelo is an industrial community of 25,000 inhabitants and the trade center of a large area, Although
industrial activity is dominant in supporting a vibrant
and strong economy, some limited agricultural activity
is present. The purchasing bank competes, in Tupelo,
with the $58 million Bank of Mississippi and the $42
million Peoples Bank and Trust Company. Other
financial institutions, including savings and loan associations, insurance companies, sales finance companies,
and personal loan companies, also compete.
The selling First Citizens National Bank, Belmont,
Miss., with IPC deposits of $3.3 million, was chartered
in 1919 as a State bank, and converted to National
status in 1968. It operates one branch in Tishomingo,
9 miles from Belmont. The bank has shown moderate
growth since 1960, with a 55 percent increase in total
resources. Earnings have been poor, however, and are
expected to continue so in the near future. The need
for new banking premises and higher salaries to attract
capable management would tend to exacerbate the
existing condition of unprofltability in the future.
The Belmont service area, which is a considerable
distance from the service area of the purchasing bank,
is small and sparsely populated. Belmont has a population of 1,100, while Tishomingo is populated by 700
people. Industrial activity is of prime importance in
the area economy, while agricultural activity, previ-




To he
operated

$5, 140, 000
22, 617, 000
27, 757, 000

ously dominant, has declined to minor significance in
recent years.
Competing with the selling bank, and its total deposits of $3.6 million, are the luka Guaranty Bank,
with total deposits of $7.9 million, and the First National Bank, with total deposits of $2.1 million, both
of nearby luka, Miss.; the Bank of Red Bay, Red Bay,
Ala., with total deposits of $3.8 million; and a branch
of the City National Bank of Russellville, located in
Red Bay. The Fulton and Booneville branches of the
Bank of Mississippi, and the Booneville branch of the
Peoples Bank and Trust Company, both of Tupelo,
also compete with the selling bank. In addition, other
financial institutions make loans and solicit deposits in
the area.
The transaction will benefit the communities in
which both banks operate by creating a larger, stronger
institution better able to meet the needs of an expanding economy through a larger lending limit, expanded
services, and stronger management. The managerial
problems of the selling bank will be solved. New bank
premises and drive-up facilities, which the selling bank
presently needs, will be made available through the
resources of the stronger, more profitable purchasing
bank. This transaction will resolve a declining earnings situation and capital problem in the selling bank.
Competitively, the proposed transaction will have
no significantly adverse effects. The 41-mile distance
separating the two banks precludes any competition
between them. In the Tupelo area, the purchasing
bank will increase its holdings by less than 3 percent
and remain third in size of the three competing banks.
The selling bank's position in Belmont, with respect
to its nearby competitors, will be strengthened without seriously unbalancing the present competitive
structure.
Considered in the light of the statutory criteria, this
merger is judged to be in the public interest and is,
therefore^ approved.
MARCH 13,

1969.

63

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

Belmont Bank operates one office in Belmont and
one office in Tishomingo (population 700), which is
9 miles north of Belmont. Tupelo Bank operates three
offices in Tupelo, and three offices in the surrounding
area. Its main office is 41 miles southwest of Belmont
Bank's main office; its Fulton office, the office nearest
to Belmont Bank, is 23 miles southwest of Belmont
Bank and 18 miles east of its main office in Tupelo.
There are no intervening banking offices between Fulton and Belmont, but another substantial Tupelo bank
also has a branch in Fulton. Some customers of Belmont Bank who have needed additional credit have
used Tupelo Bank's Fulton office. Therefore, some
direct competition in Tishomingo and Itawamba
counties will be eliminated by the merger.
Mississippi law permits banks to establish branches
within a 100-mile radius, except in towns of less than
3,100 population which have a bank. Furthermore,

Tupelo Bank has entered two adjacent counties by de
novo branching, but it cannot branch de novo into
Belmont and perhaps Tishomingo. It could, however,
enter other communities in Tishomingo County. The
first and second largest banks in Tupelo, both twice
the size of Tupelo Bank, have growing branch systems.
They are, therefore, more likely de novo entrants than
Tupelo Bank into this area. This merger is, therefore,
likely to result in less loss of potential competition than
would result if either of the larger banks of Tupelo had
acquired Belmont Bank.
Tupelo Bank is the third largest bank in Lee
County. As of June 30, 1966, through its Fulton
branch (June 30, 1966 IPC deposits: $644,000) it
held 4.6 percent of total IPC deposits in Itawamba
and Tishomingo counties, the area in which it competes with Belmont Bank. Belmont Bank held 22.1 percent of deposits; and the merger would result in a
combined market share of 26.7 percent.

MASSANUTTEN BANK OF SHENANDOAH VALLEY, N.A., STRASBURG, VA., AND PEOPLE'S BANK, MOUNT JACKSON, VA.
Banking offices
Total assets

Name of bank and type of transaction

In
operation

People':? Bank, Mount Jackson, Va., with
and M;issanutten Bank of Shenandoah Valley, National Association, Strasburg,
Va. (15566), which had
merged Apr. 30, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (15566) and title "First
Virginia Bank, N.A." The merged bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On October 11, 1968, People's Bank, Mount Jackson, Va., and Massanutten Bank of Shenandoah Valley, National Association, Strasburg, Va., applied to
the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to
merge under the charter of the latter and with the title
"First Virginia Bank, N.A."
The charter bank, with IPC deposits of $14.9 million, was organized in 1870. This bank, which operates
its main office in Strasburg and two branches in Woodstock, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of First Virginia
Bankshares Corporation.
The merging People's Bank, with IPC deposits of
$4.9 million, is a single-office institution which has
been in existence since 1900. It is also a wholly-owned
subsidiary of First Virginia Bankshares Corporation
and is located in Mount Jackson, Va., which has a
64



To be
operated

$6, 446, 665

1

18,429,942

3

24, 876, 607

4

population of 722. Mount Jackson is situated 11 miles
southwest of Woodstock and 24 miles from Strasburg.
Although both banks operate in Shenandoah County,
the merging bank serves the southern half of the
county, and the charter bank the northern half. The
economy of the county, which has a population of
23,413, is generally considered to be agricultural, although 86 percent of the population is employed in
nonagricultural labor. Four other commercial banks,
with IPC deposits ranging from $3.3 million to $7.7
million, compete in the county.
The merger will combine two existing subsidiaries of
First Virginia Bankshares Corporation, enabling the
resulting bank to offer expanded services at competitive costs as well as providing an increased lending
limit needed to meet present loan demand.
Since both banks are subsidiaries of First Virginia

Bankshares Corporation and are managed by the same
chief executive, their merger will have no real effect
on competition.
It is concluded in the light of the statutory criteria
that this merger is in the public interest. It is, therefore,
approved.
MARCH 19,

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

In view of the fact that both banks are wholly-owned
subsidiaries of a registered bank holding company,
First Virginia Bankshares Corporation, we conclude
that there is no meaningful competition between them
which might be eliminated by the proposed merger.

1969.

FIRST NATIONAL BANK IN ORANGEBURG, ORANGEBURG, S.C., AND FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF ST. GEORGE, S T . GEORGE, S.G.

Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

First National Bank of St. George, St. George, S.G. (15025), with
and First National Bank in Orangeburg, Orangeburg, S.G. (13918), which had . .
merged May 5, 1969, under charter and title of the latter bank (13918). The merged
bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On October 3, 1968, the First National Bank in
Orangeburg, Orangeburg, S.C., with I PC deposits of
$17.6 million, and the First National Bank of St.
George, St. George, S.C., with IPG deposits of $6.3 million, applied to the Comptroller of the Currency for
permission to merge under the charter and with the
title of the former.
Orangeburg, home of the charter bank, is the county
seat of Orangeburg County and is located in the southcentral part of the State. The city has a population of
approximately 13,800 and is moving from an agricultural economy to an industrial economy.
The charter bank was organized in 1934 and maintains three offices in Orangeburg and one office in
nearby Cameron. This bank competes primarily with
the American Bank and Trust, and. the Southern National Bank. Additional competition is provided by
several savings and loan associations in the area.
St. George, home of the merging bank, has a population of 1.800 and is located in the southern part of
the State. This area is primarily agricultural with some
small industry.
The merging bank was organized in 1962 and
presently operates three offices, one each in St. George,
Walterboro, and Ridgeland. Primary competition is
provided by the Farmers and Merchants Bank of
Walterboro, Bank of Walterboro, Bank of Ridgeland,
Farmers and Merchants Bank of South Carolina, and
the First National Bank of Holly Hill. Moreover, sav-




$8, 023, 501
23, 900, 597

To be
operated

3
4

31,667,889

7

ings and loan associations provide additional competition in this area. Even in light of this competition, the
bank's growth has been steady, despite management
problems.
There is no competition between the participating
banks in that the closest offices are 32 miles apart and
their respective trade areas do not overlap.
The resulting bank will be able to offer larger lending limits, a variety of services not now available to
the customers of the merging bank, and will resolve the
management problems in the merging bank.
Applying the statutory criteria, we conclude that
the proposal is in the public interest and the application is, therefore, approved.
JANUARY 17,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

The closest offices of the merging banks are about 32
miles apart, with two small banks in the intervening
area. Therefore, there would not appear to be any
significant direct competition between the two banks.
Under South Carolina law, either merging bank
could establish a de novo branch in the other's market.
However, First National Bank in Orangeburg has
limited its de novo expansion to the Orangeburg area,
and we have no evidence suggesting that it is particularly likely to extend into the St. George area.
Because of its small size, it would also not appear that
First of St. George is a likely de novo entrant into the
Orangeburg area.

65

T H E O L D LINE NATIONAL BANK, ROCKVILLE, M D . , AND UNIVERSITY NATIONAL BANK, COLLEGE PARK, M D .

Banking offices

Total assets

Name of bank and type of transaction

In
operation

The Old Line National Bank, Rockville, Md. (15497), with
'
and University National Bank, College Park, Md. (15365), which had
merged May 15, 1969, under charter and title of the latter bank (15365). The
merged bank at date of merger had
COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On February 7, 1969, the Old Line National Bank,
Rockville, Md., and the University National Bank,
College Park, Md., applied to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to merge under
the charter and with the title of the latter.
University National Bank, the charter bank, opened
for business August 1, 1964, and has I PC deposits of
$12.4 million. In addition to its head office in College
Park it operates one branch each at Riverdale, Prince
Georges County, and Gaithersburg, Montgomery
County, and has an approved but unopened branch
to be located in Silver Spring, Montgomery County.
Old Line National Bank, the merging bank, opened
for business in April 1965, and has IPC deposits of
$13.5 million. In addition to its head office in Rockville, it has two operating branches, one each in
Bethesda and Silver Spring, and an approved but
unopened branch in the Four Corners area of Montgomery County. This bank has had difficulty in obtaining managerial personnel for some time. Attempts
to obtain competent management have been unsuccessful and this bank's officers are currently directed
by the charter bank's management.
The service area of both banks includes the Maryland section of Metropolitan Washington, D.C., which
is composed of Montgomery and Prince Georges
counties. The economy of this area is mixed and
oriented toward Washington, D.C., and the Federal
establishment located there. Economic growth has
been substantial and is expected to continue.
Banking in this area is available through 114 operating offices, and includes offices of five statewide or
regional banks and 11 banks established in the last
decade. Three large Baltimore-based banks have
opened numerous offices in those two counties. Two
long-established banks headquartered here, the
Suburban Trust Company and the Citizens Bank and
Trust Company, expanded rapidly in the last decade
and experienced substantial growth.
66



$16,698,290
16,580,916

To be
operated
3
3

33, 279, 206

6

This merger will solve the merging bank's problems
by providing stability and effectiveness in management.
It will also be of benefit to present customers of the
merging bank by creating a bank with a larger lending
base, and will provide the bank with access to profitable business which both banks alone have been unable to obtain. Consolidation of internal operations will
reduce overhead and operating expenditures.
Competition will not be adversely affected by this
merger. Neither bank is a significant force in the
relevant banking market and their combination will
give the resulting bank control of less than 4 percent
of total bank deposits in the Montgomery and Prince
Georges counties, and will account for less than 6
percent of the total number of banking outlets. The
resulting bank will be 11th in size among banks now
operating in the two counties, five of which are large
statewide or regional organizations. The realignment
resulting from this proposed merger will be of little
overall consequence in the Washington Metropolitan
Area banking market.
It is concluded, in the light of the statutory criteria,
that this merger is in the public interest. It is, therefore,
approved.
APRIL 14,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

The nearest offices of the applicant banks are about
5.5 miles apart; there are numerous banking alternatives in the intervening areas. It would appear that
the proposed merger would also foreclose the possibility
of greater direct competition resulting from the opening of University National's approved but unopened
branch located 3 miles from the head office of Old
Line. However, neither merging bank is a major factor
in the area, as shown by the fact that University National holds only 3.5 percent of the total IPC demand
deposits in Prince Georges County while Old Line holds
only 2.5 percent of such deposits in Montgomery
County.

COMMUNITY NATIONAL BANK, BAKERSFIELD, CALIF., AND COMMUNITY NATIONAL BANK OF FRESNO COUNTY, MENDOTA, CALIF.
Banking offices

Total assets

Name of bank and type of transaction

|
j

Community National Bank of Fresno County, Mendota, Calif. (15182), with
and Community National Bank, Bakersfield, Calif. (14670), which had
merged May 19, 1969, under charter and title of the latter bank (14670). The
merged bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On November 6, 1968, the Community National
Bank of Fresno County, Mendota, Calif., and the
Community National Bank, Bakersfield, Calif., applied
to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency for
permission to merge under the charter and with the
title of the latter.
The charter bank, with IPC deposits of $21.8 million, opened in 1952, and presently operates 12 branch
offices in addition to its main office; all are located in
Kern County. Although this bank has been successful
and its financial condition is regarded as satisfactory,
it is not a full-service institution.
Kern County, located at the southern extremity
of the agriculturally rich San Joaquin Valley, is generally the market area of the charter bank. The population of this area is estimated at 340,000, with approximately 200,000 residing in the Greater Bakersfield
Area. The economy of this market area is dependent
primarily upon agriculture and related activities; mineral and oil production; and military activity, centered
around the development and testing of weapons, aircraft, and missiles. This market area contains more
than 55 offices of nine banks, with aggregate IPC deposits estimated at $364 million. The charter bank
holds approximately 8 percent of aggregate bank deposits in Kern County. Among the competing banks
are offices of California's largest statewide banks, including the Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association, Security Pacific National Bank,
United California Bank, and Crocker-Citizens National
Bank. Other financial institutions also compete in this
area including savings and loan associations, credit
unions, finance companies, and lending agencies of
the Federal Government.
The merging Community National Bank of Fresno
County, with IPC deposits of $3.3 million, opened
October 14, 1963, in Mendota and presently operates
three branches. This bank is presently closely affiliated
with the charter bank through common stock owner;;s:>-8i4—TO




o

$6, 893, 900
34, 737, 259

To be
operated

In
operation
4
13

40, 907, 084

17

ship; the same individual serves as chairman of the
board of both banks. The area served by this merging
institution is more than 100 miles from the charter
bank, and includes four small agricultural communities in Fresno and Merced counties in the central San
Joaquin Valley, the aggregate population of which is
about 20,000. The primary economic stimulus in
this market area is highly diversified agricultural
production.
Competition to the Community National Bank of
Fresno County in the Mendota, Kerman, Dos Palos,
and Atwater areas, where the bank's branches are
located, is provided by four branches of the Bank of
America National Trust and Savings Association.
Aggregate bank deposits in this area are approximately
$48.3 million and loans are $44 million.
While the combined bank would not offer services
significantly diverse or expanded from those presently
offered by each, the merger would enable the offices
of the Community National Bank of Fresno County to
provide services to larger operations than they presently
do. Efficiencies in loan transactions and general operations will result from this merger, which is, in reality,
the formal unification of two affiliated banks now
trying to operate as one while remaining apart. The
merger will have no impact competitively since their
nearest offices are approximately 115 miles apart.
Considered in the light of the statutory criteria, this
merger is judged to be in the public interest and is,
therefore, approved.
MARCH 4,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

The closest offices of the two banks are about 90
miles apart. Thus, this merger would not appear to
eliminate any competition between the two banks.
Each bank could branch de novo into the service
area of the other. However, Kern Bank and Fresno
Bank have had a close relationship since Fresno Bank
67

was formed. The chairman of the board of directors
and cashier of Fresno bank are also executive officers
and members of the board of directors of Kern Bank.
Another individual serves as a member of both boards

of directors. Because of this, plus the relatively small
sizes of the two banks, the amount of potential competition which would be eliminated by the merger appears
to be slight.

FARMERS AND MERCHANTS NATIONAL BANK, WINCHESTER, VA., AND THE CITIZENS NATIONAL BANK OF FRONT ROYAL, FRONT
ROYAL, VA.
Banking offices
Total assets

Name of bank and type of transaction

In
operation

The Citizens National Bank of Front Royal, Front Royal, Va. (13275), with
and Farmers and Merchants National Bank, Winchester, Va. (6084), which had..
merged May 23, 1969, under charter and title of the latter bank (6084). The
merged bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On December 9, 1968, The Citizens National Bank
of Front Royal, Front Royal, Va., and the Farmers
and Merchants National Bank, Winchester, Va., applied to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
for permission to merge under the charter and with
the title of the latter.
Farmers and Merchants National Bank, with IPC
deposits of $41.2 million, opened for business January 13, 1902. It presently operates its head office and
three branches in the city of Winchester, one branch
at Wards Plaza Shopping Center on U.S. Route 11,
south of Winchester, and one branch each in the towns
of Berryville, Middletown, and Stephens City. Two
additional branches in the city of Winchester have
been approved but are unopened.
The Citizens National Bank of Front Royal, with
IPC deposits of $10.1 million, was chartered as a
National Association in 1929. In addition to its head
office, it operates one branch in Front Royal and, in
1963, through merger with the First National Bank
of Flint Hill, it acquired one additional branch in
the town of Flint Hill. Management succession appears
to be an imminent problem due to the president's
anticipated retirement and the lack of provision for
replacement from within the bank.
Winchester, the home of the charter bank, is located
in Frederick County, and has a population estimated
at 15,311, while the county population is estimated
at 26,944. The economy of this area, which has historically been agricultural, with primary emphasis on

68



$12, 973, 898
53, 555, 661
66, 529, 559

To be
operated

4
8
12

the production of apples, is presently widely diversified with manufacturing and light industry predominating. Economic growth has been excellent and is
expected to continue.
Front Royal, the home of the merging bank, has a
population of about 9,500 persons and is located in
Warren County, which, with a population of about
15,660, is one of Virginia's smallest counties. The
economy is well diversified, reflecting a decrease in
emphasis on agriculture in the last two decades. A
number of major concerns are located in Front Royal.
The geographic market of the resulting bank will
include the eight northernmost counties of Virginia
and two neighboring counties in West Virginia. The
population of this area is estimated at 175,000 persons. Within this area are located 30 commercial
banks, operating 57 banking offices. Among these are
five institutions controlled by bank holding companies
and four branches of major commercial banks, based
in eastern Virginia. Financial General Corporation,
which controls 26 banks with 119 offices and total
resources of $1.5 billion, controls three banks in this
region, viz., the Shenandoah Valley National Bank,
headquartered in Winchester, and one of the charter
bank's leading competitors; Peoples National Bank of
Leesburg; and Round Hill National Bank. First
Virginia Bankshares Corporation, which controls 14
banks with 81 offices holding total assets exceeding
$400 million, controls two banks in this area, viz., the
First National Bank of Purcellville and the Massanutten Bank of Shenandoah Valley, which is regarded
as the most aggressive competitor in the area. First

and Merchants National Bank, Richmond, with 60
banking offices in 17 communities, and total assets of
$688 million, operates two branches in Leesburg and
one at Dulles Airport. Virginia National Bank, a
Norfolk-based institution having total assets of $680
million and 56 offices in 32 Virginia cities, operates
aggressively through its Woodstock branch. Five savings and loan associations, two personal loan companies, one credit union, several national insurance
companies, automobile financing companies, and
direct lending agencies of the Federal Government
also compete in the area.
The merger will benefit the communities where
both banks operate by creating a larger institution
with greater resources and a larger lending limit,
which will be more capable of providing for the increased financial needs of an expanding economy, and
growing businesses within that economy. Operating
efficiencies should result which can benefit the customer through better services at lower cost. The higher
salary scale and fringe benefits of the charter bank will
result in a greater ability to attract capable management to the benefit of the resulting bank, and will solve
the management succession problem of the merging
bank.
The merger v/ill have no adverse effect on competition. Because the closest offices of the two banks are
17 miles apart, there appears to be very little present
competition between them. Although one bank in the
combined service area will be eliminated, 29 competitors will remain. The increased percentage of total
area deposits held by the charter bank following the
merger will be a minute 3.7 percent. At the same time,
the resulting bank will be better able to compete with
the large statewide banks and subsidiaries of holding

companies operating in this area, without adversely
affecting smaller institutions.
It is concluded, in the light of the statutory criteria>
that this merger is in the public interest. It is, therefore, approved.
MARCH 18,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

The Middletown branch office of Farmers Bank is
in the general area between Winchester and Front
Royal located just 17 road miles north of Front Royal,
with no banks in the intervening area. Six other offices
of Farmers Bank (five in Winchester and one in Stephens City) are all located within 20 miles of Front
Royal, with no banks in the intervening area. Both of
the merging banks compete to some extent with the
two banks headquartered in Strasburg (Shenandoah
County) located 6 miles south of Middletown and 12
miles west of Front Royal. Thus, it appears that there
may be some competition between the applicant banks
which would be eliminated by this merger.
Eight commercial banks operate offices in the central Shenandoah Valley. Based on December 1967
data supplied by the applicant banks, Farmers Bank,
with approximately 33 percent of total deposits, is by
far the dominant bank in the area. Citizens Bank, with
the sixth largest share, has approximately 8 percent of
such deposits. Thus, if the merger were consummated,
the largest bank in the market would increase its share
of total deposits to 41 percent, and the three largest
banks would have over 68 percent of such deposits.
Accordingly, we conclude that the effect of the proposed merger on competition in the central Shenandoah Vallev would be adverse.

SOUTHERN NATIONAL BANK OF NORTH CAROLINA, LUMBERTON, N.G., AND BANK OF VARINA, FUQUAY-VARINA, N.C.
Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

Bank of Varina, Fuquay-Varina, N.C, with
and Southern National Bank of North Carolina, Lumberton, N.C. (10610), which
had merged May 27, 1969, under charter and title of the latter bank (10610). The
merged bank at date of merger had




$5,419,824
146, 323, 432
151,743,255

To be
operated

2
39
41

69

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On February 17, 1969, the Bank of Varina, FuquayVarina, N.C., and the Southern National Bank of
North Carolina, Lumberton, N.C., applied to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency for permission
to merge under the charter and with the title of the
latter.
Southern National Bank of North Carolina, with
IPC deposits of $117 million, was organized in 1897
and reorganized as a National bank in 1914. In addition to its head office and three branches in Lumberton, the charter bank operates 34 branches in other
communities.
The service area of the charter bank encompasses,
in addition to Lumberton, 22 communities in 14
counties across the central portion of the State. The
economy of this area is mixed, with agriculture and
industry prominent. Tobacco is the chief crop, and
tobacco-related industries are important. Considerable
economic growth has occurred, and is expected to
continue. Banking competition comes from North
Carolina's largest statewide banks as well as a number of smaller ones. Other financial institutions operate in this area, including savings and loan associations.
Bank of Varina, the merging bank, with IPC deposits of $5.2 million, was chartered in 1914, and
operates its head office and single branch in the town
of Fuquay-Varina. The bank has been handicapped
by inadequate capital, poor earnings, and lack of liquidity. Its progress is handicapped by management
problems, indicated by changes which occurred during
the last 10 years.
Fuquay-Varina has a population of about 4,000,
and is located 14 miles south of Raleigh, in the southern
part of Wake County, one of the most populous and
fast growing areas in the State. The town is considered to be in Raleigh's metropolitan area, which
has a total population of about 200,000. The area surrounding Fuquay-Varina contains numerous small and
medium sized towns, most of which have banking
facilities. The economy is based on agriculture, with
tobacco the principal crop. To the north, the economy
is mixed and includes the varied commercial, industrial, and institutional activity of the city of Raleigh,
the State capital.
Banking competition in Fuquay-Varina is confined.
The Bank of Fuquay is the only other bank in town,
and it is dominant in the immediate Fuquay-Varina
area. A number of other banks also operate in the service area. Among these are North Carolina's four
largest, and its eighth largest. Nonbanking financial
70



institutions also compete, including savings and loan
associations, credit unions, finance companies, and
mortgage loan companies, most of which are based
in Raleigh.
The merger will benefit the community of FuquayVarina by introducing, to customers of the merging
bank, the sophisticated services which the charter bank
possesses. These include an agricultural expert and an
agricultural credit department which can be useful
in stimulating the area's needed agricultural diversification. In addition, trust services, automatic data processing services, an audit department, credit card
lending, and extensive installment lending will be made
available. The merger will provide broader managerial
experience to the present Bank of Varina and should
assist is curing its management problems, as well as its
problems relating to inadequate capital, poor earnings,
and lack of liquidity.
The merger will have no adverse competitive effects.
In Fuquay-Varina, this merger should introduce a
more capable competitive force and will stimulate
competition between the resulting bank and the statewide banks operating there. In other areas where the
charter bank now operates, the addition of the merging
institution's resources will have no competitive effect.
Although the charter bank operates branches 10 and
20 miles from the merging bank, it appears that there
are only insignificant amounts of competition between
them to be eliminated.
It is concluded, in the light of the statutory criteria,
that this merger is in the public interest. It is, therefore,
approved.
APRIL 25,

1969.

SUMMARY REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

Southern National Bank of North Carolina ("Southern National") operates 33 offices throughout the
central part of the State and has received approval for
two additional branch offices. Since 1964, it has merged
with eight banks, adding $54 million in deposits and
18 offices.
The Bank of Varina ("Varina Bank") operates two
offices, both in the town of Fuquay-Varina, Wake
County, N.C. Southern National's closest offices are
12 and 14 miles from Fuquay-Varina. There are alternatives available near both of these offices, but this
merger will probably eliminate some existing competition.
Southern National's branch in Apex, N . C , is its only
office in Wake County. It was opened in mid-1968 and

is probably not of substantial size as yet. Varina Bank
is small, accounting for only 1.2 percent of Wake
County's total deposits. Thus, the merger itself will
not appreciably increase the level of concentration in
the county.
There is, however, a trend toward increased con-

W E L L S FARGO BANK, N.A.,

centration through merger in the State of North
Carolina. This merger trend has already had an adverse effect on the structure of local banking markets
in North Carolina by inhibiting de novo branching by
the larger banks and thereby retarding the growth of
competitive banking in North Carolina.

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., AND CHANNEL ISLANDS STATE BANK, VENTURA, CALIF.

Banking offices
Total assets

Name of bank and type of transaction

In
operation

Channel Islands State Bank, Ventura, Calif., with
and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, San Francisco, Calif. (15660), which
had
merged May 29, 1969, under charter and title of the latter bank (15660). The
merged bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On January 14, 1969, Channel Islands State Bank,
Ventura, Calif., and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, San Francisco, Calif., applied to the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to merge under
the charter and with the title of the latter.
Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, the charter
bank, was founded in 1852, and is the oldest bank in
the West. It has IPC deposits of $3.5 billion and presently operates 251 branches, principally in northern
California, but recently it has expanded its branching
activities to the southern part of the State. This bank
offers a wide range of services, including international
banking, fiduciary activities, personal property leasing,
insurance premium financing, a variety of electronic
data processing customer services such as payroll accounting and lock-box services, as well as economic
research services, public relations, and advertising
advisory services.
The service area of the charter bank includes most
of northern California, including the city of San Francisco. In addition, the charter bank has recently established eight banking offices in Los Angeles and
Orange County in southern California. The economy
of the area served by W'ells Fargo Bank, N.A., is widely
diversified in agriculture, industry, foreign and domestic finance, and many other commercial and service activities, including lumbering, fishing, tourism,
mining, oil production, manufacturing, military establishments, and retail trade.
Wells Fargo Bank is third largest in the State, rank-




$12,905,439
5, 392, 693, 296
5, 404, 500, 253

To be
operated
3

254

257

ing behind Bank of America N.T. & S.A. and Security
Pacific National Bank. Wells Fargo Bank competes
with numerous banking offices of statewide, regional,
and local banks in its service area. Numerous savings
and loan associations, credit unions, sales finance companies, personal loan companies, mortgage companies,
factors, and lending agencies of the Federal Government offer considerable competition.
The Channel Islands State Bank, the merging bank,
opened for business on December 21, 1962, and has
IPC deposits of $8.7 million. It has established two
branches, one in the city of Ventura, 3 miles east of
its main office, and one in the unincorporated community of Oak View, 10 miles north. Although this
bank has experienced satisfactory growth since its inception, loan losses have been disproportionately high,
Fifty-two percent of its loan portfolio is centered in
installment consumer paper. Channel Islands State
Bank offers the usual banking services but it does not
have a trust department, nor does it offer the more
advanced and extensive services which its larger local
competitors provide. It has been largely unresponsive
to the needs of local business people, partially because
of its small lending limit.
The city of Ventura, home of the merging bank, is
the county seat of Ventura County, and is located
65 miles north of Los Angeles. The merging bank serves
the city, which has a population of about 50,000, and
a surrounding trade area, in northern Ventura County,
with an additional population of 17,000. The economy
of this area is agriculturally oriented. In recent years,
however, oil production and tourism have contributed

71

significantly to the local economy and, to a lesser extent, manufacturing and military bases have produced
an important share of local income.
Offices of four of the five largest banking institutions
in the State of California, in addition to the merging
bank and the Bank of A. Levy, service the Ventura
market area. Bank of America N.T.&S.A., with
two branches, holds 37 percent of the area deposits,
and Security Pacific National Bank, which also has
two branches, hold 34 percent of area deposits. Channel Islands State Bank holds an aggregate of approximately 12 percent of area deposits in its three branches.
Competing also are offices of savings and loan associations, credit unions, sales finance companies, personal
loan companies, mortgage companies, factors, and
lending agencies of the U.S. Government.
The beneficial effects of this merger will be primarily felt in the Ventura market area. Under the
highly capable management of the charter bank, all
of its services will be introduced into the Ventura area.
The lending limit of the Ventura office of the resulting bank will be much larger and enable it to service
more adequately the needs of local merchants and businesses for larger loans. Finally, the resulting bank's
office in Ventura should be much more responsive to
the needs of local businessmen, farmers, and oil
producers.
The merger will have no adverse effects on competition. There is presently no direct competition between Wells Fargo Bank and Channel Islands State
Bank. The nearest offices of the charter bank to the
merging bank are 52 miles west, in the San Fernando
Valley, and 65 miles southwest, in Los Angeles. Introduction of a fifth statewide, or regional, California
bank into the Ventura market will enhance competition there. In the areas where Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A., now operates, the merger will have no anti-

competitive effect. Statewide, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
will remain in third position, with its percentages of
statewide deposits and loans each increasing by only
0.02 percent.
Considered in the light of the statutory criteria, this
merger is deemed to be in the public interest. The
application is, therefore, approved.
APRIL 23,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

The nearest branch of Wells Fargo in Los Angeles
is 52 miles from Channel Bank's offices in Ventura.
There, nevertheless, may be some direct competition
between them; Wells Fargo derives $15,000 in IPC
deposit accounts from Channel Bank's service area,
and Channel Bank derives $337,000 or 5.9 percent of
its total IPC deposits from Los Angeles and Orange
counties, in which Wells Fargo has offices. These areas,
however, are also served by a number of other large
California banking institutions. Thus, while the proposed merger would appear to eliminate some direct
competition, this would not appear to be a significant
proportion of the banking business of the areas
involved.
The growth of the northern part of Ventura County
is proceeding at a somewhat less rapid pace than the
southern part near the Los Angeles border. Channel
Bank's offices in the city of Ventura, however, are
only 8 miles from the city of Oxnard, the focal point
of the newer and more dramatic southern county
growth. This area offers substantial possibilities for de
novo expansion by both banks. The likelihood of Wells
Fargo's entiy by such means is underscored in the
application. The two banks are thus potential competitors; the proposed merger would eliminate that
competition.

THE CLINTON COUNTY NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY OF WILMINGTON, WILMINGTON, OHIO, AND THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK
OF SABINA, SABINA, OHIO

Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

The First National Bank of Sabina, Sabina, Ohio (8411), with
was purchased June 14, 1969, by The Clinton County National Bank and Trust
Company of Wilmington, Wilmington, Ohio (1979), which had
After the purchase was effected, the receiving bank had

72



To be
operated

$4, 434, 000

2

20, 584, 000
24,517,000

4
6

COMPTROLLER'S DECISION

On December 26, 1968, The Clinton County National Bank and Trust Company of Wilmington, Wilmington, Ohio, applied to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to purchase the assets
and assume the liabilities of The First National Bank
of Sabina, Sabina, Ohio.
The Clinton County National Bank and Trust Company of Wilmington, the purchasing bank, has I PC
deposits of $15.9 million, and was chartered in 1872.
it has one in-town and two out-of-town branch offices.
Wilmington is the county seat of Clinton County,
and has a population of 10.200. Clinton County is
located in the southwest sector of Ohio. Wilmington lies 34 miles southeast of Dayton, 60 miles
southwest of Columbus, and 50 miles northeast of
Cincinnati. The economy of this area is primarily
dependent upon local industry, employing about 1,200
workers, and upon large-scale, mechanized farming
operations. Banking competition comes from the $14
million First National Bank of Wilmington, which has
one in-town branch. The First National Bank of Wilmington is an affiliate of BancOhio Corporation, a
Columbus-based registered bank holding company
operating 22 other State and National banks in central
and southern Ohio, Additional competition comes
from three savings and loan associations, one of which
is a branch of Home Federal Savings and Loan Co.
of Cincinnati; three finance companies; lending agencies of the Federal Government; and credit unions in
both Wilmington and Dayton, where many area residents work.
The First National Bank of Sabina, the selling bank,
has IPC deposits of $3.9 million. It was organized in
1906, and operates one branch located one block from
its main office. It has been handicapped in recent years
by a lack of experienced management.
The village of Sabina has a population of 2,400 and
is located 11 miles northeast of Wilmington. It is the
third largest city in Clinton County. The economy of
this area is dependent on agriculture. Its nonfarming
activity is limited to two small tool companies and
several grain elevators. Besides the $4.5 million selling
bank, the $5.1 million Sabina Bank operates in Sabina.
In addition, there are two other small unit banks headquartered in Clinton County, the $8.2 million First National Bank of Blanchester, and the $1.7 million Port
William Banking Company. Competition also comes
from a BancOhio affiliate and a member of Huntington
Bane-Shares of Columbus, Ohio, both located in Washington Court House, 11 miles to the east.




This proposal should benefit the community of
Sabina by providing customers of the area with a bank
having adequate management resources, a greater lending limit, and a broader range of banking services, including trust services.
Competition will not be adversely affected by consummation of this proposal. Introduction of the purchasing bank into Sabina should stimulate competition
with the Sabina Bank which is presently larger,
stronger, and more effective than the selling institution. In Wilmington, the transaction should stimulate
competition with the First National Bank of Wilmington, a subsidiary of the large Columbus-based BancOhio Corporation. In Clinton County and its environs,
competition which is already intense will not be unbalanced.
Considered in the light of the statutory criteria, this
merger is judged to be in the public interest and is,
therefore, approved.
MARCH 14,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

Clinton Bank, the largest bank in Clinton County,
operates four banking offices, including a head office
and two branches in Wilmington. Its Wilmington
offices, the offices closest to Sabina Bank, are about 10
miles southwest of Sabina. The First National Bank
of Wilmington, the second largest; bank in Clinton
County, also operates in Wilmington, and another
competitive bank operates in Sabina. There are no
other intervening banking offices in the area between
Wilmington and Sabina, and the merging banks show
that their service areas overlap. It appears, therefore,
that there is direct competition between the banks
which would be eliminated by the merger.
The proposed merger will result in a substantial
increase in concentration in Clinton County, which
as of June 30, 1968, had six banks with 11 banking
offices. Clinton Bank held 42 percent of total county
deposits, and Sabina Bank, the fifth largest bank in
the county, held 10 percent; the resulting bank will
hold 52 percent of county deposits. The two largest
banks in the county hold 67 percent of county deposits;
the proposed merger would increase this market share
to 77 percent. If banking offices within 15 miles of
Sabina are included in the market, Clinton Bank and
Sabina Bank have market shares of 20 percent and
7 percent, respectively; the resulting bank will hold 27
percent of deposits in the market.
We, therefore, believe that this merger will have an
adverse effect on competition.
73

COMMONWEALTH NATIONAL BANK, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., AND LINCOLN NATIONAL BANK, SANTA ROSA, CALIF.

Banking offices
Total assets

Name of bank and type of transaction

To be
operated

In
operation

Lincoln National Bank, Santa Rosa, Calif. (15408), with
and Commonwealth National Bank, San Francisco, Calif. (15330), which had... .
merged June 16, 1969, under charter and title of the latter bank (15330). The
merged bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On February 17,1969, Lincoln National Bank, Santa
Rosa, Calif., and Commonwealth National Bank, San
Francisco, Calif., applied to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to merge under
the charter and with the title of the latter.
Commonwealth National Bank, with I PC deposits
of $48.7 million, opened for business June 11, 1964. In
addition to its head office, it has two branches in San
Francisco and one in Pleasant Hill, a residential community about 35 miles northeast of San Francisco. This
bank is a full-service institution offering trust services.
It is controlled by the Morris Plan Company, a holding
company, which owns 96 percent of its outstanding
stock.
The primary market area of the Commonwealth
National Bank is the city and county of San Francisco,
in which the bank has three offices. The city of San
Francisco, with a population of about 748,700, is the
retail, commercial, and trading center for the San
Francisco Bay Metropolitan Area, which contains a
population exceeding 4 million. San Francisco is also
the financial, transportation, distribution, and industrial headquarters for northern California and the
western United States. Its economic base is highly diversified. The charter bank, located in the financial
district in downtown San Francisco, competes in its
primary service area with numerous offices of California's largest statewide banks and other large financial institutions, and is one of the smaller banks
operating in this area.
Lincoln National Bank, with IPC deposits of $4.6
million, opened for business on November 5, 1964. In
addition to its main office in Santa Rosa, it operates
one branch in San Rafael about 40 miles south of
Santa Rosa. This bank offers the usual banking services,
except trust services.
The cities of Santa Rosa and San Rafael are north
of San Francisco, 60 miles and 17 miles, respectively.
Santa Rosa, with a population of 35,500, is the main

74



$7,446,110
61,887,458
69,616,224

2
5

7

trade center of Sonoma County. Greater Santa Rosa
has a population of nearly 90,000, while the central
Sonoma County market area of the merging bank has
a population of nearly 120,000. The economy of central Sonoma County is stable, with retail trade; agriculture, primarily dairying, orchards, and cattle and
sheep raising; and tourism the primary contributors.
San Rafael, situated 17 miles north of San Francisco,
is primarily a residential city, inhabited by higher income families. Many of its residents commute to San
Francisco for employment.
Competition for the merging bank, which is one of
the smaller financial institutions located in its service
area, comes from offices of California's largest statewide banks, as well as offices of numerous savings and
loan associations, finance companies, credit unions, and
life insurance companies.
Upon consummation of this merger, the Santa Rosa
and San Rafael offices of the resulting bank will be
able to offer more extended services, notably a trust
department, as well as the "Credit Reserve Plan" being
instituted by the Commonwealth National Bank. Also,
the expanded lending capacity will enable these offices
of the merging bank to solicit and serve businesses
whose credit demands are too large for Lincoln National Bank to adequately serve. Economies of scale
should result which will benefit the customers of the
resulting bank.
The merger will have no adverse effect on competition. The two banks are located 17 miles apart and do
not compete. The addition of the much smaller merging bank to the charter bank, which holds less than
1 percent of aggregate deposits and loans of banking
offices in San Francisco, should have a negligible competitive impact in San Francisco. Competition in Santa
Rosa and San Rafael should be slightly increased by
the added capacity of the resulting bank in those cities.
Considered in the light of the statutory criteria, this
merger is deemed to be in the public interest. The application is, therefore, approved.
MAY 15, 1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

The head office of Lincoln National in Sonoma
County is located approximately 54 miles north of San
Francisco. There is, apparently, no substantial direct
competition between the merging banks. Commonwealth's right to branch de novo into Marin County
and into Sonoma County creates the potential for
competition between the merging banks. However,
Commonwealth has not yet opened a de novo branch,
although its parent does have a statewide branch system. Furthermore, the merging banks are relatively
small institutions; Commonwealth possesses less than
1 percent of the total deposits in San Francisco County,
while Lincoln National possesses approximately 1.4
percent of the total deposits in Sonoma County, and
0.6 percent of Marin County deposits.
Elimination of Lincoln National's competition with

Commonwealth's parent, Morris Plan Company, in
Sonoma County, would appear to increase slightly concentration of control over those financial services in
which there is direct competition. Moreover, the history of rapid growth of the Morris Plan Branch suggests that its present loan and thrift deposit figures
understate its likely long-run market position. Nevertheless, the very small present size of both the loan
and deposit totals for this branch suggest that even
substantial further growth will not make it a very significant competitor of commercial banks. Also, although the application indicates that the growth of
this branch has come through competition with banks,
based on the limited information given in the application, it is not clear exactly how direct that competition
is in fact.
The effect of this merger on competition, therefore,
would not be significantly adverse.

FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF JACKSON, JACKSON, MISS., AND T H E BANK OF GREENWOOD, GREENWOOD, MISS.

Banking offices

Total assets

Name of bank and type of transaction

To be
operated

In
operation

The Bank of Greenwood, Greenwood, Miss., with
and First National Bank of Jackson, Jackson, Miss. (10523), which had
merged June 27, 1969, under charter and title of the latter bank (10523). The
merged bank at date of merger had

The "Comptroller's Decision" and the "Summary of
Report by Attorney General" for this case appeared
in the 1968 Annual Report under the heading "Ap-

$26, 703, 082
367, 253, 622

2
22

394, 173, 721

24

proved, but in litigation." This merger was not consummated until 1969.

T H E FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF QUINCY, QUINCY, M I C H . , AND PEOPLES STATE BANK OF BRONSON, BRONSON, M I C H .
Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

Peoples State Bank of Bronson, Bronson, Mich., with
and The First National Bank of Quincy, Quincy, Mich. (2550), which had
merged June 30, 1969, under charter and title of the latter bank (2550). The
merged bank at date of merger had




$8, 628, 983
16,497,563
25, 126,546

To be
operated

1
3

4

75

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On March 6, 1969, the Peoples State Bank of
Bronson, Bronson, Mich., and The First National Bank
of Qnincy, Quincy, Mich., applied to the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency for permission to merge
under the charter of the latter and with the title of
"First National Bank of Quincy."
The charter bank, with IPC deposits of $12.1 million, is located in Quincy, Mich., a village of some
1,600 people. Quincy serves an agricultural area of
beef and dairy farms. It also boasts a large and growing
industrial community. Two large facilities, a $6 million
meatpacking plant and a $1.5 million home construction company, are now being constructed and will
employ about 450 people, when complete. Presently,
Quincy has 10 businesses, which employ over 650
people, and expend about $3.5 million in annual
payrolls.
The merging bank, situated in Bronson, Mich., a city
of 2,200, has IPC deposits of $6.8 million. Bronson,
although 17 miles away from Quincy, has a similar
economic base of beef and dairy farms and industrial
facilities. The industrial community is now successfully
recovering from the loss of two sizable employers in
the last few years. Under the aegis of a nonprofit
corporation, determined efforts are being made to
induce new businesses to settle in the Bronson area.
Recently, a new manufacturing facility opened, and
will employ 200 people by June 1969.
The resulting bank will serve the respective communities of the applicant and merging bank. Generally, the total service area comprises Branch County,
Mich., which geographically lies midway between
Detroit and Chicago. This region is part of a growing
megalopolis which economists predict will appreciably
increase in population and industry in the next decade.
There is presently no competition between the two
institutions. The two banks lie some 17 miles apart,

separated by the city of Cold water, which is served by
two larger banking institutions.
The merger will not unduly concentrate area banking assets in the resultant bank. The resources of The
First National Bank of Quincy will be increased to
$23.4 million, making it comparable in size, and more
equally competitive, to the Southern Michigan National Bank, Coldwater, Mich., with assets of $24.4
million; The Branch County Savings Bank, Coldwater, Mich., with assets of $23.4 million; the Hillsdale
State Savings Bank, Hillsdale, Mich., with assets of
$23.9 million; and the Hillsdale County National Bank,
Hillsdale, Mich., with assets of $21.5 million.
This merger will provide increased services, greater
efficiencies in operation, and a larger lending limit for
the resulting bank. It will enable it to keep pace with
the larger area institutions, especially those banks in
Coldwater, Mich.
Applying the statutory criteria to this proposal, it is
found to be in the public interest. The merger is, therefore, approved.
MAY

21, 1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

First National Bank of Quincy ("First National")
operates two offices in Branch County and one office
in neighboring Hillsdale County. Peoples State Bank
of Bronson ("Peoples Bank") operates its sole office
in Bronson, Branch County. Branch County is currently served by four banks with nine banking offices.
The closest offices of these banks are 13 miles apart
and, despite the existence of intervening banks, there
is probably some direct competition which will be
eliminated by this merger. First National has 16.9
percent of the total deposits in Branch County, and
People's Bank accounts for 13.2 percent of such
deposits.

THE FULTON NATIONAL BANK OF LANCASTER, LANCASTER, PA., AND KEYSTONE TRUST COMPANY, HARRISBURG, PA.
Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

Keystone Trust Company, Harrisburg, Pa., with
and The Fulton National Bank of Lancaster, Lancaster, Pa. (2634), which had...
merged June 30, 1969, under the charter and title of the latter bank (2634). The
merged bank at date of merger had

76



$14,555, 132
117, 199,301
131,754,433

To be
operated
1
9
10

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On February 28, 1969, The Fulton National Bank of
Lancaster, Lancaster, Pa., with IPC deposits of $92.8
million, and the Keystone Trust Company, Harrisburg,
Pa,, with 1PC deposits of $11.2 million, applied to the
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to merge under the charter and with the title
of the former.
Lancaster, with a population of approximately
61,000, is the county seat of Lancaster County, and the
heart of the Pennsylvania "Dutch" country, one of the
leading tourist areas in the United States. Agriculture
remains the economic backbone of this fertile area; the
county continues to rank first in the State in 35 categories of farm production, with over $100 million revenue annually received from the sale of agricultural and
livestock products. While the number of farms and
farm production has been declining since the 1950%
over 6,000 farms remained in active production as
late as 1967.
The change in the agricultural picture has been
more than offset by the growing industrial base which
utilizes a large number of skilled and semiskilled
workers. Industry presently supplies 40 out of every 100
jobs in Lancaster County. There are 654 manufacturing industries in the county, employing 51,902 persons,
paying wages and salaries of $307.5 million, and producing products and related activities valued at $1.3
billion. The economic stability and growth potential for
the area served by the applicant bank is considered
excellent.
The Fulton National Bank, the charter bank, organized in 1892, presently has a main office and eight
branches within Lancaster County. This bank is widely
respected in the county, having acquired a reputation
for progressiveness and responsiveness to the financial
needs of its customers. It was the first bank in Lancaster
County to branch, and the first to install TV bank
protection facilities. The competent management continually seeks to increase the quality and quantity of
services available to the people of Lancaster County.
In the last 3 years, deposits increased 20 percent, and,
during 1967-68, total loans increased from $54.7 million to $65.8 million, as the bank worked to meet the
credit needs of the county's expanding economy.
Harrisburg, the State capital, with a population of
approximately 80,000 people, is located in Dauphin
County, midway between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.
In addition to being the political center of the State,
it is also the hub of a rapidly growing industrial region
served by 70 motor carriers, three commercial airlines,




and two major railroads. Its highly developed industrial base produces electrical components, shoes, lumber, concrete, clothes, quartz crystals, and other varied
products. The 91 manufacturing facilities in the city
of Harrisburg, during 1966, employed over 7,000 people, paid wages and salaries of $43.7 million, and produced goods and related activities valued at $155.9
million.
The merging bank, organized in 1916, has never attempted to expand beyond its parochial image. The
institution continues operation through a single office
in an area that has deteriorated from a once active
trading center to an economically stagnant and rundown section of Harrisburg. While it is willing to meet
the personal needs of its long-time customers, it does
not have the resources or services to attract and accommodate big accounts. Its facilities are antiquated, its
banking methods outdated, and no modern services
such as electronic data processing or credit cards have
been instituted. As urban renewal moves into the area,
the bank faces the prospect of having to move its whole
operation, at a prohibitive cost of $600,000, which is
considered above its present capacity.
Keystone Trust Company anticipates a problem in
management succession in the near future. The three
officers who presently manage the institution, the chairman-president, the executive vice president, and a
younger vice president with a progressive disability,
expect to retire within the next several years. Efforts
to attract young and able management as replacements
have been futile. Although salaries have been raised
over 50 percent in the last 3 years, an increase to a
competitive level would mean an overall adjustment of
the payroll, and therefore a substantial reduction in the
present earnings of the Keystone Trust Company.
The financial soundness of Keystone Trust Company
is not questioned. Deposit growth ha,s been small but
steady, and its 1968 net operating income was
$149,000, substantially above the 1964-68 average of
$132,000. To maintain such earnings, the bank has attempted to operate on minimum expenses and low salaries. Also, it has shifted its assets to concentrate heavily
on tax-free municipal bonds. In recent years it has been
selling Federal funds to its correspondent bank for
lack of loan demand in the area. It pursues no active
program for advertising or soliciting new accounts, and
some long-time customers have been compelled to sever
connections with Keystone when their financial requirements surpassed the bank's lending capacity. After
50 years of operation, it has little more than $11 million in deposits, and a lending limit of $110,000.
There is virtually no competition between the appli-

77

cant banks due to the distance which separates them.
The Fulton National Bank has no branches in Dauphin
County, and Fulton's nearest office to the Keystone
Trust is its branch in Manheim5 28 miles southeast of
Harrisburg. Although Pennsylvania law permits the
Fulton National Bank to branch de novo into Harrisburg, cost and delay are prohibitive of such a venture.
The proposed merger will not be adverse to the
present banking structure of Harrisburg. Commercial
banking in the city is concentrated in three strong, wellmanaged, and innovative banks; The Harrisburg National Bank and Trust Company, with deposits of
$173.1 million; Dauphin Deposit Trust Company, with
deposits of $197.6 million; and the Harrisburg branches
of National Bank and Trust Company of Central Pennsylvania, York, Pa., with deposits of $220.4 million.
The merging bank falls far short of its competitors in
both size and services offered. However, merger of the
applicant banks will create an institution with deposits
of $108 million. While this is less than the other three
banks, it will bring, to a rundown and economically
blighted part of Harrisburg, an aggressive and farsighted facility, having an ability to stimulate, rather
than stifle, competition.
The public served by the resultant bank will realize
several advantages from the merger. The lending capacity of the bank will be increased to $666,500, providing increased accommodation to loan requests that
have been previously refused by the merging bank because of low lending limit and conservative banking
policy. Furthermore, the resultant bank will offer
highly improved services to the customers of the Keystone Trust Company, including Bank Americard,
broader loan services, a business development pro-

gram, and a more complete trust department. Finally,
with combined personnel and managerial talent available to the resulting bank, this merger will resolve the
merging bank's succession problem and establish improved public service in the trade area of the merging
bank.
Applying the statutory criteria to the proposed merger we find that it is in the public interest. The application is, therefore, approved.
MAY

21, 1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

The head offices of the merging banks are located
some 39 miles apart; the nearest branch office of Fulton National to Keystone Trust's office is at Manheim
in Lancaster County, some 28 miles southeast of Harrisburg; several banks appear to operate in the intervening areas. Consequently, it is doubtful that significant
direct competition exists between the parties to this
proposed merger.
Pennsylvania law would permit Fulton National to
establish de novo branch offices within the area served
by Keystone Trust, and Fulton National would appear
to be the third largest potential entrant into Dauphin
County. Commercial banking in Dauphin County is
highly concentrated; as of June 1966, the three largest banks held approximately 80 percent of county I PC
demand deposits. However, on that date, Keystone
Trust, the smallest bank in Harrisburg, held approximately 2.7 percent of such deposits. Accordingly, in
view of Keystone Trust's small size, we conclude that
the proposed merger would have no significant adverse effect on potential competition.

ADAMS COUNTY NATIONAL BANK, CUMBERLAND TOWNSHIP, P A . , AND T H E FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF YORK SPRINGS,
YORK SPRINGS, P A .

Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

The First National Bank of York Springs, York Springs, Pa. (7856), with
and Adams County National Bank, Cumberland Township, Pa. (311), which had.
merged July 31, 1969, under charter and title of the latter bank (311). The
merged bank at date of merger had

78



$4,512,753
47, 340, 533
51, 853, 286

To be
operated
1
5
6

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On April 17, 1969, Adams County National Bank,
Gettysburg, Pa., and The First National Bank of York
Springs, York Springs, Pa., applied to the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to merge under
the charter and with the title of the former.
Adams County National Bank, the charter bank,
was organized in 1857 as a State bank under the laws
of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This bank,
with IPC deposits of $38 million, is the fifth largest
bank? in terms of loans and deposits, of the 13 banks
operating in Adams County.
The merging bank, a one-office institution located
14 miles north of Gettysburg, was organized as a National bank in 1905. This bank, with IPC deposits of
$3.6 million, is 12th in size among banks operating
in Adams County. After the proposed merger, the resulting bank will remain fifth in size in terms of loans
and deposits of the banks operating in the county.
Adams County is a prosperous area with an economy
dependent on agriculture, industry, and tourism. Nearly
3 million tourists are attracted annually to Gettysburg,
the headquarters of the charter bank. Businesses dependent on the tourist trade, such as restaurants and
motels, have prospered and increased in number in
recent years. The economy of this area is also benefited
by the presence of Gettysburg College, a coeducational
school with over 1,800 students. The merging bank,
located in York Springs, a community with a population of 500, serves the northern portion of the county,
an area with a population of approximately 6,500. This
primarily agricultural area is economically benefited,
to a limited degree, by the influx of tourists into the
Gettysburg area to the south. However, the present
level of economic activity is not sufficient to warrant
de novo entry by the charter bank.
There is virtually no competition between the charter
bank and the merging bank. The merging bank, with
one banking office, is geographically remote from the
main office and four branches of the charter bank. An
analysis of the deposits of each of the applicant banks
indicates that less than 1 percent of these deposits originated in the market area of the other. The proposed
merger will increase competition in the York Springs




area, where the main competitors of the resulting bank
will be Cumberland County National Bank, with deposits of $81 million, and Harrisburg National Bank
and Trust Company, with deposits of $173 million.
Both of those banks maintain offices in Dillsburg, 9
miles northwest of York Springs.
The proposed merger will serve the convenience and
needs of the York Springs area in several ways. First,
the merging bank has experienced difficulty in servicing its larger customers because of its relatively small
lending limit. The lending capacity of the resulting
bank will adequately meet the financial needs of the
York Springs community. The resulting bank will also
furnish trust services, heretofore unavailable in York
Springs. A number of much needed physical improvements on the York Springs bank will be accomplished
without an undue burden on earnings, and internal
operations will be improved by the installation of more
efficient bookkeeping equipment.
Applying the statutory criteria to the proposed
merger, we conclude that it is in the public interest and
the application is, therefore, approved.
JUNE 25,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

The merging banks serve generally different sections
of Adams County, and the amount of business which
each draws from the service area of the other would
appear to be limited.
York Springs Bank is the only bank located in York
Springs. A branch of Adams Bank (acquired by merger
in 1967) is one of the two banking offices in nearby
East Berlin and is among the closest banking alternatives to the York Springs service area.
It may be a source of some direct competition which
the proposed merger will eliminate.
As of June 1968, the two largest banks in Adams
County held over 67 percent of county IPC demand
deposits. While Adams County may somewhat overstate the extent of the relevant market, the proposed
merger will increase the share of Adams Bank by
about 2.6 percent to approximately 37 percent of such
deposits and the share of the two largest banks to nearly
70 percent.

79

THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF SCOTTSBORO, SCOTTSBORO, ALA., AND THE AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK OF BRIDGEPORT,
BRIDGEPORT, ALA.
Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

The American National Bank of Bridgeport, Bridgeport, Ala. (11168), with
and The First National Bank of Scottsboro, Scottsboro, Ala. (8963), which had...
merged July 31, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (8963) and title "The First
National Bank, Scottsboro, Alabama." The merged bank at date of merger had. .

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On April 15, 1969, The First National Bank of
Scottsboro, Scottsboro, Ala., and The American
National Bank of Bridgeport, Bridgeport, Ala., applied
to the Comptroller of the Currency for permission
to merge under the charter of the former and
with the title of "The First National Bank, Scottsboro,
Alabama."
The First National Bank of Scottsboro, the charter
bank, which was founded in 1907, operates three
branches, and has IPC deposits of $11.5 million. This
bank ranks first in size among the five banks operating in Jackson County. The charter bank has enjoyed
a fine reputation since its organization and its future
prospects are excellent.
The American National Bank of Bridgeport, the
merging bank, was organized in 1918. It has IPC
deposits of $1.5 million, and operates no branches.
This bank also enjoys a fine reputation; however, its
future prospects are not particularly encouraging in
view of its low lending limit and lack of management
depth.
Both the charter bank and the merging bank are
located in Jackson County which, according to the
1960 census, had a population of 6,649. Prospects of
continued population and economic growth are excellent i:i light of the fact that the Revere Copper and
Brass Co. has announced plans to construct a major
manufacturing facility costing approximately $165
million. When this plant is completed, by the end of
1972, this company alone will employ an estimated
2,000 persons. The town of Bridgeport, which is 28
miles north of Scottsboro, has a population of about
3,000. Indications are that Bridgeport is also on the
threshold of a period of industrial expansion. Two new
industrial plants recently opened, and prospects of
attracting additional industry and expanding existing
industry are good.
80



$2, 014, 991
15,265,585

To be
operated
1
4

17,239,377

5

There is virtually no direct competition between the
subject banks. The charter bank serves most of the
southern half of Jackson County, while the merging
bank serves a small area in the north. In addition to
the fact that the service areas of the subject banks
do not overlap, there is another bank located between
the two, 6 miles south of Bridgeport.
There is convincing evidence of a need for a larger
bank in the Bridgeport service area, where the growth
trend is encouraging. The merging bank, with its low
lending limit, is ill equipped to service an expanding
economy. Consummation of the proposed merger will
provide assurance that progressive policies will be pursued to meet the growing needs of the area.
Applying the statutory criteria to the proposed
merger, we conclude that it is in the public interest and
the application is, therefore, approved.
JUNE 26,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

The First National Bank of Scottsboro ("First
National") operates its head office and three branches
in Jackson County, Ala. The American National
Bank of Bridgeport ("American Bank") operates its
sole office in Bridgeport, Jackson County. Jackson
County is currently served by five banks with nine
banking offices. First National has approximately 38.2
percent of the total deposits in Jackson County and
34.4 percent of the IPC demand deposits. American
Bank has about 5.3 percent of the total deposits and
4 percent of the IPC demand deposits.
The closest offices of these two banks are approximately 19 miles apart. Since customers in the Bridgeport area have two alternatives to American Bank
within 10 miles, little, if any, direct competition between the merging banks is likely to be eliminated.
Applicable law permits de novo branching within
Jackson County. However, due to the alternative

commercial banks in the Bridgeport area, and the
sparse population of the area, the opportunity for de
novo entry seems small.

It is, therefore, unlikely that the proposed merger
would eliminate any significant amount of direct or
potential competition.

UNITED NATIONAL BANK OF VERMILLION, VERMILLION, S. D A K . , AND UNITED NATIONAL BANK OF BRANDON, BRANDON, S. D A K . ,
AND LYMAN COUNTY BANK, KENNEBEC, S. D A K .

Banking offices

Total assets

Name of bank and type of transaction

United National Bank of Brandon, Brandon, S. Dak. (15581), with
Lyman County Bank, Kennebec, S. Dak., with
|
and United National Bank of Vermillion, Vermillion, S. Dak. (15639), which
had
merged July 31, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (15639) and title "United
National Bank of Vermillion, Vermillion, South Dakota." The merged bank at
date of merger had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On April 21, 1969, the United National Bank of
Vermillion, Vermillion, S. Dak., the United National
Bank of Brandon, Brandon, S. Dak., and the Lyman
County Bank, Kennebec, S. Dak., filed an application
with the Comptroller of the Currency for permission
to merge under the charter of the United National
Bank of Vermillion and with the title of "United
National Bank of Vermillion, Vermillion, South
Dakota.55
The United National Bank of Vermillion was organized as a State bank in 1914, and converted to a
National charter in 1967. This bank now holds IPC
deposits of $12 million at its main office and five
branches in Vermillion^ Gayville, Wakonda, Volin,
and Tabor, In the extreme southeastern portion of the
State. The town of Vermillion, in which the main
office of the charter bank is located, has a population
of about 10,000, and is the county seat of Clay County.
The surrounding area contains some of the richest
farmland in the State, and is largely devoted to agriculture and livestock production. Retail trade activity
is also important, and the presence of the University
of South Dakota, with an enrollment of 6,000 students,
also generates some employment.
The United National Bank of Brandon, Brandon,
S. Dak., was chartered in 1905 as a State bank, and
converted to a National charter in 1966. The United
National Bank of Brandon now operates branches at
Valley Springs and Canistota, and has IPC deposits of
$4.1 million. Brandon, where the bank's main office is
located, has a population of approximately 1.200, and




$5, 260, 317
2, 673, 996
16, 038, 608
23, 972, 921

10

lies about 10 miles east of Sioux Falls., the largest city
in the State, and about 75 miles north of Vermillion.
The economy of this area is also dependent on agricultural activity, including livestock production and dairy
farming. Because of its proximity to Sioux Falls, Brandon has, in recent years, developed as a residential
community for people employed in Sioux Falls.
The Lyman County Bank, Kennebec^ S. Dak., was
organized in 1955, and presently holds IPC deposits of
about $2.1 million. The town of Kennebec has a population of approximately 370, and lies in a sparsely
populated portion of south-central South Dakota.
Agricultural activity predominates in this area, including the production of livestock and the raising of
wheat and other cereals.
There is no existing competition among the merging
banks, whose service areas do not overlap. The development of any competition is unlikely because the
three banks are under common ownership and control.
The resulting bank will continue to meet intense competition from the branches of two banks which are
members of Minneapolis-based holding companies,
viz., The National Bank of South Dakota, with its main
office in Sioux Falls, and total assets of $148 million,
and the Northwestern National Bank of Sioux Falls,
which has total assets of approximately $108 million.
On consummation of this merger, the banking public will benefit from the availability of the increased
lending limit necessary to meet the expanding credit
demands of an agricultural economy marked by growing consolidation of operating units, and requiring
greater investments in operating equipment and fixed
81

assets. The trust services recently instituted by the
charter bank will become available at the banking outlets of the resulting bank. The merger will also permit
the effectuation of operating economies and the improved allocation of management resources.
Applying the statutory criteria, we find that the proposal is in the public interest, and the application is,
therefore, approved.
JUNE 26,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

The home office of Vermillion Bank is 75 miles
southwest from Brandon Bank's home office, and 207
miles southeast from Lyman Bank's home office. The
home office of Lyman Bank is 167 miles west of Bran-

T H E INDIAN H E A D NATIONAL BANK OF NASHUA, NASHUA,

don Bank's home office. The closest branch of
Brandon Bank is over 130 miles from Lyman Bank.
Various banking alternatives exist in the intervening
areas. Hence, no significant direct competition will be
eliminated by this merger.
South Dakota law does not permit banks to branch
de novo into any of the cities or towns where any one
of the merging banks presently operates, although
branches might be established in communities without
banks. Because of the size of the banks and the nature
of the communities involved, as well as the presence of
other likely potential entrants into the counties, the
proposed merger does not appear to eliminate any significant potential competition.
We conclude that this merger is not likely to have an
adverse effect on competition.

N.H.,

AND THE SALEM TRUST COMPANY, SALEM, N . H .

Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
To be
operated

In
operation

The Salem Trust Company Salem N H., with
and The Indian Head National Bank of Nashua, Nashua, N.H. (1310), which
had
..
merged Aug. 8, 1969, under charter and title of the latter ban k (1310). The
merged bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLERS DECISION

On March 11, 1969, The Salem Trust Company,
Salem, N.H., and The Indian Head National Bank of
Nashua, Nashua, N.H., applied to the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency for permission to merge
under the charter and with the title of the latter.
The Indian Head National Bank of Nashua, the
charter bank, with IPC deposits of $28.5 million, was
organized in 1851. In addition to its head office in
Nashua, it operates two branches, one in Hudson and
one in Merrimack. It is a member of New Hampshire
Bankshares, Inc., a registered bank holding company
which controls seven commercial banks in New Hampshire with total deposits of $143.6 million.
The service area of the charter bank includes Nashua
and contiguous towns in southeast New Hampshire.
The population of Nashua is about 46,000, while that
of the service area is somewhat greater. The economy

82



$6, 339, 486

1

65, 358, 134

3

71, 698, 280

4

of this area is mixed residential, industrial, and commercial. Much new industry has located in the area
in recent years, while the construction of new homes
and other buildings has contributed to phenomenal
growth in the area.
Competing financial institutions in the Nashua area
include the Nashua Trust Company, Second National
Bank, Nashua, and the Nashua Federal Savings and
Loan Association, all of which are of a similar size to
the charter bank; and the First Federal Savings and
Loan Association, Nashua, which is somewhat smaller.
Salem Trust Company, with IPC deposits of $4.1
million, was chartered in 1953, and is a unit bank. The
bank is faced with a management succession problem
as its executive vice president is nearing retirement and
no one appears available to replace him.
The service area of the merging bank, which includes Salem, has a population of about 16,000, and
lies about 16 miles southeast of the charter bank's main

office. The economy of this area, which has been the
fastest growing in New Hampshire in the last 16 years,
is also mixed residential, industrial, and commercial.
Although in close proximity to the service area of the
charter bank, the merging bank's service area is separate and distinct.
Banking competition comes from a number of larger
banks and other financial institutions located in nearby
industrial towns in Massachusetts. These include the
Arlington Trust Company, and Bay State Merchants
National Bank, both of Lawrence, Mass.; Merrimack
Valley National Bank, Haverhill, Mass. • Andover Savings Bank, Andover, Mass.; and the Community Savings Bank, Lawrence Savings Bank, and Essex: Broadway Savings Bank, all of Lawrence, Mass. The Salem
Co-Operative Bank, Salem, N.H., also competes, while
the newly-chartered Rockingham Trust Company,
Salem, will compete in the future.
This merger will solve the merging bank's management succession problem. It will benefit the Salem
banking market by introducing a larger bank more
capable of serving the area's banking needs for larger
loans.
The merger will not adversely affect competition.
The resulting bank will be more capable of competing
with the larger Massachusetts-based banks dominating
the Salem market. In Nashua, the addition of the
merging institution to the charter bank should not
significantly affect the local banking structure. The
merging banks do not compete since their service areas,
though contiguous, do not overlap. Finally, none of
the charter bank's affiliates are near enough to the
merging bank to compete.
Considered in the light of the statutory criteria, this
merger is judged to be in the public interest and is,
therefore, approved.
JULY 7,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

Nashua Bank and Salem Trust are located in contiguous Hillsborough and Rockingham counties in
southern New Hampshire.
Salem Trust is approximately 15 miles east of the
closest office of Nashua Bank, in Hudson. However,
documents submitted by Nashua Bank indicate that
both Nashua Bank and the First National Bank of
Derry, with which Nashua Bank is affiliated through
New Hampshire Bankshares, Inc., a registered bank
holding company, derive some business from Salem
Trust's service area. While existing highways would
appear to make banks in northern Massachusetts more
convenient to the Salem area than is Nashua Bank,
these same highways connect Salem to the nearby town
of Derry, where the First National Bank of Derry is
located.
Under New Hampshire law, Nashua Bank and Salem Trust are potential competitors in certain areas.
In view of the extensive growth being experienced by
these areas, elimination of this potential competition
might adversely effect the development of a competitive banking market in the area to match its growth.
New Hampshire Bankshares, Inc., presently controls
41 percent of total commercial bank deposits in Rockingham County; the proposed merger will increase this
share by about 4 percent. New Hampshire Bankshares
also controls about 25 percent of total commercial
bank deposits in contiguous Hillsborough County.
Since the proposed merger would eliminate some
existing direct competition and the potential for
greater competition between Salem Trust and Nashua
Bank and its affiliates, and would further entrench the
dominant position of Nashua Bank's parent holding
company in the southernmost counties of New Hampshire, we conclude that it would have an adverse effect
on competition.

T H E LACONIA NATIONAL BANK, LACONIA, N.H., AND T H E PEOPLES NATIONAL BANK OF LACONIA, LAGONIA, N . H .

Banking offices

Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
To be
operated

The Laconia National Bank, Laconia, N.H. (1645), with
and The Peoples National Bank of Laconia, Laconia, N.H. (4037), which had. . .
merged Aug. 15, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (4037) and title "Laconia
Peoples National Bank & Trust Company." The merged bank at date of merger
had




$10, 230, 759
7, 694, 704
17,810,655

83

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On March 24, 1969, The Laconia National Bank,
Laconia, N.H., and The Peoples National Bank of Laconia, Laconia, N.H., applied to the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency for permission to merge
under the charter of the latter and with the title of
"Laconia Peoples National Bank & Trust Company."
The Peoples National Bank of Laconia, with IPC
deposits of almost $5 million, was chartered in 1889.
It has one branch, a drive-up facility, located on Main
Street, directly across from its head office. It will be
relocated to make way for an urban renewal program.
The Laconia National Bank, with IPC deposits of
$7.1 million, was originally chartered in 1965. Its main
office is also on Main Street, just a few hundred feet
from the main office of the charter bank. Urban renewal is also expected to take over this bank's main
office. It operates one branch in the Weirs Beach area,
about 7 miles north. This branch is open only from
mid-June through October to serve the recreational
and seasonal businesses which operate in the immediate locale. Off-season activity here is virtually nonexistent.
Both banks serve the town of Laconia and surrounding territory. The present population of Laconia is
about; 16,000 while the surrounding trade area of
about; 20 communities has a population approaching
50,000. Laconia is located in the center of the State
and is the county seat for Belknap County. The economy of the area is industrial and consists principally
of the manufacture of textiles and textile machinery
and the production of paper and lumber. Tourism is
important with the presence of ski areas and summer
resort activity.
The merging banks are two of five financial institutions located in downtown Laconia. The others are
the City Savings Bank, with deposits of $7.7 million;
Laconia Federal Savings & Loan Association, with
deposits of $9.4 million; and the Laconia Savings
Bank, the largest institution in town, with deposits of
$35.9 million. Another local bank is the Lakeport
National Bank, located 1.5 miles north of the downtown area, v/hich has deposits of $6.3 million. Other
commercial banks located within, and on, the periphery of the overall service area also compete. Strong
competition for these banks originates from the larger
banks to the south, based in Manchester, Concord,
and Nashua, which advertise locally and attempt to
serve the larger businesses in the area. Personal finance
companies operate in the area and provide additional
competition.
84



The merger will assist the banks in solving the office
space problems caused by urban renewal programs.
In addition, the merger will strengthen management
and enable the resulting institution to be more effective in attracting management and other personnel
than either bank operating separately is able to do.
Although both banks offer trust services, the merger
is expected to enable the resulting bank to expand
and strengthen those services. To this end it will be
feasible for the larger resulting institution to hire an
experienced full-time trust officer. The normal economies of scale which a larger institution can effect will
be available and will contribute to better service at
lower cost.
The Peoples National Bank has been a tenant of
the community's largest financial institution, the Laconia Savings Bank. A condition of such relationship
has been the former's agreement not to solicit time
deposits. The merger will enable this bank to overcome this restriction with the resulting bank able to
offer stronger competition to this much larger savings
institution. The resulting bank will also be in a better
position to meet any competitive threats in the community from larger banks based in Concord, Manchester, and Nashua. With respect to other smaller
institutions which compete, it is believed that future
economic growth will enable them to profit and grow
along with the resulting bank.
Considered in the light of the statutory criteria, this
merger is judged to be in the public interest and is,
therefore, approved.
MAY

27, 1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

The head offices of the merging banks are both
located in the center of the Laconia business district.
There are a substantial number of common deposit and
loan accounts. Therefore, it would appear that this
merger will eliminate substantial direct competition
between the merging banks.
All offices of the participating banks are located in
Belknap County. As of June 30, 1968, Laconia National held the largest share, approximately 32 percent, of total deposits in this county, while Peoples
National held the second largest share, approximately
27 percent, of such deposits. Their combined share of
these deposits would have been about 59 percent, more
than twice as large as that of the next largest commercial bank.
These substantial concentration figures probably

understate the competitive effects of this merger, for
competition between the merging banks would appear
to be most direct in Laconia itself, where there are
no commercial banking alternatives. The only other
bank within a radius of 5 miles of Laconia is smaller
than either of the participating banks. The proposed
merger would combine the only competitive alterna-

tives in Laconia, and would tend to deter the development of a more competitive commercial banking
structure in that community.
Since this merger would combine two direct competitors with substantial shares of the relevant local
market, we believe that it would have a serious effect
on competition therein.

VIRGINIA NATIONAL BANK, NORFOLK, VA., AND COMMONWEALTH NATIONAL BANK OF ARLINGTON, ARLINGTON, V A .

Banking offices
Total assets

Name of bank and type of transaction

In
operation
Commonwealth National Bank of Arlington, Arlington, Va. (15146), with
and Virginia National Bank, Norfolk, Va. (9885), which had
merged Aug. 15, 1969, under charter and title of the latter bank (9885). The |
merged bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On April 14, 1969, the Commonwealth National
Bank of Arlington, Arlington, Va., and the Virginia
National Bank, Norfolk, Va., applied to the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to merge under
the charter and with the title of the latter.
The charter bank, the Virginia National Bank, with
IPC deposits of $620 million, operates 78 offices in
the southern and central parts of Virginia. Although
it is the largest Independent bank in the State, it operates in only one of the six largest metropolitan areas of
Virginia, and it is barred by the State branching law
from establishing de novo branches in the other five
metropolitan markets.
The merging bank, with IPC deposits of $22 million,
maintains its head office, and three branches, in Arlington County and operates one branch in Falls Church.
It has obtained approval to open four additional
branches in Arlington County, two in the city of
Alexandria and one in Falls Church, This bank is
located within the Washington Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Area.
The applicant banks do not compete with each
other. Their closest offices are 90 miles apart, and State
law prevents both banks from branching in the intervening area.
Consummation of the proposal will bring an additional full-service competitor into the WashingtonNorthern Virginia banking market, largely comprised
of the Washington Standard Metropolitan Statistical




$34, 777, 218
817,246,421
851,531,017

To be
operated

11
79
90

Area, which is the fastest growing urban area in the
country. It also has the highest family income and
per capita income in the Nation. Its per capita bank
deposits, however, are below the national average.
In 1960, the District's share of the standard metropolitan statistical area population was the largest segment. At the end of 1967, however, both the Maryland
and the Virginia segments were larger than the District's. The Northern Virginia area is expected to continue to expand rapidly, particularly since nearly
two-thirds of the land included in the standard metropolitan statistical area is located in Virginia.
In this mushrooming economy, the merging bank is
the smallest independent bank in a market dominated
by holding company banks. The merging bank's lack
of size prevents continuing effective competition in the
face of banking systems having access to new capital
and the management resources needed to expand and
diversify. The bank has only 0.3 percent of the total
deposits of the 75 banks in the area.
The large banks presently operating in the Washington area include all of the District of Columbia banks,
the five largest Maryland banks, and members of five
Virginia-based registered bank holding companies.
Consummation of the proposal is the only method
allowed by law to bring Virginia's largest independent
bank into its largest banking market and to bring a
sizable new competitor into this area of dynamic growth
with only a very minimal increase in the concentration
of the State's banking resources.
Applying the statutory criteria to the proposal, it is
85

concluded that the merger is in the public interest. The
merger is, therefore, approved.
JULY 7,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

VNB's closest office to the Arlington area is some
90 miles away. There are many intervening banks.
VNB, however, does have a few deposits and makes a
few loans in the Greater Washington Area. Commonwealth does not do any business in the areas served by
VNB. Hence, the actual competition eliminated by this
merger will not be significant.
In Virginia, a bank may not branch de novo outside
its headquarters, city or county, and limited contiguous territories. It may, however, effect entry anywhere
else in the State by merger with an existing bank. But

no new branches will be authorized after the merger
except in the area of the bank's headquarters. As a
result, many of the State's largest banking corporations,
other than VNB, have expanded by use of the holding
company device.
Commonwealth is among the newer and smaller
banks located in the Arlington area. With $20.5 million of total deposits, it is the ninth largest banking
organization in terms of operations in the area, i.e., if
the banks owned by holding companies are counted as
single organizations. Its share of the Arlington area
deposits is 3.3 percent while four holding companies
control around 75 percent of deposits in the same area.
In view of the acquired bank's size and relatively
modest market position in the Arlington area, we conclude that the proposed merger is not likely to have
any significantly adverse effect on competition.

THE NATIONAL STATE BANK, ELIZABETH, N.J., AND FIRST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, N.A., FORDS, N.J.
Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

First Bank and Trust Company, National Association, Fords, N.J. (15255), with. .
and The National State Bank, Elizabeth, N.J. (1436), which had
consolidated Aug. 18, 1969, under charter and title of the latter bank (1436). The
consolidated bank at date of consolidation had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On March 28, 1969, The National State Bank, Elizabeth, N.J., with IPC deposits of $191.8 million, and
the First Bank and Trust Company, National Association, Fords, N.J., with IPG deposits of $94 million,
applied to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to consolidate under the charter
of the former and with the title of "The National
State Bank, Elizabeth, N.J."
Union County, the home of the charter bank and its
13 branches in nine different municipalities, is situated
in northeast New Jersey, just west of New York City.
The county, whose population is estimated to be
575,200, derives much of its economic stimulus from its
relationship to New York City. Currently the county
can count over 100 large concerns; its employment is
stable, and for years it has been one of the top 10
counties in the United States with respect to annual
per capita income. The cities and towns in Union
County have been described as bedroom communities
for New York City. With the present industrial expansion underway in New Jersey, the New Jersey
86



$112,931,942
237,966,511
350, 286, 259

To be
operated

10
18

28

communities are asserting their economic independence and activity.
The county has excellent transportation facilities,
being served by Newark Airport, which is undergoing
a $200 million expansion program; the Port of New
York Authority's Elizabeth Marine Terminal, which in
1967 handled 30 percent of all the foreign cargo moved
through the New York-New Jersey Port; train facilities; and an excellent road system, including the
Garden State Parkway, the New Jersey Turnpike, and
interstate highways 82 and 278.
Middlesex County, the location of the consolidating
bank with its main office in Fords, N.J., and its eight
branches located in four different municipalities, has a
population of 578,000. Middlesex County, which is directly south of Union County, boasts much industrial
and residential development. This county is still experiencing the transition from agriculture to industry,
and much room remains for further development.
There are 75 large business concerns located in
the county. Among the firms that now employ more
than 2,000 workers are Ford, Western Electric, Squibb,

Du Pont, RCA, A.T. & T., McCalls Magazine, and
International Business Machines. Rutgers University,
NewT Brunswick, N.J., the largest State university, is
undergoing a big expansion program in its science and
medical centers.
The charter bank, incorporated in 1812, converted
to National bank status in 1865, and has total assets
of $242.4 million. It is the largest bank in Union
County, and is a sound, well-capitalized, and aggressive
institution. The consolidating bank, incorporated in
1937, converted into a National bank association in
1964, and has total assets of $116.3 million as of
December 31, 1968, making it the largest bank in
Middlesex County. President Roosevelt, who is also
president of the charter bank, divides his time between
these institutions, as both are affiliated through common ownership of a majority of stock.
The proposed merger will not be adverse to the existing banking structure. At present there are 32 commercial banks, with 114 branches, in Union and
Middlesex counties and 22 of these offices will be
operated by the resulting bank. Although the two
banks are the largest in their respective counties, one
must consider the consolidation in light of the recently
enacted New Jersey banking law which has divided
New Jersey into three banking districts, putting the two
applicant banks into the Central Banking District. In
this district, as of December 31, 1968, there were 68
commercial banks with 218 branches, 66 savings and
loan institutions, and 10 savings banks with 14
branches. These financial institutions have aggregate
deposits in excess of $4.43 billion, and total loans
exceeding $2.98 billion. Comparing the resulting bank's
total deposits of $315 million, and total loans of $200
million, to the balance of the banking district, it has
only 7.2 percent of the total deposits and 6.7 percent
of the total loans.
In addition to competition from banks, the result-

ing institution can expect to compete with insurance
companies for mortgage loans and credit unions,
finance companies, and factoring companies for ordinary credit needs. Due to the proximity of the banking
houses of New York City to the Central Banking District in New Jersey, there is appreciable competition
vying for the increasing money demands of New Jersey
borrowers.
There is no significant competition between the applicant institutions. Only in the vicinity of Rahway and
Avenel, N.J., do the respective service areas overlap.
Because the banks are affiliated through a majority of
stock being owned by the same persons, by operating
under the same president, and in following the same
banking policies, the banks have purposely not attempted to compete.
Consolidation of the two institutions will inure
to the advantage of the community. The lending capacity of the resulting bank will be increased to
$2 million, thereby eliminating many loan participations with other banks. Also, consolidation will give the
bank greater depth in its management and improve
internal efficiency and public service.
Applying statutory criteria to the proposed consolidation, we find it is in the public interest and the application is, therefore, approved.
JULY 17,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

First Bank and Trust Company, N.A., operates its
principal office and eight branches in Middlesex
County. The National State Bank operates its principal
office and 13 branches in Union County.
A majority of the stock of each of the two banks has
been commonly owned for 30 years. Therefore, it is
unlikely that the proposed consolidation will eliminate
any effective existing or potential competition.

FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF EASTERN NORTH CAROLINA, JACKSONVILLE, N.G., AND HOME BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, HENDERSON-

VILLE, N.C.
Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

1 otal assets
In
operation

Home Bank and Trust Company, Hendersonville, N.C, with
and First National Bank of Eastern North Carolina, Jacksonville, N.C. (14676),
which had
'.
I
merged Aug. 29, 1969, under charter and title of the latter bank (14676). The |
merged bank at the date of the merger had
I




To be
operated

$4,231, 157

2 !

99, 517, 766

26 I.

103, 748, 922

1
28

87

mation of this merger, less than 0.1 percent would be
added to the charter bank's share of 1.4 percent of
total bank deposits in the State, and its current rank
of 11th, among the State's 120 banks, would be
unchanged.
By replacing the merging bank with an office of an
out-of-county institution, the merger would not result
in the elimination of any alternative banking source in
Henderson County. Home Bank's competitors have
been the third and fifth largest banks in North Carolina and the merger may serve to increase effective
competition in Henderson County.
Considered in the light of the statutory criteria,
this merger is deemed to be in the public interest. It is,
therefore, approved.

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On April 24,1969, Home Bank and Trust Company,
Hendersonville, N.C., and First National Bank of Eastern North Carolina, Jacksonville, N.C., applied to the
Comptroller of the Currency for permission to merge
under the charter and with the title of the latter.
The charter bank, with IPC deposits of $70 million,
operates 25 offices in 18 communities, primarily in
the eastern portion of North Carolina. It holds some
13.4 percent of total deposits in the 14 counties in
which it now has offices. The bank's service area is
primarily dependent upon an agricultural economy,
balanced by large military installations and increasing
industrialization. Generally, economic conditions in the
primaiy service area of the charter bank show a higher
volatility than elsewhere in North Carolina, for local
tobacco production is declining and military installations are subject to rapid budgetary shifts.
Hendersonville, N.C., is the site of the main office
and sole branch of the merging bank. The county seat
of the 36,000 population Henderson County, Hendersonville, is situated in the midst of a diversified and
stable economy dominated by resort activities, agriculture, and new industry whose future growth prospects
are favorable.
The: merging Home Bank and Trust Company was
organized October 11, 1967, and has grown rapidly
during its short existence. It now holds IPC deposits
of $2.5 million.
There is no present competition between the merging and charter banks. The closest branch of the
charter bank to Home Bank and Trust Company is
100 miles distant, over mountainous terrain, and the
likelihood of the charter bank's establishing a de novo
branch in Hendersonville is minimal. After consum*

JULY 29,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

Home Bank operates two offices in Hendersonville^
Henderson County, in western North Carolina. First
National's only office in the western part of North
Carolina is located in Boone, Watauga County, more
than 115 miles northeast of Hendersonville. All of its
other offices are more than 235 miles from Home
Bank's offices. Thus, it does not appear that any significant direct competition will be eliminated by the
proposed merger.
North Carolina law permits statewide de novo
branching; therefore, First National could legally
branch de novo into the area served by Home Bank.
However, in view of the distances involved and the
relative size and competitive position of Home Bank in
Henderson County, we do not believe that this merger
would have a substantially adverse effect on potential
competition.
*

*

FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF HATTIESBURG, HATTIESBURG, MISS., AND FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF BILOXI, BILOXI, MISS.
Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

First National Bank of Biloxi, Biloxi, Miss. (14739), with
and First National Bank of Hattiesburg, Hattiesburg, Miss. (5176). which had
merged Aug. 29, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (5176) and title "First
Mississippi National Bank." The merged bank at date of merger had




$23, 908, 723
48, 980, 609
73, 059, 029

To be
operated
4
5
9

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On December 20, 1968, the First National Bank of
Biloxi, Biloxi, Miss., and the First National Bank of
Hattiesburg, Hattiesburg, Miss., applied to the Office
of the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to
merge under the charter of the latter and with the title
of "First Mississippi National Bank." A public hearing
was held on this application in Memphis, Tenn., on
May 28, 1969.
The First National Bank of Hattiesburg, the charter
bank, was established In 1895. It now operates four
branches and has IPC deposits of $32.3 million.
For a number of years, the charter bank and Citizens
Bank of Hattiesburg were the only banks operating in
Forrest County. However, in 1965 the Southern National Bank opened. This bank has shown remarkable
growth since its opening so that it is presently a significant competitive force in the county. Competition
for consumer loan business is also supplied by firmly
entrenched small loan companies.
Hattiesburg, the seat of Forrest County, is located in
the south-central section of Mississippi. The population
of the city is approximately 39,200, while the county
population is estimated at 58,700. Hattiesburg is the
trade and industrial center for southern Mississippi. A
major source of income is derived from manufacturing
plants, with a steady employment force of about 10,000.
The First National Bank of Biloxi, the merging bank,
was established in 1893 as a State-chartered institution,
and has operated under a National charter since 1952.
This bank operates three branches and has IPC deposits of S15.2 million.
Biloxi, headquarters of the merging bank, is located
on a narrow peninsula bordered by the Gulf of Mexico,
Biloxi Bay, and Back Bay. The population of the city
is approximately 50,000. Harrison County, in which
Biloxi is located, has an approximate population of
142,500. This city has an interesting background;
settled by the French in 1719, it has since flown the
flags of Spain, England, the West Florida Republic, the
Confederacy, and the United States. Old World charm
and a mild climate make Biloxi one of the most popular
resort cities in the South.
The economy of this area is dependent upon the
Federal Government, tourism, and shrimp- and oysterpacking industries. Kessler Air Base, at which approximately 16,000 servicemen are stationed, is located within the city limits of Biloxi. Reliable estimates indicate
the Defense Department invested more than $0.5 billion in constructing this base. The annual payroll generated by this facility exceeds $80 million. Biloxi is the




largest shrimp and oyster port on the coast, with 30
seafood canneries and a fleet of 1,000 boats.
The merging bank competes with four other banks
in Harrison County, operating 16 banking offices.
A major competitive force in this area is the Hancock
Bank, which has total deposits of $62 million, or more
than one-half of the total deposits of the county.
Consummation of the proposed merger will not have
an adverse effect on competition. The home counties
of the applicant banks are not contiguous, but are
separated by Stone County.. The nearest offices of the
two banks are approximately 81 road-miles apart, and
most of the intervening area is occupied by the DeSoto
National Forest, which acts as a natural barrier to
competition between the applicant banks. There is no
evidence that the applicant banks have common depositors or that either bank has any depositors from
the home county of the other. In Biloxi, consummation
of the proposed merger will introduce a more competitive force to vie with the much larger banks operating there. Consummation of the proposed merger
will have little effect on the bank structure of
Hattiesburg.
The merger will provide the merging institution
with the youthful, aggressive management which it
now lacks; a critical management succession problem
will be alleviated. The merger will make available to
the resulting institution a larger lending limit, and will
make possible some economics of scale. Present customers of the merging bank will have available increased services while the trust facilities which the
merging bank possesses will be expanded and offered
in both areas where the resulting bank will operate.
The merger will enable the resulting bank to utilize
automation to a considerably increased degree.
Considered in the light of the statutory criteria, this
merger is judged to be in the public interest and is,
therefore, approved.
JULY 17,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

The closest offices of the banks are 81 miles apart;
there is an extensive national forest and one bank in
the intervening area. Therefore, the merger would not
appear to eliminate any significant existing direct competition between the banks.
As of June 30, 1968, Biloxi Bank held the third
largest share, or 16 percent, of deposits in Harrison
County. It is the largest of three banks operating in
Biloxi.
Mississippi law would permit Hattiesburg Bank, the

89

largest; bank in Forrest County, to establish de novo
branches in Biloxi. Hattiesburg Bank is the third
largest bank legally eligible to branch into Biloxi and
the largest eligible bank not already operating a branch
near Biloxi. The Biloxi-Gulfport-Pascagoula area of

COLONIAL NATIONAL BANK, HADDONFIELD, N.J.,

the Mississippi gulf coast has a much higher level of
economic growth than Forrest County and would be
a likely place for de novo entry by Hattiesburg Bank.
Therefore, it appears that the proposed merger would
have some adverse effect on potential competition.

AND T H E FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF WESTVILLE, WESTVILLE,

N.J.

Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
To be
operated

In
operation

The First National Bank of Westville, Westville, N.J. (10430), with
and Colonial National Bank, Haddonfield, N.J. (14457), which had
merged Sept. 6, 1969, under the charter and title of the latter bank (14457). The
merged bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On May 14, 1969, The First National Bank of Westville, Westville, N.J., and the Colonial National Bank,
Haddonfield, N.J., applied to this Office for permission
to merge under the charter and with the title of the
latter. Both banks are located within the newly designated Third Banking District in New Jersey.
The charter bank, the Colonial National Bank, is
located in Haddonfield, N.J., and operates eight
branches in Camden County. The bank, with I PC deposits of $106.5 million, is the third largest bank in the
county, and the fifth largest bank in the Third Banking
District.
The First National Bank of Westville, the merging
bank, is located in Westville, and operates two
branches. It has IPC deposits of $13.9 million and is
the fourth largest bank in Gloucester County. It ranks
37th in size in the Third Banking District.
Haddonfield, the home-office city of the charter
bank, is a community of 14,400 located in Camden
County, directly across the Delaware River from
Philadelphia. Although most Haddonfield residents
work in commercial and industrial enterprises in the
county, many commute to Philadelphia for
employment.
Westville, the headquarters of the merging bank,
is a community of 6,230, and is located in the northwestern portion of Gloucester County. Although the
area contains a growing number of small industries
and new housing developments, truck farms continue
to be an important segment of the economy of
Gloucester County. The town of Westville itself, how90



$16,795,834
126,943,276
143, 739, 109

3
8
11

ever, is completely developed, both commercially and
residentially.
The two banks do not compete with each other at
all; they have no common borrowers or depositors,
and other banking offices are located between their
closest branches. On the other hand, competition
within the Third Banking District is lively and would
continue to be so. Twenty-four commercial banks will
remain in the district. The resulting bank will retain
its rank in size as the fifth largest in its district and
would operate only 12 of the 104 banking offices in the
district.
The merging bank is faced with a severe management problem. The death of the cashier last year left
the bank without a full-time experienced manager.
The bank has been unable to hire an experienced bank
officer and its size and lack of prospects for expansion
have prevented the bank from formulating and implementing a management succession policy within the
bank. The merger will obviate this management succession problem and will provide the Westville area
with a bank offering a larger lending limit and a sufficient range of services to compete with the large
banks of Camden and Philadelphia. As the merging
bank does not have trust powers, the resulting bank
will provide its Westville customers with trust services.
In addition, the resulting bank will provide a local
charge account service, presently unavailable to the
customers of the merging bank. Further, hours of operation will be extended and full range of consumer
services will be offered. The strengthening of the Westville Bank will benefit the convenience and needs of its

customers, and will increase competition in the Westville area.
In the light of the statutory criteria, the merger appears to be in the public interest. The proposal is,
therefore, approved.
JULY 28,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

Colonial, the third largest bank in Camden County,
proposes merger with Westville Bank, the fourth largest bank in adjacent Gloucester County. The respective head offices of the merging banks are 6 miles
apart; three of Colonial's branches are located about
3.5 miles from Westville Bank's head office. There
would appear to be some direct competition between
the banks which would be eliminated by the proposed
merger. The four largest banks in the Greater Camden
Area, designated by the parties as an appropriate market in which to measure the effects of the proposed
merger, control about 68 percent of deposits located
therein. Colonial's present share of about 12 percent
would be increased by nearly 2 percent after the proposed merger. These percentages understate the effects
of the proposed merger, as a number of outlying banks
in Camden and Gloucester counties do not appear to
be integral parts of a proper Camden area market.
Under new New Jersey law, Colonial and Westville
Bank may be permitted to open branch offices anywhere in the Third Banking District of New Jersey,
except in communities subject to home or branch office protection (Haddonfield and Westville are protected communities). Due in large part to its recent
merger activity, Colonial has already become the fifth
largest of some 74 commercial banks in the Third
Banking District, where the five largest banks together
control approximately 42 percent of total deposits in
commercial banks. Under the new State banking laws,

with their greatly broadened sphere of permissible
branching activity, major mergers by the largest banks
in the district could significantly increase this percentage, and possibly result in ultimate dominance of
district commercial banking by a few very large banking institutions. Such an entrenched market structure
would, once achieved, tend to be self-perpetuating,
particularly in the context of continued home and
branch office protection under State law.
Major mergers by the largest banks may contribute
to the development of such a structure by preempting
competition among a larger number of able districtwide competitors. For example, acquisitions of banks
in or near communities in which the large banks have
already attained positions of relative dominance not
only further entrench the large banks in these communities but also eliminate the possibility that the
acquired banks might become vehicles for entry by
banking institutions whose entry into the relevant markets could have significant procompetitive effects.
These results are particularly undesirable where home
and branch office protection laws, such as those of
New Jersey, restrict de novo entry by such institutions,
thereby further reducing the possibility of market
deconcentration.
Should Colonial be permitted to acquire Westville
Bank, it would reduce the opportunity for entry into
the Camden area market by other more distant banking institutions in the Third District and by any bank
holding companies controlling banks in the other banking districts. The proposed merger thus clearly involves
loss of potential competition.
In view of the elimination of existing and potential
competition and the increase in concentration in the
Camden area banking market which will be effected,
we conclude that the proposed merger would have an
adverse effect on competition.

FIRST NATIONAL BANK & T R U S T C O . , WASHINGTON, P A . , AND FIRST NATIONAL BANK, CHARLEROI, P A .

Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

First National Bank, Charleroi, Pa. (14123), with
and First National Bank & Trust Co., Washington, Pa., Washington, Pa. (5920),
which had
merged Sept. 8, 1969, under the charter and title of the latter bank (5920). The
merged bank at date of merger had

To be
operated

$9, 741, 906
54,756,021
64, 497, 927
10

383-814—7C



91

COMPTROLLER'S DECISION

On May 27, 1969, the First National Bank & Trust
Co., Washington, Pa., Washington, Pa., and the First
National Bank, Charleroi, Pa., applied to the Office of
the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to
merge under the charter and with the title of the
former.
First National Bank & Trust Co., Washington, Pa.,
the charter bank, was established in 1901 as the First
National Bank of Fredericktown, Pa. Since 1955, the
charter bank has expanded aggressively by de novo
branching, acquisition, and merger. With IPC deposits of $40.5 million, it now operates seven branch
offices and is about to open an eighth.
Washington, Pa., the county seat of Washington
County, had a population of 23,545 in 1960 and served
a primary trade area population of 86,356 at that
time. Today, with a trade area population approaching 100,000, the entire economy is undergoing a
change. Originally residential, the area, which has
major interstate highway connections, is being redeveloped for industrial expansion. In addition, the
city is the site of Washington and Jefferson College.
The First National Bank, Charleroi, Pa., with IPC
deposits of $8.2 million, was chartered in 1934. The
bank's operation has been conservative in nature and
today it operates through a single office. Industrial
activity in the trade area has been declining for a
number of years, causing an outward migration of the
labor force. The sizable pool of manpower reserves in
the trade area and the extensive river, rail, and highway transportation networks provide incentives for
industrial growth.
The distance between the main office of the charter
bank and the merging bank is approximately 22 miles
which, until recently, could be traversed only by second class roads. There is no competition between the
two banks. There are no common borrowers or depositors, and neither bank has deposits or loans originating in the other's service area.
Approval of the merger will not tend to create undue concentration. The charter bank competes with
seven branches of the major Pittsburgh banks in the
Washington area. The merging bank competes directly
with two branch offices of Pittsburgh banks in Charleroi, and with 15 such branches in its service area.
Potential competition between the two banks is only
theoretically possible. Although Pennsylvania law
would permit each bank to branch into the other's

92



service area, the concentration of the larger metropolitan banking institutions in Charleroi's trade area
would economically preclude the charter bank's
branching there. Slow growth and lack of management
depth preclude the reasonable possibility of the merging bank branching into the trade area of the charter
bank.
Unlike the merging bank, which has been troubled
with management problems and inadequacies because
of its small size and lack of employee benefits, the
charter bank has an excellent management team. The
convenience and needs of Charleroi's banking public
will be better served, after the merger, through the
infusion of new and progressive management which
will compete more vigorously with the large Pittsburgh
banks in the trade area. Unlike these banks, the
merged institution will offer trust department services
to estates under $50,000, and a modern computer
facility will provide more efficient service. In addition,
a higher leading limit will enable the resulting bank
to compete for the business of corporate customers,
whose business at the present time goes almost exclusively to the large Pittsburgh banks.
Having been considered in the light of the statutory
criteria, this merger is judged to be in the public
interest and is, therefore, approved.
AUGUST 5,1969.
SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

Both of the participating banks are headquartered
in Washington County. The closest office of Washington Bank to Charleroi Bank is located 10 miles south
of Charleroi at Brownsville (population 6,000). There
are four banks in the intervening area, including
branches of some of the largest banks in western
Pennsylvania. Two banks operate offices in Brownsville; three banks operate offices in Charleroi. It does
not appear that the proposed merger will eliminate
substantial direct competition between the merging
banks.
Pennsylvania law would permit each bank to
branch de novo into the other's service areas; the large
banks headquartered in Pittsburgh can also branch de
novo into all of the counties served by Washington
Bank, except Greene County. In view of the size of
the towns, the competing banks already in these areas,
and the size and number of the intervening banks, we
do not believe that this merger would have a significantly adverse effect on potential competition.

T H E MERCHANTS NATIONAL BANK OF BURLINGTON, BURLINGTON, V T . , AND FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF BRISTOL, BRISTOL, V T .
Banking offices

Total assets

Name of bank and type of transaction

To be
operated

In
operation

First National Bank of Bristol, Bristol, Vt. (6252), with
and The Merchants National Bank of Burlington, Burlington, Vt. (1197), which
had
merged Sept. 9, 1969, under the charter and title of the latter bank (1197). The
merged bank at date of merger had .

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On March 31, 1969, The Merchants National Bank
of Burlington, Burlington, Vt., and the First National
Bank of Bristol, Bristol, Vt., applied to the Comptroller
of the Currency for permission to merge under the
charter and with the title of the former.
The Merchants National Bank of Burlington, the
charter bank, was established in 1849, and operates five
offices in Chittenden County, Vt. This bank, with
$23.8 million in IPC deposits, is the third largest commercial bank in Chittenden County. The two largest
banks in the State, The Chittenden Trust Company
and the Howard National Bank, are in direct competition with the charter bank.
The First National Bank of Bristol, the merging
bank, was established in 1902. It operates one office in
Addison County, 37 miles south of the charter bank's
headquarters of Burlington. The merging bank, with
IPC deposits of $2.8 million, serves the eastern half of
Addison County, an area with a population of approximately 5,000. The merging bank competes, in this
area, with the Chittenden Trust Company branches in
Vergennes and Middlebury. The Burlington area has
shown significant economic growth over the past decade, while the economic activity in the Bristol area has
remained constant.
The Merchants National Bank of Burlington is a
competitive minded bank, serving a market area with a
population of approximately 87,000. Management is
young and progressive with only two of the 14 active
officers over 47 years of age. The First National Bank
of Bristol is conservative in all respects; its manage-




$3, 303, 109

1

28,904,021

5

32, 919, 347

6

ment, while capable, is lacking in depth. The legal
lending limit of the merging bank is $27,500. After the
proposed merger, the lending capacity available to
Bristol will be nearly nine times this figure. This merger
will bring trust services to the Bristol area for the first
time.
There is virtually no competition between the applicant banks, and little likelihood that they would became competitors in the foreseeable future. However,
the proposed merger would strengthen the charter
bank's ability to compete with The Chittenden Trust
Company and the Howard National Bank in northwest Vermont.
Applying the statutory criteria to the proposed
merger, we conclude that it is in the public interest and
the application is, therefore, approved.
JULY 23,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

Merchants and Bristol National are about 30 miles
apart. While each bank has some loan and deposit accounts originating in the other's area, it would appear
that no significant amount of direct competition will
be eliminated by the proposed merger.
While applicable State law would permit either
bank to branch de novo into the sendee area of the
other, the size of Bristol National would appear to preclude it as a likely potential entrant into the Burlington
area. It seems unlikely that Merchants would establish
a de novo branch in the small community of Bristol.
We conclude that the proposed merger is unlikely
to have a significantly adverse effect on competition.

93

UNION NATIONAL BANK IN KANSAS CITY, KANSAS CITY, M O . , AND T H E COLUMBIA NATIONAL BANK OF KANSAS CITY,
KANSAS CITY, M O .
Banking offices
Name of bank and type of

transaction

Total assets
In
operation

Union National Bank in Kansas City, Kansas City, Mo. (13736), with
and The Columbia National Bank of Kansas City, Kansas City, Mo. (11472),
which had
consolidated Sept. 12, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (11472), and title
of "Columbia Union National Bank and Trust Company." The consolidated bank
at date of consolidation had

COMPTROLLER'S DECISION

On May 5, 1969, The Columbia National Bank of
Kansas City, Kansas City, Mo., and the Union National Bank of Kansas City, Kansas City, Mo., applied
to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency for
permission to consolidate under the charter of the
former and with the title of "Columbia Union National Bank and Trust Company."
Both participating banks are located in the downtown area of Kansas City, Mo., the heart of the metropolitan area which includes four counties in Missouri
and two in Kansas. The Kansas City Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, with a population estimated
at 1.1 million, is located at the confluence of the Missouri and Kansas Rivers, a strategic location that led
to its early development during the western exploration and expansion of this country. It has a broad,
healthy, economic base. A diversity of industries flourish in the area, which is also considered a major wholesaling center, an important retailing center, and a
transportation center. Kansas City is also a regional
office for many Federal and State agencies which employ substantial numbers of people.
The prospect for continued growth and development and economic expansion in this area are very
good. Although the majority of the growth in the Kansas City area is taking place in the outlying suburban
areas, the downtown portions of this metropolitan center have escaped the debilitating aspects of urban
decay. The downtown area is the scene of some new
building, extensive remodeling, and other signs of
revitalization. This section of the city is being developed as a modern and convenient center for convention and sports activities.
The Columbia National Bank of Kansas City, the
charter bank, is ninth in size in Kansas City. It has
experienced slow, steady growth over its 50-year history, and can be characterized as a conservative finan94



To be
operated

$55,316,901
50, 827, 857
103,114,590

cial institution, although it was the first bank in downtown Kansas City to make consumer installment loans.
The bank is housed in an inadequate, old building.
The capital of the bank is adequate, but an adverse
decision in an impending lawsuit would seriously affect
its capital structure.
The merging bank, the Union National Bank in
Kansas City, has a long ultraconservative history. It is
presently the 10th largest bank in the Kansas City area.
Since it was chartered in 1933, it has declined in relative importance; the total resources of the bank have
declined from $67 million in 1953 to $54 million in
1968. During the past year, new owners have tried to
revitalize the bank. Despite a more liberal loan policy,
which increased loans in 1968 by $9 million over 1967,
the new owners have met with little success as far as
deposit growth is concerned. Many of its new loans,
however, were not generated in the local area of the
bank. In addition, the bank at present is heavily overcapitalized.
The applicant banks are located one-half block apart
in downtown Kansas City. There is, however, surprisingly little competition between them. While the combined number of depositors totals 15,000, the banks
have only 23 individual depositors in common, 19 business depositors in common, 10 country banks in common, and 24 time and savings depositors in common.
The two banks have only 10 common borrowers. Further, the operation of the two banks is dissimilar. Most
of the deposits and loans in the charter bank are small;
the bank makes direct installment loans, has a small
trust department, and maintains a large real estate
department. The merging bank, on the other hand,
maintains large deposit accounts, makes large loans,
obtains installment paper only from dealers, operates
no real estate department, and has a large and profitable trust department. Another factor tending to minimize competition between the two banks is the large

number of banking offices located in close proximity
to them; 4 other banks are located within a twoblock radius, 8 within a four-block radius, and 12
within a radius of 1 mile.
The effect of a merger on the banking conditions in
Kansas City will not be adverse. Presently there are 125
banks throughout the Kansas City Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area. These banks have total assets
of $3.66 billion. Since both Missouri and Kansas are
unit banking States, their economic growth has supported 30 new banks since 1953. These 30 banks have
accumulated 12 percent of the total deposits in the
Kansas City area. In addition, 30 savings and loan
associations compete aggressively in the area, and now

hold over $1.5 billion in deposits in their 78 offices.
Credit unions, sales finance companies, and personal
loan companies are all flourishing in the area.
The downtown banks in Kansas City share a problem experienced in many major metropolitan areas;
as the suburban areas expand and flourish, the central
city suffers a decline in economic importance. The following tables contrast the growth and deposits of the
two largest downtown banks on the Missouri side and
the two largest banks on the Kansas side of the city with
the deposit growth of the five largest suburban banks
in the standard metropolitan statistical area. The difference in the overall growth rate patterns is readily
apparent:

Downtown Banks
1968
Deposits

Commerce Trust
First National
City National
Commercial National
Security National

$610, 061
389, 099
348, 665
100, 740
89, 909

1953
Percent
of total

Deposits

18.59 $441, 452
11.85 271,217
10.62 202, 621
3.07
46, 268
2.74
36, 464

Percent
of total

26.84
16.49
12.32
2.81
2.22

Percent
of growth
1953-68
38. 1
43.5
72. 1
117.7
*146. 6

*Merger involved.
Suburban Banks
Deposits,
1968

First National Bank of Independence, Mo
Plaza Bank of Commerce
Johnson County National
Mission State
Southgate
fBank organized in 1956.

The applicant banks, feeling the impact of this decline,
believe that the consolidation of the two banks will
provide sufficient capital and resources to offer specialized services to businesses and industries located in their
service area to insure continued growth. These services
will consist of a complete data processing center, an
international department, a travel agency, and leasing services, which neither bank presently offers in a
manner that meets its customers' needs. The combined
strengths of these dissimilar banks will result in a bank
with no apparent weaknesses, and with sufficient
capabilities to enable it to serve its customers with
modern and specialized skill.
The benefits of the consolidation will occur with
no anticompetitive effects. The merging bank presently
has 1.37 percent of the area deposits and 1.29 percent
of the loans. The charter bank has 1.53 percent of the
deposits in the area, and 1.34 percent of the loans.
The resulting bank will hold 2.90 percent of the
deposits and 2.63 percent of the loans. This small
increase in the concentration of banking resources is




$39, 290
46, 286
46, 352
37, 257
35, 593

Deposits,
1953
$10, 768
22, 437
6,508
10,244

Percent of
growth
1953-68

264. 88
106. 29
612.23
263. 70

(t)

insignificant when it is noted that 124 banks will remain
in the standard metropolitan statistical area and that
much larger banks, particularly Commerce Trust Company, First National Bank of Kansas City, and City
National Bank and Trust Company, all of which are
located in Kansas City, Mo., offer intense competition
to the applicant banks in their downtown service area.
In the light of the statutory criteria, the proposal
appears to be in the public interest. The consolidation
is, therefore, approved.
AUGUST 4,1969.
SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

Since the consolidation in this case is between two
banks doing business on opposite sides of the same
street in the heart of the downtown business area of
Kansas City, Mo., this merger will result in the elimination of direct competition. However, the area is
dominated by three banks much larger in size than
either of the consolidating banks. The consolidated

95

bank, with combined deposits of $95,379 million, as of
December 31, 1968, would rank fourth in this market.
Seven other banks would also serve the area. However,
the effect of the merger would be to reduce competition.
As of December 31, 1968, the "Big Three" Kansas
City, Mo., banks controlled 78.1 percent of the deposits
in the area. As of the same date the fourth largest
bank .in the area held 4.7 percent of the deposits. The
merging banks rank seventh and eighth in the area

FIRST NATIONAL STATE BANK OF NEW JERSEY, NEWARK, N.J.,

with less than 3 percent of area deposits each. After the
proposed consolidation, the merged bank will rank
fourth and would hold 5.5 percent of the deposits, an
increase of less than 1 percent in the concentration of
deposits held by the four largest banks.
Since the proposed consolidation will have the effect
of increasing concentration in a highly concentrated
market, and will eliminate direct competition it is
likely to have an adverse effect on competition.

AND SUBURBAN BANK OF LIVINGSTON, N.A.,

LIVINGSTON,

N.J.

Banking offices
Total assets

Name of bank and type of transaction

In
operation

Suburban Bank of Livingston, National Association, Livingston, N.J. (15603),
with
was purchased Sept. 15, 1969, by First National State Bank of New Jersey,
Newark, N.J. (1452), which had
After the purchase was effected, the receiving bank had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On May 6, 1969, the First National State Bank of
New Jersey, Newark, N.J., applied to the Comptroller
of the Currency for permission to purchase the assets
and assume the liabilities of the Suburban Bank of
Livingston, National Association, Livingston, N.J.,
under the charter and with the title of the former.
First National State Bank of New Jersey, Newark,
N.J., with IPC deposits of $678.2 million, was incorporated in 1812 as a State bank, and converted to a
National charter in 1865. The bank operates 27
branches in six of the 22 municipalities in Essex
County. The population of Essex County is estimated
at nearly 1 million people, of which approximately 400,000 reside in Newark. The market area of the bank
includes Essex County and five contiguous counties
with a combined population of nearly 4 million. In recent years, there has been some shift of population
from Newark to the western portions of Essex County.
This area is highly industrialized with many of the
Nation's largest industrial and manufacturing corporations operating here. The Port of Newark and
Newark Airport make important contributions to the
economy of the area and provide employment for substantial numbers of people. In addition, the portions of
this area adjacent to New York City serve as bedroom
communities for persons employed in the city.
The Suburban Bank of Livingston, National Associ-

96



$13,313,396
881,679,138
894, 992, 534

To be
operated

1
28
29

ation, Livingston, N.J., with IPC deposits of $11.1
million, was chartered in 1963 as a State bank, and
converted to a National charter in 1966. The selling
bank has two approved but unopened branches. Livingston, located approximately 4 miles west of Newark
in the west-central section of Essex County, has experienced rapid economic and population growth in recent
years.
The proposed transaction would have no adverse
effect on competition. The highly developed economic
character and dense population of the participating
banks' service area and the large number of competing
banking institutions preclude the development of effective competition between the banks. In addition,
the New Jersey home office protection statutes preclude the acquiring bank from branching into Livingston. The addition of the deposits of the selling bank
to those of the acquiring bank will not significantly increase the size of the resulting bank; the presence of
the charter bank in the fast growing Livingston area
will, however, have a stimulating effect on competition, When the transaction is consummated, the buying bank will continue to face intense competition, not
only from local banks, but also from the large banks
based in New York City. The Fidelity Union Trust
Company and the National Newark and Essex Bank,
each with headquarters in Newark and extensive
branch office systems, have total resources in excess of
$650 million, and both compete in this area. The How-

ard Savings Institution, Newark, N.J., with total resources of $840 million, is also in competition with
the participating banks. Additional intense competition is felt, especially for commercial banking business,
from the large New York-based banks, many of which
dwarf the charter bank. Further competition derives
from 84 other commercial banks, with a total of 341
offices; 15 savings banks, with 45 offices; and 148 savings and loan associations, as well as numerous offices
of finance companies and credit unions.
When the transaction is approved, the banking public in the Livingston area will benefit from the expanded banking services which will be available to
them in this growing area. The larger lending limit,
the trust and investment advisory services, the electronic data processing services, and the financial and
economic expertise of the buying bank will be made
available to the selling bank's existing customers.
Applying the statutory criteria, we find that this purchase of assets and assumption of liabilities is in the
public interest and the application is, therefore,
approved.
AUGUST 15,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

Suburban presently operates its only office in Livingston, Essex County. First National's closest office is
some 4 miles distant in Caldwell. Several other banks

maintain offices near Livingston. Under New Jersey
law, First National is prohibited from opening branch
offices in Livingston.
Although First National has no office in Livingston,
it draws substantial deposits from the Livingston area.
Therefore, we conclude that the proposed merger
would eliminate substantial direct competition.
We do not view ownership of Suburban stock by an
agent of First National nor elements of common management as facts which demonstrate that the proposed
merger will not eliminate competition, inasmuch as
these developments are results of First National's
earlier intention to merge with Suburban. The proposed merger will permanently eliminate the potential
for increased competition should the arrangements
that presently exist be terminated at some time in the
future.
First National holds the largest share, approximately
29 percent, of IPC demand deposits in Essex County.
The three largest commercial banks in Essex County
hold about 83 percent of such deposits. The proposed
merger would increase the share of First National by
about 0.3 percent.
In view of the substantial direct competition that
exists between First National and Suburban and the
increase which would be brought about in First National's dominant position in the banking markets in
Essex County, we conclude that the proposed merger
would have an adverse effect on competition.

FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK OF NORTH CAROLINA, CHARLOTTE, N.C., AND T H E PEOPLES BANK, ROXBORO, N.G.,
OF FRANKLIN, FRANKLIN, N.C.

AND T H E BANK

Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

The Bank of Franklin, Franklin, N . C , with
and The Peoples Bank, Roxboro, N . C , with
and First Union National Bank of North Carolina, Charlotte, N . C (15650), which
had
merged Sept. 15, 1969, under the charter and title of the latter bank (15650). The
merged bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On April 28, 1969, First Union National Bank of
North Carolina, Charlotte, N . C , applied to the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to merge with
The Bank of Franklin, Franklin, N . C , and The
Peoples Bank, Roxboro, N . C , under the charter and




$12,482,311
20, 243, 597
963, 788, 389
996, 776, 328

To be
operated

3
3
127
133

with the title of "First Union National Bank of North
Carolina."
First Union National Bank of North Carolina, the
charter bank, is headquartered in Charlotte, N.C. It
operates under a charter originally granted to Queen
City National Bank on May 4, 1968. Prior to the
merger with the Queen City National Bank, the char97

ter bank operated under an original charter granted
The Union National Bank of Charlotte on June 2,
1908.
The charter bank operates 122 offices in 59 communities, scattered widely throughout 34 of the State's
100 counties. As of December 31, 1968, it had IPG deposits of $688.9 million, ranking third in size in the
State. The market area of the charter bank is considered to be the entire State of North Carolina. Its major
competitors are the two largest banks in the State,
Wachovia Bank and Trust Company, with deposits of
$1.3 billion, and North Carolina National Bank, with
deposits of $1.1 billion. As a functionally integrated
financial organization, the charter bank provides
sophisticated financial services in its highly competitive
market area.
The Bank of Franklin, one of the merging banks,
was established in 1903. It is a State-chartered institution, serving the counties of Macon and Cherokee
in the extreme western end of the State. This merging
bank, with total deposits of $9.6 million, operates its
headquarters in the town of Franklin, with a population of 2,200, and a recently opened branch 50 miles
west, in the town of Murphy, with the same approximate population. Throughout its recent history, the
Bank of Franklin has been operated along conservative lines. The chief executive officer of the bank is 78
years of age and no provision for management succession has been made.
Economic indicators in the two counties served by
the Bank of Franklin are generally unfavorable. Both
Macon and Cherokee counties have declined in population since 1950. The unemployment rate exceeds the
State level, and per capita income is below the State
average.
The Peoples Bank in Roxboro, the other merging
bank, is a State-chartered institution located in Person
County in the north-central section of the State. This
bank, organized in 1891, has I PC deposits of $15.5
million, and operates two branches within the city of
Roxboro. The management of this bank is also advanced in age; the bank's future is somewhat uncertain because of a lack of provision for management
succession.
The market area of this merging bank is Person
County which has an area of 400 square miles and a
1960 population of 26,400. The economy of Person
County is equally dependent on agriculture and industry. Tobacco is the principal farm crop, while manufacturing is concentrated in textiles. Although industrial employment has increased in recent years, wages
remain low. Economic barometers such as population
98



growth, per capita income, and unemployment rate
indicate that Person County has not kept pace with
State averages.
Consummation of the proposed merger will not decrease competition, nor will it result in an appreciable
increase in banking concentration in North Carolina.
Throughout the State, the charter bank faces formidable competition from statewide and regional branch
systems. At present, the charter bank ranks third in
size among the banks in the State. The two largest
banks are Wachovia Bank and Trust Company, with
deposits of $1.3 billion, and North Carolina National
Bank, with deposits of $1.1 billion. Numerous other
commercial banks, savings and loan associations, and
insurance companies combine to keep the banking
structure throughout the State diffuse.
There is no significant amount of competition between the charter bank and the merging banks. Although the charter bank operates an office 20 miles to
the south of Franklin, in the town of Highlands, virtually no competition exists between the two because of
an intervening mountain barrier. Surveys of various
services offered by the Bank of Franklin indicate that,
in most instances, less than 2.5 percent of this merging
bank's customers live in the market area of the charter
bank's office in Highlands. Competition between the
Peoples Bank and the charter bank's closest branch,
30 miles south in Durham, is also minimal. A survey
and sampling of the deposits and loans of this merging
bank and the Durham branch of the charter bank indicate no appreciable competition between the two
institutions.
North Carolina State law would not prohibit the
charter bank from opening de novo offices in the market area of either participating bank. However, neither
the present economic condition, nor the outlook for
future improvement in either community, is favorable.
Therefore, while the charter bank is permitted by law
to enter both communities de novo, such entry would
not appear to be economically feasible in the foreseeable future.
Consummation of the proposed merger will benefit
the communities served by the merging banks. Both
The Bank of Franklin and The Peoples Bank face
urgent problems of management succession. This proposal offers an acceptable solution to these problems
without creating an adverse competitive situation, or
disrupting a healthy banking structure. In addition to
alleviating the problems of management succession,
the charter bank will bring, into the communities of
the merging banks, its highly sophisticated line of
financial services and greatly increased lending limit.

Applying the statutory criteria to the proposed
merger, we conclude that it is in the public interest
and the application is, therefore, approved.
AUGUST 15,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

The head office of First Union is 140 miles southwest of Peoples Bank. However, the three offices of
Peoples Bank are some 30 miles north of Durham,
where First Union operates three branches. There are
no intervening banks.
The head office of First Union is 150 miles east of
The Bank of Franklin. However, First Union operates
a branch office at Highlands, about 18 miles from
Franklin. Therefore, it would appear that a limited
amount of competition will be eliminated by each of
the proposed mergers.
Since North Carolina law permits statewide de novo
branching, these mergers would eliminate the potential
for increased competition which would result if First
Union were to establish a de novo branch in Person
County, where Peoples Bank is located, or in the threecounty area served by Bank of Franklin. First Union
is the third largest bank in the State and has the resources to establish de novo offices in new markets.

NORTH CAROLINA NATIONAL BANK, CHARLOTTE, N.C.,

There is some question, however, whether the markets
served by Peoples and Bank of Franklin can be expected to be attractive to new entry.
The proposed mergers would result in the third
largest bank in the State acquiring Peoples Bank's
dominant market position in Person County, where it
controls 82 percent of deposits, as well as Bank of
Franklin's very substantial position in its market area.
They, thus, represent further steps in the continuing
trend of acquisitions and mergers by North Carolina's
largest commercial banks. Such acquisitions are particularly significant when they eliminate the dominant
independent competitors in local markets. This acquisition trend undoubtedly inhibits the development of a
more competitive banking structure, not only by eliminating substantial existing competitors and those most
likely to enter new markets by de novo expansion, but
by foreclosing the creation, through mergers between
smaller banks operating in separate local markets, of
banking institutions capable of competing with the
largest banks for the business of large industrial
customers.
We conclude that the acquisition by First Union of
Peoples Bank and Bank of Franklin would have an
adverse effect on competition.

AND STATE BANK

& TRUST COMPANY, GREENVILLE,

N.C.

Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

State Bank & Trust Company, Greenville, N.C, with
and North Carolina National Bank, Charlotte, N.C. (13761), which had
merged Sept. 22, 1969, under charter and title of "North Carolina National
Bank." The merged bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLERS DECISION

On May 9, 1969, State Bank & Trust Company,
Greenville, N.C, and North Carolina National Bank,
Charlotte, N.C, applied to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to merge, under
the charter and with the title of the latter.
North Carolina National Bank, the charter bank,
with IPC deposits of $838 million, is headquartered in
Charlotte, and operates 83 branches in 24 towns and
cities scattered across the State, from Polk County in
the west to Edgecombe County in the east. In addition, it has five approved but unopened branches, and
383-814—70



$22, 464, 008
1, 230, 880, 392
1, 252, 782, 980

To be
operated

3
88
91

three branch applications pending. It was organized
in 1933.
The charter bank's present trade area coincides
largely with the principal economic growth area in
North Carolina, extending in an arc from Charlotte
to Raleigh, through the industrialized Piedmont region
of the State. Its principal outlet in eastern North Carolina is in Wilmington, where extensive economic support comes from manufacturing and seaport-related
activities. The charter bank has been instrumental in
promoting economic growth and diversification in the
communities it serves. The population of Charlotte, the
99

head office city of the charter bank, is over 100,000,
and it is North Carolina's largest city.
The charter bank, as a statewide bank, competes with
most of North Carolina's largest statewide banks, as
well as a number of smaller regional and local institutions. The charter bank, however, does not compete to
a significant degree with banks in eastern North Carolina, with the exception of banks located in Wilmington, its principal area of activity in that section of the
State. It also competes with a number of other financial
institutions in the areas of its operation.
The merging State Bank & Trust Company, with
IPC deposits of $17.5 million, was organized in 1931.
It operates its head office and two branches in Greenville. The bank's earnings, eroded by loan losses, have
been insufficient to maintain a capital base adequate
to support an expanding business volume, with the result that a capital deficiency has grown steadily more
pronounced in recent years. In addition, an adverse
trend is indicated in the quality of the bank's loan
portfolio. Because of its loan earnings and the consequent low salaries it pays, the merging bank has experienced difficulty in attracting, and retaining, top
quality management and other personnel. Although
the merging bank is a full-service institution, the services which it offers are not broadly developed or
sophisticated.
The merging bank's service area includes not only
Greenville and its environs, but also all of Pitt County,
the easternmost county in North Carolina's coastal
plain. This area has a population of 27,000. The
economy of Pitt County is primarily agricultural, with
tobacco, peanuts, corn, and cotton the main cash producers, and Greenville, the county seat, acting as the
major supply and distribution point. East Carolina
University is located in Greenville, along with about
20 sizable industries. Vigorous efforts are being made
to attract additional industry to the area and to secure
its development. This has been slow because of the
lack of economic diversification and the emigration
of workers.
The merging bank, with two branches and total deposits of $20 million, competes with five branches of
the $1.6 billion Wachovia Bank and Trust Company,
N.A., which has Greenville and Pitt County deposits of
$27.5 million; and with two branches of the $111 million Planters National Bank and Trust Company, with
local deposits of $6.4 million. It is one of nine banks,
with 18 offices, serving Greenville and Pitt County.
Among the banks competing in the Greenville area, in
addition to the number one ranked Wachovia bank,
are the State's four largest and 10th largest. The merg100



ing bank also competes with numerous other financial
institutions.
The merger would serve the Greenville area by introducing the sophisticated and broad ranging services
which the statewide charter bank offers, in lieu of the
relatively limited services the merging bank now offers.
In addition, inadequate lending limit of the merging
bank will be appreciably increased to meet large loan
demands. The business development section of the
charter bank, which has been instrumental in attracting industry to the State and contributing to the State's
economic development, will likewise be available to
Greenville in its drive for industrial development. The
large resources and satisfactory salary schedule
possessed by the charter bank will replace the limited
resources and unsatisfactory schedules of the merging
bank, to the benefit of the community through the
ability to attract and retain top people.
The merger will have no adverse effect on competition. Because the charter bank's operations are now
largely confined to the western part of the State, while
those of State Bank & Trust Company are confined to
the eastern area, there is little competition between
them which will be eliminated. Introduction of the
statewide charter bank, in Greenville, should enhance
competition with the State's 1st, 4th, and 10th largest
banks, which operate there, without adversely affecting the smaller competitors. In areas where the
charter bank now operates, the merger will have a
de minimus effect on competition. Statewide, the
charter bank's position as second largest bank will not
be changed. Potential competition will not be affected
since the charter bank has concluded that it would be
economically unfeasible for it to branch in the Greenville area in view of the existing number of banks, and
the fact that two applications for branches are now
pending.
Applying the statutory criteria, it is concluded that
the merger is in the public interest. The application is,
therefore, approved.
AUGUST 21,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

The closest office of NCNB is about 28 miles from
any office of State Bank, with several other banks in
the intervening area. According to the application,
deposit overlap statistics are minimal. Therefore, the
proposed merger would not appear to eliminate any
significant amount of direct competition between the
two banks.

North Carolina law permits statewide branching.
Thus, NCNB could be permitted to establish de novo
branches in Greenville and Pitt County, thereby entering into competition with State Bank. Merger with
State Bank would eliminate NCNB as a potential de
novo entrant into these markets.
NCNB is the largest commercial bank eligible to
enter Greenville and Pitt County generally. NCNB
has demonstrated aggressive internal expansion by
opening 29 new branch offices since 1960. Four of
these de novo branches were opened in communities
not previously served by NCNB. Therefore, in addition to its obvious financial capacity to enter new communities de novo, NCNB has shown the disposition to
do so, and must be considered among the most likely
potential entrants into Pitt County and Greenville.
The existence of a NCNB branch office in Tarboro,
some 28 miles north of Greenville, would facilitate
such de novo entry.
Nine banks operate 18 banking offices in Pitt County,
including two of the largest banks in North Carolina,
Wachovia Bank and Trust Co. (total deposits: $1.3
billion) and First Citizens Bank and Trust Co. (total
deposits: $600 million). Three banks—Wachovia,
State Bank, and Planters National Bank and Trust
(total deposits: $100 million)—hold about 73 percent
of county IPC demand deposits. While State Bank
is smaller than four of its major competitors in Pitt
County, in terms of total deposits, it holds the second largest share of county IPC demand deposits,

approximately 22 percent. Three banks operate all
10 banking offices in Greenville, where State Bank's
3 offices hold the second largest share, approximately
35 percent, of IPC demand deposits.
By merging with State Bank, NCNB will eliminate
the largest independent bank in Pitt County and in
Greenville, and immediately succeed to a leading position in these markets. State Bank has demonstrated
the ability to successfully compete with banks many
times its overall size and would appear to be able to
continue to do so, should NCNB enter Pitt County
de novo, or through merger with one of the four smaller
banks therein.
We would also note that this proposed merger is
part of a trend toward concentration of bank deposits
in the largest North Carolina commercial banks. While
approximately 120 commercial banks operate offices
in the State, over 65 percent of State deposits are held
by the five largest banks, including NCNB. Of particular significance in this trend is the absorption of
relatively small banks which nonetheless are among
the leading competitors in their respective local markets, such as State Bank, which is one of the few independent commercial banks of more than $20 million in
deposits left in the State. Such banks represent a very
significant source of future competition for the largest
North Carolina banks in their respective local markets;
also, through affiliation with one another, such banks
could potentially compete with the largest banks for
the business of larger commercial customers.

T H E N E W CARLISLE NATIONAL BANK, N E W CARLISLE, OHIO, AND T H E GUARDIAN BANK, SPRINGFIELD, OHIO

Banking offices
Total assets

Name of bank and type of transaction

In
operation

The Guardian Bank, Springfield, Ohio, with
and The New Carlisle National Bank, New Carlisle, Ohio (6594), which had
merged Sept. 30, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (6594) and title "The
Security National Bank." The merged bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLER'S DECISION

On April 28, 1969, The Guardian Bank, Springfield,
Ohio, and The New Carlisle National Bank, New
Carlisle, Ohio, applied to the Office of the Comptroller
of the Currency for permission to merge under the
charter of the latter and with the title "The Security
National Bank."




$23, 904, 646
24,341,639
43, 028, 467

To be
operated

3
4

7

The charter bank was organized in 1903 under the
title of The First National Bank, New Carlisle, Ohio.
In 1930, it merged with the New Carlisle Bank, a Statechartered institution, retaining the National charter
and assuming its present title.
The charter bank maintains four offices, three of
which are out-of-town branches located in the western
part of Clark County, Ohio. This bank has deposits

101

of $16.5 million and total resources of $20.7 million.
The economy of western Clark County is dependent
upon nearby Dayton and Wright-Patterson Air Force
Base, located 12 miles south.
The Guardian Bank, the merging bank, is headquartered in Springfield, Ohio, the county seat of
Clark County, approximately 24 miles northeast of
Dayton. This bank was organized in 1915 as The First
Morris Plan Industrial Bank, Springfield, Ohio. In
1946, it adopted its present title and began offering
full commercial banking services. The Guardian Bank
operates three offices in Springfield, and has total deposits of $20.1 million.
Springfield has an estimated population of 85,000.
It is the location of substantial manufacturing plants
and it: also serves as a retail and service center for
Clark County.
The home offices of the merging bank are 13 miles
apart. The charter bank's closest branch is its newest
office in Enon, 8 miles from the nearest Guardian
office. Although there would appear to be some overlap of the service areas of the applicant banks, a survey of individual accounts of each bank indicates that
of 7,564 accounts in the charter bank, slightly more
than 2 percent were located in the Springfield area.
The merging bank's survey revealed that less than
2 percent of its 8,261 accounts had addresses in Medway, New Carlisle, or Enon, and none at all in Park
Layne.
Consummation of the proposed merger will enable
the resulting bank to compete effectively with the
larger banks in Dayton and Springfield. The resulting
bank will be in a position to offer new and improved
services in the Dayton-Springfield area.
Applying the statutory criteria, it is concluded that
the proposed merger is in the public interest, and the
application is, therefore, approved.
AUGUST 19,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

The home offices of the merging banks are separated
by 13 miles. Carlisle National's closest branch is its
newest office in Enon, 8 miles from the nearest
Guardian office. There are no intervening commercial

102



banking alternatives between any of Carlisle National's
offices and Guardian's offices. The nearest Clark
County banking alternatives for residents of New
Carlisle, Medway, and Enon are the banks in Springfield; there are somewhat closer banks across the
county line in Miami, Greene, and Montgomery
counties.
The loan portfolios of the merging banks are substantially similar, which suggests that, particularly in
the field of loans to individuals, they are competitors.
The proposed merger would, therefore, eliminate
direct competition for both deposits and loans in Clark
County.
In 1968, Clark County was served by five banks,
with 19 offices, controlling $185 million of deposits
(including IPC demand deposits of $61.2 million).
The proposed merger would cause an increase in concentration in Clark County. Guardian now controls
10 percent of total Clark County IPC demand deposits; and Carlisle National controls about 9 percent.
The merged bank would have a resulting market share
of 19 percent of IPC demand deposits and about 37
percent of county banking offices making it the
county's largest bank by number of banking offices.
Moreover, under Ohio law only banks with their
home office in a county may open branch offices in
that county. Hence, this merger would remove the
potential for increased competition in all areas of
Clark County. It would eliminate the only existing
potential entrant into the Springfield area, where
banking is highly concentrated, and it would eliminate
one of only four potential entrants into the southwestern area of the county which is presently served
by only one bank. Furthermore, since Carlisle National
has opened all three of its branch offices since 1959,
and Guardian opened a new office in 1964, the merger
will eliminate two banks with the capacity and experience to branch into other areas of the county.
In view of the substantial increase in concentration of control over county deposits, as well as the
significant reduction in the number of banks able to
compete throughout Clark County, it is our conclusion that the proposed merger would have an adverse
effect on banking competition in the county.

PITTSBURGH NATIONAL BANK, PITTSBURGH, P A . , AND MOUNT PLEASANT STATE BANK, MOUNT PLEASANT, P A .
Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

M o u n t Pleasant State Bank, M o u n t Pleasant, P a . , M o u n t Pleasant, P a . , w i t h . . . .
was purchased O c t . 18, 1969, b y Pittsburgh N a t i o n a l Bank, Pittsburgh, P a . (252),
which h a d
After t h e purchase w a s effected, t h e receiving bank h a d

To be
operated

$18, 152,000

1

1, 743, 577, 000
1, 761, 729, 000

82
83

three of the four top executive offices are nearing retirement age. The Mount Pleasant State Bank does
On May 22, 1969, Pittsburgh National Bank, Pittsnot offer the broad array of basic banking services
burgh Pa., applied to the Comptroller of the Currency
which are required to serve adequately all legitimate
for permission to purchase the assets and assume the
banking needs of the community, nor does it have a
liabilities of Mount Pleasant State Bank, Mount
formal recruitment program or a systematic training
Pleasant, Pa., under the charter and with the title of
program. Although the bank has served the small rural
the former.
community in which it is located reasonably well, it
Pittsburgh National Bank, the purchasing bank, with
has been conservative, and probably will not adequately
IPC deposits of $1.3 billion, was originally established
contribute to a growing economy or serve the legitiin 1864, and operates 78 banking offices. The geo- mate banking needs of such an economy. Its lending
graphic market area of the charter bank includes a fivecapacity of $100,000 is generally inadequate to meet
county area in western Pennsylvania in which Pittsthe needs of large business customers.
burgh, the home office city of the charter bank and
The market area of the selling institution is the
Pennsylvania's second largest city, is located. This fivesoutheastern corner of Westmoreland County and incounty area includes Allegheny, Beaver, Butler, Washcludes Mount Pleasant and Scottdale boroughs as well
ington, and Westmoreland counties. The Pittsburgh
Mount Pleasant, East Huntingdon, and Bullskin townStandard Metropolitan Statistical Area had a 1960
ships. The population of this area is estimated at
population of about 2.5 million people in an area of
34,873. Mount Pleasant, itself, is a rural retail center
3,925 square miles. This area is best known for its
for an area in the foothills of the Allegheny Mountains,
heavy industry, including steelmaking, metal fabricaa relatively isolated locale. In addition to retailing,
tion, electrical equipment, heavy machinery, alumimanufacturing contributes to the local economy with
num, and glass manufacturing. In addition, economic
the manufacture of glassware and electrical machinsupport is derived from such nonmanufacturing activiery. Chrysler Corp. is building a huge assembly plant
ties as retail and wholesale trade, service industries,
within 3 miles of Mount Pleasant, which is expected
government, and finance. Agriculture is insignificant
to give considerable economic impetus to the area.
in the area.
Banking competition in Mount Pleasant derives from
In the five counties in which the charter bank has
three unit banks, including the selling institution, which
offices there are 47 banking institutions, having a total
have total deposits of $38.9 million, and a local office
of 419 offices, holding total deposits of $6.4 billion. The
of the Gallatin National Bank. Additional competition
largest of these banks is the Mellon National Bank &
comes from one building and loan association, four
Trust Company, with total resources of over $4 billion.
credit unions, nine sales finance companies, and three
There are also 122 savings and loan associations, nupersonal loan companies.
merous credit unions, 1 mutual savings bank, personal
Consummation of this transaction will benefit the
loan companies, sales finance companies, and direct
Mount Pleasant area significantly by replacing the
lending agencies of the Federal Government competing
limited services of the selling bank with the broader
in the area.
range of services offered by Pittsburgh National Bank.
The new sendees to be gained will include check credit
Mount Pleasant State Bank, the selling bank, with
services, charge card services, overdraft privileges, 5
IPC deposits of $15.6 million, is a unit bank organized
percent time deposit accounts, income certificates of
in 1934. Management of this bank is capable, but
COMPTROLLER S DECISION




103

deposits, personal and corporate trust services, export
financing, leasing agreements, and clearing services
for shipping charges. In addition, the greater lending
limit of the selling bank will be made available to the
community, while its experience in contributing to the
economic growth of an area, including its experience
in advising on and handling municipal bonds, will be
available. The management succession problem of the
selling bank will be resolved by the purchasing bank's
training program and systematic recruitment policies.
This transaction will have no adverse competitive
effect. Because existing offices of the two banks are
widely separated, they do not compete. The addition of
the much smaller selling institution will not affect the
buying institution's size position in its market area, nor
appreciably strengthen its competitive position relative
to its smaller competitors. In the Mount Pleasant area,
the transaction will stimulate competition, rather than
hamper it, and will enable all banks to grow and prosper with the anticipated general economic growth,
which will be stimulated by this proposed transaction.
Applying the statutory criteria, we conclude that the
proposal is in the public interest. The application is,
therefore, approved.
SEPTEMBER 16,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

The closest office of Pittsburgh National to Mount
Pleasant Bank is about 15 miles away. According to the
application, the primary service areas of the merging
banks do not overlap. Mount Pleasant Bank draws its
accounts primarily from Mount Pleasant and East
Huntingdon townships in Westmoreland County, and
from adjacent Bullskin Township, in Fayette County.
It would appear that no significant amount of direct
competition would be eliminated by the proposed
merger.
New industrial development in southern Westmoreland County, particularly the future plant of Chrysler
Corp., makes this area an attractive banking market for
future entry. Although Pittsburgh National has recently been denied permission to open a de novo office
not far from Mount Pleasant, we believe that future
attempts at de novo entry are likely to be more successful as soon as industrial development and supporting
residential and commercial growth are achieved. In
view of the apparent pendency of such development,
we conclude that the proposed merger would have an
adverse effect on potential competition, as it would
eliminate Pittsburgh National as a potential entrant
into areas now served by Mount Pleasant Bank in the
relatively near future.

T H E FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MONROE, MONROE, MICH., AND PEOPLES STATE BANK OF MAYBEE, MAYBEE, MICH:

Banking offices

Total assets

Name of bank and type of transaction

In
operation

Peoples State Bank of Maybee, Maybee, Mich., with
and The First National Bank of Monroe, Monroe, Mich. (1587), which had
merged Oct. 31, 1969, under charter and title of the latter bank (1587).
The merged bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On July 23, 1969, The First National Bank of Monroe, Monroe, Mich., with IPG deposits of $36.6 million, and the Peoples State Bank of Maybee, Maybee,
Midi., with IPC deposits of $2.6 million, applied to
the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to merge under the charter and with the title
of the former.
The First National Bank of Monroe, the receiving
bank, was organized in 1865 with a capital of $100,000.
In 1956 the bank opened its only branch facility. The
104



$3,175,350
50, 974, 227
54, 149, 576

To be
operated

1
2

3

bank presently has total resources of $45 million, and
at last report of examination, the bank was considered
to be in good condition with moderate earnings.
Monroe, Mich., headquarters for the charter bank,
is a city of 25,000 people situated 42 miles south of
Detroit, Mich., and 18 miles north of Toledo, Ohio.
It is the county seat of Monroe County and the dominant commercial city of the area. The city is primarily
industrial and claims those attributes which appeal to
outside businesses seeking new areas of relocation: two
freeways, seven railroads, an airport, and a good harbor
that permits accessibility to Lake Erie. Major businesses

include Ford Motor Co. and Consolidated Packaging
Corp. which employ 1,800 and 2,700 persons, respectively. Other major industries having a cumulative employment of approximately 5,300 persons are: Detroit
Stoker Co., Gould Batteries Inc., La-Z-Boy Chair Co.,
Midway Products Co., Monroe Auto Equipment Co.,
Time Container Co., Monroe Steel Castings Co.,
Union Camp Corp., and Woodall Industries.
Peoples State Bank, the merging bank, is a unit bank
and the only financial institution in Maybee. It was
organized in 1924 and was destroyed by fire in 1967,
prompting construction of a new facility with drive-up
window capabilities. The bank presently has total assets
of $2.96 million, and the last report of examination
indicated that the bank's condition was good. The
Peoples State Bank will face a management succession
problem in the next few years. All the managing officials of the bank are in their 60's, and it is questionable
whether it can attract adequate personnel on the salary
schedule it maintains.
Maybee, Mich., the location of the merging bank,
is situated 10 miles northwest of the main office of the
First National Bank of Monroe in Exeter Township of
Monroe County. It is an agricultural community of
550 people, accessible only by secondary roads. Presently no central sewerage and water systems are available, which prohibits any large industry from settling
in the village. Likewise, projected residential growth
in the next decade is minimal, due to the agrarian economic base of the community.
The proposed merger will not be adverse to the
banking structure of Monroe County, nor will it cause
an undue concentration of assets in the resulting bank.
Substantial competition is provided by the Monroe
Bank and Trust Company and the Peoples Federal
Savings and Loan Association. The Monroe Bank and
Trust, with assets of $90.6 million, has been providing
intense local competition. The Peoples Federal Savings
and Loan Association, with assets of $52.6 million, provides substantial competition for area savings deposits
and real estate mortgages. In addition to the aforementioned banks, the county also boasts the Monroe
County Bank, Dundee, Mich., 10 miles southwest of
Maybee, with IPC deposits of $7.5 million; Newport
State Bank, Newport, Mich., 12 miles east of Maybee,
with IPC deposits of $6.1 million; and the Carleton
branch of the Manufacturers National Bank of Detroit, 12 miles east of Maybee, with deposits of over




$12 million. The Peoples Bank of Maybee, with total
deposits of $2.6 million, is by far the smallest of the
county's banks. It appears that the overall effect of the
merger would be to benefit the competitive climate in
the county as the receiving bank presently competes
far more actively with the larger Monroe Bank and
Trust Company and the Peoples Federal Savings and
Loan than it does with the merging bank.
The proposed merger will have a beneficial effect on
the Maybee area by providing the residents with a
branch office having the full resources and added services that a larger institution can provide. The merger
also will alleviate the management succession problem
and provide an adequate pension and insurance plan
for the employees.
Applying the statutory criteria to the proposed consolidation, we find it is in the public interest and the
application is, therefore, approved.
SEPTEMBER 29,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

The participating banks are located 10 miles apart.
There are no banks in the intervening area. Thus, it
would appear that some direct competition between
the banks would be eliminated by the proposed merger.
Under Michigan law, a bank may not branch de
novo into any town in which another bank already has
an office, nor may it branch into another county at a
point more than 25 miles from its head office unless
there is no bank in the county. The proposed merger
would, however, eliminate some potential for increased
competition since First National could still branch into
areas adjacent to Maybee, but not within the village
limits.
An appropriate market in which to measure the
competitive effects of the merger is Monroe County,
wherein five commercial banks operate a total of eight
banking offices. As of December 31, 1968, First National had 32.7 percent of the total deposits in the
county, while Peoples State had 2.1 percent of such
deposits. The resulting bank would thus have 34.8 percent of the county's total deposits. The largest bank, a
Monroe-based bank, had 54 percent of total county
deposits. Thus, banking in Monroe County is highly
concentrated. This merger will increase that concentration and eliminate competition between the merging
banks. As a result, the effect of this merger on competition will be adverse.

105

CROCKER-CITIZENS NATIONAL BANK, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., AND COAST NATIONAL BANK IN FORT BRAGG, FORT BRAGG, CALIF.

Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

Coast National Bank in Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, Calif. (13787), with
and Crocker-Citizens National Bank, San Francisco, Calif. (1741), which had. .. .
merged Nov. 14, 1969, under charter and title of the latter bank (1741). The
merged bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On July 7, 1969, Crocker-Citizens National Bank,
San Francisco, Calif., and Coast National Bank in
Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, Calif., applied to the Office
of the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to
merge under the charter and with the title of the
former.
The Crocker-Citizens National Bank resulted from
a merger in 1963 of the Crocker Anglo National Bank,
established in 1870 under the title of "The First National Gold Bank of San Francisco," and the Citizens
National Bank, Los Angeles, which was established in
1890 as a State bank and converted into a National
bank in 1901. With deposits of $3.9 billion, the charter
bank presently has 276 branches in 37 of California's
58 counties and ranks as the fourth largest bank in
the State. Its widely dispersed offices serve many major
metropolitan and industrial areas. However, it has no
branches in Mendocino County, where the merging
bank is located, and none of its branches serve the
merging bank's service area.
Coast National Bank in Fort Bragg, the merging
bank, commenced operations in 1933 and has never
been involved in any merger transaction. Its assets total
$10.7 million and its earnings have been favorable.
The merging bank's service area is geographically limited. Fort Bragg, located on the Pacific coast in the
west-central portion of Mendocino County, shares the
bulk of the area's population with Mendocino, 10 miles
to the south, although the service area includes the
coastal population of the county from the Navarro
River, 19 miles south, to Rockport, approximately 27
miles north. Rugged forest lands and parks to the east
separate the service area from the rest of the county.
Even the nearest towns are not readily accessible by
the tortuous mountain roads.
The economy of the Fort Bragg-Mendocino service
area is largely based on the lumbering and commercial
fishing industries. Tourism has become the second
leading economic factor in the community, for Fort

106



$11,472,702
4, 668, 363, 657
4, 678, 249, 641

To be
operated

1
275
276

Bragg, and the roads leading to it, enjoy spectacular
forest and coastal scenery. Sport fishing and hunting,
a scenic railway, new hotels, motels, and restaurants
all attract tourists. The entire service area has a
population of approximately 16,000, with 4,613 in the
city of Fort Bragg.
Banking competition in the community is provided
by two branches of the Bank of America in Fort Bragg
and Mendocino. This merger would provide more
loanable funds and a substantially higher lending limit,
thereby stimulating competition with the Bank of
America branches. The proposed merger will not have
any adverse effect on competition between the charter
and merging banks because, as noted above, they do
not compete with each other. Consummation of the
merger would raise the charter bank's share of the
total deposits and loans in the State by an insignificant
amount. Entry by de novo branching is an unlikely
step for the charter bank because of the area's small
population. It therefore appears that the proposed
merger would have no adverse effect on competition,
actual or potential.
Whereas the charter bank's financial and managerial
resources are adequate in all respects, the merging
bank's capital structure is only fair and it has no management depth. Consummation of the merger would
remedy these defects. Future earnings prospects of the
resulting bank are good, and the merger will further
the convenience and needs of the community by offering an alternative source of trust department and other
extensive sophisticated services that Crocker-Citizens
National Bank can provide.
Considered in the light of the criteria, this merger
is deemed to be in the public interest and is, therefore,
approved.
OCTOBER 7,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

The sole office of Coast National is located at Fort
Bragg. Although Crocker-Citizens has offices in most of

the principal economic areas of the State, its nearest
offices are 93 miles and 80 miles, respectively, from
Fort Bragg. Thus, the existing competition that would
be eliminated by the proposed merger is de minimus.
Mendocino County, and the Fort Bragg area are
predominantly rural in character and have a slow
growth rate; present population in the county is 53,200,
and according to current projections, it will increase

to only 55,900 by 1985. In view of the distance from
Crocker-Citizens' existing offices, prospects for de novo
expansion by Crocker-Citizens into Mendocino County
or the Fort Bragg-Mendocino area are limited.
We conclude that the proposed merger would have
little effect on existing and potential competition between the applicant banks.

NATIONAL NEWARK & ESSEX BANK, NEWARK, N.J., AND WASHINGTON TRUST COMPANY, WASHINGTON, N J .

Banking offices
Total assets

Name of bank and type of transaction

In
operation

Washington Trust Company, Washington, N.J., with
and National Newark & Essex Bank, Newark, N.J. (1316), which had
merged Nov. 14, 1969, under charter and title of the latter bank (1316), The
merged bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On July 28, 1969, National Newark & Essex Bank,
Newark, N.J., applied to the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to merge with Washington Trust
Company, Washington, N.J., under the charter, and
with the title, of the former.
National Newark & Essex Bank, the charter bank,
was organized in 1804, and received its National charter in 1865. This bank operates 30 branches in Essex
County and has total resources of $684 million.
Essex County is located in the heavily industrialized
northeast portion of New Jersey. The county has more
than 1,000 manufacturing workers per square mile,
and is an important factor in the industrial production
of New Jersey and the entire New York-northeastern
New Jersey area. In addition to the considerable manufacturing, wholesale, and retail activities, the county's
127 square miles contain many fine residential
communities.
The city of Newark, which is only 12 miles from
Manhattan, is in the densely populated southeastern
section of the county. The city is, and has long been,
the State's financial center and the hub of industrial
activity. In recent years the complex known as Port
Newark and Port Elizabeth has developed to the extent that it is now the container-ship capital of the
country. Newark Airport, which is presently being
expanded, is one of the country's major air terminals.
Essex County supports 15 commercial banks with




$18, 243, 885
706,394, 139
724, 493, 271

To be
operated

3
32
35

82 branches. These competing banks have total assets
of $2.1 billion and loans exceeding $1.4 billion. Notwithstanding this competition, the charter bank enjoys
excellent prospects for future growth.
Washington, N.J., headquarters of the merging
bank, is located in Warren County, about 50 miles
west of Newark. The merging bank, which was chartered in 1926, operates two branches, and has total
resources of $18 million. It is the sixth largest of the
nine banks in Warren County.
The population of Washington is about 6,500. The
area is one of the more important agricultural counties in New Jersey, particularly for dairy products. Industrial activity is also significant, with several light
industries employing about 2,000 persons. Industrial
growth is expected to continue at an even faster rate
as the completion of the new interstate highways makes
the Warren County area more accessible to the major
eastern markets.
Management of both the charter and the merging
banks is rated good. The charter bank has a management development program to provide for replacement
of executive officers. Provisions for management succession have not been made in the merging bank.
Consummation of the proposed merger will serve
the convenience and needs of the Warren County area.
At present, the merging bank has a lending limit of
approximately $125,000. After consummation of this
merger, the resulting bank will be able to offer a lending
limit in excess of $4 million to customers in Warren
107

County in addition to the sophisticated services of a
large metropolitan-based bank.
Consummation of the proposed merger will not have
an adverse effect on competition. At present, competition between the applicant banks is de minimus as
their closest offices are 40 miles apart. Approval of the
proposed merger will stimulate competition in Warren
County by providing an additional source of banking
services to the larger businesses in the merging bank's
service area.
Applying the statutory criteria to the proposed
merger, we conclude that it is in the public interest
and the application is, therefore, approved.
OCTOBER 9,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

The nearest offices of National Bank and Washington Trust are 40 miles apart, with a number of banks
in the intervening area. It would appear that the proposed merger would not eliminate any significant existing competition between the two banks.
Recent legislation in New Jersey broadens geographic areas for bank expansion beyond the former
limits of county lines by dividing the State into three
banking districts. Under this law, banks may branch
within an entire district. However, the law retains
community-wide home office protection against de novo
branching and provides branch office protection in
communities of less than 7,500 persons.
The major population centers of Warren County,
Phillipsburg, Hackettstown, and Washington each
have home offices of commercial banks and are thus

PEOPLES NATIONAL BANK OF NEW JERSEY, WESTMONT, N.J.,

protected against de novo branching by outside banks.
No other communities exist in Warren County with
populations in excess of 7,500. While a number of
communities in Warren County are open to de novo
branching, the rural orientation of these communities
would appear to make them unlikely choices for de
novo expansion by National Bank.
The recent broadening of the geographic boundaries
of permissible branch office operation by commercial
banks in New Jersey has induced substantial market
extension activity, both by de novo branching and by
merger. We consider it important that the largest
banks in a district enter a new market area through
de novo branching, or in the alternative through
merger with one of the smaller banks in the area rather
than through merger with a leading local bank; A
large bank entering de novo or through a small acquisition can be expected to compete vigorously to enhance its position in the local market. At the same
time, it is desirable to avoid eliminating leading local
banks, as they can be expected to be more able to
compete locally with new offices of large entering
banks, or may possess the potential of competing with
existing large banks on a districtwide basis through
affiliation with one another in new banking institutions.
However, in this case, while National Bank is the
third largest bank in the First Banking District, Washington Trust is the smaller of two banks operating
offices in Washington, and the sixth largest of nine
banks operating offices in Warren County. Therefore,
this acquisition of one of the smallest banks in the First
Banking District does not seem likely to have a significantly adverse effect on potential competition.

AND T H E FARMERS AND MECHANICS NATIONAL BANK OF WOODBURY,

WOODBURY,

N.J.

Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

The Farmers and Mechanics National Bank of Woodbury, Woodbury, N.J. (3716),
with
and Peoples National Bank of New Jersey, Westmont, N.J. (12022), which had
merged Nov. 14, 1969, under charter and title of the latter bank (12022). The
merged bank at date of merger had

108



$32, 296,188
101, 195, 907
128, 598, 495

To be
operated

3
7

10

COMPTROLLER'S DECISION

On July 14, 1969, The Farmers and Mechanics
National Bank of Woodbury, Woodbury, N.J., and
Peoples National Bank of New Jersey, Westmont, Haddon Township, N.J., applied to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to merge under
the charter and with the title of the latter.
Peoples National Bank of New Jersey, with I PC
deposits of $72.9 million, was organized in 1918. It
operates seven offices in various communities in the
western half of Camden County and has received
approval to open seven additional offices, five in Camden County, and one each in Gloucester and Atlantic
counties. Since 1964 the bank has been the leader in
growth in south Jersey, with deposits more than tripling
in that 5-year period. Its lending limit of $529,000 has
proved inadequate to serve the needs of some of the
larger business concerns in the area.
Camden County, home of the charter bank, contains 37 separate municipalities and has a population
of 471,000. The county is located on the southwestern
border of the State adjacent to Philadelphia, Pa.
During the past decade, the emphasis of the economy
has been shifting from farming to commerce. The
numerous firms located in the western portion of Camden County, including the city of Camden, and in
Philadelphia, Pa., employ the residents of the area.
Westmont, home office town of the charter bank, is an
unincorporated community in Haddon Township, and
has an estimated population of 19,000. Located about
5 miles southeast of Camden and 6 miles southeast of
Philadelphia, Westmont acts primarily as a bedroom
community for most of the local residents who are
employed either in Philadelphia or in surrounding
New Jersey communities.
Of the banks located in Camden County, the charter
bank ranks fourth in size, behind the $300 million
Camden Trust Company, the $253 million First Camden National Bank and Trust Company, and the $123
million Colonial National Bank, Haddonfield. The
charter bank is the seventh largest bank in the newly
formed Third Banking District of New Jersey. Strong
competition is also derived from the large Philadelphia
banks, nine of which are larger than the charter bank.
Other financial institutions competing in Camden
County include 34 credit unions, four sales finance
companies, and several personal loan companies. Savings and loan associations, insurance companies, and
mutual savings banks, located both in Camden County
and in Philadelphia, also provide competition.
The Farmers and Mechanics National Bank of




Woodbury, with IPC deposits of $23.6 million, was
organized in 1887. This bank operates its home office
and one branch in Woodbury, and another branch in
Wenonah, 4.5 miles southeast of Woodbury.
Gloucester County, the home of the merging bank,
is directly south of Camden County, and has a population of 167,000. Although the northwestern part of the
county has become urbanized in recent years, over 37
percent of total county acreage remains farmland.
Woodbury, home office city of the merging bank, with
an estimated population of 13,650., is located in the
northeastern part of Gloucester County, approximately
9 miles south of Camden. There is considerable residential growth in the areas surrounding the city.
Principal competition in the immediate area of the
merging bank comes from First County National Bank
and Trust Company, Woodbury, with total resources of
$32.7 million, and over 10 branches, or proposed
branches within a 5-mile radius. It competes with a
number of other banks in the surrounding area, including some in adjacent Burlington and Camden
counties as well as the largest banks in Philadelphia.
Additional competition comes from credit unions,
mutual savings banks, savings and loan associations,
personal finance companies, small loan companies, and
the like.
The merger will benefit the community of Woodbury by offering a broader range of banking services,
including trust services, more convenient banking
hours, armored car services, a credit card plan, special
checking account, and other lesser services. It would
eliminate a management succession problem which
exists at The Farmers and Mechanics National Bank
of Woodbury, and would provide a larger lending limit
to better enable the resulting institution to meet the
credit needs of customers.
Competition will not be adversely affected by this
merger. Since the service areas of the two banks do not
overlap, there is little competition between them which
will be eliminated. The resulting bank, with total
resources of $106.6 million, will be the sixth largest of
77 commercial banks in the newly created Third Banking District, an advance from the seventh place position presently held by the charter bank. The service
area of the resulting bank contains 33 commercial
banks with 112 branches and total resources of $1.4
billion. The resulting bank will control 7.6 percent of
total resources, 8.2 percent of loans, and 7.6 percent
of deposits held by banks in the area. If banks from
Philadelphia are added to these totals, percentages of
resulting bank's holdings will be under 1 percent. In
109

Gloucester County, the merger will enhance competition with First County National Bank and Trust Company, Woodbury, N.J., now that county's largest bank,
without adversely affecting the smaller institutions'
ability to compete. In Camden County, the merger will
enhance competition with the three larger banks while,
in the overall service area, the resulting bank will offer
a more effective competitive challenge to the large
Philadelphia-based banks. Although one institution in
the overall service area will be eliminated, adequate
banking alternatives remain. Potential competition will
not be affected since it is unlikely that either bank
would branch into the service area of the other in the
foreseeable future.
It is concluded in the light of the statutory criteria
that the merger is in the public interest. It is accordingly approved.
OCTOBER 10,1969.
SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

The head offices of the merging banks are approximately 9 miles apart. Their closest offices, Farmers'
Woodbury office and Peoples' Brooklawn office, are
approximately 4 miles apart. Two offices of The First
National Bank of Westville (which has received permission to merge with Colonial National Bank) lie in

the intervening area. Substantial competitive alternatives exist in and around Westmont and Woodbury.
According to the application, no substantial overlap
in the geographic sources of deposit and loan accounts
of the merging banks exists. It would appear that the
proposed merger may eliminate only a limited amount
of existing competition.
Peoples is presently the fourth largest bank operating offices in the greater Camden area, and would
retain its fourth position subsequent to the proposed
merger. The proposed merger would increase Peoples'
share of commercial bank deposits in the area from
6.5 percent to approximately 9 percent.
Recent changes in New Jersey law have greatly
broadened the sphere of permissible branch bank operation for commercial banks, which may now operate
branch offices anywhere throughout the newly created banking district in which they are located. Permissible de novo branching by commercial banks is
still, however, subject to complete home office protection and branch office protection in communities of
less than 7,500 population. Peoples and Farmers, both
located in the Third Banking District, are thus potential competitors through future establishment of new
offices in the Camden area, and in other rapidly growing areas of the district. This potential competition
would be eliminated by the proposed merger.

FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF ORRVILLE-DALTON, ORRVILLE, OHIO, AND BANK OF MT. EATON, MT. EATON, OHIO
Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

Bank of Mt. Eaton, Mt. Eaton, Ohio, with
and First National Bank of Orrville-Dalton, Orrville, Ohio (13742), which had...
merged Nov. 15, 1969, under charter and title of the latter bank (13742). The
merged bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLER'S DECISION

On July 15, 1969, the First National Bank of Orrville-Dalton, Orrville, Ohio, and the Bank of Mt.
Eaton, Mt. Eaton, Ohio, applied to the Comptroller of
the Currency for permission to merge under the charter
and with the title of the former.
The applicant banks are both situated in eastern
Wayne County, about 30 miles southwest of Akron,
Ohio. Wayne County has a population of 85,000.
The First National Bank of Orrville-Dalton, with
110



$2, 094, 702
26, 328, 041
28,441, 575

To be
operated
1
4

5

IPC deposits of $21.9 million, was chartered in 1933,
and is located in Orrville, a town with a population of
8,000. Although the economy of Orrville has long been
based on agricultural pursuits, some industry has developed in Orrville recently, due to an attractive labor
supply and the establishment, by the city, of an industrial park. Orrville has 38 small industries, employing
more than 4,000 workers. The firms include several
sizable milk processing plants, as well as J. M. Smucker
Co., a nationally known producer of jams, jellies, and
other preserves.

Mt. Eaton, the home of the single-office merging
bank, which has IPG deposits of $1.6 million, is 13
miles southeast of Orrville. It has a population of less
than 300. The economy of Mt. Eaton is predominantly agricultural, with dairy farming and supportive
retail facilities as the main enterprises.
The participating banks face active competition
from other commercial banks and financial institutions
situated in Wooster, about 12 miles west; in Massillon,
about 10 miles east; and in other communities in
Wayne County. The First National Bank of OrrvilleDalton ranks fourth among nine county and three outof-county competitors. The acquisition will not alter
this position. The 11 alternative commercial banks,
operating 18 offices, serve a limited area.
Savings and loan associations also offer keen competition in Wayne County. The three savings and loan
associations in Wooster, and one in Orrville, currently
hold $74.3 million more in loans than all commercial
banking outlets in the service area combined. For installment type loans, finance companies and production
credit associations present strong competition.
Competition between the Orrville and Mt. Eaton
banks is insignificant compared to the total competition in the area. They have very few common customers. Mt. Eaton is 8 miles south of Dalton, and 5 miles
southeast of Kidron, where the charter bank's
branches are located. The small size of the Mt. Eaton
office, however, limits it to serving its immediate area.
The merger will enable the Mt. Eaton office to become more competitive in the area. Because of its low
lending limit of $18,000, it has been losing business to
larger banks, as well as the Federal Land Bank, and
production credit associations. It can offer more services to local customers, including special savings accounts, bank money order and personal money order
services, and credit card services. Eaton residents will
also benefit from more reasonable charges, increased
interest rates on time money, and new quarters, which
will provide more safety deposit boxes, a night depository, and drive-in facilities.




Residents in and around Orrville will benefit also.
Farmers of the rich land surrounding Orrville are of
the Amish and Mennonite faiths, who traditionally
have depended on financial self-help. As land values
increase and farm operations grow, they are becoming
more dependent on financial institutions. The resulting bank will be able to provide more working capital
for farms and industries through its larger lending
limit.
The merger will also eliminate a serious management succession problem at the merging bank. Its
present executive officer is about to retire and, because
of low salaries, it is unable to attract an outside replacement, and none exists within the bank.
It is concluded that the proposal is in the public
interest and meets the relevant statutory criteria. The
merger is, therefore, approved.
OCTOBER 8,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

The head offices of the banks are 13 miles apart.
Bank of Mt. Eaton is only 5 miles southeast of First
National's branch in Kidron. There are no banking
alternatives in or near either Kidron or Mt. Eaton,
and no intervening banks between the two towns.
Thus, the proposed merger would eliminate direct
competition between the merging banks.
First National's share of total county deposits will
be increased from 18.8 percent to 20.1 percent, and
its share of the county IPC demand deposits will be
increased from 18.5 percent to 19.6 percent upon consummation of the proposed merger. These concentration figures probably understate the competitive effects
of this merger, as all offices of the merging banks are
confined to the area between Wooster and Massillon.
Subsequent to the merger, First National would operate five of the eight banking offices in this immediate
area.
We conclude that the proposed merger, involving
acquisition of a very small bank, would have an adverse effect on competition in the immediate area
served by the merging banks.

Ill

MONROE COUNTY BANK, SPARTA, WIS., AND T H E FARMERS NATIONAL BANK OF SPARTA, SPARTA, W I S .

Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
To be
operated

In
operation
Monroe County Bank, Sparta, Wis., with
and The Farmers National Bank of Sparta, Sparta, Wis. (11463), which had, . . .
merged Nov. 21, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (11463) and title "Union
National Bank & Trust Company." The merged bank at date of merger h a d . . . .

COMPTROLLER'S DECISION

On July 11, 1969, The Farmers National Bank of
Sparta, Sparta, Wis., with IPC deposits of $3.75 million, and the Monroe County Bank, Sparta, Wis., with
IPC deposits of $4.04 million, applied to the Office
of the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to
merge under the charter of the former and with the
title of "Union National Bank & Trust Company."
The Farmers National Bank of Sparta, the charter
bank, was organized as a State institution in 1907, and
converted to a National charter in 1919. It has no
branches, but during the summer months it does
operate a temporary facility at Camp McCoy, Wis.,
for the benefit of the military personnel.
The Monroe County Bank, the merging bank, was
chartered in 1894 as a State institution, and has remained as such to the present. All its business is transacted in its single office.
Sparta, Wis., is the county seat of Monroe County,
180 miles northwest of Milwaukee, and 170 miles
southeast of St. Paul and Minneapolis, Minn. It is the
largest city in the county, with a population of 6,750.
The area is basically agricultural, although several new
industries have moved in and employ about 1,000
persons. Dairying is the major enterprise and the
county ranks 27th in total milk production in the
State. In addition to dairy farming, other specialties
include the growing of cigar binder tobacco and cranberries. They city of Sparta has established two industrial parks over 100 acres in size, and well situated
to attract new industry.
The area of service of the resulting bank will generally be confined to Sparta, Wis., for the present.
However, the applicants envision a much wider trade
area which they designate as the Coulee Region. This
region consists of the six west-central counties in Wisconsin, i.e., Tempealeau, Jackson, La Crosse, Monroe,
Cranford, and Vernon. La Crosse, with a population
of 55,000, is the commercial center of the Coulee Region with seven financial institutions, over two dozen

112



$5, 220, 337
4, 947, 252
10, 167, 589

1
1
1

major retail stores, several colleges, and 33 industrial
concerns that employ upwards of 10,000 people. Located some 25 miles southwest of Sparta, La Crosse is
already attractive to Sparta area residents as a city
with excellent shopping facilities, job opportunities,
and good banks with which to negotiate large financial arrangements. In another year, Interstate 90 will
be open between Sparta and La Crosse, reducing travel
time between the two cities to merely 20 minutes. The
increased mobility that the new interstate will offer
reinforces the other attractions that La Crosse already
affords, therefore putting intense competitive pressure
on the applicants to offer services commensurate with
the financial institutions of La Crosse in order to retain their present customers, to say nothing of acquiring new customers.
The merger of The Farmers National Bank of
Sparta and the Monroe County Bank will not precipitate an undue concentration of assets in the charter
bank nor adversely affect competition in the trade
area. In the immediate service area of Sparta, the
merger will combine the two smallest institutions in
the city and allow them to compete more effectively
with the $10 million deposit First Bank of Sparta, a
$10 million savings and loan institution, an $8 million
credit association, and a $1.1 million finance corporation. Presently the other financial institutions in the
city consider the applicant banks to be weak and
not aggressive. Accordingly, they express the view that
these banks can better serve the community through
the proposed merger.
In a larger context of competition, applicants indicate the Coulee Region is a more relevant service area,
since many of the residents of this region, while being
geographically closer to Sparta, will conduct their
financial matters with La Crosse banks that can accommodate their financial needs. Presently, all automobile,
mobile home, and other large installment loans are
handled by La Crosse institutions, either through direct loans or repurchase agreements. Also, the many
Sparta area residents who work or shop in La Crosse

retain accounts with La Crosse banks. It is believed
that said merger will make the resulting bank capable
of challenging the sphere of influence presently exerted
by the financial institutions of La Crosse on businesses
and individuals readily accessible to the resulting bank.
Competition between the applicant banks is not
considered significant. Although they are situated but
one-half block apart, neither institution is considered
aggressive nor highly competitive. Basically, they are
conservative institutions with a minimum contest for
business between themselves. While invariably one can
expect some loss of competition, it will be counterbalanced by the benefits from the proposed merger. The
increased capital structure of the resulting bank will
permit the making of larger loans without the continued necessity of correspondent bank participation.
Customer service will be more complete due to the
increased size, efficiency of operation, and depth of
experience in management. Trust services are to be
more specialized and the resulting bank will employ
a full time auditor and agricultural representative to
meet the needs of the community.
Applying the statutory criteria to the proposed

merger, we find that it is in the public interest, and the
application is, therefore, approved.
OCTOBER 1,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

Monroe Bank and Farmers National, located in
Sparta, Wis., each control approximately 25 percent of
deposits in commercial banks in the Sparta area.
As the service areas of the banks proposing to merge
are essentially identical, the proposed merger would
clearly eliminate substantial direct competition and reduce the number of banking alternatives in Sparta
from three to two.
The resulting bank would share the Sparta market
equally with First Bank of Sparta, and would be the
third largest of seven remaining banks in Monroe
County, with about 20 percent of county commercial
bank deposits.
As the banks are direct competitors for deposits and
loans in the vicinity of Sparta, we conclude that their
proposed merger would have an adverse effect on
competition.

FIRST TRENTON NATIONAL BANK, TRENTON, N.J., AND T H E LAMBERTVILLE NATIONAL BANK, LAMBERTVILLE, N.J.

Banking offices
Total assets

Name of bank and type of transaction

In
operation

The Lambertville National Bank, Lambertville, N.J. (1272), with
and First Trenton National Bank, Trenton, N.J. (1327), which had
merged Nov. 28, 1969, under charter and title of the latter bank (1327). The
merged bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On July 14, 1969, the First Trenton National Bank,
Trenton, N.J., and The Lambertville National Bank,
Lambertville, N. J., filed an application with the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to merge under
the charter and with the title of the former.
The First Trenton National Bank, Trenton, N.J.,
with IPC deposits of $248 million, operates 11 banking
offices in Trenton and the surrounding area in Mercer
County. Trenton, with a population of approximately
110,000, is the State capital and is located on the
western border of the State, about 30 miles northeast
of Philadelphia, Pa. Economic activity in Trenton centers around the State Government offices, but many




$6, 250, 564
398, 597, 307
404, 830, 592

To be
operated

1
13

14

inhabitants find employment with numerous industrial
firms present in the city. Wholesale and retail trade
activity is also important, as Trenton is the commercial
center of Mercer County.
The Lambertville National Bank, with IPC deposits
of $4.8 million, maintains a single banking office.
Lambertville, with a population of approximately
4,600, is located in Hunterdon County on the western
border of New Jersey, approximately 15 miles northwest of Trenton. This town, primarily a residential
community in a rural area, also contains a few small
industrial firms. In recent years, The Lambertville National Bank has lagged far behind other area banks
in loan and deposit growth, and its loan portfolio is
heavily concentrated in mortgage loans.
113

There is no significant competition between the
merging banks whose nearest offices are 12 miles apart.
The merging bank has, because of its conservative approach to banking, proved to be an ineffective competitor, in recent years, with other banks in the area.
Furthermore, the possibility of future competition between these banks appears remote, as the charter bank
cannot establish a de novo branch in Lambertville.
Since the merging bank is the smallest of the six commercial banks in the Lambertville area, consummation
of this proposal will serve to intensify banking competition without increasing significantly the size of the
charter bank vis-a-vis the competing commercial banks
in Mercer County. It should be noted that the charter
bank, which is the eighth largest commercial bank in
New Jersey, meets vigorous competition in its service
area from branches of the much larger Philadelphiabased banks.
Approval of this merger will benefit the banking
public in Lambertville by making available an alternative source for a broad range of banking services. Specifically, the resulting bank will make available more
varied types of loans than are presently offered by the
merging bank, including installment loans, commercial
loans, and construction loans. As a branch of the
charter bank, the resulting bank will offer in Lambertville a higher interest rate on savings and time deposits,
regular statements on checking accounts, trust services,
electronic data processing services, and a greatly expanded lending limit. In addition, the merger of these
banks will assure management continuity the merging
bank now lacks.
Applying the statutory criteria, we find the proposal
to be in the public interest and the merger is, therefore,
approved.
OCTOBER 24,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

First Trenton's closest offices to Lambertville are in
Pennington Borough and Hopewell Township, about
12 miles east of Lambertville, and there would appear
to be some direct competition between them and

114



Lambertville Bank. However, in view of the size of
Lambertville Bank, and the presence of an office of
Hunterdon National Bank (total resources: $63 million) in Lambertville, the actual amount of direct
competition eliminated by the proposed merger may
not be substantial.
New Jersey law prohibits de novo branching into
(1) any town in which the home office of another commercial bank is located, or (2) any town, with a population under 7,500, in which any bank office is already
located. Thus, First Trenton is presently prohibited,
and will remain so in the near future, from branching
de novo into Lambertville. In view of its limited resources, Lambertville Bank is unlikely to open de novo
branches in areas presently served by First Trenton.
We consider it important that large banks seeking
to extend their service areas into areas not previously
served do so either through de novo branching or
through merger with the smaller banks in these areas.
In this manner, leading local banks will remain capable
of providing effective competition in local markets.
Moreover, these banks will remain as potential participants in new banking organizations, including bank
holding companies, capable of providing additional
competition to the largest banks for the business of the
district's larger industrial customers.
First Trenton is the largest bank in the Second
Banking District (covering central New Jersey). It
holds about 10 percent of total deposits in the district's
68 commercial banks, and about 6.5 percent of IPG
demand deposits in such banks. Lambertville Bank,
however, is one of the smallest banks in Hunterdon
County, and in that portion of the county in which
its primary service area is located. Two other larger
banks operate offices in Lambertville or its neighboring
city of New Hope, Pa.
Thus, while First Trenton is clearly one of the most
likely potential entrants into developing areas of the
Second Banking District, we conclude that its proposed merger with Lambertville Bank would be unlikely to have a significantly adverse effect on potential
competition.

T H E NATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE OF SEATTLE, SEATTLE, W A S H . , AND STATE BANK OF WILBUR, WILBUR, WASH.

Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

State Bank of Wilbur, Wilbur, Wash., with
was purchased Nov. 28, 1969, by The National Bank of Commerce of Seattle.
Seattle, Wash. (4375), which had
After the purchase was effected, the receiving bank had

COMPTROLLERS DECISION

On August 18, 1969, The National Bank of Commerce of Seattle, Seattle, Wash., applied to the Office
of the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to
purchase the assets and assume the liabilities of the
State Bank of Wilbur, Wilbur, Wash.
The National Bank of Commerce of Seattle, with
IPC deposits of $885.9 million, was organized in 1889,
and is Washington's second largest commercial bank.
It operates 94 offices in 64 Washington communities,
in 29 of Washington's 39 counties, and has one branch
in London. International Bank of Commerce, the applicant bank's Edge Act corporation, has five branches
in Hong Kong. Over 99 percent of applicant's stock is
owned by Marine Bancorporation, which, in addition,
owns East Mortgage and Investment Company. The
acquiring bank has a substantial capital position, an
able and experienced management team, and offers a
full range of banking and trust services.
Seattle, the leading commercial, industrial, and
financial center of the Pacific Northwest, and home of
the purchasing bank, has a population of approximately 590,000. Its metropolitan area, which includes
King County, has a population of 1.25 million. The
area is a major manufacturing center, with Boeing
Company, a manufacturer of aircraft and missiles, the
largest single employer, with approximately 86,000 employees. Other industries include shipbuilding, transportation equipment, logging, lumber and wood products, smelting, and oil refining. Seattle is a gateway to
the Orient and a major transportation center with its
excellent harbor and port facilities; the Seattie-Tacoma
International Airport is undergoing a major $100 million expansion program, and a large $55 million world
trade complex is projected for the near future.
The purchasing bank is one of four banks that operates throughout the State. There are 95 banks in
Washington, including The Bank of California, N.A.,
which has two branches situated in Takoma and




To be
operated

$9, 422, 000

1

1, 147, 599, 000
1,157,021,000

94
95

Seattle. In addition to the applicant, other statewide
banks include Seattle-First National Bank, with 128
offices and total deposits of $1.7 billion, making it the
State's largest bank; Peoples National Bank of Washington, Seattle, with 48 offices and total deposits of
$392 million, making it the State's third largest bank;
and National Bank of Washington, Tacoma, with 42
offices and total deposits of $384 million, making it the
State's fourth largest bank. Other Seattle-based banks
among the State's largest include Pacific National Bank
of Seattle, with 14 offices and deposits of $207 million,
the Seattle branch of The Bank of California, N.A.,
with deposits of $158 million, and Seattle Trust &
Savings Bank, with 15 branches and total deposits of
$133 million.
State Bank of Wilbur, with IPC deposits of $8.1 million, was organized in 1892, and has continued to operate as a unit bank. It is not a full-service institution
since it does not offer trust services or the full range
of varied and sophisticated services offered by the large
statewide banks. Its lending limit is inadequate to meet
its customers' needs for large loans, with the result that
it must utilize correspondent banking relationships to
place overlines. In addition, it is faced with a management succession problem.
Wilbur, home of the selling bank, is in eastern Washington, 67 miles east of Spokane, Washington's second
largest city, and 243 miles east of Seattle, in the
northwestern section of Lincoln County. Wilbur has
an estimated population of about 1,000, while the
population of Lincoln County is estimated at 10,200.
The economy is based on agriculture, with wheat and
livestock raising predominant.
There are no other banking offices within the Wilbur community. The nearest banking office to Wilbur
is the Almira office of the purchasing bank, 12 miles
southwest of Wilbur. The next closest offices are the
Grand Coulee office of Security Bank of Washington,
Ephrata, with total deposits of $15 million, 19 miles
northwest; and the Coulee Dam office of Seattle-First
115

National Bank, 20 miles northwest. The nearest office
of Old National Bank, Spokane, the State's fifth largest
bank, with total deposits of $255 million, which operates four offices in Lincoln County, is in Davenport,
30 miles southeast. There is no immediate non-bank
competition in Wilbur. Savings and loan associations
in Spokane, the Production Credit Association, the
Federal Land Bank, and the Farmers Home Administration are active in the area.
The acquisition will benefit the community of Wilbur by replacing the selling bank with a full-service
institution, capable of fully and adequately serving
the banking needs of Wilbur and its residents. Among
the benefits will be a larger lending limit, trust services,
and an agricultural loan specialist. Since the
management recruitment and training program of the
acquiring bank will make it easier to provide top-flight
management to the Wilbur branch of the resulting
bank, the management succession problem of the
selling bank will be resolved.
This acquisition will have no adverse competitive
effect. Although the Almira branch of the purchasing
bank is the closest bank office to Wilbur, it is 12 miles
away, and it appears that neither this branch, nor the
selling bank, derives a significant percentage of deposits
and loans from the immediate service area of the other.
Accordingly, it appears that there are only insignificant
amounts of competition between them which will be
eliminated. In the wider area of Lincoln County, and
beyond, such competition as can be said to exist should
be enhanced between the statewide purchasing bank
and the statewide Seattle-First National Bank and the
Old National Bank of Washington, both of which appear to be more firmly entrenched in the general area
than does the purchasing bank. Potential competition
will not be affected because, under State law, the purchasing bank cannot branch into Wilbur, and will not
branch into any nearby communities since those communities cannot support a bank. The addition of the
selling bank, which is the State's 47th largest, would
have no effect on the competitive position of the
purchasing institution in Seattle. Statewide, the
purchasing bank's position as second largest will remain
unchanged, while its deposits will be increased by only
0.1 percent of the State's total.
Applying the statutory criteria, it is concluded that
the merger is in the public interest. The application is,
therefore, approved.
OCTOBER 27,

116



1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

Wilbur Bank's single office is 11 miles northeast of
National's Almira branch. No banking alternatives, intervene. About $346,178 of Wilbur Bank's deposits, and
$138,195 of its loans, originate in the Almira branch's
postal area. National's Almira branch has $73,193 of
deposits, and $79,702 of loans, originating in Wilbur
Bank's postal area. Thus, it appears that the proposed
acquisition, if approved, will eliminate some direct
competition between the banks for both deposits and
loans.
Additional direct competition cannot be anticipated,
however, because Washington branching law prohibits
de novo branching outside a bank's headquarters city
into cities in which another bank has an office. Absent
this restriction, National would be a very likely potential de novo entrant into Wilbur Bank's service area.
In 1968, Lincoln County was served by four banks
with seven offices, controlling $33.1 million of deposits,
representing a 2-year increase in total deposits of nearly
26 percent. Wilbur Bank, the only independent bank
in Lincoln County, ranked second, measured by total
deposits. Old National Bank of Washington, with its
home office in Spokane and total deposits of $264.3
million, operated four branches in Lincoln County, and
ranked first, controlling slightly less than one-half of
the county's total deposits. Seattle First National Bank
(total deposits: $1,692 million) operated a single
branch in Odessa that ranked third, with $5.5 million
of deposits. National's Almira branch, with $3.4 million
of deposits, was the smallest of the four banking organizations operating banking offices in Lincoln
County. If the proposed acquisition of Wilbur Bank
is approved, the second and fourth largest Lincoln
County banks will be united to form the county's
second largest bank, controlling approximately 36 percent of county deposits. In addition, the last independent banking organization serving Lincoln County will
be eliminated.
Furthermore, in the State of Washington, as a whole,
there are five statewide organizations; they control over
66 percent of deposits in the State. Two of these
systems, of Which National is one, have about 50 percent of all deposits in the State. Elimination of Wilbur
Bank as an independent competitor is part of a merger
trend which is reducing the number of independent
small- to medium-sized banks in the State which could
be combined to create additional statewide banking
systems. The overall competitive effect of the proposed
merger would be adverse.

T H E SECOND NATIONAL BANK OF NASHUA, NASHUA, N.H.,

AND T H E MEGHANICKS NATIONAL BANK OF CONCORD, CONCORD,

AND T H E MANCHESTER NATIONAL BANK, MANCHESTER,

N.H.,

N.H.

Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

The Mechanicks National Bank of Concord, Concord, N.H. (2447), with
and The Second National Bank of Nashua, Nashua, N.H. (2240), with
and The Manchester National Bank, Manchester, N.H. (1059), which had
merged Nov. 28, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (1059) and title "Bank of
New Hampshire, National Association." The merged banks at date of merger had.

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On July 25, 1969, The Mechanicks National Bank
of Concord, Concord, N.H., and The Second National
Bank of Nashua, Nashua, N.H., applied to the Office of
the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to
merge into The Manchester National Bank, Manchester, N.H., under the charter of the latter and with
the title of "Bank of New Hampshire, National
Association."
New Hampshire is growing at a faster rate than any
other State in the Nation in terms of personal income
and population. It is highly industrialized, particularly
in the southeastern and south-central areas of the
State which enjoy not only access to the metropolitan
markets of New England, but also available skilled and
unskilled labor, land available for industrial expansion,
and a statewide tax structure which is attractive to
industrial growth. These factors, as well as the tremendously diversified industrial base in New Hampshire, provide excellent prospects for New Hampshire's
continued prosperity and growth.
The largest financial institution serving New Hampshire is the Amoskeag Savings Bank in Manchester,
which has total deposits of only $202.6 million. The
next two largest financial institutions in the State are
also savings banks, the Manchester Savings Bank and
the New Hampshire Savings Bank in Concord. The
only commercial banking system of comparable size is
the New Hampshire Bank Shares, Inc., a registered
bank holding company located in Nashua, which owns
seven banks in New Hampshire, with total assets of
$159.2 million. The largest single commercial bank in
the State is The Second National Bank of Nashua, with
total assets of $48.7 million. These banks are far too
small to finance the operations of industries in New
Hampshire, or to compete with the metropolitan
banks elsewhere in New England.
The three banks involved in the instant proposal are
located in the Merrimack River Valley, in the south-




$29,718,643
52, 686, 208
20, 927, 519
103, 326, 314

To be
operated

4
6

2
12

central portion of New Hampshire, an area approximately 35 miles wide and 45 miles long. It is this area
of New Hampshire that is growing rapidly, and which
presently contains 40 percent of the State's population.
It contains the two largest: cities in the State as well as
the State capital.
The three banks do not compete with each other.
The Mechanicks National Bank of Concord, with I PC
deposits of $18.7 million, operates three branches and
maintains its head office in Concord, the State capital.
Concord has a population of 30,500 and a trade area
population of 48,620. The bank serves the towns of
Bow, Pembroke, Hopkinton, Dumbarton, Warner,
Webster, Boscawen, Canterbury, Loudon, and Chichester. The Second National Bank of Nashua, with
I PC deposits of $40.9 million, operates five branches.
In addition to Nashua, it serves the towns of Hudson,
Hollis, Litchfield, and Merrimack. Nashua has a population of 47,500, and its economy includes manufacturing in the fields of electronics, leather, paper, and
wood. The charter bank. The Manchester National
Bank, has IPC deposits of $13 million, and operates
one branch in Manchester, which is the largest city in
the three northern New England States and has a
population of 92,000. Manchester is located midway
between Nashua and Concord. The bank serves a total
population of 123,400, and includes the towns of Bedford, Candia, Hooksett, Auburn, Londonderry, and
Goffstown.
None of the three banks has ever branched outside
its primary service area. The banks do not have the
resources to establish branches in areas in which they
have no established customers. Furthermore, the State
branching law is very restrictive. A branch may be
established in a city or town, other than the home
office city, only if it is contiguous to the home office
city and contains no bank or branch bank, or in any
noncontiguous town having no bank., if the location is
within 15 miles of the principal office, and if no other

117

bank or branch bank is located within 10 miles of the
proposed branch. The possibility of de novo branching
into the service areas of the other banks by any participant in this proposal is very remote, both practically
and legally.
In New Hampshire, the unique practice of separating financial functions so that a commercial bank, a
savings bank, and a trust company frequently have
been housed under one roof, has impeded the growth
of financial institutions so that they are presently too
small to provide the capital needed in an industrial
society. Commercial banks are small, scattered, and
oriented toward yesterday's agricultural economy. A
degree of consolidation is required to keep pace with
changes in the economy. The resulting bank will have
total assets of $92.6 million, which is only 4.39 percent
of the total of the 15 largest banks or banking systems,
including savings banks, in the State. It will have only
9.4 percent of the total assets of the 17 commercial and
savings banks in the consolidated market area, the
Merrimack Valley. Although it will become the largest
commercial bank in the State, it will compete with
the banks owned by a registered bank-holding company which has assets far greater than itself, as well
as with much larger savings banks. Furthermore, the
Manchester Savings Bank, with assets of $137.4 million, has submitted a proposal to convert into a State
commercial bank, and it will become the largest commercial bank in the State.
These larger financial institutions are sorely needed
to provide the capital which will finance the rapidly
growing industrial firms in New Hampshire, many of
which presently do their primary banking outside of
the State. None of the three banks involved in the proposal can be considered a full-service bank, offering
such specialized services as accounts receivable financing, inventory loans, term loans and revolving credit,
lease financing, and specialized building construction
loans. Although each of them offers some of these, it
does so only to a limited extent. Furthermore, the resulting bank will be able to offer a full range of trust
services, computer services, and such incidental conveniences as travel services.
The banks in New Hampshire have not kept pace
with the industrialization of the economy and the centralization of population in that State. Its capital resources are so fragmented throughout the State that
it cannot provide the financing needed in the industrializing area of the Merrimack Valley. The proposal
will provide an institution large enough to make in-

118



dustrial loans, and with sufficient resources to make
available specialized services required in a modern
industrial society, without dominating any facet of the
banking industry in the State.
In light of the statutory criteria, the merger is
deemed to be in the public interest and is, therefore,
approved.
OCTOBER 1,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

Nashua Bank's Merrimack branch is 12 miles south
of Manchester Bank's head office, and 30 miles south
of Concord Bank's home office. Numerous banking
alternatives intervene between this branch of Nashua
Bank and the other merging banks, including the Merrimack branch of The Indian Head National Bank of
Nashua. Manchester Bank's head office is 18 miles
south of Concord Bank's head office. Several banking
alternatives exist for residents of Concord, both within
that city and in the intervening distance. According
to the application, very few of the merging banks'
accounts come from each other's service areas. Thus, it
does not appear that the proposed merger would
eliminate substantial direct competition for deposits
and loans.
Under New Hampshire law, a bank may branch de
novo into a contiguous town, provided no other bank
is already located there; and into a noncontiguous
town within 15 miles of the branching bank's principal
office, provided no other bank is within 10 miles of the
proposed de novo branch site. De novo branching opportunities for each of the merging banks into the
service areas of the others would thus appear to be
limited.
In view of the relatively small number of commercial banks located in Concord, Nashua, and Manchester, and of the relative positions of each of the merging
banks in their respective markets, opportunity for
entry by each of the merging banks into the service
areas of the others through merger with smaller banks
would appear to be limited.
We would note, however, that the three cities involved are parts of a growing region with a bright
industrial future; as population and industrial density
increases, the presently abutting banking markets of
these cities may begin to overlap to a significant extent. The proposed merger would foreclose the possibility of increased competition between the merging
banks for deposit and loan accounts of larger, regionally-oriented customers.

SECURITY NATIONAL BANK, HUNTINGTON, N.Y.,

AND T H E OGEANSIDE NATIONAL BANK, OGEANSIDE,

N.Y.

Banking offices
Total assets

Name of bank and type of transaction

In
operation

The Oceanside National Bank, Oceanside, N.Y. (12458), with
and Security National Bank, Huntington, N.Y. (6587), which had
merged Nov. 28, 1969, under charter and title of the latter bank (6587). The
merged bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLER'S DECISION

On August 18, 1969, The Oceanside National Bank,
Oceanside, N.Y., and Security National Bank, Huntington, N.Y., applied to the Office of the Comptroller
of the Currency for permission to merge under the
charter and with the title of the latter.
Security National Bank, with IPC deposits of $580.3
million, was organized in 1903. It operates 45 branches
in Suffolk County, and 10 in Nassau County. Applications have been approved for four additional
branches in Suffolk County, and two in Nassau County.
The service area of the charter bank encompasses
the eastern end of Long Island, including most of
Suffolk County, and the southeastern and central
portions of Nassau County, where 10 branches are
located. Nassau County has been an area of commercial, industrial, and residential growth for over 20
years, and Suffolk County, with three times the land
area, is now developing rapidly. Since 1950, the population of the Nassau-Suffolk area has grown from 949,000 to over 2.5 million, and the area continues to be
one of the fastest growing in the country. The economy
is mixed commercial, industrial, and residential, with
farming and seaside resort activity contributing greatly
in Suffolk County.
Banking competition is intense in the charter bank's
service area. Relevant statistics show the charter bank
competing with 379 commercial bank offices, 26 savings bank offices, and 70 savings and loan association
offices. In addition, the charter bank competes for
deposits and loans, in New York City, with offices of institutions located there. Of 22 commercial banks operating in Nassau County, 8 are larger than the charter
bank, including the large New York City banks, which
since 1960, have been permitted to branch in Nassau
County. All eight have over $1 billion in deposits,
ranging from $16.9 billion held by the Chase Manhattan Bank to the $1.5 billion held by the eighth ranking bank, almost double the amount held by the




$11,789,068
918, 893, 374
930, 682, 442

To be
operated

3
57
60

applicant. In addition, a number of other financial
institutions also compete in the area.
The Oceanside National Bank, with IPC deposits
of about $10.8 million, was organized in 1923. It
operates three offices, all of which are located in
Oceanside.
Oceanside is an unincorporated area in Nassau
County, primarily a residential and commercial community, located 26 miles from Huntington, the home
office city of the charter bank, and 5 miles from Hempstead, the site of charter bank's nearest branch. The
population has grown from 14,093, in 1950, to 35,915,
in 1969. Businesses are primarily retail and service establishments, employing approximately 3,300. Other
residents are employed in a wide range of professional
and business activities, and commute to work in New
York City or other areas of Long Island.
Chemical Bank of New York and Peninsula National
Bank have branches in Oceanside. Additional branch
offices of commercial and savings banks are located in
areas adjacent to Oceanside, including six in Rockville Centre, 1.6 miles north; four in Baldwin, 2.4 miles
east; one in Island Park, 1.6 miles south; and three in
East Rockaway, 1.4 miles west. Forty-five banking
offices are located within a 5-mile radius of Oceanside.
Of 22 commercial banks operating in Nassau County,
The Oceanside National Bank ranks 21st in size. In
addition, other financial institutions operate in the
immediate area.
Consummation of the merger will convert the offices
of a very conservative bank to those of a progressive,
well-managed institution, and will result in more complete banking services to the public in Oceanside.
These services will include a larger lending limit, a
broader range of loans, electronic data processing services, personal and corporate trust services, and the offering of certificates of deposit. Furthermore, the lack
of management succession which exists at the Oceanside National Bank will be alleviated.
Competition will not be adversely affected by this
merger because the closest offices of the two banks are
119

5 and 7 miles apart, their main offices over 26 miles
apart, and numerous offices of other institutions operate in the intervening areas. Although one banking
alternative in the general area will be eliminated, more
than an adequate number of alternatives will remain.
The resulting institution will continue in ninth position in size, but still will remain far behind the next
largest bank in footings. The ability of the other
smaller banks to compete will not be seriously affected.
It is concluded in the light of the statutory criteria
that the merger is in the public interest. It is, accordingly, approved.
OCTOBER 27,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

The head offices of the two banks are 25 miles apart.
Security Bank's Hempstead office, located about 4
miles north of Oceanside, is the closest Security Bank
office to Oceanside Bank. Three commercial banking

offices are located in the intervening area, however*
Seven other Nassau County offices of Security Bank,
all located in the southeastern portion of the county,
are between 7 and 11 miles from an office of Oceanside Bank. Several other commercial bank offices are
in the intervening area, however. Thus, the merger
would not eliminate any substantial existing competition between the banks.
Security Bank, the ninth largest of 37 commercial
banks operating in Nassau and Suffolk counties, and
second largest headquartered in either of these
counties, has been expanding rapidly by means of de
novo branching, as well as by merger. Thus, Security
Bank is likely to establish a de novo office in closer
proximity to Oceanside Bank's offices, absent this
merger. In view of the relatively small size of Oceanside Bank, as well as the existence of other potential
entrants, however, the effect of this merger on potential competition would not be substantial.

SOUTH JERSEY NATIONAL BANK, CAMDEN, N.J., AND T H E MILLVILLE NATIONAL BANK, MILLVILLE, N.J.

Banking offices

Total assets

Name of bank and type of transaction

In
operation

The Millville National Bank, Millville, N.J. (1270), with
and South Jersey National Bank, Gamden, N.J. (1209), which had
merged Nov. 28, 1969, under charter and title of the latter bank (1209). The
merged bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On May 29, 1969, The Millville National Bank, Millville, N.J.,, and First Gamden National Bank and Trust
Company, Camden, N.J., applied to the Comptroller
of the Currency for permission to merge under the
charter of the latter and with the title of "South Jersey
National Bank."
First Camden National Bank and Trust Company,
the charter bank, has IPC deposits of $211.6 million,
and was originally organized in 1812. It operates 16
branches in Camden County, N.J., and one in Philadelphia.
Camden, N.J., across the Delaware River from Philadelphia, Pa., has a population of 117,000, and is the
largest city in southern New Jersey. It is highly industrialized, with excellent highway, rail, air, and water
transportation available. Steady employment is furnished residents of the area by both Camden Countyand Philadelphia-based firms. The largest employers

120



$40, 887, 548
267, 672, 525
308,613,435

To be
operated

4
21

25

in the area are Radio Corp. of America and Campbell
Soup Co., which employ 15,000 and 8,000 people respectively. Although the city of Camden has not experienced any significant growth since 1960, the county
as a whole has grown 20 percent during this period.
Keen competition is furnished within the area by the
$309 million Camden Trust Company, Camden, N.J.,
the largest bank in the newly formed Third Banking
District, and 75 other commercial banks with approximately 200 offices within the district. Additional competition is furnished by 15 commercial banks located in
Philadelphia, Pa., nine of which are larger than the
resulting bank. Various mortgage companies, credit
unions, sales finance companies, personal loan companies, and savings and loan associations compete in
the area with the commercial banks for savings dollars
and profitable loans.
The Millville National Bank, Millville, N.J., the
merging bank, has IPC deposits of $32.3 million, and

was chartered in 1865. It operates its main office and
two branches in Cumberland County.
Millville, N.J., with a population of 22,890, is located in the south-central part of the State, about 40
miles southeast of Philadelphia and Camden, and
about the same distance southwest of Atlantic City.
The area surrounding Millville is largely agricultural.
The largest industrial employers in the Millville area
are Wheaton Glass Co., employing about 2,700 persons,
and the Armstrong Cork Co.. employing about 1,500
persons. The Millville National Bank is the largest
bank in Cumberland County, and is the 11th largest
bank in the Third Banking District.
The proposed merger will make a broader range of
banking services available to the residents of the southcentral part of New Jersey than is now offered by the
merging institutions. The $270,000 lending limit of
The Millville National Bank has been inadequate to
service the borrowing needs of the larger companies in
the area. The lending limit of the resulting bank will
be approximately $2.8 million, and, although still too
small to fully service the needs of the largest companies,
it should prove adequate to service the individual
and medium-size businesses in southern New Jersey.
Furthermore, the resulting bank will also offer residents and businesses in the Millville area such additional services as revolving check credit, combination
construction and permanent mortgages, armored car
service, EDP payroll service, EDP checking account
reconcilement, and expanded trust services.
Competition will not be adversely affected by the
merger. Since the head offices of the two banks are 40
miles apart, and their nearest branches 27 miles apart,
there is no present competition between them which
will be eliminated. The charter bank's second place
ranking in size in Gamden County and the Third
Banking District, and its 11th place ranking in the
Camden-Philadelphia trade area, will not change. Its
relation to small competitors will not be significantly
enhanced to their detriment. In Cumberland County
and the Millville area, there will be no reduction in the
number of banking alternatives. Potential competition
in that area will not be affected since the charter bank
cannot, by law, enter the Millville market through the
de novo branching route. Present competition in that
area, which is quite active already, will be stimulated
through the introduction of the broader range of services and the larger lending limit of the charter bank.
Applying the statutory criteria, it is concluded that
the proposed merger is in the public interest, and the
public application is, therefore, approved.
SEPTEMBER 26,




1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

No significant competition presently exists between
the banks proposing to merge, primarily because of
the geographic distance between them. No deposit accounts in common are reported; a few construction
loans in Cumberland County have been made by First
Camden, but none of the banks located there provide
this service. Other loans extended by First Camden in
Cumberland County have been scattered, and are not
considered significant.
Recent legislation in New Jersey broadens geographic areas for bank expansion beyond the former
limits of county lines by dividing the State into three
banking districts. Under this law, banks may branch
within an entire district. However, the law retains
community-wide home protection against de novo
branching, and provides branch office protection in
communities of less than 7,500 persons.
First Camden's opportunities for de novo entry into
Cumberland County appear somewhat limited, but it
is also a source of potential competiton through acquisition of one of the county's smaller banks.
Merger with one of the smaller banks in the county
could increase the level of competition therein, as well
as afford First Camden the entry it seeks. We note that
each of the three smallest county banks operates an
office in one of the county's three large cities, the
county's most desirable local banking markets. First
Camden is clearly a powerful potential competitor in
whatever market it seeks to enter; should it be permitted to acquire a substantial bank with a leading
share of local deposits, such as MNB.( there would be a
likelihood of permanent entrenchment of its position
as one of the area's dominating banks. This undesirable
effect is more probable where State branch banking
law offers protection against de novo entry by outside
banking institutions, thereby reducing still further the
possibility that market forces will lead to deconcentration and increased competition for entrenched, leading
banks in a market. Thus^ it is particularly important
that leading potential entrants such as First Camden
enter by acquiring the smaller banks in the county,
rather than the larger ones, and thereby offer potential
new competition to the county's largest and ablest
banks, such as MNB.
Acquisition of MNB by First Camden could also
adversely affect potential competition in the Third
Banking District generally. Under the new banking
laws, with their greatly broadened sphere of permissible
branching activity, the largest banks in the district are
in a position to substantially increase their share of its

121

banking markets. First Camden, the second largest of
some 74 commercial banks operating in the district,
controls about 10 percent of total deposits in district
commercial banks. The five largest of these banks control about 42 percent of such deposits. Major merger
activity by the largest banks could significantly increase
this percentage, and possibly result in dominance of
district commercial banking by a few very large institutions, whose development would preempt the growth
of a larger number of able, district-wide competitors.
Such an entrenched market structure, once achieved,
would tend to be self-perpetuating, particularly in the
context of continued home and branch office
protection.
Acquisition of substantial independent banks, with
leading shares of their local markets, would give undue
impetus to the development of such a market structure
(1) by eliminating banks most able to compete with
the district's largest banks in these local markets; and
(2) by eliminating the possibility that these leading
local banks might become primary components of new
banking organizations capable of competing with the
district's largest banks for both large and small customers, either through affiliation with one another, or

with bank holding companies controlling banks in other
districts. Thus, First Camden's acquisition of MNB
(the 11th largest bank in the Third District) would
eliminate MNB as a possible major participant in a
banking institution capable of competing with First
Camden and the other largest Third District banks in
Millville and Cumberland County, and other relevant
local markets in the Third District. Such elimination
is, as already noted, particularly undesirable in the
context of continued home and branch office protection
against de novo entry.
The proposed merger would eliminate First Camden,
a leading commercial bank in the Third District, as
one of the most probable potential entrants into Millville and Cumberland County through acquisition of a
smaller bank, thereby enabling it to challenge (rather
than entrench) MNB's leading position in these markets. In addition, MNB would be eliminated as a
potential major element in a medium-sized bank competing, generally, in the Third District. For these
reasons, we conclude that the proposed merger would
have a significantly adverse effect on potential competition in Millville, Cumberland County, and the
Third District, generally.

SEATTLE-FIRST NATIONAL BANK, SEATTLE, WASH., AND BANK OF TAGOMA, TAGOMA, W A S H .
Banking offices
Total assets

Name of bank and type of transaction

In
operation

Bank of Tacoma, Tacoma, Wash., with
was purchased Nov. 29, 1969, by Seattle-First National Bank, Seattle, Wash.
(11280), which had
After the purchase was effected, the receiving bank had

COMPTROLLER'S DECISION

On July 9, 1969, the Seattle-First National Bank,
Seattle, Wash., applied to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to purchase the
assets and assume the liabilities of the Bank of Tacoma,
Tacoma, Wash.
The buying bank, the Seattle-First National, with
IPC deposits of $1.5 billion, is located in Seattle, the
largest city in the State. This bank, one of four statewide banks in Washington, operates 128 offices in 29
of the 39 counties in the State. It is not represented
in the city of Tacoma, although it has offices in nine
of the other larger cities in the State. The selling bank,
122



To be
operated

$18,668,000

4

1,955,819,000
1, 974, 487, 000

131

135

the Bank of Tacoma, is located in Tacoma, the third
largest city in Washington. This bank operates three
branches in Tacoma and presently has IPC deposits of
$11.9 million.
The major impact of this proposal will be felt in
Tacoma, a city of 158,000, which has grown up around
an excellent harbor. Tacoma is the location of many
National industries, primarily related to forests and
forest products and manufacturing, and two large military bases. It is one of the fastest growing areas in
Washington, and its sound and diverse economy indicates future prosperity and continued growth.
Banking competition in Tacoma, or in Pierce
County, in which it is located, is strong. The selling

bank competes with four of the largest banks in Washington, including the National Bank of Washington,
with deposits of $387 million; the Puget Sound National Bank, with deposits of $166 million; the Peoples
National Bank of Washington, with deposits of $389
million; and the Bank of California of San Francisco,
Calif., with deposits of $1.4 billion, which has offices
in both Tacoma and Seattle. The proposal, when consummated, will introduce a fourth major banking
force in the growing and prosperous city of Tacoma
without unduly increasing the relative size or strength
of the charter bank.
The selling bank, which was organized in 1963, has
been in existence for less than 10 years. In accordance
with Washington law, the State Supervisor of Banking
has granted his permission to the bank to enter into
the proposed transaction. Although the bank has maintained a satisfactory record of growth and profits, it
has had difficulty keeping pace with the increasing
credit demands of the growing industry in its market
area. It increased its capital three times in 1965 and
now maintains a very high loan to deposit ratio. Its
low lending limit is inadequate to meet the needs of
its customers. Furthermore, the bank has been hampered by management problems which stem from friction among members of the board of directors,
inadequate training programs, and lack of successor
management. The bank has had insufficient capital
resources to provide trust services, economic research
and counseling, international banking operations, or
even computer services.
This proposal will have no adverse competitive effects. The banking structure in Washington is sufficiently diverse to preclude the dominance of any single
bank in any area of banking. The applicant banks have
very few common customers and their branches are
located far enough apart to preclude more than an
insignificant amount of direct competition between
them. Furthermore, the charter bank is barred by
Washington's home office protection law from branching de novo into Tacoma.
The proposal will affect only the Tacoma area. It
will introduce into that city an additional aggressive
bank with sufficient resources to compete with the
large, full-service institutions presently operating there.
It will replace the selling bank which, although it is
presently operating at a profit, finds itself without the
capital or resources to expand its operation and maintain a competitive stance with the other banks in its
service area. No competition will be eliminated since
the service areas of the applicant banks do not overlap; on the contrary, competition in Tacoma is ex883-814—70


pected to increase. The entry of the buying bank into
the Tacoma market will provide an alternative credit
source of sufficient magnitude to meet the credit requirements of the expanding local economy.
In light of the statutory criteria, the proposal appears to be in the public interest and without adverse
competitive effects. It is, therefore, approved.
OCTOBER 30,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

Both Tacoma Bank and Seattle-First have offices in
Pierce County, but Seattle-First's offices are outside
the city of Tacoma itself. The nearest one is in
Puyallup, 8 miles east of Tacoma Bank's closest office,
and the other is 3 miles further east in Sumner.
There is some competition between Tacoma Bank
and Seattle-First which would be eliminated by the
acquisition. However, there are some intervening banking offices between the closest offices of the merging
banks.
The four largest banks in Pierce County together
have over 80 percent of the deposits in the county,
making it a highly concentrated banking market.
Within Tacoma itself, the level of concentration is
even higher. The combined market shares of Tacoma
Bank (2.8 percent) and Seattle-First (3.1 percent) in
Pierce County would be 5.9 percent. This merger
would make the resulting bank the new fourth largest
bank in the county, and increase the four bank concentration level by over 2 percent.
Under Washington State law, de novo branching
is permitted only in incorporated communities without any banking office. Therefore, Seattle-First would
only be able to enter the city of Tacoma itself by
means of an acquisition of an existing bank. As the
largest bank in the State, Seattle-First would be the
most likely potential entrant into the city of Tacoma
by this means. Since it is acquiring the smallest bank
operating in the city of Tacoma, its entry does not represent any significant loss of potential competition in
that market.
We should note, however, that this proposed merger
represents a part of a trend towards concentration of
bank deposits in the largest Washington commercial
banks. Seattle-First is the largest banking organization
in the State; it and one other bank already control
50 percent of all deposits in the State; and the five
largest banking organizations control over 66 percent
of such deposits.
Hence further acquisitions of viable banks by the
State's leading banks tend to increase the existing com-

123

petitive imbalance, and to foreclose potential development of independent banks capable of competing
with Seattle-First and the other very large banks in
the State of Washington. The seriousness of these effects is enhanced by the fact that de novo entry is
effectively barred by Washington State law, thereby

limiting the possibility for competitive forces to reduce
market power in particular local markets.
For these reasons, we conclude that the proposed
acquisition by Seattle-First would have an adverse
effect on potential competition in the State of
Washington.

HARTFORD NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, HARTFORD, CONN., AND LINCOLN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, STAMFORD, CONN:
Banking ioffices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

Lincoln Bank and Trust Company, Stamford, Conn., with
and Hartford National Bank and Trust Company, Hartford, Conn. (1338), which
had
merged Dec. 12, 1969, under charter and title of the latter bank (1338). The
merged bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On August 15, 1969, the Hartford National Bank
and Trust Company, Hartford, Conn., and the
Lincoln Bank and Trust Company, Stamford, Conn.,
filed an application with the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to merge under the charter and
with the title of the former.
Hartford National Bank and Trust Company, Hartford, Conn., was organized in 1792, acquired a National charter in 1865, and now holds IPC deposits of
$720 million. The bank presently operates 42 banking
offices in six of Connecticut's eight counties, but concentrated principally in Hartford County in the northcentral portion of the State, in New London County
in the southeastern portion of the State, and in Litchfield County in the northwestern portion of the State.
It has received approval to open three additional
branches. Hartford, with a population estimated at
163,000, is the State capital, and is an important industrial and trade center. Manufacturing, especially of
aircraft engines, parts, and equipment, and nonelectrical machinery, is of great importance to the local
economy, while additional employment is found in the
home offices of many important insurance carriers
located in the city. In addition, because of the availability of excellent transportation facilities, the city
has developed into an important center for wholesale
and retail trade activity. In New London County, the
bank's trade area is oriented principally toward
defense-related industrial and service activities. The
bank's service areas in Hartford and New London

124



To be
operated

$29, 575, 221

5

966 860 862

45

995, 928, 954

50

counties have both been marked by strong population
growth in recent years. In Litchfield County, in northwestern Connecticut, the bank's trade area is predominantly of a rural-residential nature, but the
presence of manufacturing establishments producing
machinery, electrical equipment, instruments, and
metal products also contribute greatly to the economy.
In all of these areas, the charter bank competes with
branches of statewide banks and the offices of locallychartered banks.
Lincoln Bank and Trust Company, Stamford. Conn.,
was organized in 1918 as a Morris Plan Bank, acquired
a National charter in 1962, and converted to a State
charter in 1969. The bank now holds IPC deposits of
$26 million at its main office and four branches, all
of which are located in Stamford. Stamford, with a
population estimated at 112,000, lies in Fairfield
County in southwestern Connecticut, adjacent to Westchester County in New York. The residential towns of
Darien and New Canaan, both with populations in
excess of 22,000, are in the vicinity of Stamford. This
prosperous area has seen rapid population growth in
recent years, and counts manufacturing as its most
important activity, with retail and wholesale trade
activity, as well as financial activity, also making important contributions to its economy. Many of the
inhabitants of this area commute to work in New
York City.
There is no direct competition between the merging banks whose nearest offices are about 70 miles
apart. It does not appear likely that competition could

develop between these banks. The charter bank is
precluded by home-office protection provisions of
Connecticut banking law from de novo branch entry
into Stamford, where all of the merging bank's
branches are located. Entry of the charter bank into
Greenwich, immediately south of Stamford, would be
impossible for the same reason. De novo entry, by
either bank, into New Canaan or Darien, the only
towns adjoining Stamford into which branch entry
would be legal, appears remote due to the high ratio
of banking offices to population in these towns and
the presence of zoning restrictions which provide little
room for commercial expansion. Furthermore, due to
the costs, distances, and legal restrictions involved,
branch entry by the merging bank into areas now
served by the charter bank cannot be viewed as a
realistic possibility.
Approval of this application will not significantly increase banking concentration in Connecticut as the
charter bank's share of the banking deposits in the
State will be increased less than 0.1 percent. When the
merger is consummated, the entry of the charter bank
into the service area of the merging bank will enhance
competition with the existing banking offices in this
area, viz with branches of The State National Bank
of Connecticut, Bridgeport, Conn., which, with deposits of $319 million, is the fourth largest bank in the
State; with branches of the Union Trust Company,
New Haven, Conn., which, with deposits of approximately $450 million, is the third largest bank in the
State; and with The Stamford Fidelity Bank and Trust
Company, Stamford, Conn., with deposits of $70
million. The resulting bank will also be in a better
position to meet the competition from the much larger
banks based in New York City, which compete for
the banking business of the commuting residents of
this area.
When the merger is consummated, the banking
public in the service area of the merging bank will
benefit from the availability of the trust services, international banking services, expanded lending services,
municipal services, and other important banking services which will be made available through the charter
bank. The resulting bank, with its greater lending
limit, will be more responsive to the credit demands




of this community. In addition, effectuation of the
merger will make available greatly increased management resources now lacking in the merging bank.
Applying the statutory criteria, we find that the proposal is in the public interest and the application is,
therefore, approved.
NOVEMBER 6,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

A distance of about 68 miles separates the nearest
offices of the participating banks, and the head offices
are some 77 miles apart. Many banks operate in the
intervening area, moreover, neither participating
bank draws substantial business from areas immediately served by the other. Consequently, it does not
appear that existing competition will be affected by
consummation of the proposed transaction.
Connecticut law does not permit commercial banks
to branch de novo into townships in which there are
already located the home offices of other banks. Under
this law, Stamford is closed to de novo branching by
Hartford Bank, as is Greenwich, immediately to the
west. However, Hartford Bank could make de novo
entry into the townships of New Canaan and Darien
which are adjacent to Stamford to the east.
Hartford Bank is a most likely potential entrant into
the Stamford-New Canaan-Darien area. It is Connecticut's largest commercial bank and clearly possesses
the resources for de novo branching. It has also shown
an inclination toward expansion both via small acquisitions and via de novo entry. Since 1964, Hartford
Bank has opened 12 de novo offices, and currently has
approval to open three additional such offices. It would
appear that the Stamford-New Canaan-Darien area is
growing rapidly and is an attractive banking market
for entry by Hartford Bank.
Moreover, the Stamford-New Canaan-Darien banking market is concentrated. Six commercial banks,
controlling total deposits of $382.5 million, operate
offices in this area. Five of these banks have their headquarters in Stamford. The three largest such banks
hold some 89.2 percent of all bank deposits, and Lincoln Bank, the fourth largest, holds about 7.1 percent.
The overall effect of this proposal on competition
will be adverse.

125

VIRGINIA NATIONAL BANK, NORFOLK, V A . , AND T H E FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF QUANTICO, QUANTICO, V A .

Banking offices
Total assets

Name of bank and type of transaction

In
operation

The First National Bank of Quantico, Quantico, Va. (12477), with
and Virginia National Bank, Norfolk, Va. (9885), which had
merged Dec. 19, 1969, under charter and title of the latter bank (9885). The
merged bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On September 2, 1969, Virginia National Bank,
Norfolk, Va., applied to the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to merge with The First National
Bank of Quantico, Quantico, Va., under the charter
and with the title of the former.
Virginia National Bank, the charter bank, presently
operates 89 branches and two military facilities, in 45
communities scattered throughout most of Virginia.
The charter bank has total assets of $810 million. Although essentially a statewide bank, nearly two-thirds
of its deposits are drawn from the Norfolk and Charlottesville area of the State. The First National Bank
of Quantico, the merging bank, was established in
1923. This bank, with total assets of $13 million, is
headquartered in Quantico, and operates three
branches and a military facility in Prince William
County. Ten years ago the merging bank was the
largest bank in the county. Today it is the smallest
of the four banks operating in the county.
The charter and merging banks are not in competition with each other, nor are they likely to compete in
the future. Under Virginia law, the charter bank cannot branch de novo into Prince William County. The
nearest offices of the charter bank to the merging bank
are those in Alexandria and Arlington County, the
closest of which is 17 road-miles from the merging
bank's Woodbridge office. While not lessening existing
competition, consummation of the proposed merger
will strengthen competition among banks in Prince
William County by substituting a strong successful bank
for a less progressive one.
In addition to strengthening competition among
banks in Prince William County, consummation of the
proposed merger will serve the convenience and needs
of its citizens. The merging bank has experienced difficulty attracting and keeping executive personnel.
The bank's present executive officer is on loan from
the charter bank. By contrast, the charter bank has

126



$13,948,950
912,331,648

To be
operated

5
92

926, 284, 233

97

demonstrated its ability to attract and retain top and
midlevel management of the highest caliber.
Consummation of the proposed merger will enable
the resulting bank to offer many sophisticated services
that the merging bank has not been in a position to
provide. The merger will also bring to Prince William
County a banking institution that has demonstrated
civic responsibility in all the communities it serves
throughout Virginia.
Applying the statutory criteria to the proposed
merger, we conclude that it is in the public interest
and the application is, therefore, approved.
NOVEMBER 19,1969.
SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

The nearest offices of VNB to Prince William
County are the 11 offices recently acquired by merger
with Commonwealth National Bank of Arlington,
located in Arlington, Falls Church, and Alexandria.
Quantico Bank's head office is more than 25 miles
from any of those 11 offices, while the nearest branch
of Quantico Bank is 17 miles from a VNB office.
Within the intervening area are numerous banking
alternatives. It is felt, therefore, that no substantial
amount of direct competition will be eliminated by
this merger.
Banking in Prince William County is concentrated.
Four banks serve the county through 24 offices. Two
of them are affiliates of major holding companies:
American Bank ($24.3 million in deposits), an affiliate
of Virginia Commonwealth Bankshares, is the largest
bank in the county; and National Bank of Manassas
($14.9 million in deposits), an affiliate of First Virginia Bankshares, is the third largest bank in the county.
In addition to Quantico, there is one other independent bank in the county: Peoples National Bank of
Manassas. Of the four banks in the county, Quantico
Bank has the smallest market share.
Under Virginia law, a bank headquartered in a city

may only branch de novo into contiguous cities or 5
miles into contiguous counties, and a bank headquartered in a county may branch into contiguous cities but
not into contiguous counties. Thus, VNB, headquartered in Norfolk, may only branch de novo into areas
contiguous to Norfolk, and it may enter Prince William
County only by acquisition. Furthermore, it may not
open new offices in Prince William County after such
a merger.
However, denial of this merger request would not
necessarily exclude VNB from Prince William County.
VNB could enter this rapidly growing but concentrated market by establishing a bank holding company
and chartering a new bank as a subsidiary of the holding company. (Six of the largest banking organizations

in Virginia consist of holding companies and their subsidiary banks.) In view of the projected economic
growth of Prince William County, VNB's resources
and capabilities, the proximity of VNB offices in
Arlington, Falls Church, and Alexandria, and its
demonstrated interest in expanding its office network
into Northern Virginia markets, VNB must be regarded as one of the most likely potential entrants into
Prince William County. Consummation of the instant
merger would eliminate such potential competition.
Accordingly, we conclude that elimination of VNB
as a potential entrant into Prince William County, via
the holding company route, would have at least some
adverse effect on potential competition in that rapidly
growing but concentrated market.

THE FIRST JERSEY NATIONAL BANK, JERSEY CITY, N.J., AND BANK OF COMMERCE, NEWARK,

N.J.
Banking offices

Total assets

Name of bank and type of transaction

Bank of Commerce, Newark, N.J., with
and The First Jersey National Bank, Jersey City, N.J. (374), which had
merged Dec. 26, 1969, under charter and title of the latter bank (374). The
merged bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On August 18, 1969, The First Jersey National Bank,
Jersey City, Hudson County, N.J., with IPC deposits
of $341.9 million, and the Bank of Commerce, Newark,
Essex County, N.J., with IPC deposits of $51.2 million,
applied to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to merge under the charter and
with the title of the former.
The First Jersey National Bank was chartered
April 9, 1864 under the name of the First National
Bank of Jersey City. It remained so until July 1, 1968,
when the name was changed to The First Jersey National Bank. The bank presently has total resources
of $438.8 million, and operates, in addition to its main
office, 11 full-time branches plus a facility at the Military Ocean Terminal in Bayonne.
Jersey City, the headquarters of the charter bank,
is located in the center of Hudson County, directly
across the Hudson River from lower Manhattan. The
county, which is a peninsula, has a population of over
600,000 people, and its largest city, Jersey City, has
a population in excess of 250,000 persons. The county




$71, 455, 473
408, 151,084
479,606,557 I

is primarily industrial, with over 30 percent of its 44
square miles of land area devoted to industrial purposes. Manufacturing in Hudson County produces
electronics, wearing apparel, metals, machinery, and
chemicals. This accounts for $100 million in annual
payrolls. Although heavily industrialized, the county
has experienced little economic growth in the last 20
years, and in recent years, the population has declined
slightly. A large portion of its land area is low meadows,
flooded by coastal tidewater. Development of such land
appears ready to take place in the near future, in view
of the growing industrial and residential needs of burgeoning metropolitan New York City. Industry regards
it as prime land because of its proximity to the Hudson
River and Newark Bay, both of which accommodate
ocean navigating vessels. Residential developers plan
high-rent apartments, capitalizing on the county's nearness and accessibility to New York City, and the inability of New York to meet its own housing demands.
The Bank of Commerce, the merging bank, is a sixbranch institution, with total assets of $67.5 million,
operating wholly within Newark, N.J. The bank was
chartered in April 1902, as the West Side Trust Com-

127

pany. On November 23, 1956, it merged with the Bank
of Commerce, under the charter of the West Side Trust
Company, and assumed its present title.
Newark, with an estimated population of 410,000,
is the most populous city in New Jersey, and the 30th
largest city in the Nation. Located in Essex County, in
the heart of industrialized northeast New Jersey, and
less than 2 miles from New York City, Newark is the
industrial and transportation center, as well as the
leading financial city in the State. With a 612-acre
port, Newark can handle ocean navigating vessels.
Newark Airport, currently one of the Nation's busiest,
anticipates continued need by the surrounding communities, and therefore has embarked on a $270 million expansion plan to increase capacity by 50 percent.
Industrially, the city numbers among the top 30
municipalities in the United States in production per
square mile. The industries concentrate primarily in
chemicals, metals, machinery, electrical goods, textiles, printing, and foodstuffs. Not the least significant
fact is that Newark is a leading brewery center. P. Ballentine & Son is headquartered in the city; Pabst Blue
Ribbon and Anheuser-Busch presently are investing
$60 million in production facilities. As a financial center, Newark boasts the State's three largest commercial
banks, the largest savings and loan association, and the
largest savings bank, as well as the headquarters of
four major insurance companies and the principal
office of the Hospital and Medical Service Plans of
New Jersey. The city also serves as a major cultural
center for New Jersey, with a large, modern branch of
Rutgers University, an engineering college, and the
New Jersey College of Medicine and Dentistry.
Consideration of Newark with its first-class location,
resources of people, transportation facilities, and
economic capabilities would not be complete without
pointing out that it is also a model example of a city
beset by urban blight. However, assisted by Federal
and State aid, the city presently is undergoing a residential, commercial, and industrial redevelopment
encompassing more than 2,500 acres which, when completed in 1975, will represent an investment in excess
of $1 billion of public and private funds.
There is no significant competition between the applicant institutions. Because New Jersey banking law
forbade intercounty branching prior to July 17, 1969,
neither bank was able to move into the other's territory. Moreover, the Bank of Commerce, with all six
branches in Newark, chose to localize its activities to
the immediate city. Although the Harrison branch of
128



The First Jersey National Bank is but 1 mile from the
principal office of the Bank of Commerce, the main
offices of the two institutions are 7 miles apart. Distance in this case is misleading since Hudson County
and, more specifically, Jersey City are separated from
Newark by Newark Bay and the two rivers that discharge into the Bay. In retrospect, it appears that the
pre-July 1969 banking law, the topography of the area,
and the presence of numerous other large institutions
which extend credit and services in northern New Jersey and nearby New York City account for the present
lack of competition between the institutions. The applicants have only eight mutual borrowers, with total
borrowings of $3 million; five of these eight are finance
companies, which, by their nature, seek out many lines
of credit. Competitive overlap of depositors between
the two institutions is minimal. First Jersey is said to
obtain about 3 percent of its deposits and 4 percent of
its loans from Essex County; Bank of Commerce obtains less than 1 percent of its business from outside
Essex County. While the new banking law allows the
Bank of Commerce and First Jersey National Bank to
branch into the other's service area, this does not appear to be practical. Commerce has neither the capital
resources nor the management capability to permit
such an aggressive plan. The First Jersey National
Bank, while having the capital, would have very limited access to Essex County due to the home office
protection rule. Only the small communities of
Verona and Irvington, where no other bank has a
home office, are available for branching purposes.
Approval of the proposed merger will not adversely
affect area competition, nor will it unduly concentrate
assets in the resulting bank. This application, if it is
to be assessed realistically, must be viewed in its relation to metropolitan New York City. In the boroughs
of Manhattan and Brooklyn there are 40 commercial
banks recording total domestic deposits of $62.8 billion.
Essex County currently has 17 commercial banks, with
113 offices, and total deposits in excess of $2.4 billion;
five savings banks, with deposits of $1.4 billion; and
42 savings and loan associations, with aggregate deposits of $1.3 billion. In the immediate trade area of
Newark, the merging bank is only a slight competitor in
its own market. It is a $67 million bank situated in a
city with the State's three largest commercial institutions, the $764 million First National State Bank, the
$619 million Fidelity Union Trust Company, and the
$600 million National Newark and Essex. Together,
the three banks have almost $2 billion in deposits,

which is practically all of the deposits of the city,
and 15 percent of the $13.2 billion aggregate deposits
of all New Jersey commercial banks. The addition of
the $438 million charter bank into the Newrark area
certainly will not repress competition by unduly concentrating assets. On the contrary, it will strengthen
rivalry by providing a viable competitor for three other
Newark banks.
The merger is expected to be highly beneficial to
the inhabitants of the resultant bank's service area. It
will replace a small and relatively ineffective competitor
with a highly competitive, full-service institution which
will act as a catalyst to intensify competition among
the other Essex County banks, especially the three
large Newark banks. Likewise, the merger is a feasible
alternative for the charter bank which is forbidden to
branch into Newark under the home office protection
clause of New Jersey's branching law.
The benefits from the merger will be innumerable.
The management succession problem of the Bank
of Commerce will be resolved. The merger will provide
an alternative to the borrowing needs of the larger
businesses in the area who presently look to the large
Newark or New York City banks. The resulting bank
will have a full scale trust department, whereas the
merging bank had only a part-time trust officer. The
customers of the resulting bank will be able to obtain
Master Charge credit cards. Also, customers of the
bank will be offered electronic data processing services.
Additional services of First Jersey National include a
travel service, a wide variety of savings and deposit
programs, and an international division. Furthermore,
the area development staff of the resulting bank, which
assists industrial and commercial development, should
be a welcome addition to the Newark community, to
assist in effectuating and continuing the success of the
urban renewal program now in progress.
Applying the statutory7 criteria to the proposed
merger, we find that it is in the public interest and the
application is, therefore, approved.
NOVEMBER 20,




1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

Although the merging banks are in different counties and metropolitan centers, their primary service
areas are adjacent and closely connected by major
railroads, including the Hudson "Tubes", and numerous bridges and highways, including the Pulaski
Skyway and the New Jersey Turnpike.
Three of First Jersey's branches, in Kearney and
Harrison, are close to the county line, at distances of
3,000 feet, 1, and 2 miles, respectively, from Commerce's head office in downtown Newark. First Jersey
derives approximately $11.5 million in deposits, and
$8.7 million in loans, from Essex County. There is,
thus, a significant amount of direct competition between the two banks that will be eliminated by the
proposed merger.
Both metropolitan areas here are highly concentrated. In the Jersey City SMSA, the four largest of 11
banks hold about 80 percent of total deposits and
IPC demand deposits; of these First Jersey is the largest,
with about one-third of total deposits and IPC demand
deposits.
In the adjoining Newark SMSA, the three largest
of 41 banks hold about 50 percent of total deposits
and about 53 percent of IPC demand deposits. Commerce is the fifth largest bank; it has, however, only
1.6 percent total deposits and IPC demand deposits.
Under recent changes in New Jersey banking law,
First Jersey is permitted to open bank offices in Essex
County. The possibility of meaningful de novo entry3
however, is substantially limited by the home office
protection provisions of the new law which foreclose
the opening of new offices in the city of Newark area
and limit de novo opportunities to two relatively small
suburban communities.
De novo entry by Commerce into Hudson County is
now also permissible; because of its relative size and
growth rate, however, it cannot be regarded as among
the most likely entrants into the area.
The proposed merger will eliminate some direct and
potential competition in metropolitan Newark, and
may have some adverse effect on competition.

129

UNITED STATES NATIONAL BANK, SAN DIEGO, CALIF., AND BANK OF SANTA ANA, SANTA ANA, C A L I F .

Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

Bank'of Santa Ana, Santa Ana, Calif., with
and United States National Bank, San Diego, Calif. (10391), which had
merged Dec. 29, 1969, under charter and title of the latter bank (10391). The
merged bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On October 3, 1969, the Bank of Santa Ana, Santa
Ana, Calif., and United States National Bank, San
Diego, Calif., applied to the Office of the Comptroller
of the Currency for permission to merge under the
charter and with the title of the latter.
The United States National Bank, with IPC deposits of $323 million, was first established in 1913. In
addition to its main office, it operates 12 branches in
San Diego County, 10 in Orange County, 27 in Los
Angeles County, one in Riverside County, and two in
San Bernardino County.
The service area of the charter bank encompasses
all of San Diego County, with a population of 1.3
million, approximately one-half of whom reside in the
city of San Diego. It also covers the counties of Orange,
Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino. This
five-county area has enjoyed dynamic growth, and
represents the four primary market areas of Southern
California. The economic base of San Diego, Orange,
and Los Angeles counties is stable and highly diversified in agriculture, industry, foreign and domestic
finance and trade, and many other commercial and
service activities, including aircraft and aerospace
research and development, fishing, tourism, oil production, manufacturing of all types, military establishments, and retail trade. The inland counties of
Riverside and San Bernardino are alike, both geographically, and economically, and are officially
designated as a standard metropolitan statistical
area, Portions of these counties are mountainous
and dotted with lakes, streams, and rivers, making
them ideal resort and vacation areas. The counties
have significant manufacturing facilities and large military installations within their boundaries. The economy of this area is principally dependent on wholesale
and retail trade, with significant contributions from
manufacturing, service industries, and construction.
The merging Bank of Santa Ana, with IPC deposits
of $20 million, was organized in 1961. It operates one

130



$20, 523, 465
508, 125, 667
515, 818, 939

To be
operated

2
54
56

branch in Santa Ana, about 3 miles to the south of its
head office, and has applied for permission to establish
a second branch in Santa Ana. The bank has experienced satisfactory growth since its inception. This
growth has not, however, been commensurate with
the growth of the area it serves. While the bank conducts a general banking business, its commercial loans
are oriented to real estate investments and transactions,
and it does not provide trust services. The bank has
limited lending capabilities and lacks full-service facilities. It is presently faced with a management succession problem.
A survey of deposit accounts conducted by the merging bank designates the Anaheim-Santa Ana-Garden
Grove SMSA as the primary service area of the bank.
This area comprises 782 square miles and has a population of 1.3 million, an increase of almost 600,000
people since 1960. This area has close economic and
social ties with all of the counties in Southern California, and its residents enjoy a high degree of mobility
resulting from the highly developed network of freeways and expressways throughout Los Angeles and
Orange counties. This social and economic interchange, and ease of travel, make financial institutions
in the Los Angeles-Long Beach SMSA readily available banking alternatives. The Anaheim-Santa AnaGarden Grove Metropolitan Area is the second fastest
growing metropolitan area in California. The economy
of this area, which is the same as Orange County where
it is located, can be best described as dynamic. Orange
County, as a whole, has experienced phenomenal residential, commercial, and industrial growth since 1950,
during which time its population has increased from
216,000 to a presently estimated 1.4 million. The economic emphasis has shifted from a predominantly agricultural economy to one well diversified in industry,
manufacturing, services, and tourism.
There are 192 banking offices of 19 commercial
banks within Orange County. In addition, there are
59 offices of 37 savings and loan associations and many
other financial institutions in the county. In an area

extending approximately 2 miles from the offices of
the merging bank, there are 36 offices of 14 banks, including offices of California's largest statewide banks.
The Bank of Santa Ana holds approximately 1 percent
of the total commercial bank deposits in Orange
County. The charter bank, through its 10 offices operating in the area, holds slightly less than 3.5 percent of
the total commercial bank deposits in this market area.
The resulting bank will have about 4.5 percent of the
total bank deposits in the area.
Because of the common ownership and control of
the participating banks, there is no competition presently existing between them to be eliminated by consummation of this merger. Moreover, the lending
activities of the merging bank are principally geared
to the small borrower, while the charter bank concentrates on the commercial and wholesale side of banking, as well as the retail side. In a sense, the banks
could offer alternative banking sources to retail banking customers. However, there is an impressive number
of banking alternatives in the area. What is needed is
another viable and aggressive institution which will
provide full banking services and strong competition
to the larger banks in the area to help maintain a
healthy competitive climate.
The impact of this merger on competition will not
be adverse. Although one bank will be eliminated by
the merger, a larger bank, more capable of competing
with the much larger statewide banks operating in
Orange County, will replace it. The combined institution will, however, still be far behind the Bank of
America NT&SA, with 65 offices in the county, Security Pacific National Bank, with 38 offices; United California Bank, with 26 offices; and Crocker-Citizens
National Bank, with 15 offices. The merger will have
no competitive impact on the other market areas of the
charter bank, which include the intensely banked Los
Angeles and San Diego market areas.
Consummation of the proposed merger will benefit
the communities in which the resulting bank will operate by introducing an institution capable of accommodating all legitimate credit requests. This merger
will, besides solving the management succession problem at the merging bank, make available to the clientele of the Bank of Santa Ana the more sophisticated
and extended services which the charter bank now
offers to its customers, including trust services. Economies of scale from the combined operation will result.
Considered in the light of the statutory criteria, this

383-814—70



-10

merger is deemed to be in the public interest. The application is, therefore, approved.
NOVEMBER 26,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

U.S. National has 10 branches in the AnaheimSanta Ana-Garden Grove SMSA; four of them are at
distances of 1.1 to 5 miles from Santa Ana's main office.
Because of their geographic proximity, the two
banks provide convenient alternatives to banking customers in the city of Santa Ana. Thus, the banks are
in direct competition with another; this competition would be eliminated by the proposed merger.
However, the area served by the two banks is also
served by numerous offices of other banks, including
the three largest California branch banking institutions.
The application claims, however, that there is a significant overlap of ownership interest in the two banks,
attributable to the direct and indirect stock holdings
of the present president and chairman of the board of
U.S. National. No information is provided in the application, however, as to the time or circumstances
under which these overlapping interests arose. From
other information, we have concluded that any
common ownership arose quite recently. Therefore,
since this common ownership probably came about in
contemplation of the proposed merger, should this
merger not go through, it: is likely that the common
ownership will soon dissolve. Therefore, we believe
the competitive factors should be considered.
In the Anaheim-Santa Ana-Garden Grove SMSA,
the market shares of the applicant banks are relatively
limited. The 10 branches of U.S. National hold $36
million, or 2.2 percent of total deposits, and $15 million, or 2.4 percent, of IPC demand deposits; Santa
Ana's two offices hold only $15 million, less than
1 percent of total deposits, and $8.4 million, or 1.4 percent of IPC demand deposits. The three largest banks
in the SMSA, however, hold 70 percent of total deposits and 66 percent of IPC demand deposits. Within
the city of Santa Ana, U.S. National already has one
office and it has four others in the vicinity. However,
within Santa Ana, four other banks hold over 70 percent of commercial bank deposits, while Santa Ana
Bank held around 5 percent. Altogether, 13 banks
presently serve the city of Santa Ana; many are
branches of major State or regional banks. Therefore,
the increase in concentration which will result from
this merger is not likely to be substantial.

131

O L D NATIONAL BANK OF WASHINGTON, SPOKANE, W A S H . , AND KENNEWICK NATIONAL BANK, KENNEWICK, W A S H .

Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

Kennewick National Bank, Kennewick, Wash. (15493), with
was purchased Dec, 30, 1969, by Old National Bank of Washington, Spokane,
Spokane, Wash. (4668), which had
After the purchase was effected, the receiving bank had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On June 30, 1969, Old National Bank of Washington, Spokane, Spokane, Wash., applied to the
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to purchase the assets and assume the liabilities
of Kennewick National Bank, Kennewick, Wash.
Spokane, home of the applicant bank, has a population of 190,000, making it the second largest city in
the State. It is approximately 285 miles east of
Seattle and 17 miles west of the Idaho State line. It
is the heart of the region called the "Inland Empire",
which includes eastern Washington, northern Idaho,
and western Montana and supports an aggregate
population of 1.2 million. The local economy is diversified but stable, being maintained primarily by lumbering, mining, agriculture, and the raising of livestock.
There are more than 41,000 farms in the "Inland
Empire", which, in 1968, had a cash income of some
$600 million. The forest products industry has a
stimulating impact, with a payroll of $120 million distributed among 28,000 workers. Manufacturing, while
still second to agriculture and its related activities, is
increasing, and now accounts for annual wages of
some $100 million. Presently, over 350 manufacturing firms in and around Spokane employ about 13,000
people. Fairchild Air Force Base, with 4,700 permanent military and civilian personnel, and an annual
payroll of $27 million, is 15 miles west of the city. Four
transcontinental railroads, three airlines, and 35
carrier trucking firms serve the city's transportation
needs.
Old National Bank of Washington, Spokane, the
charter bank, was organized in 1891, and presently has
IPC deposits of $232 million in its head office and 37
branches. It has the largest branch system in eastern
Washington, and is the fifth largest bank in the State.
It is a subsidiary of Washington Bancshares, Inc.,
Spokane, Wash., a registered bank holding company
which controls one other bank, the First National Bank

132



To be
operated

$3,151,116

1

290, 858, 327
294, 009, 443

37
38

of Spokane, a $35 million institution with five
branches.
Kennewick, the home of the selling bank, has a
population of 17,000 people, and is situated some 150
miles southwest of Spokane and 230 miles southeast
of Seattle, at the junction of Columbia and Yakima
rivers. It is but one of three cities built around the
concourse of the two rivers. Aggregately, Kennewick
and the other two cities, Richland and Pasco, support
over 100,000 people through agricultural and industrial
activities. Two decades ago, this region was largely
wasteland, but the institution of the Columbia Basin
Project has helped to transform the area into productive farm land and a thriving manufacturing center. The Columbia River, navigable from the Pacific
Ocean, the local Hanford Plutonium Plant, and an
adequate source of water, have attracted some of the
largest firms in the country, including U.S. Rubber
Co., Atlantic-Richfield Corp., and Battelle Northwest
Laboratories. These enterprises collectively employ
almost 9,000 of the local citizenry. This is considered
the fastest growing area in Washington and the recent
construction of several hotels, hospitals, shopping centers, and industrial plants reinforces the present economic activity of the region.
The Kennewick National Bank, the selling institution, with IPC deposits of $2.4 million, was organized
in 1965 under the guidance of the applicant bank. The
goals of the selling bank are still largely unrealized.
Deposits have been far lower than expected, earnings
have been small, and no cash dividends have been paid
to date. Until 2 years ago, excessive loan loss was a
serious problem, but with the applicant bank management virtually taking over all the affairs of the selling
bank, this problem has now been solved. Decisions of
consequence are presently made by the applicant bank's
management. The proposed acquisition will have little
if any effect on competition between the two banks.
Although the charter bank operates two facilities in
Pasco and one in Richland, all of which are less than

10 miles from the selling bank in Kennewick, the
Columbia and Yakima rivers offer a natural physical
barrier to competitive interaction. A more important
consideration is the present ties that exist between the
management of the purchasing and selling banks. This
has served to limit the effective competition between
the two institutions.
The purchase of Kennewick National Bank will not
unduly concentrate assets in the resulting bank, nor
adversely affect the banking structure in the selling
bank's trade area. The purchasing bank, with total
deposits of $262 million, is the fifth largest bank in
the State, holding approximately 6 percent of the
statewide deposits. With the selling bank having total
deposits of $2.9 million, which represents 0.1 percent
of total State deposits, the resulting bank's asset structure remains virtually the same. The trade area of
the selling bank, embracing the cities of Kennewick,
Pasco, and Richland, is served by offices of six commercial banks, including the State's two largest institutions, Seattle-First National, with a branch in each
tri-city, and National Bank of Commerce of Seattle,
with branches in Kennewick and Richland. Together,
the branches of these two banks alone account for $68
million of the area's deposits. Consummation of the
proposed merger will add only the selling bank's $2.8
million in deposits to the $10 million deposited in the
Pasco and Richland branches of the purchasing bank.
The competition eliminated by the acquisition will
be negligible, and more than offset by the advantages
that evolve. The management problems that presently
exist will be resolved. Also, the people of Kennewick
will be served by an institution that can offer more
services than the selling bank presently affords. The
applicant, in maintaining the selling bank as a branch,
can more effectively serve Kennewick and its inhabi-

tants, thereby overcoming the natural barrier of the
rivers and their bridges, which limit access to and
from the city.
Therefore, considered in light of the statutory criteria, this merger is judged to be in the public interest
and is approved.
NOVEMBER 24,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

Old National, fifth largest bank in the State of
Washington, maintains two branches in Pasco, 4 miles
from Kennewick; a branch in Richland, 9 miles
northwest; and another in Benton City, 20 miles west
of Kennewick. Three of the largest banks in Washington State, based in Seattle and Tacoma, are represented by branches in Pasco, Kennewick, and Richland. Total deposits in the Tri-City area amount to
$87.5 million. Eighty-five percent is shared by National
Bank of Commerce, Seattle First National, and
Peoples National Bank of Washington. Old National's
share is 11.7 percent, and Kennewick Bank's 3.2
percent.
Although Old National's concentrated banking
position in the State will not be affected, the proposed
acquisition will eliminate the only independent bank
remaining in the Tri-City area, as well as such competition as presently exists between Kennewick Bank and
branches of Old National and others situated nearby.
Under State law, the entry of another bank into
Kennewick or the Tri-City area by de novo branching
is prohibited. Remington Rev. Wash,, Stat. 30.40.020.
Hence, a bank not presently serving this area can enter
only by acquiring an existing bank. This merger will
eliminate all other statewide banks not presently serving this area from the opportunity of serving this area
by acquiring Kennewick Bank.

ZIONS FIRST NATIONAL BANK, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, AND UTAH NATIONAL BANK OF PROVO, PROVO, UTAH
Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

Utah National Bank of Provo, Provo, Utah (15054), with
i
was purchased Dec. 30, 1969, by Zions First National Bank, Salt Lake City, Utah |
(4341), which had
j
After the purchase was effected, the receiving bank had
;




$7, 225, 000
247, 538, 000
254, 763, 000 |.

To be
operated
1

14 !
15

133

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On June 26, 1969, Zions First National Bank, Salt
Lake City, Utah, applied to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to purchase the
assets and assume the liabilities of Utah National Bank
of Provo, Provo, Utah.
Zions First National Bank, the purchasing bank, with
IPC deposits of $172.8 million, was organized in 1890.
In addition to its head office in downtown Salt Lake
City, this bank operates 14 branches, all but two of
which are situated in Salt Lake County.
The purchasing bank primarily serves metropolitan
Salt Lake City, which includes Salt Lake County and
the southern part of Davis County, although it has
no offices in that latter county. It also serves Spanish
Fork, Utah, which is 65 miles south, through one
branch, and Heber City, Utah, 50 miles southeast, by
another branch office. Salt Lake City, the county seat
of Salt Lake County, and the State capital, has an
estimated metropolitan population of 490,000. It is
Utah's major population, industrial and commercial
center. The economy of the general vicinity is widely
diversified in mining, manufacturing, transportation,
agriculture, commerce, and military activities. Competing in this densely populated area are nine other banks,
including offices of Utah's largest statewide banks.
Although the purchasing bank is the third largest bank
in the State, its operations are confined primarily to
the Salt Lake City area. A number of other financial
institutions also compete with the purchasing bank.
Utah National Bank of Provo, the selling bank, has
IPC deposits of $4.9 million, and is a unit bank
chartered in 1962. This bank has a high proportion
of classified assets, is inadequately staffed, and its management is lacking in experience. It is not a full-service
institution. Its lending limit appears inadequate to
service its community's need for larger loans.
Provo, the home of the selling bank, is the county
seat of Utah County, and the third largest city in
Utah, with an estimated population of 44,200. Located
about 45 miles south of Salt Lake City, Provo serves as
a trading center for a population estimated at 124,966.
While the Provo area is an important industrial area,
the rest of Utah County is an important agricultural
area of the State. Brigham Young University, with
23,000 students, and Utah Technical College are also
located in Provo.
In addition to the selling bank, which has total
deposits of $7 million, First Security Bank of Utah,
N.A., the State's largest bank, with total deposits of
$532.6 million; Walker Bank and Trust Company, the
134



State's second largest bank, with total deposits of $279.5
million; Central Bank and Trust Company, with total
deposits of $23.1 million; and the Orem State Bank,
with total deposits of $4.2 million, compete in the
area. Other financial institutions are also operative
here.
The proposed transactions will benefit the Provo
area by introducing, in place of the limited selling
bank, another full-service institution capable of adequately serving the area's banking needs. The buying
bank will be able to provide its Provo office with experienced management and adequate office staff. The
need for refurbishing the existing banking facilities of
the selling institution will also be met.
Competition will not be adversely affected by the
transaction. Because the service areas of the two banks
are widely separated, there is little competition between them. Such competition as there is between the
selling bank and the closest two offices of the purchasing institution, which are about 12 miles apart, is
deemed insignificant. Because of the small size of the
selling bank in relation to the buying institution, there
will be no effect in the Salt Lake City area. In the
Provo area the merger will introduce an office of the
State's third largest bank to compete with existing
offices of the State's first and second largest banks.
Through this acquisition, the purchasing bank will become more truly a statewide institution, with offices in
two of the larger economic centers of the State, rather
than a regional institution, with activities confined to
but one section of the State. Its position as third largest
bank in the State will remain unchanged.
Because of the peculiarities of the Utah statutes,
this proposal cannot have an adverse effect on potential competition. Under the home office protection
provision of State law, as long as Utah National Bank
of Provo remains an independent organization, no
other bank may open a de novo branch in the city.
When the office of Utah National becomes a branch
of the acquiring bank, the city will be open to de novo
branching. Already, three banks have filed applications
for four branches in Provo, thereby stimulating the
competitive banking structure in the area.
Considered in the light of the statutory criteria, this
merger is judged to be in the public interest and is,
therefore, approved.
AUGUST 19,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

The closest office of Zions National to Provo is located 12 miles to the south in Spanish Fork. There is

one bank in the intervening area. The proposed merger
would not appear to eliminate a significant amount of
existing competition.
Under Utah law, no bank may open a de novo
branch office in Provo while Utah National remains
an independent, locally-headquartered bank. Thus,
while Zions National has the resources to be considered
among likely potential entrants, it is legally barred
from entering at the present time. Should Utah Na-

tional became affiliated with any other bank, Zions
National would be among the most likely potential
de novo entrants into Provo. In view of its relatively
modest resources, Utah National does not appear to be
a likely de novo entrant into areas served by Zions
National.
The proposed merger would eliminate home office
protection from Provo, enabling any bank in the State
to open new offices in the city.

BELLEFONTAINE NATIONAL BANK, BELLEFONTAINE, O H I O , AND T H E FARMERS BANKING COMPANY, W E S T LIBERTY, O H I O

Banking offices
Total assets

Name of bank and type of transaction

To he
operated

In
operation

The Farmers Banking Company, West Liberty, Ohio, with
and Bellefontaine National Bank, Bellefontaine, Ohio (13749), which had
merged Dec. 31, 1969, under charter and title of the latter bank (13749). The
merged bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On September 30,1969, The Farmers Banking Company, West Liberty, Ohio, and the Bellefontaine National Bank, Bellefontaine, Ohio, applied to the Office
of the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to
merge under the charter and with the title of the
latter.
Bellefontaine National Bank, with IPC deposits of
$10.3 million, was chartered in 1933. It operates one
in-town drive-in branch and has one out-of-town
branch approved, but unopened in East Liberty.
The Farmers Banking Company, with IPC deposits
of $2.5 million, was established August 12, 1892, and
operates as a unit bank.
Bellefontaine, the county seat of Logan County, has
a population of about 12,000. It is situated in westcentral Ohio, 56 miles northeast of Dayton, Ohio, 56
miles northwest of Golumbus, Ohio, and 96 miles south
of Toledo. The economy is based primarily on industry,
with 18 firms employing over 4,000 area residents.
Several of the more prominent employers are Westinghouse Electric Corp., Rockwell Manufacturing Co.,
and H. K. Porter Co. As a county seat, it has a substantial number of retail outlets, as well as municipal
offices, within its boundaries. In addition to the charter
bank, Bellefontaine is also served by the $10.1 million
Logan County Bank.
West Liberty, home of the $3.3 million merging




$3, 548, 747
13,994, 116

1

2

17,542,863

bank, is located on the southern boundary of Logan
County, 8 miles south of Bellefontaine. It has a population of 1,522 persons and a service area population
of 7,500 persons. The economy is based primarily on
agricultural pursuits, although a limited amount of
industrial activity is conducted in the community itself. The merging bank is the only bank present.
Logan Gounty has a population in excess of 35,000,
of which 11,000 are employed in the county. Industry
is the mainstay of the county, with agriculture of secondary importance. Of 295,048 acres of land in the
county, 244,850 acres are farmland. Presently under
construction in the eastern part of the county, and
the western part of Union County, which is adjacent
thereto, is a multimillion dollar Ohio Transportation
Research Center. The facility is a joint venture of the
Ohio Department of Highways and Ohio State University, with most of the cost being funded by the Federal Government. It is estimated that this facility will
generate employment for 50,000 to 85,000 workers,
and will bring into the area as many as 100,000 new
residents in 5 to 10 years.
Banking competition in Logan County is generated
by nine banks, operating 10 offices. The largest is the
charter bank. The merging bank ranks fifth. In addition to the above competition, there are seven savings
and loan associations located in the service area. In the
aggregate, they hold $78.3 million in total resources,
including $64.3 million in real estate mortgage loans.

135

There are also five credit unions and five personal loan
companies, in Bellefontaine, competing for consumertype loans, as well as several Federal agencies providing
long-term financing for farmers.
This merger will provide the residents of West Liberty with an institution which will have an expanded
lending limit and will offer more efficient service. The
resulting bank will be in a better position to participate
in the county expansion, incident to establishment of
the Ohio Transportation Research Center, and the related industries that will follow. It will be the solution
to the charter bank's management succession problem, expected on the retirement of that bank's senior
officers.
The merger will not adversely affect competition.
Although the merging banks operate in the same
county, their service areas overlap only slightly and, as
a consequence, there is only insignificant competition
between them to be eliminated. In Bellefontaine, the
charter bank will be able to remain competitive with
The Logan County Bank when, and if, that bank becomes a subsidiary of BancOhio Corporation. The
merging bank is the only bank in operation in West
Liberty, and the merger will have no adverse competitive effect in that area. Countywide, the resulting
bank will continue as the largest bank. Although the
resulting bank will retain its number one ranking in
size in the county, the $14 million Champaign National

Bank, and the $14.6 million Citizens National Bank,
both headquartered in Urbana, will provide significant
competition.
Applying the statutory criteria, it is concluded that
the merger is in the public interest. The application is,
therefore, approved.
NOVEMBER 26,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

Bellefontaine National's head office is about 8 miles
from Farmers' head office, and there are no other
banking offices between them. There is, therefore some
existing competition between the two banks which
would be eliminated by the merger.
Nine banks operate 11 offices in Logan County as of
June 30, 1968; Bellefontaine National ranked first in
total deposits, with 27 percent, and the three largest
banks in the county (including Bellefontaine) held 68
percent of total deposits. If the proposed merger were
consummated, Bellefontaine National would have 34
percent, and the three largest banks would have 75
percent of total deposits in the county. The proposed
merger would, therefore, result in a substantial increase in concentration in the Logan County commercial banking market.
We therefore conclude that the proposed merger
would have an adverse effect on competition in Logan
County.

DEPOSIT GUARANTY NATIONAL BANK, JACKSON, MISS., AND CITY BANK & TRUST COMPANY, NATCHEZ, MISS.
Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

City Bank & Trust Company, Natchez, Miss., with
and Deposit Guaranty National Bank, Jackson, Miss. (15548), which had
merged Dec. 31, 1969, under charter and title of the latter bank (15548). The
merged bank at date of merger had

The "Comptroller's Decision" and the "Summary of
Report by Attorney General" for this case appeared in
the 1968 Annual Report under the heading "Ap-

136



$28, 746, 698
440, 122, 649
467, 004, 304

To be
operated

4
24
28

proved, but in litigation", This merger was not
consummated until 1969.

FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF SOUTH JERSEY, EGG HARBOR TOWNSHIP, N.J., AND THE SALEM NATIONAL BANK & TRUST COMPANY,
SALEM, N.J.
Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
To be
operated

First National Bank of South Jersey*, Egg Harbor Township, N.J. (8800), with,
and The Salem National Bank & Trust Company, Salem, N.J. (1326), which had..
consolidated Dec. 31, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (1326) and title "First
National Bank of South Jersey." The consolidated bank at date of consolidation had.
1

$240, 187, 057
14,453,013
254, 640, 070

21

Formerly Boardwalk National Bank, title changed Dec; 1, 1969.
COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On August 7, 1969, The Boardwalk National Bank,
Egg Harbor Township, N.J., applied to the Office of
the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to
consolidate with The Salem National Bank & Trust
Company, Salem, N.J., under the charter of the latter
and with the title "First National Bank of South
Jersey."
Salem, N.J., with a population of 9,750, is the situs
of the charter bank. Positioned in the southwestern
corner of New Jersey, it is the county seat of a predominantly agricultural county of the same name.
Salem County, with a population of 64,000, has 121,000 acres of land under cultivation. The approximately
1,200 vegetable and dairy farms in the county yield
over $16 million in annual produce, much of which
is contracted for by Seaboard Farms, one of the Nation's largest frozen food operations. While the industrial and manufacturing potential of the county as yet
is largely unrealized, construction expenditures exceeding $25 million were planned, or initiated, in 1969 by
such national firms as B. F. Goodrich^ Monsanto Chemical, DuPont, and Radio Corporation of America, thus
revealing the trend of the future. The Delaware River
and the Chesapeake Bay are contiguous to this county,
and are in part responsible for attracting the county's
present large businesses, DuPont, Anchor Hocking
Glass, H. I. Heinz, and Gaynor Glass, who together
have a $63 million annual payroll, distributed among
10,000 employees.
Egg Harbor Township, N.J., home of the consolidating bank, is an area immediately west of Atlantic City,
in the southern New Jersey resort region. Atlantic
County, with an area of 566 square miles, supports over
177.000 people. The eastern portion of the county,
with its popular beaches, is one of the major resort and
convention centers of the United States; in 1968 alone,
in excess of $59 million was spent for conven-




tions. Several national hotel chains have built, or are
planning to establish themselves, in and around Atlantic City. Yet, the county is not without its industrial base; located in eastern Atlantic County are
Whitehall Laboratories, Lenox China, Prudential Insurance Co., Alberto-Culver Co., Pacemaker Corp.,
Wheaton Plastics, and the National Aviation Facilities
Experimental Center Air Station, together employing
over 5,000 persons. Whereas the eastern portion of
the county is recreation and industry, the central and
western portion continues to reflect the more prevalent
agrarian economy. Truck farms, dealing in vegetables,
apples, peaches, strawberries, and other fruits, predominate. It is evident, however, that industrialization
of the cities is spreading to the agricultural sections as
woodlands around the cities are being rapidly developed into industrial parks; this trend is expected to
continue.
The Salem National Bank & Trust Company, a
unit bank in Salem County, with IPC deposits of
$10 million, was chartered in 1822 as the Salem Steam
Mill and Banking Company. In 1825, the name was
changed to The Salem Banking Company, and conversion to National bank status in 1865 resulted in the title
of Salem National Banking Company, which in 1925
was changed to the present name.
The Boardwalk National Bank, organized in 1907,
has enjoyed excellent growth since its inception, and
presently records IPC deposits of $170.9 million in
its 21 offices, all of which are located in Atlantic
County. In anticipation of the proposed merger, this
bank interchanged its head office in Atlantic City
with a branch office in Black Horse Pike, Egg Harbor
Township. Also, the bank received tentative approval
to change its name to "First National Bank of South
Jersey." The main office of the resulting bank will be
in Egg Harbor.
Consolidation of the two banks will not adversely
effect the banking structure in either bank's present
137

trade area. Both applicants are located in the recently
created Third Banking District of New Jersey, which
comprises the counties of Atlantic, Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Gloucester, Ocean, and
Salem. As of December 31,1968, this bank district contained 75 commercial banks, operating 256 offices,
and holding aggregate assets of $2.4 billion. The Boardwalk National Bank, with total assets of $227 million,
is third only to the $300 million Camden Trust Company and the $257 million First Camden National
Bank, both of Camden, N.J. However, because they
are on opposite sides of the State, the Camden banks
and Boardwalk National are not directly competitive.
The Salem National Bank is the 42d largest bank
operating in the Third Bank District; unlike the Boardwalk National, it is in direct competition with the two
Camden banks. Consummation of the consolidation
would not eliminate competition; rather, it would inject another bank into the western portion of the State
to stimulate and promote more progressive banking
competition with the present banks of the area.
Approval of the proposed consolidation will not unduly concentrate assets in the resulting bank. Although
Boardwalk National is third largest in the district, with
assets of $227 million, this represents only 9.1 percent
of the total district deposits. Upon consolidating, the
resulting bank will continue to rank third in assets,
with $304 million, an increase of only $77 million or
0.5 percent of the total district deposits.
The proposed acquisition will have no effect on competition between the two applicant banks. Since they
service different markets on the opposite sides of the
State, competition is currently nonexistent. The principal offices of the two banks are 68 miles apart, and
the closest operating facilities are separated by 40
miles. The applying banks have no depositors or borrowers in common.
The resulting bank will offer a broader range of
services to the existing customers of the Salem National
Bank. The lending limit will be in excess of $2 million,
as compared to Salem National Bank's current limit of
$137,000. This will put the resulting bank in a position
to serve the present companies in the Salem area who

138



have had to look to Camden, Wilmington, Philadelphia, and New York banks to satisfy their credit needs.
The resulting bank will be able to solicit actively the
accounts of future industry and business that may settle
in the applicant banks' service areas. Trust department facilities will be enlarged in the Salem National
Bank, and management succession now lacking at the
Salem institution will be improved. In addition, computer service will be afforded the customers of Salem
National Bank, and commercial mortgage and installment loan services will be expanded.
Applying the statutory criteria to the proposed consolidation, we find it is in the public interest and the
application is, therefore, approved.
NOVEMBER 26,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

Boardwalk and Salem concentrate operations in two
distinct banking markets, Atlantic County and Salem
County, respectively. There would appear to be little
competition between them that would be eliminated
by the proposed consolidation.
Boardwalk is presently the third largest of some 75
commercial banks in the Third Banking District. Its
large deposit base and tradition of leadership in Atlantic County place it among those banks most able and
most likely to enter new areas of the district. Consummation of the proposed merger would result in its entry
into Salem County through merger with the third
largest bank in the county, and the smaller of two operating offices in Salem itself. In view of Boardwalk's
position as one of the very largest district banks, its
entry into Salem County through merger with one of
the county's smallest banks, or perhaps with a bank as
yet unchartered, might contribute more to competition
in the county than the proposed merger.
However, in view of the relative size of Salem as
compared with other banks in the Third District, and
the structure of the banking community in Salem
County, we do not believe the proposed merger likely
to have a significantly adverse effect on potential
competition.

MARINE MIDLAND NATIONAL BANK OF SOUTHEASTERN NEW YORK, POUGHKEEPSIE, N.Y., AND MARINE MIDLAND TRUST COMPANY
OF ROCKLAND COUNTY, NYACK, N.Y.

Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

Marine Midland Trust Company of Rockland County, Nyack, N.Y., with
,
and Marine Midland National Bank of Southeastern New York, Poughkeepsie,
N.Y. (465), which had
merged Dec. 31, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (465) and title "Marine
Midland Bank of Southeastern New York, N.A." The merged bank at date of
merger had
,

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On August 1, 1969, the Marine Midland Trust
Company of Rockland County, Nyack, N.Y., and the
Marine Midland National Bank of Southeastern New
York, Poughkeepsie, N.Y., applied to the Comptroller
of the Currency for permission to merge under the
charter of the latter and with the title "Marine Midland Bank of Southeastern New York, N.A."
Both participating banks are subsidiaries of Marine
Midland Banks, Inc., Buffalo, N.Y., a registered bank
holding company which holds 93.5 percent of the stock
of both banks. Both banks are in the Third Banking
District of New York. The charter bank, with IPC deposits of $66 million, operates 11 offices in Dutchess,
Sulivan, and Orange counties. The merging bank,
with IPG deposits of $41.2 million, operates nine
offices in Rockland County.
Forty-six commercial banks operate 311 offices in
the Third Banking District in New York. The result-

To be
operated

$86, 495, 299

12

154, 669, 793

11

241,165,093

23

ing bank will be third in size, and will compete with
banks which are subsidiaries of other large holding
companies. The applicant banks do not compete at all
at present. Because they are commonly owned, the proposal represents an internal reorganization of the holding company system, and presents no competitive
changes. The merger, therefore, is approved.
NOVEMBER 24,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

The head offices of the merging banks are 59 miles
apart, and their closest offices are some 15 miles apart.
The application indicates that the merging banks draw
few deposits and loan accounts from each other's
service areas.
However, the proposed merger will not eliminate
any meaningful competition, as both banks are already
owned by the same registered bank holding company.

THE CITIZENS NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, WELLSVILLE, N.Y., AND OLEAN TRUST COMPANY, OLEAN, N.Y.
Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

Olean Trust Company, Olean, N.Y., with
and The Citizens National Bank and Trust Company, Wellsville, N.Y. (4988),
which had
consolidated Dec. 31, 1969, under charter and title of the latter bank (4988). The
consolidated bank at date of consolidation had




To be
operated

$13,606,124

1

37, 506, 790

6

51,112,914

7

139

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On September 8, 1969, the Olean Trust Company,
Olean, N.Y., and The Citizens National Bank and
Trust Company, Wellsville, N.Y., applied to the
Comptroller of the Currency for permission to consolidate under the charter and with the title of the
latter.
The Citizens National Bank and Trust Company,
with IPC deposits of $29.2 million, and headquartered
in Wellsville, was chartered in 1895, and operates
branches in Alfred, Andover, Bolivar, Cuba, and
Whitesville, all in Allegany County.
The village of Wellsville, with a population of about
6,000, lies midway between Hornell and Olean, both
just beyond the boundary of Allegany County. The
service area of the village includes most of Allegany
County and a portion of northern Pennsylvania, encompassing a population of almost 45,000. The
area's largest employers include Worthington Corp.,
manufacturing turbines, and Combustion Engineering,
Inc., manufacturing air preheaters and heat exchangers, which together employ upward of 2,500 on annual
payrolls approaching $20 million.
The Olean Trust Company, with IPC deposits of
$10.7 million, was organized in 1914, and presently
operates as a unit bank. This bank faces a management succession problem as both senior officers are
approaching retirement age and there appears to be
no one in the lower ranks capable of replacing them.
Because most of its loans are in the consumer lending field, this bank is not an active competitor in the
commercial, industrial, and mortgage lending fields,
with the result that it more nearly resembles a credit
union or finance company.
Olean, the largest city in Cattaraugus County, has
a population of about 22,000. Located some 35 miles
west of Wellsville, its service area encompasses a population upwards of 50,000. The area's largest employer
is Acme Electronic Corp., manufacturing power conversion equipment, and employing some 1,200 on an
annual payroll approximately $7 million. Clark Bros.,
Inc., a division of nationally-known Dresser Industries,
Inc., which manufactures oil field equipment, is another large area employer.
Banking competition in the general area is quite
keen, and has accelerated with the 1969 merger of
The Union National Bank of Franklinville, in
Cattaraugus County, and the First Trust Union Bank,
headquartered in Wellsville; First Trust, with deposits
of $43 million, is in direct competition with Citizens,
and is the largest bank in Allegany County. Sixteen
140



banking offices are located in Alleghany County. Should
the present proposal be consummated, Citizens would
still be smaller than First Trust Union Bank.
Olean Trust Company competes with both The Exchange Bank of Olean, which has deposits of $30 million and is a charter member of the $2.5 billion Bank
of New York Co., Inc., and The First National Bank
of Olean, which has deposits of $37 million. The First
National has an application pending to consolidate
with The First National Bank of Jamestown, Chautauqua County, a charter member of Lincoln First
Banks, Inc., which has deposits of $1.2 billion. In the
Ninth Banking District, which is comprised of eight
counties, there is a population estimated at 1.7 million,
served by 32 banks. The consolidating banks rank 10th
and 15th largest, and hold 1 percent and 0.34 percent,
respectively, of the total banking deposits in the district. Included among the institutions in the district,
which is the largest geographical area in which each
bank may branch, are five organizations larger than
$1 billion each.
The proposed consolidation will primarily benefit
the Olean area by solving the management succession
problems of the Olean Trust Company, and by introducing, in place of that bank, a branch of a bank able
and willing to make industrial, commercial, and mortgage loans, as the Olean Trust Company does not
presently do to significant degree. This should have
the effect of stimulating future economic growth, and
meeting the needs for loans which anticipated growth
should create.
The consolidation will have no adverse effect on
competition. Since the nearest offices of the two banks
are over 15 miles apart, there is little direct competition between them. In the Wellsville area, the consolidation will create an institution more capable of
competing with the First Trust Union Bank, the
county's largest, without placing the smaller banks
operating there at a disadvantage. The consolidation
will enable the Olean office of the resulting institution
to more effectively compete with the other two banks
operating there, both of which are larger than the
Olean Trust Company. In the Ninth Banking District,
the consolidation will not unduly disadvantage any
other bank. Potential competition will not be affected
since, under State law, neither bank can branch into
the home office city of the other, and those cities into
which either could branch, near to, and in competition
with, any office of the other, cannot support an additional banking office.
Applying the statutory criteria, it is concluded that

the proposed merger is in the public interest. The
application is, therefore, approved.
NOVEMBER 24,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

The Citizens National Bank and Trust Company
("Citizens National") operates its head office and five
branches in Allegany County, N.Y. Olean Trust Company ("Olean Trust") operates its sole office in Olean,
Cattaraugus County, N.Y.
The closest offices of these two banks are only 15
miles apart. There is little penetration of either bank
into the other's county, however, and their loan port-

folios differ substantially. In addition, there is another
bank, located in Cuba. Despite these factors, some direct competition may be eliminated by the merger.
Applicable law prevents Citizens National from
branching into Olean. Olean Trust, however, could
establish a branch in any of the towns where a Citizens
National branch is located. The only other avenue for
potential competition is the possibility of cross-branching into smaller towns or villages which have no other
commercial banks headquartered there. In view of the
nature of the area and the existence of other potential
entrants in the area, we conclude that the proposed
merger is unlikely to have a significantly adverse effect
on potential competition.

T H E FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF ANCHORAGE, ANCHORAGE, ALASKA, AND THE FIRST BANK OF VALDEZ, VALDEZ, ALASKA

Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

The First Bank of Valdez, Valdez, Alaska with
was purchased Dec. 31, 1969, by The First National Bank of Anchorage, Anchor- |
age, Alaska (12072), which had
After the purchase was effected, the receiving bank had

Because the selling bank was noninsured, the application was filed with and approved by the FDIC. No

To be
operated

$1, 253, 000

1

114, 659, 000
115, 663, 000

13

14

decision was issued by the Comptroller.

T H E FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF OAKLAND, OAKLAND, M D . , AND T H E CITIZENS NATIONAL BANK OF WESTERNPORT, WESTERNPORT,
M D . , AND T H E FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF BARTON, BARTON, M D .

Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

The Citizens National Bank of Westernport, Westernport, Md. (5831), with
The First National Bank of Barton, Barton, Md. (6399), with
and The First National Bank of Oakland, Oakland, Md; (5623), which had
merged Dec. 31, 1969, under charter and title of the latter bank (5623).
The merged bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On September 2, 1969, The First National Bank of
Oakland, Oakland, Md., The First National Bank of
Barton, Barton, Md., and The Citizens National Bank
of Westernport, Westernport, Md., applied to the
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency for permis-




$3, 445, 744
1,651,486
26, 008, 842
31, 106,072

To be
operated
1
1
4
6

sion to merge under the charter and with the title of
"The First National Bank of Oakland," Oakland, Md.
The First National Bank of Oakland was organized
in 1900, and now holds IPC deposits of $21.3 million.
The bank operates branches in the small towns of
Friendsville, McHenry, and Grantsville, all of which
are in Garrett County, which lies in the western-most
141

portion of Maryland, and is surrounded on three sides
by West Virginia and Pennsylvania. Oakland, where
the bank's main office is located, has a population of
1,977 and is in the western portion of Garrett County,
near the border with West Virginia. The charter bank's
market area, which includes adjoining portions of
Pennsylvania and West Virginia, is a mountainous
area whose economy depends principally on agricultural operations, coal mining, and tourism, although
some manufacturing activity is also present.
The Citizens National Bank of Westernport was organized in 1901, and now holds IPC deposits of $2.6
million. This bank, which is not an aggressive competitor, maintains its single banking office in the city of
Westernport, which has a population of 3,559, and lies
in the southeastern tip of Allegany County, just east of
Garrett County. The bank's service area, which includes adjoining portions of West Virginia, is largely
dependent on industry, especially the manufacture of
paper and wood products, with Westvaco (formerly
the West Virginia Pulp and Paper Co.) the principal
employer. In addition, various other national corporations operate plants in this area.
The First National Bank of Barton was organized in
1902, and now holds IPC deposits of $1.4 million.
Barton, where the bank's single office is located, lies in
the western portion of Allegany County, about 6 miles
northeast of Westernport. The service area of this bank
is also primarily dependent upon industry, and again,
principally upon the operations of Westvaco, although
some residents of this area commute to work in nearby
Cumberland. This bank, which is not competitive in its
interest rate structure on deposits, has shown little
growth in recent years.
Since the office of the charter bank nearest to the
offices of the merging banks are 25 and 31 miles apart,
there is virtually no competition between the charter
bank and the merging banks. While the merging banks'
offices are separated by only 6 miles, no significant
competition exists between them, as neither is an
aggressive competitor. When the merger is consummated, the merging banks, as branches of the charter
bank, will be able to meet more effectively the competition now encountered from such larger banks as
The Garrett National Bank in Oakland, which, with
deposits of $21 million, operates a branch in Bloomington, 2 miles west of Westernport; the First National
Bank, Piedmont, W. Va., with deposits of $5.7 million,
which is across the Potomac River from Westernport;
and the Liberty Trust Company of Maryland in Cum-

142



berland, which, with deposits of $42.6 million, operates
a branch in Lonaconing, 3 miles north of Barton. Approval of this application will not affect significantly
the competitive position of the charter bank vis-a-vis
its existing competitors.
When the merger is consummated, the banking public in the service areas of the merging banks will benefit
from the improved range and quality of banking services which the charter bank will offer. The lending
limit of the resulting bank will greatly exceed the lending limits of the merging banks, and will be more responsive to the credit needs of their communities, while
consumer credit financing and trust services will be
made available in these areas. As branches of the
charter bank, the merging banks will offer increased
interest rates on time and savings deposits, thereby
enhancing their competitive position in these areas.
Approval of this application will assure management
continuity to the merging banks.
Applying the statutory criteria, we conclude that
this proposal is in the public interest, and the application is, therefore, approved.
NOVEMBER 26,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

Barton Bank and Westernport Bank are located
within 4 road-miles of one another in a sparsely populated section of western Maryland. There are no banks
in the intervening area. Westernport Bank and Barton
Bank are clearly direct competitors; we conclude that
their merger with Oakland Bank would accordingly
eliminate horizontal competition between them. These
banks are the fourth and fifth largest of the five banking offices serving the southwest Allegany County market. Their combination as branches of Oakland Bank
will still leave them with the smallest market share in
the immediate area, holding about 21 percent of its
total commercial bank deposits.
Maryland law imposes no barriers to branch banking. Oakland Bank has established three branches in
outlying communities of Garrett County in the last 9
years. The proximity of Pennsylvania on the north and
West Virginia on the south and west prevents expansion of Oakland Bank outside its home county, in any
direction but east. Indeed, Oakland Bank's application
not only emphasizes this fact, it also details the attractiveness of the Westernport-Barton area as a prospective target for the bank's expansion. A further
indication of the market's appeal to Oakland Bank is

provided by the fact that the bank's chief competitor,
The Garrett National Bank in Oakland, already has a
branch in the area.
While Oakland Bank would be among the most

likely potential entrants into the southwest Allegany
County market, it should be noted that the county's
commercial banking industry has experienced little
growth in recent years.

THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF RICEVILLE, RICEVILLE, IOWA, AND RICEVILLE STATE BANK, RICEVILLE, IOWA

Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

Riceville State Bank, Riceville, Iowa, with
was purchased Dec. 31, 1969, by The First National Bank of Riceville, Riceville,
Iowa (8442), which had
After the purchase was effected, the receiving bank had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On September 23, 1969, The First National Bank
of Riceville, Riceville, Iowa, applied to the Office of
the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to
purchase the assets and assume the liabilities of the
Riceville State Bank, Riceville, Iowa.
Riceville State Bank, the selling bank, was chartered
under the laws of the State of Iowa in 1892. This
bank, which operates no branches, has total resources
of $1.8 million. Because of a poor loan loss record, the
capital of the bank has not grown adequately to maintain a proper capital to deposit ratio.
The First National Bank of Riceville, the buying
bank, was organized in 1907. This bank, which is in
good condition, has $2.9 millon in total deposits and
operates no branches.
Riceville, a community of 900 inhabitants, is located
on the Howard-Mitchell County line. The town is
primarily dependent upon agriculture and related pursuits, with feed grain crops being the principal product.
Dairying and the raising of feeder cattle and hogs are
also important factors. In general, farm land in the
surrounding area is considerably below the Iowa average, both in value and production. Farm land in the
area is valued at $175 to $350 per acre, compared to
$800 for an average Iowa farm. Although the economy
has been relatively stable and the city population fairly
constant, the number of farms and farmers in the area
have decreased, due to the trend to larger farm units.
Most farms in the area average between 160 and 320
acres, and are steadily increasing in size. Per capita
income is generally lower than the State average.
It is believed that with the trend to larger farm
units, which will also create larger credit requirements,




To be
operated

$2, 073, 000
2, 972, 000
4, 895, 000

consolidation of many of the smaller banks within
the State will occur in increasing numbers. Also, with
both banks serving basically the same trade area, the
proposed combination would create an immediate advantage in meeting these increased demands. No other
new banking services are contemplated at the present
time.
Consummation of this proposal will not have an adverse effect on competition. After this proposal is effected, residents of Riceville will have 12 banking
alternatives within a radius of approximately 20 miles.
Moreover, the resulting bank with its increased lending
limit will be better able to serve the larger loan demands of Riceville residents.
Applying the statutory criteria to the proposed transaction, we conclude that it is in the public interest and
the application is, therefore, approved.
NOVEMBER 28,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

First National (total deposits: $2.6 million) and
State Bank (total deposits: $1.9 million) are the only
banks located in the town of Riceville., Iowa (population 900).
There are 11 banks surrounding Riceville, within a
radius of 23 miles; five are in Howard County, the
nearest located 12 miles southeast of Riceville; four
are in Mitchell County, the nearest located 15 miles
northwest of Riceville; and two are in the State of
Minnesota, 12 miles north of Riceville. Since the maps
showing the location of First National and State Bank
customers indicate that a significant number live in
the area between Riceville and the towns in which
these banks are located, those banks would appear to
143

compete to some degree with First National and State
Bank for these customers.
The proposed merger's primary effect on competition, however, will be in Riceville and the area immediately around that town. It will consolidate the only
two banks located in Riceville, and eliminate the di-

rect competition existing between them. There is,
furthermore, little opportunity to offset this loss of
competition through the establishment of another
banking office in Riceville since branching is prohibited under Iowa law. Thus, the proposed merger will
have an adverse effect on competition in this area.

THE HARRISBURG NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, HARRISBURG, PA., AND THE GONESTOGA NATIONAL BANK, LANCASTER, PA:
AND THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF YORK, YORK, PA.

Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
To be
operated

In
operation

The Conestoga National Bank, Lancaster, Pa. (3987), with
The First National Bank of York, York, Pa. (197), with
and The Harrisburg National Bank and Trust Company, Harrisburg, Pa. (580),
which had
consolidated Dec. 31, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (580) and title
"The Commonwealth National Bank." The consolidated bank at date of consolidation had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On February 10, 1969, The Harrisburg National
Bank and Trust Company, Harrisburg, Pa.3 The Conestoga National Bank, Lancaster, Pa., and The First
National Bank of York, York, Pa., applied to the
Comptroller of the Currency for permission to consolidate under the charter of The Harrisburg National
Bank and Trust Company and with the title of "The
Commonwealth National Bank." A public hearing
was held on this application in Harrisburg, Pa., on
July 9 and 10, 1969.
A primary motive for the proposal is to establish a
local banking institution, in south-central Pennsylvania, of sufficient size to keep pace with the burgeoning economy in the area. The three applicants are
individually of insufficient size to generate the expansion necessary to provide the financial resources and
services local customers now require. As a result, too
many firms in the area take their financial business to
major city banks, a consequence which works to the
detriment of local banks and the regional economy.
While south-central Pennsylvania is the geographical area to be immediately affected by this proposal,
it must be viewed in relation to all of southeast Pennsylvania, of which it is part both geographically and
economically. Southeast Pennsylvania encompasses all,
or most, of the 19 counties lying in the southeastern
quadrant of the State. Within this quadrant are the
following cities: Philadelphia, Harrisburg, York, Lan-

144



$88, 407, 238
66,619,337
216, 367, 917
371, 394, 491

8
6
14
28

caster, Reading, Pottsville, Allentown, Bethlehem,
Pottstown, Norristown, and Lebanon. The southcentral area involved in this proposal includes 10 of the
19 counties, and the cities of Harrisburg, York,
Lancaster, Reading, Pottsville, and Lebanon.
This south-central area of Pennsylvania, affected by
this proposal, centers around the cities of Harrisburg,
York, and Lancaster, in which the participating banks
maintain their main offices. These cities form a triangle, with Harrisburg at the apex. York lies 25 miles
south of Harrisburg and 22 miles west of Lancaster.
Lancaster is 35 miles southeast of Harrisburg. Harrisburg, which is situated at the intersection of the Susquehanna River and the Pennsylvania Turnpike, is
located 105 miles west of Philadelphia, 190 miles east
of Pittsburgh, 85 miles northwest of Wilmington, Delaware, and 75 miles north of Baltimore, Maryland. It
is only 55 miles west of Reading.
The transportation facilities available in this threecity area make it an ideal distribution point. The highway complex in the south-central Pennsylvania region
is particularly attractive to industries seeking new sites.
Harrisburg sits at the conjunction of Interstate 83, running south to Baltimore; the Pennsylvania Turnpike,
that spans the State from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia;
Interstate 81, that will join New Orleans to Canada;
Interstate 78, that connects with Allentown and Bethlehem; and U.S. 15, that goes from Williamsport, Pa.,
to Frederick, Md., where it meets Interstate 70. A new
interstate highway is now under construction between

Harrisburg and Lancaster. Because of the ease and
convenience of transportation this complex of roads
offers to industry and shippers, some 70 motor carriers
have set up operations in Harrisburg. At this time,
there are 30 freight terminals handling merchandise
in and out of the city. Harrisburg, York, and Lancaster
are each served by two railroads. Three commercial
and two commuter airlines serve York and Harrisburg,
and two airlines serve Lancaster.
Harrisburg is the capital of Pennsylanvia and the
county seat of Dauphin County. Dauphin County is the
hub of an eight-county area. It is bounded on the
north by Northumberland County, on the northeast
by Lebanon and Schuylkill counties, on the southeast
by Lancaster County, on the south by York County,
and on the west by Cumberland and Perry counties.
With several thousand government employees in addition to the industrial population, Harrisburg comprises
a mixed residential, diversified industrial, and commercial service center. Agricultural activities are still
important in the surrounding county. Heavy industry,
including steel plants and other manufacturing companies, has entered and expanded into the area in
recent years. Industrial growth has led to an increase in
population. From 1950 to 1960, the population of
Dauphin County increased 11.4 percent to 220,000.
The population of Harrisburg is 80,000.
Lancaster County is predominantly residential, with
significant industrial and commercial activities. The
surrounding area is heavily oriented to agricultural activity and related pursuits. Lancaster County leads the
other 66 counties of the State in value of farm products
sold. The city of Lancaster, 35 miles southeast of Harrisburg, has a population of 61,000, while the population
of Lancaster County is 278,000. These population
figures also reflect growth due to industrial expansion.
In Lancaster County, from 1950 to 1960, the population increased 18.5 percent. Industrial growth has
continued at such a pace that, from 1960 to 1967,
industrial production jumped 62 percent. Between
January 1961, and April 1968, total employment increased by more than 20 percent.
York County's economy, like that of Lancaster
County, is mixed residential, diversified industrial, and
agricultural. There are a large number of manufacturing companies in, and surrounding, the city. Due to
industrial expansion, over 2,000 new jobs were created
in the short period from January 1967 to October
1968. From 1950 to 1960, the population of York
County increased 17.6 percent to 238,000. The population of the city of York is 55,000.
The industrialization of what was once a predomi-




nantly agricultural area has brought many changes in
the three-city area. Labor is becoming scarce; in the
three counties where the applicant banks are headquartered, total employment rose from 320,000 in
1960, to 355,000 in 1966, an increase of 11 percent.
The Pennsylvania Industrial Development Authority
(a State agency which has contributed to the creation
of 125,000 new jobs in Pennsylvania over the last 13
years through its participation in the financing of new
plants and the expansion of old ones) has made larger
loans in this three-city area than anywhere else in the
State. Population is also continuing to increase. In
1960 the population of Dauphin County and its seven
contiguous counties was 1.2 million. It is expected to
have increased to over 1.4 million in 1970, a rise of
16.67 percent.
The Harrisburg National Bank and Trust Company
has its headquarters in Harrisburg. This bank, with
IPC deposits of $137.3 million, is the second largest
bank headquartered in the county, and the third largest
bank operating in the county. It was founded in 1814,
and took a National charter in 1864. In 1893 The
Harrisburg Trust Company was established as an affiliate of the bank to handle its fiduciary business. In
1961, the two institutions merged. The Harrisburg
National Bank and Trust Company now operates
seven offices in Dauphin County, including its main
office and one branch within the city of Harrisburg.
It has four offices in Cumberland County, and one each
in Lancaster, Perry, and York counties.
In the past 5 years, The Harrisburg National Bank
and Trust Company has acquired three branches as a
result of merging. In 1964 The First National Bank of
New Bloomfield was forced to merge because a director,
who was also the attorney who performed its legal
services, was charged with a sizable misappropriation
of funds. The 1966 merger with the Dillsburg National
Bank followed an embezzlement of several hundred
thousand dollars by its chief executive officer. In 1967,
the First National Bank of Elizabethtown merged with
the Harrisburg bank in order to remedy an inadequate
lending limit, and to fulfill a need for modern equipment and technology. De novo branches have been
opened by following customers to their residential area,
in order to provide them with more convenient services.
Harrisburg is the headquarters for three other banks
besides The Harrisburg National Bank and Trust Company, which has total deposits of $156.1 million. There
is the Dauphin Deposit Trust Company, with total deposits of $174.6 million, which has 18 offices in the
Harrisburg service area, six branches and its head office
are in Harrisburg. Its farthest two branches are 39
145

miles away, in Hanover. The Dauphin National Bank,
with total deposits of $2.4 million, and Fulton National
Bank in Lancaster, with total deposits of $99 million,
each have one office in Harrisburg. There are 84 other
banks, including the Reading-based American Bank
and Trust Co. of Pennsylvania, operating in the service
area of Harrisburg. The American Bank & Trust Co.,
with total deposits of $329 million, has over 20 percent
of the market, whereas The Harrisburg National Bank
and Trust Company has less than 10 percent.
The Conestoga National Bank, headquartered in
Lancaster, was organized in 1889. This bank, with
present I PC deposits of $65 million, is the third largest
bank in the city. It operates eight offices of which its
main office and two branches are in the city of Lancaster, and five branches are in the county, within a
radius of 10 miles of the main office. In the past 5
years, it has been involved in one merger and has
opened three de novo branches in the immediate area,
which is highly competitive. Its 1967 merger with the
First National Bank of Landisville was precipitated by
increasing pressure, by larger competitors in Landisville, to provide specialized services and to meet the
convenience and needs of the community.
There are 16 banks operating in the service area of
The Conestoga National Bank, which has total deposits
of $66.1 million. The two larger Lancaster-based banks
are The Lancaster County Farmers National Bank,
which has total deposits of $105.1 million, and The
Fulton National Bank of Lancaster, which has total
deposits of $99 million. The former has 12 branches,
four of which are outside of the city of Lancaster, but
within a radius of 20 miles. The second largest Lancaster-based bank has nine branches, five are outside of
the city of Lancaster and within a radius of 10 miles,
and one is in Harrisburg.
The First National Bank of York, founded in 1864,
now has I PC deposits of $48 million. This bank, which
is third largest in size in its community, operates five
branches in addition to its main office. The main office
and one branch are in the city of York, and the other
four branches are operating in the county. It has been
involved in two mergers, one in 1937 and one in 1942.
Since 1963, when a de novo branch was opened 4 miles
west of its main office, the York applicant has had no
branch or merger growth, one example of its conservative policies.
There are 11 banks in the service area of The First
National Bank of York. Compared with its total deposits of $49.5 million, the National Bank & Trust Company of Central Pennsylvania has total deposits of
$211.3 million, and The York Bank and Trust Com146



pany has total deposits of $122.4 million. The fourth
York-based bank, the Drovers & Merchants National
Bank, has total deposits of $36.8 million, and six
branches, only two of which are outside the city of
York. The largest York bank has 19 branches, 13 of
which are outside of the city. The farthest two branches
are 32 miles north in Middletown. The York Bank and
Trust Company has 13 branches, of which five are up
to 27 miles away from the city.
Under Pennsylvania law, banks may branch de novo
and through merger in the county of their main office,
and into contiguous counties. This means that the consolidated bank can branch in Dauphin County and the
seven counties surrounding it, the same right as the
charter bank now possesses. The charter bank presently has branches in only five of the eight counties.
The resulting bank will have a total of 28 offices in the
same five counties. Within the eight-county area in
which the resulting bank can branch there are a total of
109 banks and 289 banking offices. Of the total deposits held in the banks in this eight-county area, not
including savings banks and other nonbank financial
institutions, the resulting bank will hold about 10
percent.
Within this eight-county area, The Harrisburg National Bank and Trust Company is the 4th largest
bank; The Conestoga National Bank is 9th in size;
and The First National Bank of York is 11th. The regional bank in Reading, the American Bank and Trust
Company, is the largest bank now operating in this
service area. A proposed consolidation of the National
Bank & Trust Company of Central Pennsylvania in
York, the Lancaster County Farmers National Bank in
Lancaster, and the Reading Trust Company in Reading, will create the largest bank in the south-central
region of the State, making the American Bank and
Trust Company in Reading the second largest bank in
the region, and the subject consolidated bank third.
Within the State of Pennsylvania, which ranks 27th in
the country for the share of deposits held by the first,
second, and fifth largest banks, the participating banks
are presently 19th, 46th, and 55th in size. The regional
bank resulting from this consolidation will be the 13th
largest bank in the State, and hold about 1 percent of
the State's total deposits.
The Pennsylvania branch banking statute has an
unusual impact on this proposal. Under the present
laws, a bank may branch de novo, not only in the
county in which its main office is situated, but also into
contiguous counties. By reason of this State statute, the
Harrisburg National Bank can branch de novo in eight
counties, viz. Dauphin, York, Lancaster, Lebanon,

Schuylkill, Northumberland, Perry, and Cumberland.
By the same token, The Conestoga National Bank
of Lancaster can branch de novo in the following
counties: Lancaster, Lebanon, Berks, Chester, York,
and Dauphin. The First National Bank of York
can branch de novo into the counties of York, Lancaster, Dauphin, Adams, and Cumberland. Upon consummation of this proposal, the de novo branching
rights of the resulting bank will be those now possessed
by the Harrisburg National Bank; the other two banks
will have conceded their rights to branch de novo into
Adams, Berks, and Chester counties.
This realignment of de novo branching rights has
significance in assessing this proposal. This yielding up
of branching capabilities in two counties does not
indicate a fear of increased competition which is clearly
coming from the east, but rather a desire to focus
south-central Pennsylvania banking activities in Harrisburg, under the control, and in the hands of, southcentral business interests and residents. It is an attempt
to construct a banking institution of sufficient size and
strength in south-central Pennsylvania to withstand the
impact of the intense banking competition that emanates from Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, and Reading,
within the State, and from New York City, Wilmington, and Baltimore, outside the State.
The judgment of the management of the three participating banks to focus the operation of the resulting
bank in Harrisburg cannot be questioned, because the
management of three other banks in York, Lancaster,
and Reading seek to form a bank that will focus its
activity in Lancaster. The fact that the National Bank
& Trust Company of Central Pennsylvania, the Lancaster County Farmers National Bank, and the Reading Trust seek to consolidate and retain Lancaster as
the head office location of the resulting bank has little
relevance to the subject proposal. The National Bank &
Trust Company of Central Pennsylvania can now
branch de novo in York, Adams, Cumberland, Dauphin, and Lancaster counties; the Reading Trust Company can branch in Berks, Lancaster, Lebanon,
Schuylkill, Lehigh, Montgomery, and Chester counties;
and the Lancaster County Farmers National Bank can
branch in Lancaster, York, Dauphin, Lebanon, Berks,
and Chester counties. Upon consummation of their
proposed consolidation, the resulting bank will have its
main office in Lancaster, with the same branching
rights that the Lancaster County Farmers National
Bank now has; the charter bank is, therefore, shifting
the focal point of its right to branch one county eastward where it will be in closer competition with branch
offices of the Philadelphia banks. These two three-bank




consolidation proposals do not militate against each
other, but serve to strengthen one another; each serves
to centralize its banking market on a regional basis,
while constructing institutions not only more responsive to local public needs, but also more impervious
to competitive inroads by out-of-region banking
institutions.
By virtue of modern transportation and communication facilities, there are close ties between the principal cities of Harrisburg, Lancaster, and York. All
are served by the same television stations, radio stations,
and newspapers which permeate the area. Despite this
geographic unity, the existing service areas of the consolidating banks do not coincide, and there is practically no competition among them. Approximately 14
miles separate the nearest offices of any of the three
banks, the Elizabethtown office of the Harrisburg bank
and the Landisville office of the Lancaster bank. Moreover, there are many alternative banking offices between these two, as well as between all the other offices
of the three participants. The branch of the Harrisburg bank which is in York County is 21.5 miles north
of the closest branch of the First National Bank of
York, and in a community which is commercially
oriented to Harrisburg. The volume of business each
derives from the areas of the other two banks is negligible. Less than a handful of individuals maintain accounts in any two of the subject banks. Any firm whose
business would extend far enough geographically to
cause competition between the banks is so large that it
would go to a major city for its banking needs.
The applicants face active competition, in the mortgage market, from financial institutions other than
commercial banks. Savings and loan associations
throughout the area provide stiff competition for time
deposits and mortgage loans. The total mortgages of
the 34 savings and loan associations in the area amount
to 29 percent of the total loans of the 109 commercial
banks in the consolidated service area. Other competition in the mortgage lending field comes from insurance companies, eight of which have principal offices in
the service areas of the applicants. Several other nationally-known companies are active in placing mortgages on residential properties in the area. There are
also numerous mortgage companies maintaining offices
in the service areas, which place loans with institutions
outside the area.
In the consumer loan market, keen competition
throughout the area is provided by small loan companies of national prominence. There are 40 sales
finance and personal loan companies in the area, including four large ones. Factors from major eastern

147

cities and government lending agencies are also active
in the area. While no mutual savings banks are domiciled in the area, those in Philadelphia and New York
City consider this area as part of their market.
Very aggressive competition comes from out-of-area
metropolitan banks vying for the prime commercial
and industrial business generated in the area. The large
banks in Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, New York, and
Baltimore canvass the area by direct mailing solicitation, newspaper advertisements, and traveling representatives. Recently, a Philadelphia bank installed a
resident trust officer in Lancaster to solicit local trust
accounts. Two other Philadelphia banks have commenced the operation of computer centers in this
south-central Pennsylvania area. Another Philadelphia
bank competes in this area through the Bank Americard, which it introduced into the York area, and
which it promotes through full-page ads in local papers
identifying it as Philadelphia-oriented. It is clear that
the Philadelphia banks do compete with the participating banks and will continue to compete aggressively
with the resulting bank.
One principal reason for this proposal is to form a
bank of sufficient size to serve adequately the needs of
the area, and to prevent the outflow of locally generated capital to the metropolitan areas. The credit
demands of new and of expanding industries in the
area have exceeded the lending capacities and servicing
capabilities of the local commercial banks. As a result,
the local banks have either lost prime accounts to the
larger metropolitan banks competing in the area, or
have had to participate with city banks, principally in
Philadelphia, and to a lesser extent, in New York, Pittsburgh, and Baltimore. Since participation agreements
often provide that the borrower maintain compensating
balances of 15 to 20 percent of the total loan in the participating bank, substantial deposits have gone to the
large city banks. Thus, the amount of lendable funds in
local banks, available to local customers, is reduced,
This proposal to establish a larger local bank in the
region to serve larger credit demands will, in large part,
obviate the need for participations with the city banks,
and will enable the resulting bank to retain more of
the locally-generated deposits to satisfy local needs of
this growing economy.
Another principal reason for this proposal is the desire of the participants to form an institution of sufficient size as to be impervious to a takeover by a large
city bank, in the event that statewide branching is
authorized in Pennsylvania. If statewide branching
becomes a reality, the large banks in Philadelphia and
Pittsburgh can be expected to extend their branching
148



system to every section of the State. Only through
such proposals as this can regional banks, with
orientation to local needs, be established with sufficient
vitality to meet the growing competitive thrust of the
city banks. This is a positive approach to potential
competition.
The potential competition that could be developed
between the participating banks through expansion of
their separate branching systems is not significant.
Branch expansion on the scale required to provide the
growth and size needed by the participants to satisfy
the needs of the local economy as they are being created, is neither feasible nor possible. To urge branch
expansion by the separate participants in order to develop a potential competition between them at some
distant time in the future is a negative approach that
ignores the present needs of the local economy, and
works to entrench the city banks in their dominant
position in the State.
The establishment of de novo branches by the participating banks and other local banks, in the past, has
minimized the opportunity for opening more de novo
offices. Several recent applications for new charters
and branches have been declined, particularly in the
Lancaster and York areas. The argument that these
areas are already well-banked, finds reasonable basis in
statistics showing that the ratio of persons to banking
offices has decreased substantially over the past 10
years. In Lancaster, the ratio has dropped from 6,300
to 5,400 persons per banking office, whereas in York
it dropped from 6,100 to 4,800.
De novo branching by the applicants into one
another's service areas is not feasible economically.
With their present resources, none of them has the
capacity to incur the great expense of penetrating a new
area. Acquiring real estate, one of the major cost items,
is difficult, as most of the favorable sites have already
been taken.
There are other factors indicating incapacity to undertake de novo entry into one another's headquarters
area. Due to recent rapid growth, the Harrisburg and
Lancaster participating banks have experienced a thinning in their capital position, an important consideration in granting authority to open new offices. Both
banks also have prospects of substantially increased
investments in banking premises in the next few years.
Since it was recently destroyed by fire, the Gonestoga
National Bank is having to rebuild its main office at
an expected minimum cost of $1.5 million. The Harrisburg National Bank and Trust Company anticipates
expenditures of at least $4 million in carrying out current office expansion plans.

Larger amounts of lendable funds are not all that is
needed to meet local needs. Commercial, industrial,
and agricultural customers need more specialized services than the applicants separately can provide. Here
again, the only resort at present is to large metropolitan banks. To meet the convenience and needs of
its customers, the consolidated bank will be able to
draw on an increased staff of employees with time to
specialize. The specialized services needed now include, accounts receivable, inventory financing, equipment leasing, corporate trusts, mobile home financing,
modern lock-box services, correspondent banking, and
data processing. The consolidated bank will be able
to provide expanded and detailed trust services. The
increased size of the resulting bank will enable it to
create a credit card program in competition with the
Philadelphia banks. The increased size will also enable
the bank to underwrite bonds for local municipalities
at more favorable rates.
The Conestoga National Bank presently has an excellent agricultural department whose services will be
made available to all the offices of the resulting bank,
this will enable them to give financial guidance and
assistance to all farms in the area so they may reach
their full potential. Since farming is conducted in every
county in the proposed service area, such specialization
in farm financing will be of great benefit.
Customers in the York area will gain more readily
available funds in the consumer lending field. The
First National Bank of York now has only $1 million
in assets in installment credit. Some of the other services, not before offered by the York offices, will be a
check guarantee card, additional alternatives for college loans, expertise in dealer financing for automobiles
and mobile homes, professional investment specialists
in the trust department, sendees provided by complete
computer facilities, and specialists in business development and marketing.
The applicants are already community-oriented in
some of their financial activities, and, on consummation of this proposal, will be able to increase this effort.
They have participated actively in providing financing
for local educational institutions. The two larger banks,
besides participating in financing provided by the Pennsylvania Industrial Development Authority, have also
participated in loans with the Pennsylvania Credit
Corporation, a private lender formed in 1964 to help
finance businesses which do not qualify for bank
financing. With this consolidation, the resulting bank
contemplates being able to make inner-city and
urban development loans.
This proposal will consolidate the management




teams of the three participating banks and will give
the resulting bank the requisite depth of management
to compete with larger banks. At present, the First
National Bank of York is very conservatively managed.
Not only has it had no branch or merger expansion
program in recent years, but its security investment
portfolio exceeds its loan portfolio in this present day
of high loan demand. The management of this York
bank is centered in its president who, after 40 years
of service, contemplates retirement. He has no competent, trained successor. The low salary schedules of this
bank, so common in the banking industry, and so
unattractive to young people choosing a career, will
be corrected in large measure in the resulting bank.
The Harrisburg and Lancaster applicants have
young and progressive senior management, but lack
depth at the middle management level, which has been
strained by de novo branch expansion. A loss of top
management in any one bank would necessitate hiring
from the outside, thereby creating personnel and promotion problems and salary dislocations. The ability to
acquire and train management personnel will be increased with size by reaching a capacity to pay more,
and to provide greater opportunities for advancement
and the assumption of responsibility.
The tremendous expansion of the economy in southcentral Pennsylvania has created a need for regional
banks. Due to the lack of existing competition between
the applicants, and the improbability of potential competition developing in the reasonably foreseeable
future, and because of the immediacy of the need, the
proposed consolidation is the most suitable means of
achieving the desired goal. It is also in the public
interest to provide the specialized, adequate commercial and improved consumer services that will come as a
result. At every level, the convenience and needs of
the area will be better served. Not only will a larger
regional financial institution be able to meet the challenge of an expanding economy and the encroachment
of the large city banks, but it will also be able to offer
an impetus to such economic expansion and provide
better competition in so doing.
It is concluded that this proposal is in the public
interest and meets the relevant statutory criteria. The
consolidation is, therefore, approved.
SEPTEMBER 26,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

The areas primarily affected by the proposed consolidation are Dauphin, Lancaster, and York counties
in south-central Pennsylvania.
149

Harrisburg National is the second largest bank headquartered in Dauphin County, and the third largest in
the area comprising Dauphin, Lancaster, and York
counties. Conestoga is the third largest bank headquartered in Lancaster County; York Bank is the fourth
largest bank headquartered in York County. Commonwealth National Bank, the resulting institution, would
become the largest bank in the tri-county area, in terms
of total deposits, by a substantial margin.
There would appear to be some existing competition
among the three banks which would be eliminated by
the proposed consolidation.
Under Pennsylvania law, Harrisburg National could
be permitted to establish de novo branches in both
Lancaster and York counties; it appears to be one of
the most likely potential entrants into either of the
market areas served by Conestoga or York Bank.
Harrisburg National would appear to be the second
largest potential entrant eligible to branch or merge
into the city of York and elsewhere in York County.
Commercial banking in York County is concentrated;
as of June 30, 1966, what are now the four largest
banks held nearly 80 percent of county I PC demand
deposits. York Bank, the fourth largest, held over 10
percent of such deposits. Harrisburg National presently
operates one office in the northern part of York County,
and this would probably facilitate more substantial
de novo entry into the county as a whole, including
those areas presently served by York Bank.
Harrisburg National is also one of the largest banks
eligible to branch or merge into the city of Lancaster
and elsewhere in Lancaster County. Banking is slightly
less concentrated in Lancaster County than in York
County, but as of June 30, 1966, the three largest banks
held approximately 58 percent of county IPC demand
deposits; Conestoga, the third largest, held over 12
percent of such deposits. Harrisburg National presently
operates one office in northwestern Lancaster County.
This would again probably facilitate more substantial

de novo entry into the county, as a whole, including
those areas served by Conestoga.
While neither Conestoga nor York Bank is as large
as Harrisburg National, each is legally eligible to
branch into Dauphin County, and would appear to
possess sufficient resources to do so. Commercial banking in Dauphin County is highly concentrated; as of
June 30, 1966, the three largest banks held approximately 80 percent of county IPC demand deposits.
Harrisburg National, the second largest, held 25 percent of such deposits.
Thus, the most serious effect of the proposed consolidation would be to eliminate Harrisburg National
as a probable potential entrant into either York or Lancaster counties, as a whole. In addition, it would
eliminate both Conestoga and York Bank as potential
entrants into the highly concentrated Dauphin County
market, as well as into each other's markets. Each of
the three banks possesses sufficient resources to branch
de novo into the market areas of the other two, and
thereby create the potential for greater competition
among them. In the alternative, each might enter the
markets of the others by merger with one of the smaller
banks located therein, and such entry would have a
lesser impact on potential competition. The seriousness
of this effect is made clear by the fact that the resulting bank, which would control some 19 percent of the
total deposits in the Harrisburg-Lancaster-York tricounty area, would not only be larger than all the banks
operating in the area, but would be larger than all but
one of the banks eligible to enter any part of the area.
Thus, it appears that the most important sources of
potential competition in each of these three counties
must come primarily from banks headquartered within
the tri-county area, rather than outside. Accordingly,
we conclude that the proposed merger would have a
significantly adverse effect on potential competition,
particularly in York County, and to a lesser extent in
Lancaster and Dauphin counties.

THE MILLIKIN NATIONAL BANK OF DECATUR, DECATUR, I I I : , AND THE MILLIKIN TRUST COMPANY, DECATUR, I I I .
Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
To be
operated

In
operation
The Millikin Trust Company, Decatur, 111., with
and The Millikin National Bank of Decatur, Decatur, 111. (5089), which h a d . . . .
merged Dec. 31, 1969, under charter and title of the latter bank (5089). The
merged bank at date of merger had

150



$1,160,296
86, 295, 476
86, 673, 609

1
2

2

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On July 23,1969, The Millikin Trust Company, Decatur, 111., and The Millikin National Bank of Decatur,
Decatur, III, applied to the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to merge under the charter and
with the title of the latter.
The Millikin National Bank of Decatur, with IPC
deposits of $59.7 million, was originally organized in
1860. The Millikin Trust Company was organized in
1915, by shareholders of The Millikin National Bank of
Decatur, to engage in the trust business because Illinois
law, at the time, prohibited commercial banks from engaging in such business. It has operated since then as
an adjunct of the charter bank, offering only trust services, and housed in the same building.
Decatur, the home of both institutions, is the county
seat of Macon County, and is 130 miles northeast of
St. Louis, Mo., and 175 miles south of Chicago. The
population of Decatur is 88,358, while the population
of Macon County, which is considered the charter
bank's market area, is 125,400. While Decatur is a
highly diversified industrial city, the surrounding area
is composed of rich and productive farm land.
Banking competition in the Decatur area is considered strong and demanding. Six other banks, with
total resources of $171.1 million, along with three savings and loan associations, with total resources of $120
million, compete vigorously for deposits. The main
competitors of the subject banks are the Citizens National Bank, with total resources of $76.4 million, and
the First National Bank, with total resources of $51.6
million. Both banks have active trust departments
with total trust assets of $15.5 million, in the Citizens
National Bank, and $23.7 million, in the First National
Bank.
Consummation of this merger will have no adverse
competitive effects. The two institutions are presently
affiliated through common ownership, and each offers
different kinds of services. The merger should enhance
competition between the resulting bank and other commercial banks offering trust services.

This merger will combine two affiliated institutions.
It will eliminate some duplication of expenses and,
consequently, lower costs, with the result that the public should benefit through better and more efficient
service. In addition, the combination of the two institutions will reflect increased flexibility in the future in the
rotation and development of personnel and will help
insure successor management, in both the commercial
and trust activities, to a greater extent than is now
feasible.
It is concluded, in the light of the statutory criteria,
that the merger is in the public interest and it is accordingly approved.
NOVEMBER 21,1969.
SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

Because Millikin Bank's operations are restricted to
commercial banking without exercise of trust powers
and Trust Company handles only fiduciary accounts,
the proposed merger would not effect existing
competition.
No adverse effects on potential competition are likely
either. When Trust Company was organized, National
banks were not permitted to engage in trust business.
Since revision of the law, most banks in Illinois have
merged with the corporations they originally established to handle fiduciary accounts. Trust Company is
one of the last State banks exercising only trust powers
in Illinois. Because operations at Trust Company are
so closely tied in with those of Millikin Bank (both
occupy the same building and utilize the same computer), the possibilities of either expanding into the
other's field of activity are remote. Moreover, 55 percent of the shares of each institution are owned and
controlled by the trustees of a charitable trust established by the founder.
In view of the long-standing common control of application banks and the interrelationships of their
distinct operations, we conclude that the proposed
merger would not be likely to have any significant
adverse effects on competition.

THE NATIONAL BANK OF LOGANSPORT, LOGANSPORT, IND., AND THE TWELVE MILE STATE BANK, TWELVE MILE, IND.
Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

The Twelve Mile State Bank, Twelve Mile, Ind., with
and The National Bank of Logansport, Logansport, Ind. (13580), which had
merged Dec. 31, 1969, under charter and title of the latter bank (13580). The
merged bank at date of merger had




$7,213,926
48, 492, 001
55, 462, 090

To be
operated

2
2
4

153

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On September 22, 1969, The National Bank of
Logansport, Logansport, Ind., applied to the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to merge with
The Twelve Mile State Bank, Twelve Mile, Ind.,
under the charter and with the title of the former.
The National Bank of Logansport, the charter bank,
was organized in 1931, and has total assets of approximately $46 million. The main office of the charter bank
and its one branch are located in Logansport, the
county seat of Cass County.
The Twelve Mile State Bank, the merging bank,
was organized in 1911, and has total assets of approximately $7 million. The merging bank, which is headquartered in the town of Twelve Mile, 12 miles
northeast of Logansport, operates its only branch in
Galveston, 17 miles southeast of Logansport. Both
offices are located in Cass County.
The city of Logansport has a population of approximately 21,000. The population has remained constant
for the past 20 years. The economy of Logansport and
the surrounding area is heavily dependent on light industry, with branch plants of several national concerns
contributing significantly.
The towns of Twelve Mile and Galveston, where the
merging bank has offices, have populations of 280 and
1,100, respectively. The economy of Twelve Mile is
farm-oriented; the only businesses in town are small
retail stores, a grain elevator, and two automobile
dealerships. Although Galveston is somewhat dependent on farming, because of its proximity to Kokomo,
many of its residents commute there to work in the
many industrial plants.
The charter bank faces strong competition within
its service area, which includes Cass County and parts
of the surrounding counties. In this area, there are 19
banks within 25 miles of Logansport. The charter
bank is now, and, after this merger, will remain the
second largest bank in the service area.
Competition between the subject banks is minimal.
The merging bank is essentially a community service
institution. As it does not actively compete for the
charter bank's customers, any effective competition
which does exist stems from the charter bank's solicitation of merging bank's customers.
Consummation of this proposed merger will serve
the convenience and needs of residents of Twelve Mile.
First, the legal lending limit of the merging bank is
$52,500, which is not enough to satisfy the seasonal
borrowing requirements of some of their larger customers. The lending limit of the merged institution will

152



be over $400,000. Second, improved trust services will
be available to residents of Twelve Mile. Third, a potential management succession problem will be eliminated at the merging bank.
Applying the statutory criteria to the proposed
merger, we conclude that it is in the public interest
and the application is, therefore, approved.
NOVEMBER 28,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

TMSB's home office in Twelve Mile (population
280) is 12 miles northeast of NBL; no banking alternatives intervene. TMSB's Galveston (population 1,100)
branch is 16 miles southeast of NBL; The Cass County
State Bank, a unit bank in Walton (population 1,079),
is midway between Galveston and Logansport. No
banking alternatives intervene in the 26 miles separating the two offices of TMSB in eastern Cass County.
Moreover, both banks have similar loan portfolios
with 65 percent of TMSB's loans and 76 percent of
NBL's loans being either mortgage loans or loans to
individuals.
Indiana branching laws prohibit de novo branching
outside the home county, or into cities where a bank
has its home office. NBL is not, therefore, a potential
de novo entrant into Twelve Mile. The State branching
law, however, is no bar to NBL's de novo entry into
Galveston. NBL, by opening its single branch in
October 1968, has demonstrated the aptitude and
capacity for de novo branching. Therefore, NBL could
increase the level of competition between itself and
TMSB in the future. Furthermore, nothing apparently
would prohibit TMSB from branching into the newer
suburban areas of Logansport, and thereby increasing
competition in that community.
We conclude that the proposed merger would eliminate substantial direct and potential competition for
both loans and deposits in Cass County.
As of June 29, 1968, Cass County was served by five
banks, with eight offices, controlling $75.2 million of
deposits (including IPC demand deposits of $21.4 million) . NBL now controls approximately 52 percent of
total deposits and approximately 54 percent of IPC
demand deposits in the county. The proposed merger,
if consummated, would unite the county's first and
fourth largest banks; the resulting bank would control
approximately 60 percent of total deposits, and approximately 58 percent of IPC demand deposits in
Cass County.
Thus, Cass County is a highly concentrated banking
market in which NBL, and The Farmers & Merchants

State Bank, Logansport, control nearly 76 percent of
total county deposits.
Furthermore, if the proposed merger were approved,
the resulting bank would have 50 percent of the banking offices in the central and eastern sections of Cass
County; and the county's second largest bank would
have three of the four remaining offices in the area.
However, several banks operate offices near the Cass
County line in the adjacent counties of Howard and
Miami.

This merger would eliminate substantial direct and
potential competition for both loans and deposits between the merging banks; increase concentration in a
duopolistic banking market; eliminate one of the few
banks able to offer effective competition to that duopoly; and create the potential for triggering mergers
of other small banks within the market. We conclude
it would have an adverse effect on competition in
eastern Cass County, and in that county as a whole.

THE UNION NATIONAL BANK OF PITTSBURGH, PITTSBURGH, PA., AND PEOPLES UNION BANK AND TRUST COMPANY,
MGKEESPORT, PA;

N.A.,

Name of bank and type of transaction

Peoples Union Bank and Trust Company, National Association, McKeesport,
Pa. (15671), with
,
and The Union National Bank of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa. (705), which had
i
consolidated Dec. 31, 1969, under charter and title of the latter bank (705). j
The consolidated bank at date of consolidation had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On August 11, 1969, the Peoples Union Bank and
Trust Company, National Association, McKeesport,
Pa., and The Union National Bank of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh5 Pa., applied to the Office of Comptroller of the
Currency for permission to consolidate under the charter and with the title of the latter.
The charter bank, with total resources of $554 million, is headquartered in downtown Pittsburgh, and
operates 36 offices in five counties. It serves the central and western portions of Allegheny County, the
central and northern portions of Beaver County, the
central portion of Butler County, the central and
northeastern portions of Washington County, and
northwestern Westmoreland County. The consolidating bank, with $193 million in resources, maintains its
head office in McKeesport, and operates 17 offices in
the southeastern portion of Allegheny County^ the eastern part of Washington County, and the western and
northwestern sections of Westmoreland County.
Under Pennsylvania law, banks may establish
branches only in the same county in which its principal office is located or in a county contiguous thereto.
Together, the two applicant banks may only branch
in the five counties in which they are presently located,
and in Armstrong County. Four of the six counties are




$207, 255, 053
584, 998, 480
792, 206, 864

54

included in the Pittsburgh SMSA. These six counties,
which are more than half the size of either New Jersey
or Massachusetts, form a natural consumer trading
area, and contain 2.6 million people. It is the area
designated as "Northern Appalachia" by the Appalachian Regional Commission. Its metropolitan center
is the city of Pittsburgh, a city with a population
of 604,000. The terrain of the area is rugged and
hilly, which has tended to cluster industrial development into distinct zones. These industrial clusters have
attracted concentrations of population and banking
offices have tended to follow the population growth,
although the population growth has lagged behind
the Nation's average rate of increase for several decades. A decline in population has been marked in the
older river valley communities such as McKeesport.
Lack of opportunities for employment and deteriorating housing and other physical conditions are factors
contributing to this trend.
The area is highly industrialized, producing over onefifth of the nation's annual steel output, as well as
significant amounts of fabricated metal products and
non-electrical and electrical machinery.
There are 51 commercial banks in the six-county area
of Northern Appalachia. The three largest banks, Mellon Bank, Pittsburgh National Bank., and Western
Pennsylvania National Bank, hold approximately 81
153

percent of the total deposits and assets of all banks in
the six-county area. The fourth largest bank, Union
National, together with the combined resources of
Peoples Union, will hold approximately 9 percent. During the past 10 years, the deposits held by the three
largest banks increased from 78.9 percent to 80.8 percent. By contrast, the consolidating banks together
would have held more than 11 percent of the area's
total deposits and assets in 1959, although at the
present time the figure is slightly over 9 percent. The
consolidation will combine the 10th and 20th largest
banks in Pennsylvania, which are the 4th and 5th
largest commercial banks in six-county area. It will
increase the number of banks operating throughout
this regional banking market from three to four.
During the past 10 years, Union National has attempted to compete regionally with the three larger
Pittsburgh banks. It presently operates in about half of
the local banking markets comprising the regional market. However, its share of the regional market has been

declining steadily, despite its efforts to improve services
and to stimulate competition with the larger, more
broadly based Pittsburgh banks. In the six-county area,
its position, relative to all of the banks operating there,
has declined during the past 10 years, from 8.2 percent
of total deposits to 6.7 percent.
Peoples Union Bank maintains offices in 5 of the 18
local banking markets within the six-county area. Within this operating area it holds 2.3 percent of the total
assets of all banks in total deposits, and 2.2 percent of
total loans. This compares with 3.0 percent of total
deposits in 1959.
The consolidation will not affect the banking structure within the 18 local markets. The resulting bank
will continue to be either the third or fourth largest
bank in the largest of these local markets, and will have
no effect on the smaller local markets.
Competition from other types of financial institutions
is considerable throughout the State of Pennsylvania.
This can be seen from the following table:

Total Assets of Financial Intermediaries at Year-end
[dollars in billions]
Financial intermediary:
Commercial banks
Life insurance companies
Savings and loan associations
Mutual savings banks
Fire and casualty companies
Finance companies
Investment companies
Credit unions
Noninsured pension funds
State and local pension funds
Total

1960

36.8
19.7

1967
$451.0
177.2
143.6
66.4
43.8
46.6
44.7
12.9
86.9
41.4

623. 6

Rate of
growth
{percent)
75
48
101
64
46
86
163
126
136
110

1, 114.5

$257. 6
119.6
71.5
40.6
30. 1
25.0
17.0
5.7

Source: Savings and Loan Fact Book, 1968, p. 53.

Over 150 savings and loan associations do business
in the six-county area. The majority of assets held by
these savings and loan associations are held by those
headquartered in Allegheny County. In the mortgage
loan area, the insured savings associations in the Pittsburgh Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area held
mortgage loans of $1.6 billion at the end of 1967.
These associations offer 4.75 percent interest on savings
accounts, whereas banks are limited by law to 4 percent on savings accounts. Approximately 400 credit
unions were located in the six-county area as of yearend 1968. These credit unions have share accounts of
$142.8 million, loans of $107.8 million, and total assets
of $165.1 million. Although there is only one mutual
savings bank within the six-county area, the Dollar
Savings Bank, with savings accounts totaling more

154



than $332 million, four of its six branches are located
very close to branches of Union National. Since the
Dollar Savings Bank currently pays dividends of 5
percent on passbook savings, it provides great competition for savings dollars to Union National. It also
is active in the field of mortgage lending. There were
200 small loan companies and 229 consumer discount
licensees in the six-county area as of December 31,
1966. Their assets amount to many millions of dollars,
but figures on loans are not available. In addition,
competition is offered by insurance companies and by
commercial banks located outside of the six-county
area.
The applicant banks are in a difficult position competitively. The dominant Mellon Bank, which holds
more than half of the deposits of all commercial banks

in the six-county area under consideration, continues
to capture an ever increasing share of the banking
business. In addition, the growing competitive activity
of noncommercial banking institutions has made
further inroads into the financial markets in this area.
Union National Bank is unable to grow fast enough to
compete with the Mellon Bank and the other two large
Pittsburgh banks operating throughout its service area.
Peoples Union Bank, faced with a declining economy,
is deteriorating. A combination of their resources, locations, and talents will enable the resulting bank to complete the competitive thrust Union National Bank has
undertaken to provide by offering more convenient
services at lower cost to the local markets within the
six-county area.
There is no significant competition between Union
National Bank and Peoples Union Bank. Peoples Union
Bank is headquartered in McKeesport, in the southeastern portion of Allegheny County, and its branches
are clustered in and around McKeesport and spread
eastward into Westmoreland County. Union National
Bank is located in Pittsburgh, and its branches extend
north and west of the area served by Peoples Union
Bank. Only 1.3 percent of all checking account customers of both banks have deposits with both banks. This
represents only 1.6 percent of Union National Bank's
total demand deposits, and 0.5 percent of Peoples
Union Bank's total demand deposits. Similar fractional
percentages obtain in the area of savings accounts.
Likewise, there are very few customers living in the
service area of one bank who maintain accounts with
the other bank. At least 80 percent of all depositors of
each bank live in areas contiguous to the various banking offices of that bank. Only 1 percent of the checking
accounts of Union National Bank were derived from
the Peoples Union Bank depositor concentration area.
Only 2 percent of Peoples Union Bank accounts were
derived from the Union National Bank depositor concentration area. Some of these accounts represent chain
stores operating in the various local markets within the
six-county area. Union National Bank offers free checking accounts and draws a larger proportion of its depositors and deposits from outside the six-county area
than does Peoples Union Bank, However, very few of
these depositors or deposits come from Peoples Union
Bank's depositor concentration area.
The closest branch offices of the two consolidating
banks are the Pleasant Hills office of Union National
Bank and the Glassport office of Peoples Union Bank.
The two branches are 7 miles apart by the shortest highway route between them. Less than 1 percent of the
checking accounts at Pleasant Hills were derived from
383-814—70


-11

the service area of the Glassport branch. Only 3.4 percent of the checking accounts at Glassport, representing
3 percent of the demand deposits in that branch, came
from the service area of the Pleasant Hills office. Even
in the area of trust accounts, competition between the
two banks is minimal. Peoples Union Bank maintains
only a small and very localized trust department. Union
National Bank, on the other hand, solicits new accounts
for its considerable trust departments from a wide area.
However, less than 1 percent of its trust accounts come
from McKeesport, the surrounding towns, and Westmoreland County.
There is very little possibility of potential competition
between the two consolidating banks. All of Union National Bank's de novo branches have been located north
and west of Pittsburgh, with one exception. None has
been in the direction of Peoples Union Bank's service
area. Union National Bank has insufficient capital to
branch extensively or quickly into new areas, both as
a practical matter and because of capital investment
restrictions under the National Bank Act. Union National Bank presently has a higher percentage of its
total assets invested in bank buildings than any other
of the five largest banks in the six-county area. The
improvement and modernization of its existing banking offices is a matter of higher priority for the foreseeable future. Further, Union National Bank's policy
of expanding its service areas into the six-county region
by the introduction of price competition, rather than
a large scale branching policy, makes branching into
Peoples Union Bank's service area unlikely. Furthermore, the McKeesport area is adequately banked, and
its economic situation makes it an unlikely area for de
novo blanches, particularly from banks located outside
the area. The economic outlook of M'cKeesport is not
promising. It is fully-developed, for all practical purposes, and an improvement in its situation can be calculated only on a long-term basis. Westmoreland
County, although it has a brighter economic promise, is
a considerable distance from the existing offices of
Union National Bank. Branch offices are badly needed
within Union National Bank's depositor concentration
area to relieve overcrowded conditions in existing
branch offices, and to provide convenient banking outlets for its customers, and in the northern regions of
Allegheny County, which have the greatest population
growth potential Conversely, Peoples Union Bank,
with its capital fund limitations and declining market
share, has no plans, and little capability, to branch
de novo into the intensively competitive banking markets near Pittsburgh.
The proposed consolidation will stimulate, rather

155

than diminish^, competition in the six-county area.
Union National Bank's free checking account services
will be followed by the resulting bank and extended
into the area presently served by Peoples Union Bank.
Secondly, the competitive and desirable lending policies followed by Union National Bank, based upon the
needs of individual markets within the six-county area,
will be extended to the McKeesport area which needs
such individualized attention. Quarterly compounding
of interest on regular savings accounts will be extended
to the areas served by Peoples Union Bank. Finally,
the combined resources of the resulting bank will
result in an increased lending ability and more diversified and experienced personnel which will benefit the
entire six-county area.
Union National Bank's competitive policies have
benefited the public in the areas it serves. The free
checking account is a response to the proliferation of
bank credit cards offered by the large Pittsburgh banks.
It has resulted in reduced service charges in the Pittsburgh area while service charges by commercial banks
for demand deposits have been increasing in other
metropolitan areas of the United States during the
past 6 years. Union National Bank has not increased
its time rates as quickly as other banks in the Pittsburgh
area. Further, it has actively pursued a policy of granting high-risk loans in cooperation with the Small Business Administration. The bank has cooperated with
the Small Business Administration, particularly in advancing funds to entrepreneurs in minority groups in
the Pittsburgh community, and is active in making
loans to college students. Union National Bank is the
only bank of the five largest banks in the six-county
area which compounds interest quarterly on savings
accounts.
The consolidation will extend these benefits to the
entire area to be served by the resulting bank and will
promote the convenience and needs of the public in
other ways as well. The consolidation will maintain
the benefits of local ownership and eliminate the risk
of takeover of the Peoples Union Bank in McKeesport
by outside interests. Local influences and problems will
be considered and local interest will be benefited. Service charges on checking accounts will be eliminated for
the depositors of Peoples Union Bank. Other free services offered by Union National Bank will be extended
to the customers of Peoples Union Bank. For example,
Union National Bank makes no charge to depositors
for stock payment orders on checks. Further, it provides
investment counseling services for individuals in businesses, without charge to the customer. Other banking
services, such as buy and sell orders for securities with
156



brokers, are less expensive to customers of Union National Bank than to customers of other banks. Union
National Bank's policy of compounding interest quarterly will continue and be extended to the customers
of Peoples Union Bank. Furthermore, the consolidation
will result in a fourth area-wide bank which will be a
new entrant into the regional banking markets now
dominated by three Pittsburgh-based banks, particularly the ubiquitous Mellon Bank. This fourth competitor, which has proven price-oriented policies and
a deliberate goal of capturing an increased share of the
market of the large banks, will likely lead to an eventual
deconcentration of the market now controlled by the
Mellon Bank in the six-county area.
One of the major local areas to be benefited by the
merger is the urban renewal project in McKeesport
that is being substantially financed by Peoples Union
Bank which is unable to invest in the long term mortgage loans required by this project. The resources of
Union National Bank will therefore be available for
this part of the project. The consolidation will also
provide a vehicle within the six-county area with the
ability to shift capital within the area as seasonal or
local demands arise. Banking hours will be extended,
and management will be of greater depth and diversity
so as to provide better advice and consultation to local
commercial borrowers. Trust services, presently rather
limited in the service area of Peoples Union Bank, will
be expanded and diversified for both corporate and
personal accounts.
Other new services are planned after the consolidation. The resulting bank hopes to act as underwriter, agent, or principal in connection with
municipal bond issues, and to establish an international
department for the benefit of its customers having business transactions outside of the United States. Both
of these services will provide competition to the large
Pittsburgh banks.
The proposal will improve the competitive structure
of banking in the six counties served by the applicant
banks.
In the light of applicable statutory criteria the proposal appears to be in the public interest. The consolidation is, therefore, approved.
NOVEMBER 28,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

Union's offices are located in downtown Pittsburgh
and in areas to the north and west of the city itself.
Peoples operates no offices in Pittsburgh; its branches
are clustered around McKeesport and in areas to the

south and east of the Central Pittsburgh area. The
closest offices of the merging banks are approximately
7 miles apart; numerous banking alternatives intervene.
Although the banks are located in different sections
of the Greater Pittsburgh Area, there is clearly some
competition between them. The application indicates
that a limited number of depositors maintain accounts
with both banks. Further, the application indicates
that Union draws over 2,000 demand accounts, representing approximately $2.5 million, from areas where
Peoples' depositors are concentrated; in like manner,
Peoples drawrs nearly 1,000 demand accounts, representing approximately $1.4 million, from areas where
Union's depositors are concentrated. While these accounts represent minor percentages of the total number
of demand accounts in each bank, they involve substantial sums of money.
The amount of direct competition would of course
be increased if either bank were to branch more extensively into the service area of the other as permitted
by Pennsylvania law. The best possibility along these
lines would appear to be Union's potential de novo
entry into McKeesport. McKeesport, however, is one
of the less attractive sections of the Pittsburgh area;
the area's dominant bank, Mellon National Bank and

Trust Company, has not yet entered McKeesport, and
Union seems less likely to do so.
Union and Peoples, while substantially smaller than
the three largest banks in the area, are two of a very
small number of banks capable of serving customers
who require the services of a relatively large bank. In
addition, they are the most likely sources of increased
competition to the three banks which already operate
offices regionally, as well as to one another. While their
merger would instantly create another bank serving the
entire region, it would eliminate the possibility of both
banks achieving future regional status, either through
de novo branching, or through merger with small banks
in diverse sections of the area.
The four largest banks in the six-county area presently control over 87 percent of commercial bank
deposits therein. The proposed merger would increase
this percentage to approximately 90 percent.
In view of the elimination of competition that will
be effected by the proposed merger, and of the fact that
the merging banks, while substantially smaller than
existing regional competitors, nonetheless are clearly
the two banks most capable of providing increased
competition on a regional basis, we conclude that the
proposed merger would have an adverse effect on
competition.

//. Mergers consummated pursuant to corporate reorganization, involving
a single operating bank
THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MEMPHIS, MEMPHIS, TENN., AND THE SECOND NATIONAL BANK OF MEMPHIS, MEMPHIS, TENN.

Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets

In
operation
The First National Bank of Memphis, Memphis, Tenn. (336), with
and The Second National Bank of Memphis, Memphis, Tenn. (336), which had..
merged Jan. 17, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (336) and title "The First
National Bank of Memphis." The merged bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On October 23, 1968, The First National Bank of
Memphis, Memphis, Tenn., and The Second National
Bank of Memphis (organizing), Memphis, Tenn., applied to the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to merge under the charter of the latter and with
the title of the former.
The First National Bank of Memphis, organized in




$785,611, 198
250, 000
785,618, 398

To be
operated

30
0
30

1864; has total assets of $706 million in its main office
and 28 branches.
The Second National Bank of Memphis is being
organized to provide a means to transfer ownership of
The First National Bank of Memphis to The First
National Holding Corporation, a Tennessee corporation. The First National Holding Corporation owns all
the outstanding shares of capital stock of The Second
National Bank of Memphis except the directors' quali-

157

fying shares. Prior to the merger. The Second National
Bank of Memphis will not function as a commercial
bank.
There will be no adverse effect on competition resulting from consummation of the proposed merger.
The First National Bank of Memphis is the only operating bank involved in this proposed transaction. The
resulting bank will conduct the same banking business
at the same locations and with the same name as the
First National Bank of Memphis. The proposed merger
is simply a corporate restructuring which allows all
the assets and liabilities of The First National Bank of
Memphis to pass and vest in the resulting bank.

Applying the statutory criteria it is concluded that
the proposed merger is in the public interest and the
application is, therefore, approved.
NOVEMBER 29,

1968.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

[This merger] * * * is part of a transaction which
will result in a presently existing bank becoming a subsidiary of a one-bank holding company. Thus, * * *
[it] is merely a part of a corporate reorganization and
as such will have no effect on competition.

FIRST & MERCHANTS NATIONAL BANK, RICHMOND, V A . , AND MAIN STREET NATIONAL BANK, RICHMOND, V A .
Banking
Total assets

Name of bank and type of transaction

In
operation

First & Merchants National Bank, R i c h m o n d , V a . ( 1 1 1 1 ) , w i t h
a n d M a i n Street National Bank, R i c h m o n d , V a . (1111), w h i c h h a d
m e r g e d F e b . 2 6 , 1969, under charter of t h e latter bank ( 1 1 1 1 ) a n d title "First &
Merchants National Bank." T h e merged bank at date of merger h a d

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On November 29, 1968, First & Merchants National Bank, Richmond, Va., and Main Street National
Bank (organizing), Richmond, Va., applied to the
Comptroller of the Currency for permission to merge
under the charter of the latter and the title of the
former.
First & Merchants National Bank has total resources of $712 million and operates 56 offices in 19
communities in the State of Virginia.
Main Street National Bank is being organized to provide the means by which ownership of First & Merchants National Bank will be transferred to the First
and Merchants Corporation. No commercial banking
operations will be conducted by Main Street National
Bank prior to this merger.

158



offices

$720, 703, 097
246, 924

To be
operated

52
0

720, 710, 297

52

Since this merger involves only one operating commercial banking institution, First and Merchants National Bank, there can be no adverse effect on competition resulting from consummation of this proposed
merger.
Applying the statutory criteria, it is concluded that
the proposed merger is in the public interest. The application is, therefore, approved.
JANUARY 27,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

[This merger] * * * is part of a transaction which
will result in a presently existing bank becoming a subsidiary of a one-bank holding company. Thus, * * *
[it] is merely a part of a corporate reorganization and
as such will have no effect on competition.

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FIRST NATIONAL BANK, SAN DIEGO, CALIF., AND FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF SAN DIEGO, SAN DIEGO, CALIF.

Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

Southern California First National Bank, San Diego, Calif. (3050), with
and First National Bank of San Diego, San Diego, Calif. (3050), which had
merged Feb. 28, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (3050) and title "Southern
California First National Bank." The merged bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On November 12, 1968, the Southern California
First National Bank, San Diego, Calif., and the First
National Bank of San Diego (organizing), San Diego,
Calif., filed an application with the Comptroller of the
Currency for permission to merge under the charter of
the latter and with the title of the former.
The Southern California First National Bank, San
Diego, Calif., with IPC deposits of $422 million,
operates 44 banking offices, all of which are located in
San Diego, Orange, and Los Angeles counties.
The First National Bank of San Diego (organizing),
San Diego, Calif., is a nonoperating institution which
was organized as a step in the corporate reorganization
of the merging bank. With the exception of directors'
qualifying shares, all of the stock of the charter bank is
owned by the Southern California First National Corporation, a California corporation.
Since the charter bank is a nonoperating institution,

$664, 673, 990
257, 270

To be
operated

46
0

664,931,259

46

approval of this application will have no effect on competition. Service to the public will not be affected by
this transaction as the resulting bank will operate
through the personnel and physical facilities of the
merging bank. Approval of the merger will, however,
facilitate the corporate reorganization of the merging
bank.
Applying the statutory criteria, we find that this proposal is in the public interest and the application is,
therefore, approved.
JANUARY 21,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

[This merger] * * * is part of a transaction which
will result in a presently existing bank becoming a subsidiary of a one-bank holding company. Thus, * * *
[it] is merely a part of a corporate reorganization and
as such will have no effect on competition.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., AND WF NATIONAL BANK, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.
Banking offices
Total assets

Name of bank and type of transaction

In
operation

Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, San Francisco, Calif. (15660), with
and WF National Bank, San Francisco, Calif. (15660), which had
merged Feb. 28, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (15660) and title "Wells
Fargo Bank, National Association.'5 The merged bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On December 6, 1968, Wells Fargo Bank, National
Association, San Francisco, Calif., applied to the Office
of the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to
merge into the WF National Bank (organizing), San
Francisco, Calif., under the charter of the latter and
with the title of the former.




$5, 156, 980, 705
258, 250
5,156,989,337

To be
operated

252
0

252

Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as of
June 29, 1968, had total deposits of $4.15 billion and
total assets of $4.8 billion. The WF National Bank
(organizing) was organized on December 2, 1968. The
WF National Bank (organizing) is, with the exception
of the directors5 qualifying shares, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Wells Fargo and Company. Wells Fargo
and Company was organized on November 15, 1968,
159

under California law, with the primary purpose being
to act as a holding company of a bank and other financial institutions. Upon consummation of the proposed
merger it will become a one-bank holding company.
The management of the continuing bank will be the
same as that of the merging bank. The proposed
merger involves a single operating bank. Accordingly,
there is no question as to the effect on competition
between the parties to the proposed merger.
The proposed merger is deemed to be in the public
interest and will result in improved services to the
present and potential customers of the continuing

bank. Applying the statutory criteria, we conclude that
the proposed merger promotes the public interest without lessening competition, and the application is, therefore, approved.
JANUARY 28, 1969.
SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

[This merger] * * * is part of a transaction which
will result in a presently existing bank becoming a subsidiary of a one-bank holding company. Thus, * * *
[it] is merely a part of a corporate reorganization and as
such will have no effect on competition.

FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF EASTERN N O R T H CAROLINA, JACKSONVILLE, N.G., AND FINANCIAL NATIONAL BANK, JACKSONVILLE, N.C.

Banking offices

Total assets

Name of bank and type of transaction

In
operation

First National Bank of Eastern North Carolina, Jacksonville, N.C. (14676), with. .
and Financial National Bank, Jacksonville, N.C. (14676), which had
merged Mar. 14, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (14676) and title "First
National Bank of Eastern North Carolina." The merged bank at date of merger
had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On December 30, 1968, the First National Bank of
Eastern North Carolina, Jacksonville, N . C , and the
Financial National Bank (organizing), Jacksonville,
N . C , applied to the Comptroller of the Currency
for permission to merge under the charter of the latter
and with the title of the former.
First National Bank of Eastern North Carolina, the
merging bank, is headquartered in Jacksonville, N . C ,
and has 25 offices located primarily in the eastern third
of the State. This bank, with total resources of $87 million and IPC deposits of $63 million, was chartered in
1952.
Financial National Bank, the charter bank, is being
organized to provide a vehicle to transfer ownership
of the merging bank to the Financial Corporation. The
charter bank will not be operating as a commercial
bank prior to the merger.

160



$91, 878, 827
600, 000

To be
operated

24
0

92,937,631

24

Because the merging bank is the only operating bank
involved in the proposed transaction, there can be no
adverse effect on competition resulting from consummation of the proposed merger. The resulting bank will
conduct the same banking business at the same locations and with the same name as presently used by the
merging bank.
Applying the statutory criteria, it is concluded that
the proposed merger is in the public interest and the
application is, therefore, approved.
FEBRUARY 10, 1969.
SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

[This merger] * * * is part of a transaction which
will result in a presently existing bank becoming a
wholly-owned subsidiary of a one-bank holding company. Thus, * * * [it] is merely a part of a corporate
reorganization and as such will have no effect on
competition.

WORCESTER COUNTY NATIONAL BANK, WORCESTER, MASS., AND COUNTY BANK OF WORCESTER, N.A., WORCESTER, MASS.
Banking offices
Total assets

Name of bank and type of transaction

To be
operated

In
operation

Worcester County National Bank, Worcester, Mass. (79), with
and County Bank of Worcester, National Association, Worcester, Mass. (79),
which had
merged Mar. 21, 1969,33
under charter of the latter bank (79) and title "Worcester
County National Bank. The merged bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On November 29, 1968, the Worcester County National Bank, Worcester, Mass., and the County Bank
of Worcester, National Association (organizing),
Worcester, Mass., applied to the Comptroller of the
Currency for permission to merge under the charter
of the latter and with the title of the former.
The Worcester County National Bank, headquartered in Worcester, Mass., has 28 offices located in
Worcester County. This bank, with total resources of
$298 million and IPC deposits of $225 million, was
established in 1804.
County Bank of Worcester, National Association, is
being organized to provide a vehicle to transfer ownership of Worcester County National Bank to Worcester Bancorp, Incorporated. County Bank of
Worcester, National Association, will not be operating
as a commercial bank prior to the merger.

$303,301,094

28

247, 488

0
28

303, 308, 294

Because the Worcester County National Bank is
the only operating bank involved in the proposed transaction, there can be no adverse effect on competition
resulting from consummation of the proposed merger.
The resulting bank will conduct the same banking
business at the same locations and with the same name
as previously conducted by the merging bank.
Applying the statutory criteria, it is concluded that
the proposed merger is in the public interest and the
application is, therefore, approved.
JANUARY 31, 1969.
SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

[This merger] * * * is part of a transaction which
will result in a presently existing bank becoming a
wholly-owned subsidiary of a one-bank holding company. Thus, * * * [it] is merely a part of a corporate
reorganization and as such will have no effect on
competition.

NATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE TRUST AND SAVINGS ASSOCIATION, LINCOLN, N E B R . , AND CAPITAL CITY NATIONAL BANK,
LINCOLN, NEBR.
Banking offices

Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

National Bank of Commerce Trust and Savings Association, Lincoln Nebr.
(7239), with
and Capital City National Bank, Lincoln, Nebr. (7239), which had
merged Mar. 24, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (7239) and tide "National
Bank of Commerce Trust and Savings Association." The merged bank at date of
merger had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On January 2, 1969, the National Bank of Commerce Trust and Savings Association, Lincoln, Nebr.,
and the Capital City National Bank (organizing), Lincoln, Nebr., applied to the Comptroller of the Cur-




To be
operated

$144,600,028
245, 909
144, 607, 228

rency for permission to merge under the charter of
the latter and with the title of the former.
National Bank of Commerce Trust and Savings Association, the merging bank, has two offices in Lincoln,
Nebr., and total resources of $147 million and IPC
deposits of $89 million.
161

Capital City National Bank, the charter bank, is
being organized to provide a vehicle to transfer ownership of the merging bank to the NBC Company, a
Nebraska corporation. The charter bank will not be
operating as a commercial bank prior to the merger.
Because the merging bank is the only operating bank
involved in the proposed transaction, there can be no
adverse effect on competition resulting from consummation of the proposed merger. The resulting bank
will conduct the same banking business at the same
locations and with the same name as presently used
by the merging bank.

Applying the statutory criteria, it is concluded that
the proposed merger is in the public interest and the
application is, therefore, approved.
FEBRUARY 20,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

[This merger] * * * is part of a transaction which
will result in a presently existing bank becoming a
wholly-owned subsidiary of a one-bank holding company. Thus, * * * [it] is merely a part of a corporate organization and as such will have no effect on
competition.

HOUSTON NATIONAL BANK, HOUSTON, T E X . , AND MILAM NATIONAL BANK, HOUSTON, T E X .

Banking offices
Total assets

Name of bank and type of transaction

In
operation

Houston National Bank, Houston, Tex. (9353), with
and Milam National Bank, Houston, Tex. (9353), which had
merged Mar. 27, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (9353) and title "Houston
National Bank." The merged bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On January 13, 1969, the Houston National Bank,
Houston, Tex., and the Milam National Bank (organizing), Houston, Tex., applied to the Comptroller of
the Currency for permission to merge under the charter of the latter and with the title of the former.
Houston National Bank, the merging bank, is headquartered in Houston, Tex., and has no branches. This
bank, with total resources of $291 million and IPC
deposits of $206.4 million, was originally chartered in
1889.
Milam National Bank, the charter bank, is being
organized to provide a vehicle to transfer ownership
of the merging bank to the Houston National Company. The charter bank will not be operating as a commercial bank prior to the merger.
Because the merging bank is the only operating bank

162



$278,571,881
250, 000

To he
operated
1
0

278,571,881

1

involved in the proposed transaction^ there can be no
adverse effect on competition resulting from consummation of the proposed merger. The resulting bank will
conduct the same banking business at the same location and with the same name as presently used by the
merging bank.
Applying the statutory criteria, it is concluded that
the proposed merger is in the public interest and the
application is, therefore, approved.
FEBRUARY 25,1969.
SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

[This merger] * * * is part of a transaction which
will result in a presently existing bank becoming a
wholly-owned subsidiary of a one-bank holding company. Thus, * * * [it] is merely a part of a corporate reorganization and as such will have no effect
on competition.

AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY OF CHICAGO, CHICAGO, I I I . , AND AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO,
CHICAGO, I I I .
Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

American National Bank and Trust Company of Chicago, Chicago, 111. (13216),
with
and American National Bank of Chicago, Chicago, 111. (13216), which had
merged Mar. 31, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (13216) and title "American National Bank and Trust Company of Chicago." The merged bank at date
of merger had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On December 20, 1968, American National Bank
and Trust Company of Chicago, Chicago, 111., and
American National Bank of Chicago (organizing),
Chicago, 111., applied to the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to merge under the charter of the
latter and with the title of the former.
The American National Bank and Trust Company
of Chicago has I PC deposits of $574.7 million and
operates no branches.
The American National Bank of Chicago is being
organized to provide a vehicle to transfer ownership of
American National Bank and Trust Company of Chicago to Anbatco, Inc. The American National Bank
of Chicago will not be operating prior to the merger.
Because the American National Bank and Trust

To be
operated

$929, 700, 752
245, 980
929, 707, 952

Company of Chicago is the only operating bank involved in the proposed transaction, there can be no
adverse effect on competition resulting from consummation of the proposed merger.
Applying the statutory criteria, it is concluded that
the proposed merger is in the public interest and the
application is, therefore, approved.
FEBRUARY 24,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

[This merger] * * * is part of a transaction which
will result in a presently existing bank becoming a
wholly-owned subsidiary of a one-bank holding company. Thus, * * * [it] is merely a part of a corporate
reorganization and as such will have no effect on
competition.

CONTINENTAL ILLINOIS NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY OF CHICAGO, CHICAGO, I I I . AND CONTINENTAL NATIONAL BANK,
CHICAGO, I I I .
Banking offices
Total assets

Name of bank and type of transaction

In
operation

Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Company of Chicago, Chicago, III.
(13639), with
and Continental National Bank, Chicago, 111. (13639), which had
consolidated Mar. 31 1969, under charter of the latter bank (13639) and title of
"Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Company of Chicago." The
consolidated bank at date of consolidation had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On December 9, 1968, Continental Illinois National
Bank and Trust Company of Chicago, Chicago, 111.,
and Continental National Bank (organizing), Chicago,
111., applied to the Office of the Comptroller of the
383-814—70




12

$6, 459, 040, 299
250, 000
6, 459, 065, 927

To be
operated

1
0
1

Currency for permission to merge under the charter of
the latter and with the title of the former.
The Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust
Company of Chicago has I PC deposits of $3.1 billion.
It operates no domestic branches but a number of
foreign branches.

163

The Continental National Bank is being organized to
provide a vehicle to transfer ownership of Continental
Illinois National Bank and Trust Company of Chicago
to the Conill Corp. The Continental National Bank
will not be operating as a commercial bank prior to the
consolidation.
Because Continental Illinois National Bank and
Trust Company of Chicago is the only operating bank
involved in the proposed transaction, there can be no
adverse effect on competition resulting from the
proposed transaction.

Applying the statutory criteria, it is concluded that
the proposed consolidation is in the public interest and
the application is, therefore, approved.
FEBRUARY 3,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

[This merger] * * * is part of a transaction which
will result in a presently existing bank becoming a subsidiary of a one-bank holding company. Thus, * * *
[it] is merely a part of a corporate reorganization and
as such will have no effect on competition.

NATIONAL BANK OF TULSA, TULSA, OKLA., AND UNION SECURITY NATIONAL BANK OF TULSA, TULSA, OKLA.
Banking offices
Total assets

Name of bank and type of transaction

To be
operated

In
operation

National Bank of Tulsa, Tulsa, Okla. (13679), with
and Union Security National Bank of Tulsa, Tulsa, Okla. (13679), which had....
merged Mar. 31, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (13679) and title "National
Bank of Tulsa." The merged bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On January 6, 1969, the National Bank of Tulsa and
the Union Security National Bank of Tulsa (organizing), applied to the Comptroller of the Currency for
permission to merge under the charter of the latter and
with the title of the former.
The National Bank of Tulsa, the merging bank, is
headquartered in Tulsa and operates no branches. This
bank, with total resources of $354 million and I PC deposits of $264 million, was originally chartered in 1933.
Union Security National Bank of Tulsa, the charter
bank, is being organized to provide a vehicle to transfer
ownership of the merging bank to NBT Corporation.
The charter bank will not be operating as a commercial
bank prior to the merger.
Because the merging bank is the only operating bank
involved in the proposed transaction, there can be no

164



$354, 672, 800
250, 000

1
0

354, 922, 800

1

adverse effect on competition resulting from consummation of the proposed merger. The resulting bank
will conduct the same banking business at the same
location and with the same name as presently used by
the merging bank.
Applying the statutory criteria, it is concluded that
the proposed merger is in the public interest and the
application is, therefore, approved.
FEBRUARY 17,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

[This merger] * * * is part of a transaction which
will result in a presently existing bank becoming a
wholly-owned subsidiary of a one-bank holding company. Thus, * * * [it] is merely a part of a corporate
reorganization and as such will have no effect on
competition.

SOUTHERN NATIONAL BANK OF HOUSTON, HOUSTON, T E X . , AND SOUTHERN BANK, N.A., HOUSTON, T E X .

Banking offices

Total assets

Name of bank and type of transaction

In
operation

Southern National Bank of Houston, Houston, Tex. (14916), with
j
and Southern Bank, National Association, Houston, Houston, Tex. (14916), |
which had.
merged Mar. 31, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (14916) and title "Southern
National Bank of Houston." The merged bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On January 9, 1969, the Southern National Bank of
Houston, Houston, Tex., and the Southern Bank, National Association (organizing), Houston, Tex., filed
an application with the Comptroller of the Currency
for permission to merge under the charter of the latter
and with the title of the former.
The Southern National Bank of Houston, Houston,
Tex., was organized in 1960 and presently holds I PC
deposits of approximately $64 million.
The Southern Bank, National Association (organizing), Houston, Tex., is a nonoperating institution
which was organized as a step in the corporate reorganization of the merging bank. With the exception of the
directors' qualifying shares, all of the stock of the
charter bank is owned by the Southern National Corporation, a Texas corporation.
Since the charter bank is a nonoperating institution,
approval of this application will have no effect on com-

To be
operated

$126, 815, 827
248, 500
126,823,027

petition. Service to the public will not be affected by
this transaction as the resulting bank will operate
through the personnel and physical facilities of the
merging bank. Approval of the merger will, however,
facilitate the corporate reorganization of the merging
bank.
Applying the statutory criteria, we find that this
proposal is within the public interest and the application is, therefore, approved.
FEBRUARY 28, 1968.
SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

[This merger] * * * is part of a transaction which
will result in a presently existing bank becoming a
wholly-owned subsidiary of a one-bank holding company. Thus, * * * [it] is merely a part of a corporate
reorganization and as such will have no effect on
competition.

WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA NATIONAL BANK, PITTSBURGH, P A . , AND WILLIAM PENN NATIONAL BANK, PITTSBURGH, PA.
Banking offices
Total assets

Name of bank and type of transaction

In
operation

Western Pennsylvania National Bank, Pittsburgh, Pa. (2222), with
and William Penn National Bank, Pittsburgh, Pa. (2222), which had
merged Mar. 31, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (2222) and title "Western j
Pennsylvania National Bank." The merged bank at date of merger had
|

COMPTROLLERS DECISION

On November 4, 1968, the Western Pennsylvania
National Bank and the William Penn National Bank
(organizing) applied to the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to merge under the charter of
the latter and with the title of the former.




$851, 552, 513
257, 308
851, 802, 513

To be
operated

71
0

71

Western Pennsylvania National Bank, the merging
bank, is headquartered in Pittsburgh and has 64 offices,
most of which are in Allegheny County. This bank has
total resources of $820 million and IPC deposits of
$597 million.
William Penn National Bank, the charter bank, is
being organized to provide a vehicle to transfer own165

ership of the merging bank to the Western Pennsylvania National Bank Corporation. The charter bank
will not be operating as a commercial bank prior to
the merger.
Because the merging bank is the only operating bank
involved in the proposed transaction, there can be no
adverse effect on competition resulting from consummation of the proposed merger. The resulting bank will
conduct the same banking business at the same locations and with the same name as presently used by the
merging bank.

Applying the statutory criteria, it is concluded that
the proposed merger is in the public interest and the
application is, therefore, approved.
JANUARY 31,1969.
SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

[This merger] * * * is part of a transaction which
will result in a presently existing bank becoming a subsidiary of a one-bank holding company. Thus, * * *
[it] is merely a part of a corporate reorganization and
as such will have no effect on competition.

BANK O F AMERICA NATIONAL T R U S T AND SAVINGS ASSOCIATION, SAN FRANCISCO, C A L I F . , AND B.A.
SAN FRANCISCO, C A L I F .

NATIONAL BANK,

Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association, San Francisco, Calif.
(13044) with
$19,169,246,713
and B.A. National Bank, San Francisco, Calif. (13044), which had
264, 000
merged Apr. 1, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (13044) and title "Bank of
America National Trust and Savings Association." The merged bank at date of
merger had
19, 169, 256, 269

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On January 3, 1969, the Bank of America National
Trust and Savings Association, San Francisco, Calif.,
and the B.A. National Bank (organizing), San Francisco, Calif., applied to the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to merge under the charter of the
latter and with the title of the former.
Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association, the merging bank, is headquartered in San Francisco, and has 948 offices located throughout California.
This bank has total resources of $23.3 billion and IPC
deposits of $13 billion.
B.A. National Bank, the charter bank, is being organized to provide a vehicle to transfer ownership of
the merging bank to the Bankamerica Corporation.
The charter bank will not be operating as a commercial
bank prior to the merger.
Because the merging bank is the only operating bank

166



To be
operated

953
0
953

involved in the proposed transaction, there can be no
adverse effect on competition resulting from consummation of the proposed merger. The resulting bank
will conduct the same banking business at the same
locations and with the same name as presently used by
the merging bank.
Applying the statutory criteria, it is concluded that
the proposed merger is in the public interest and the
application is, therefore, approved.
FEBRUARY 27,1969.
SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

[This merger] * * * is part of a transaction which
will result in a presently existing bank becoming a
wholly-owned subsidiary of a one-bank holding company. Thus, * * * [it] is merely a part of a corporate
reorganization and as such will have no effect on
competition.

THE MECHANICS NATIONAL BANK OF WORCESTER, WORCESTER, MASS., AND MECHANICS NATIONAL BANK, WORCESTER, MASS.
Banking offices
Total assets

Name of bank and type of transaction

In
operation

The Mechanics National Bank of Worcester, Worcester, Mass. (1135), with
and Mechanics National Bank, Worcester, Mass. (1135), which had
merged Apr. 7, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (1135) and title "The
Mechanics National Bank of Worcester." The merged bank at date of merger had.

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On January 9, 1969, The Mechanics National Bank
of Worcester, Worcester, Mass., and the Mechanics
National Bank (organizing), Worcester, Mass., applied to the Comptroller of the Currency for permission
to merge under the charter of the latter and with the
title of the former.
The Mechanics National Bank of Worcester, the
merging bank, is headquartered in Worcester, Mass.,
and has seven offices located throughout Worcester
County. This bank, with total resources of $88.7 million and IPC deposits of $66.5 million, was originally
chartered in 1848.
Mechanics National Bank, the charter bank, is being
organized to provide a vehicle to transfer ownership
of the merging bank to the Mechanics Bancorp, Incorporated. The charter bank will not be operating as
a commercial bank prior to the merger.

$89, 750, 485
257, 200

To be
operated
8
0

89, 998, 749

8

Because the merging bank is the only operating bank
involved in the proposed transaction, there can be no
adverse effect on competition resulting from consummation of the proposed merger. The resulting bank will
conduct the same banking business at the same locations and with the same name as now used by the
merging bank.
Applying the statutory criteria, it is concluded that
the proposed merger is in the public interest and the
application is, therefore, approved.
MARCH 4,1969.
SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

[This merger] * * * is part of a transaction which
will result in a presently existing bank becoming a
wholly-owned subsidiary of a one-bank holding company. Thus, * * * [it] is merely a part of a corporate
reorganization and as such will have no effect on
competition.

THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF ATLANTA, ATLANTA, GA., AND ATLANTA NATIONAL BANK, ATLANTA, GA.
Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

The First National Bank of Atlanta, Atlanta, Ga. (1559), with
and Atlanta National Bank, Atlanta, Ga. (1559), which had.
merged Apr. 8, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (1559) and title "The First
National Bank of Atlanta." The merged bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On December 20. 1968, The First National Bank of
Atlanta, Atlanta, Ga., and the Atlanta National Bank
(organizing), Atlanta, Ga., applied to the Comptroller
of the Currency for permission to merge under the
charter of the latter and with the title of the former.
The First National Bank of Atlanta, the merging




$957, 115, 115
250, 000
957, 129,503

To be
operated

21
0

21

bank, is headquartered in Atlanta and has 20 offices
located throughout Atlanta and nearby Decatur. This
bank, with total resources of $811.8 million and IPC
deposits of $632.6 million, was originally chartered in
1865.
Atlanta National Bank, the charter bank, is being
organized to provide a vehicle to transfer ownership
of the merging bank to the First National Holding
167

Corporation. The charter bank will not be operating
as a commercial bank prior to the merger.
Because the merging bank is the only operating bank
involved in the proposed transaction, there can be no
adverse effect on competition resulting from consummation of the proposed merger. The resulting bank will
conduct the same banking business at the same locations and with the same name as presently used by the
merging bank.
Applying the statutory criteria, it is concluded that

the proposed merger is in the public interest and the
application is, therefore, approved.
FEBRUARY 7,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

[This merger] * * * is part of a transaction wrhich
will result in a presently existing bank becoming a
wholly-owned subsidiary of a one-bank holding company. Thus, * * * [it] is merely a part of a corporate
reorganization and as such will have no effect on
competition.

CROCKER-CITIZENS NATIONAL BANK, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., AND CROCKER BANK, N.A., SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.
Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

Crocker-Citizens National Bank, San Francisco, Calif. (1741), with
$4, 753, 796, 838
and Crocker Bank, National Association, San Francisco, Calif. (1741), which had.
240, 283
merged Apr. 21, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (1741) and title "CrockerCitizens National Bank." The merged bank at date of merger had
4, 753, 726, 161

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On January 20, 1969, the Crocker-Citizens National
Bank, San Francisco, Calif., and the Crocker Bank,
National Association (organizing), San Francisco,
Calif., applied to the Comptroller of the Currency for
permission to merge under the charter of the latter
and with the title of the former.
Crocker-Citizens National Bank, the merging bank,
is headquartered in San Francisco, and has offices located throughout California. This bank, with total resources of $4.9 billion and IPC deposits of $3.4 billion,
was originally chartered in 1870.
Crocker Bank, National Association, the charter
bank, is being organized to provide a vehicle to transfer ownership of the merging bank to the Crocker
National Corporation. The charter bank will not be
operating as a commercial bank prior to the merger.
Because the merging bank is the only operating bank

168



To be
operated

276
0
276

involved in the proposed transaction, there can be no
adverse effect on competition resulting from consummation of the proposed merger. The resulting bank
will conduct the same banking business at the same
locations and with the same name as presently used by
the merging bank.
Applying the statutory criteria, it is concluded that
the proposed merger is in the public interest and the
application is, therefore, approved.
MARCH 11,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

[This merger] * * * is part of a transaction which
will result in a presently existing bank becoming a
wholly-owned subsidiary of a one-bank holding company. Thus, * * * [it] is merely a part of a corporate
reorganization and as such will have no effect on
competition.

HARTFORD NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, HARTFORD, CONN., AND PEARL STREET NATIONAL BANK, HARTFORD,

CONN.

Banking offices
Total assets

Name of bank and type of transaction

$1,008,771,877
Hartford National Bank and Trust Company, Hartford, Conn. (1338), with
1, 249, 970
and Pearl Street National Bank, Hartford, Conn. (1338) which had
merged Apr. 30, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (1338) and title "Hartford
National Bank and Trust Company." The merged bank at date of merger had. . . 1,009,021,847

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On December 10, 1969, the Hartford National Bank
and Trust Company, Hartford, Conn., and the Pearl
Street National Bank (organizing), Hartford, Conn.,
applied to the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to merge under the charter of the latter and
with the title of the former.
Hartford National Bank and Trust Company, the
merging bank, is headquartered in Hartford, Conn.,
and has 41 offices. This bank has total resources of
$971.5 million and I PC deposits of $679 million.
Pearl Street National Bank, the charter bank, is being organized to provide a vehicle to transfer ownership of the merging bank to the Hartford National
Corporation. The charter bank will not be operating
as a commercial bank prior to the merger.
Because the merging bank is the only operating bank

43

involved in the proposed transaction, there can be no
adverse effect on competition resulting from consummation of the proposed merger. The resulting bank
will conduct the same banking business at the same
locations and with the same name as presently used by
the merging bank.
Applying the statutory criteria, it is concluded that
the proposed merger is in the public interest and the
application is, therefore, approved.
FEBRUARY 4,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

[This merger] * * * is part of a transaction which
will result in a presently existing bank becoming a subsidiary of a one-bank holding company. Thus, * * *
[it] is merely a part of a corporate reorganization and
as such will have no effect on competition.

MARYLAND NATIONAL BANK, BALTIMORE, M D . , AND BAY NATIONAL BANK, BALTIMORE, M D .

Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

Maryland National Bank, Baltimore, Md. (13745), with
and Bay National Bank, Baltimore, Md. (13745), which had
merged Apr. 30, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (13745) and title "Maryland National Bank." The merged bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLERS DECISION

On January 3, 1969, the Maryland National Bank,
Baltimore, Md., and the Bay National Bank (organizing), Baltimore, Md., applied to the Comptroller of
the Currency for permission to merge under the charter
of the latter and with the title of the former.
Maryland National Bank, the merging bank is headquartered in the city of Baltimore and has 91 offices
located throughout the State of Maryland. This bank,




$1,061, 723,366
250, 985
1,062,453,693

To be
operated

93
0
93

with total resources of $957 million and I PC deposits
of $748 million, was chartered on August 4, 1933.
Bay National Bank, the charter bank, is being organized to provide a vehicle to transfer ownership of
the merging bank to the Maryland National Corporation, a holding company. The charter bank will not be
operating as a commercial bank prior to the merger.
Because the merging bank is the only operating bank
involved in the proposed transaction, there can be no
adverse effect on competition resulting from consum-

169

mation of the proposed merger. The resulting bank will
conduct the same banking business at the same locations and with the same name as presently used by the
merging bank.
Applying the statutory criteria, it is concluded that
the proposed merger is in the public interest and the
application is, therefore, approved.
MARCH 13,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

[This merger] * * * is part of a transaction which
will result in a presently existing bank becoming a
wholly-owned subsidiary of a one-bank holding company. Thus, * * * [it] is merely a part of a corporate
reorganization and as such will have no effect on
competition.

NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA., AND NB NATIONAL BANK, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA.
Banking offices
Total assets

Name of bank and type of transaction

In
operation

National Bank and Trust Company, Charlottesville, Va. (10618), with
and NB National Bank, Charlottesville, Va. (10618), which had
merged Apr. 30, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (10618) and title "National
Bank and Trust Company." The merged bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On January 11, 1969, the National Bank and Trust
Company, Charlottesville, Va., and the N.B. National
Bank (organizing), Charlottesville, Va., applied to the
Comptroller of the Currency for permission to merge
under the charter of the latter and with the title of the
former.
National Bank and Trust Company, the merging
bank, is headquartered in Charlottesville, Va., and has
17 offices in Charlottesville and other sections of Virginia. This bank, with total resources of $95.6 million
and IPC deposits of $74.7 million, was originally
chartered in 1914.
N.B. National Bank, the charter bank, is being organized to provide a vehicle to transfer ownership of
the merging bank to the N.B. Corporation. The charter
bank will not be operating as a commercial bank prior
to the merger.

$95, 786, 577
255, 000

To be
operated

16
0

95, 793, 927

16

Because the merging bank is the only operating bank
involved in the proposed transaction, there can be no
adverse effect on competition resulting from consummation of the proposed merger. The resulting bank will
conduct the same banking business at the same locations and with the same name as presently used by the
merging bank.
Applying the statutory criteria, it is concluded that
the proposed merger is in the public interest and the
application is, therefore, approved.
MARCH 11,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

[This merger] * * * is part of a transaction which
will result in a presently existing bank becoming a
wholly-owned subsidiary of a one-bank holding company. Thus, * * * [it] is merely a part of a corporate
reorganization and as such will have no effect on
competition.

PITTSBURGH NATIONAL BANK, PITTSBURGH, PA., AND NEW NATIONAL BANK, PITTSBURGH, PA.
Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

Pittsburgh National Bank, Pittsburgh, Pa. (252), with
and New National Bank, Pittsburgh, Pa. (252), which had
merged Apr. 30, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (252) and title "Pittsburgh
National Bank." The merged bank at date of merger had

170



$1,643,390,716
240, 000
1,643,630,716

To be
operated

82
0
82

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On November 15, 1968, the Pittsburgh National
Bank, Pittsburgh, Pa., and the New National Bank
(organizing), Pittsburgh, Pa., applied to the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to merge under
the charter of the latter and with the title of the
former.
The Pittsburgh National Bank, headquartered in
Pittsburgh, Pa., has 89 offices throughout Allegheny,
Beaver, Butler, Washington, and Westmoreland
counties. This bank, with total resources of $1.6 billion
and IPC deposits of $1.2 billion, was chartered in 1863
as the Second National Bank of Pittsburgh and became
known as Pittsburgh National Bank in 1959.
New National bank is being organized to provide a
vehicle to transfer ownership of Pittsburgh National
Bank to Pittsburgh National Corporation. New National Bank will not be operating as a commercial bank
prior to the merger.

Because Pittsburgh National Bank is the only operating bank involved in the proposed transaction, there
can be no adverse effect on competition resulting from
consummation of the proposed merger. The resulting
bank will conduct the same banking business at the
same locations and with the same name as now used by
the merging bank.
Applying the statutory criteria, it is concluded that
the proposed merger is in the public interest and the
application is, therefore, approved.
JANUARY 30,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

[This merger] * * * is part of a transaction which
will result in a presently existing bank becoming a
wholly-owned subsidiary of a one-bank holding company. Thus, * * * [it] is merely a part of a corporate
reorganization and as such will have no effect on
competition.

THE FULTON NATIONAL BANK OF ATLANTA, ATLANTA, GA., AND THE BANK OF THE SOUTH N.A., ATLANTA, GA.
Banking offices
Total assets

Name of bank and type of transaction

In
operation

The Fulton National Bank of Atlanta, Atlanta, Ga. (9617), with
and The Bank of the South National Association, Atlanta, Ga. (9617), which
had
merged May 1, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (9617) and title "The Fulton National Bank of Atlanta." The merged bank at date of merger had
COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On January 16, 1969, The Fulton National Bank of
Atlanta, Atlanta, Ga., and The Bank of the South
National Association (organizing), Atlanta, Ga., applied to the Comptroller of the Currency for permission
to merge under the charter of the latter and with the
title of the former.
The Fulton National Bank of Atlanta, the merging
bank, is headquartered in Atlanta and has 17 offices
throughout Atlanta and nearby Decatur. This bank,
with total resources of $434.2 million and IPC deposits
of $254.6 million, was originally chartered in 1909.
The Bank of the South National Association, the
charter bank, is being organized to provide a vehicle to
transfer ownership of the merging bank to The Fulton
National Corporation. The charter bank will not be
operating as a commercial bank prior to the merger.
Because the merging bank is the only operating bank




$435, 098, 332

17

248, 473

To be
operated

0

435, 105, 532

17

involved in the proposed transaction., there can be no
adverse effect on competition resulting from consummation of the proposed merger. The resulting bank
will conduct the same banking business at the same
locations and with the same name as presently used by
the merging bank.
Applying the statutory criteria, it is concluded that
the proposed merger is in the public interest and the
application is, therefore, approved.
MARCH 6,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL
x
[This merger] * * ** is part of a transaction which
will result in a presently existing bank becoming a
wholly-owned subsidiary of a one-bank holding company. Thus, * * * [it] is merely a part of a corporate
reorganization and as such will have no effect on
competition.

171

THE JOHNSON COUNTY NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, PRAIRIE VILLAGE, KANS., AND JOHNSON COUNTY BANK, N.A., PRAIRIE
VILLAGE, KANS.
Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets

The Johnson County National Bank and Trust Company, Prairie Village, Kans.
(14420), with
and Johnson County Bank, National Association, Prairie Village, Kans. (14420),
which had
merged May 1, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (14420) and title "The
Johnson County National Bank and Trust Company." The merged bank at date
of merger had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On January 21, 1969, The Johnson County National
Bank and Trust Company, Prairie Village, Kans., and
the Johnson County Bank, National Association (organizing) , Prairie Village, Kans., applied to the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to merge under
the charter of the latter and with the title of the
former.
The Johnson County National Bank and Trust Company, the merging bank, is headquartered in Prairie
Village, Kans., and has no branches. This bank, with
total resources of $49.7 million and IPC deposits of
$39.3 million, was originally chartered in 1939.
Johnson County Bank, National Association, the
charter bank, is being organized to provide a vehicle
to transfer ownership of the merging bank to Johnson
County Bankshares, Inc. The charter bank will not be
operating as a commercial bank prior to the merger.
Because the merging bank is the only operating bank

$51, 136,244
120, 000
51,256,244

involved in the proposed transaction, there can be no
adverse effect on competition resulting from consummation of the proposed merger. The resulting bank
will conduct the same banking business at the same
location and with the same name as presently used by
the merging bank.
Applying the statutory criteria, it is concluded that
the proposed merger is in the public interest and the
application is, therefore, approved.
MARCH 11,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

[This merger] * * * is part of a transaction which
will result in a presently existing bank becoming a
wholly-owned subsidiary of a one-bank holding company. Thus, * * * [it] is merely a part of a corporate
reorganization and as such will have no effect on
competition.

THE INDIANA NATIONAL BANK OF INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANAPOLIS, IND., AND TOWER NATIONAL BANK, INDIANAPOLIS, IND.
Banking offices
Total assets

Name of bank and type of transaction

In
operation

The Indiana National Bank of Indianapolis, Indianapolis, Ind. (984), with
and Tower National Bank, Indianapolis, Ind. (984), which had
merged May 12, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (984) and title "The
[ndiana National Bank." The merged bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLERS DECISION

On January 6, 1969, The Indiana National Bank of
Indianapolis, Indianapolis, Ind., and Tower National
Bank (organizing), Indianapolis, Ind., applied to the

172



$977, 555, 590
238, 500
977, 562, 790

To be
operated

33
0
33

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to merge under the charter of the latter and with
the title of the former.
The Indiana National Bank of Indianapolis has IPC
deposits of $604 million and operates 33 branches.

the proposed merger is in the public interest and the
application is, therefore, approved.

The Tower National Bank is being organized to
provide a vehicle to transfer ownership of The Indiana
National Bank of Indianapolis to the Indiana National
Corporation. The Tower National Bank will not be
operating as a commercial bank prior to the merger.
Because The Indiana National Bank of Indianapolis
is the only operating bank involved in the proposed
transaction, there can be no adverse effect on competition resulting from consummation of the proposed
merger.
Applying the statutory criteria, it is concluded that

MARCH 4,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

[This merger] * * * is part of a transaction which
will result in a presently existing bank becoming a
wholly-owned subsidiary of a one-bank holding company. Thus, * * * [it] is merely a part of a corporate
reorganization and as such will have no effect on
competition.

RHODE ISLAND HOSPITAL TRUST COMPANY, PROVIDENCE, R.I., AND RHODE ISLAND HOSPITAL TRUST NATIONAL BANK, PROVIDENCE,

R.I.
Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets

Rhode Island Hospital Trust Company, Providence, R.I., with
and Rhode Island Hospital Trust National Bank, Providence, R.I. (15723),
which had
merged May 29, 1969, under charter and title of the latter bank (15723). The
merged bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On February 21, 1969, the Rhode Island Hospital
Trust National Bank (organizing) 3 Providence, R.I.,
applied to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to merge with the Rhode Island
Hospital Trust Company, Providence, R.I., under the
charter and with the title of the former.
The Rhode Island Hospital Trust Company, the
merging bank, is located in Providence, R.I., a city
of 187,000 people. The bank was chartered as a State
bank in 1867 and is presently the second largest bank
in Rhode Island, with IPC deposits of $430.6 million.
At the time of application it had 28 branches, including three facilities operated at the U.S. Naval Base,
Newport, the Rhode Island Hospital, and Providence
College. The resulting bank will continue to operate
the 28 branches, and permission is being sought to
convert the naval facility to full branch status.
The Rhode Island Hospital Trust National Bank
is being organized to transfer ownership of the merging
bank to the R.I.H.T. Corporation. Prior to merger
the organizing bank will not be operational. With the




$569, 463, 074
247, 246
569,710,320

exception of 500 directors' qualifying shares, all shares
of the resulting bank will be owned by the R.I.H.T.
Corporation.
Because the Rhode Island Hospital Trust Company
is the only operating bank in the proposed transaction,
there can be no adverse effect on competition resulting
from consummation of the proposed merger. The resulting bank will continue to conduct the merging
bank's business at the present locations under the title
of the Rhode Island Hospital Trust National Bank.
Applying the statutory criteria it is concluded that
the proposed merger is in the public interest and the
application is, therefore, approved.
APRIL 10,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

[This merger] * * * is part of a transaction which
will result in a presently existing bank becoming a
wholly-owned subsidiaiy of a one-bank holding company. Thus, * * * [it] is merely a part of a corporate
reorganization and as such will have no effect on
competition.

173

THE FIRST JERSEY NATIONAL BANK, JERSEY CITY, N.J., AND SECOND JERSEY NATIONAL BANK, JERSEY CITY, N.J.

Banking offices
Total assets

Name of bank and type of transaction

In
operation

The First Jersey National Bank, Jersey City, N.J. (374), with
and Second Jersey National Bank, Jersey City, N.J. (374), which had
merged May 29, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (374) and title "The
First Jersey National Bank." The merged bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On January 27, 1969, The First Jersey National
Bank, Jersey City, N.J., and the Second Jersey National Bank (organizing), Jersey City, N.J., applied to
the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to
merge under the charter of the latter and with the
title of the former.
The First Jersey National Bank, the merging bank,
is headquartered in Jersey City, N.J., and has 13 offices
in New Jersey. This bank, with total resources of $454
million and IPC deposits of $371.2 million, was originally chartered in 1864.
Second Jersey National Bank, the charter bank, is
being organized to provide a vehicle to transfer ownership of the merging bank to the First Jersey National
Corporation. The charter bank will not be operating
as a commercial bank prior to the merger.
Because the merging bank is the only operating bank

$418, 645, 205
250, 000

To be
operated

12
0

418,895,205

12

involved in the proposed transaction, there can be no
adverse effect on competition resulting from consummation of the proposed merger. The resulting bank
will conduct the same banking business at the same
locations and with the same name as presently used by
the merging bank.
Applying the statutory criteria, it is concluded that
the proposed merger is in the public interest and the
application is, therefore, approved.
MARCH 12,1969.
SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

[This merger] * * * is part of a transaction which
will result in a presently existing bank becoming a
wholly-owned subsidiary of a one-bank holding company. Thus, * * * [it] is merely a part of a corporate
reorganization and as such will have no effect on
competition.

COMMONWEALTH NATIONAL BANK, BOSTON, MASS., AND COMMONWEALTH BANK, N.A., BOSTON, MASS.

Banking offices
Total assets

Name of bank and type of transaction

In
operation

Commonwealth National Bank, Boston, Mass. (15399), with
and Commonwealth Bank, National Association, Boston, Mass. (15399),
which had
merged May 31, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (15399) and title "Commonwealth National Bank." The merged bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On February 14, 1969, the Commonwealth National
Bank, Boston, Mass., and the Commonwealth Bank,
National Association (organizing), Boston, Mass., applied to the Comptroller of the Currency for permission
to merge under the charter of the latter and with the
title of the former.
174



To be
operated

$43, 194, 287

6

250, 136

0

43, 201, 537

6

Commonwealth National Bank, the merging bank,
is headquartered in Boston and has five offices in Boston and one in nearby Chelsea. This bank, with total
resources of $46.6 million and IPC deposits of $38.1
million, was originally chartered in 1964.
Commonwealth Bank, National Association, the
charter bank, is being organized to provide a vehicle to
transfer ownership of the merging bank to the Com-

monwealth National Corporation. The charter bank
will not be operating as a commercial bank prior to the
merger.
Because the merging bank is the only operating bank
involved in the proposed transaction, there can be no
adverse effect on competition resulting from consummation of the proposed merger. The resulting bank will
conduct the same banking business at the same locations and with the same name as presently used by
by the merging bank.
Applying the statutory criteria, it is concluded that

the proposed merger is in the public interest and the
application is, therefore, approved.
MARCH 26,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

[This merger] * * * is part of a transaction which
will result in a presently existing bank becoming a
wholly-owned subsidiary of a one-bank holding company. Thus, * * * [it] is merely a part of a corporate
reorganization and as such will have no effect on
competition.

NEWPORT NATIONAL BANK, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF., AND NEWPORT BANK, N.A., NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF.
Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

Newport National Bank, Newport Beach, Calif. (15235), with
and Newport Bank, N.A., Newport Beach, Calif. (15235), which had
merged May 31,1969, under charter of the latter bank (15235) and title "Newport National Bank." The merged bank at date of merger had.

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On March 10, 1969, the Newport National Bank,
Newport Beach. Calif., and the Newport Bank, N.A.
(organizing), Newport Beach, Calif., applied to the
Comptroller of the Currency for permission to merge
under the charter of the latter and with the title of the
former.
Newport National Bank, the merging bank, is headquartered in Newport Beach and operates seven offices
in Newport and surrounding towns. This bank, with
total resources of $57 million and IPC deposits of $55
million, was originally chartered in January 1964.
Newport Bank, N.A., the charter bank, is being
organized to provide a vehicle to transfer ownership of
the merging bank to the Newport National Corporation. The charter bank will not be operating as a commercial bank prior to the merger.
Because the merging bank is the only operating bank




$61, 227, 665
125,000

To be
operated

9
0

61,352,665

9

involved in the proposed transaction, there can be no
adverse effect on competition resulting from consummation of the proposed merger. The resulting bank will
conduct the same banking business at the same locations and with the same name as presently used by
the merging bank.
Applying the statutory criteria, it; is concluded that
the proposed merger is in the public interest and the
application is, therefore, approved.
APRIL 18,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

[This merger] * * * is part of a transaction which
*
will result in a presently existing bank becoming a
wholly-owned subsidiary of a one-bank holding company. Thus, * * * [it] is merely a part of a corporate
reorganization and as such will have no effect on
competition.

175

CANAL NATIONAL BANK, PORTLAND, MAINE, AND MIDDLE STREET NATIONAL BANK, PORTLAND, MAINE
Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

Canal National Bank, Portland, Maine (941), with
and Middle Street National Bank, Portland, Maine (941), which had
merged June 2, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (941) and title "Canal N ational Bank." The merged bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On December 6, 1968, the Middle Street National
Bank (organizing), Portland, Maine, applied to the
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to merge with the Canal National Bank, Portland, Maine, under the charter of the former and with
the title of the latter.
The Canal National Bank, the merging bank, is
located in Portland, Maine, a city of 71,000 people.
The bank was organized in 1803 and has been a National bank since 1865. Presently, as one of the largest
banks in Maine, it has IPC deposits of $69.1 million in
its main office and 22 branches.
The Middle Street National Bank, Portland, Maine,
duly organized October 15, 1968, as a National bank
under Federal law, has an authorized capital stock of
$5.4 million divided into 540,000 shares. With the exception of 500 directors' qualifying shares, all remaining shares will be owned by United Bancorp of
Maine, a holding company. The organizing bank has
no financial or branch history due to its recent incep-

$100, 247, 343
241, 125

To be
operated

23
0

101, 350, 325

23

tion. It will not operate as a commercial bank since its
sole function is to act as a vehicle to form a one-bank
holding company.
Recognizing that the Canal National Bank is the
only operating bank involved in the proposed transaction, there can be no adverse effect on competition resulting from consummation of the proposed merger.
The resulting bank will continue to conduct the merging bank's business at the present locations under the
title of the Canal National Bank.
Applying the statutory criteria it is concluded that
the proposed merger is in the public interest, and the
application is, therefore, approved.
FEBRUARY 5,1969.
SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

The merger is part of a transaction which will result
in a presently existing bank becoming a subsidiary of a
one-bank holding company. Thus, the merger is merely
part of a corporate reorganization and as such will
have no effect on competition.

THE AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK OF AUSTIN, AUSTIN, TEX., AND AMBANK, N.A., AUSTIN, TEX.
Banking offices
Total assets

Name of bank and type of transaction

In
operation

The American National Bank of Austin, Austin, Tex. (4322), with
and Ambank, National Association, Austin, Tex. (4322), which had
merged June 2, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (4322) and title "The
American National Bank of Austin." The merged bank at date of merger had. . . .

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On February 24, 1969, The American National Bank
of Austin, Austin, Tex., and Ambank, National Association (organizing), Austin, Tex., filed an application
with the Comptroller of the Currency for permission
176



$152,855,713
250, 000
153, 105, 713

To be
operated
1
0

1

to merge under the charter of the latter and with the
title of the former.
The American National Bank of Austin, Austin,
Tex., was organized in 1890 and now holds IPC deposits of $67 million.
Ambank, National Association (organizing), Aus-

tin, Tex., is a nonoperating institution which was
organized as a step in the corporate reorganization of
the merging bank. With the exception of directors'
qualifying shares, all of the stock of the charter bank is
owned by American First Corporation, a Texas
corporation.
Since the charter bank is a nonoperating institution,
approval of this application will have no effect on
competition. Service to the public will not be affected
by this transaction as the resulting bank will operate
through the personnel and physical facilities of the
merging bank. Approval of the merger will, however,

facilitate the corporate reorganization of the merging
bank.
Applying the statutory criteria, we find that this
proposal is in the public interest and the application
is, therefore, approved.
APRIL 30, 1969.
SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

This merger is merely part of a corporate reorganization which will make American National Bank of Austin a wholly-owned subsidiary of a one-bank holding
company and as such will have no e f f e c t on
competition.

THE CHASE MANHATTAN BANK (N.A.), NEW YORK, N.Y., AND THE CHASE BANK OF NEW YORK (N.A.), NEW YORK, N.Y.
Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

The Chase Manhattan Bank (National Association), New York, N.Y. (2370) with. $17, 765, 426, 232
and The Chase Bank of New York (National Association), New York, N.Y (2370)
which had.
250, 000
merged June 4, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (2370) and title "The Chase
Manhattan Bank (National Association)." The merged bank at date of merger had. 17,765,434,232

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On February 17, 1969, The Chase Manhattan Bank
(National Association) and The Chase Bank of New
York (National Association) (organizing), applied to
the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to
merge under the charter of the latter and with the
title of the former.
The Chase Manhattan Bank (National Association),
the merging bank, is headquartered in New York City
and has offices located throughout New York City
and Nassau and Westchester counties. This bank has
total resources of $19.3 billion and IPC deposits of $9
billion.
The Chase Bank of New York (National Association), the charter bank, is being organized to provide
a vehicle to transfer ownership of the merging bank
to The Chase Manhattan Corporation. The charter
bank will not be operating as a commercial bank prior
to the merger.




|
j

To be
operated

155
0
155

Because the merging bank is the only operating bank
involved in the proposed transaction, there can be no
adverse effect on competition resulting from consummation of the proposed merger. The resulting bank
will conduct the same banking business at the same
locations and with the same name as presently used
by the merging bank.
Applying the statutory criteria, it is concluded that
the proposed merger is in the public interest and the
application is, therefore, approved.
APRIL 14, 1969.
SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

[This merger] * * * is part of a transaction which
will result in a presently existing bank becoming a
wholly-owned subsidiary of a one-bank holding company. Thus, * * * [it] is merely a part of a corporate
reorganization and as such will have no effect on
competition.

177

LINCOLN NATIONAL BANK, PHILADELPHIA, PA., AND LOCUST STREET NATIONAL BANK, PHILADELPHIA, PA.
Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

Lincoln National Bank, Philadelphia, Pa. (15393), with
and Locust Street National Bank, Philadelphia, Pa. (15393), which had
merged June 17, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (15393) and title "Lincoln
National Bank." The merged bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On March 11,1969, the Locust Street National Bank
(organizing), Philadelphia, Pa., applied to the Office
of the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to
merge with the Lincoln National Bank, Philadelphia,
Pa., under the charter of the former and with the title
of the latter.
The Lincoln National Bank, the merging bank, is
located in Philadelphia, Pa., a city of 2.1 million. The
bank was chartered September 1964, and presently has
IPC deposits of $34.8 million. At the time of the application it had one active branch, one approved but inactive facility, and an application pending for a third
facility.
The Locust Street National Bank, Philadelphia. Pa.,
owned by Lincoln National Company, is being organized as a means to transfer ownership of the Lincoln
National Bank to the Lincoln National Company.
Prior to the merger, the organizing bank will not be

$51,096,262
240, 000

To be
operated

2
0
2

51,336,262

operational. With the exception of the director's
qualifying shares, all of the shares of the resulting bank
will be owned by the Lincoln National Company.
Because the Lincoln National Bank is the only operating bank in the proposed transaction, there can be no
adverse effect on competition resulting from consummation of the proposed merger. The resulting bank
will continue to conduct the merging bank's business
at the present locations under title of the Lincoln
National Bank. The application is, therefore, approved.
APRIL 24,1969.
SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

[This merger] * * * is part of a transaction which
which will result in a presently existing bank becoming
a wholly-owned subsidiary of a one-bank holding company. Thus, * * * [it] is merely a part of a corporate
reorganization and as such will have no effect on
competition.

THE PEOPLES NATIONAL BANK OF LONG ISLAND, PATCHOGUE, N.Y., AND PEOPLES BANK OF LONG ISLAND, N.A., PATCHOGUE, N.Y.
Banking offices
Total assets

Name of bank and type of transaction

In
operation

The Peoples National Bank of Long Island, Patchogue, N.Y. (12788), with
and Peoples Bank of Long Island, National Association, Patchogue, N.Y. (12788),
which had
merged June 20, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (12788) and title of "The
Peoples National Bank of Long Island." The merged bank at date of merger had.

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On December 13, 1968, The Peoples National Bank
of Long Island, Patchogue, N.Y., and the Peoples
Bank of Long Island, National Association (organizing) , Patchogue, N.Y., applied to the Comptroller of
the Currency for permission to merge under the charter
of the latter and with the title of the former.
178



To be
operated

$70, 352, 406

8

125, 500

0

70, 365, 108

8

The Peoples National Bank of Long Island, the
merging bank, is headquartered in Patchogue and has
nine offices throughout Suffolk County. This bank has
total resources of $64 million and IPC deposits of $47
million.
The Peoples Bank of Long Island, National Association, the charter bank, is being organized to provide a
vehicle to transfer ownership of the merging bank to

the Bankers Trust New York Corporation. The charter
bank will not be operating as a commercial bank prior
to the merger.
Because the merging bank is the only operating bank
involved in the proposed transaction, there can be no
adverse effect on competition resulting from consummation of the proposed merger. The resulting bank will
conduct the same banking business at the same locations and with the same name as presently used by
the merging bank.
Applying the statutory criteria, it is concluded that

the proposed merger is in the public interest and the
application is, therefore, approved.
MAY 13, 1969.
SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

[This merger] * * * is part of a transaction which
will result in a presently existing bank becoming a
wholly-owned subsidiary of a one-bank holding company. Thus, * * * [it] is merely a part of a corporate
reorganization and as such will have no effect on
competition.

T H E CITIZENS AND SOUTHERN NATIONAL BANK OF SOUTH CAROLINA, CHARLESTON, S.G.,
CHARLESTON, S.C.

AND CITIZENS NATIONAL BANK,

Banking offices
Total assets

Name of bank and type of transaction

In
operation

The Citizens and Southern National Bank of South Carolina, Charleston, S.C.
(14425), with
...
and Citizens National Bank, Charleston, S.C. (14425), which had
merged June 30, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (14425) and title "The
Citizens and Southern National Bank of S.C." The merged bank at date of merger
had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On March 21, 1969, The Citizens and Southern
National Bank of South Carolina, Charleston, S.C.,
and the Citizens National Bank (organizing), Charleston, S.C, applied to the Comptroller of the Currency
for permission to merge under the charter of the latter
and with the title of the former.
The Citizens and Southern National Bank of South
Carolina, the merging bank, is headquartered in
Charleston, and has 47 offices located throughout
South Carolina. This bank, with total resources of
$296.6 million and IPC deposits of $223.7 million, was
originally chartered in 1874.
Citizens National Bank, the charter bank, is being
organized to provide a vehicle to transfer ownership of
the merging bank to the Citizens and Southern Corporation. The charter bank will not be operating as a
commercial bank prior to the merger.




$318,366,695
250,000 I

To be
operated

55
0
55

318,375,395

Because the merging bank is the only operating bank
involved in the proposed transaction, there can be no
adverse effect on competition resulting from consummation of the proposed merger. The resulting bank will
conduct the same banking business at the same locations and with the same name as presently used by
the merging bank.
Applying the statutory criteria, it is concluded that
the proposed merger is in the public interest and the
application is, therefore, approved.
MAY 15, 1969.
SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

[This merger] * * * is part of a transaction which
will result in a presently existing bank becoming a
wholly-owned subsidiary of a one-bank holding company. Thus, * * * [it] is merely a part of a corporate
reorganization and as such will have no effect on
competition.

179

THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY OF TULSA, TULSA, OKLA., AND THE FIRST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY OF TULSA,
N.A., TULSA, OKLA.
Banking offices
Total assets

Name of bank and type of transaction

In
operation

The First National Bank and Trust Company of Tulsa, Tulsa, Okla. (5171), with.
and The First Bank and Trust Company of Tulsa, National Association, Tulsa,
Okla. (5171), which had
merged July 1, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (5171) and title "The First
National Bank and Trust Company of Tulsa." The merged bank at date of merger
had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On February 3, 1969, The First National Bank and
Trust Company of Tulsa, Tulsa, Okla., and The First
Bank and Trust Company of Tulsa, National Association (organizing), Tulsa, Okla., applied to the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to merge under
the charter of the latter and with the title of the former.
The First National Bank and Trust Company of
Tulsa, the merging bank, is headquartered in Tulsa.
This bank, with total resources of $455 million and
IPC deposits of $311 million, was originally chartered
in 1895.
The First Bank and Trust Company of Tulsa, National Association, the charter bank, is being organized
to provide a vehicle to transfer ownership of the merging bank to the First Tulsa Bancorporation, Inc. The
charter bank will not be operating as a commercial
bank prior to the merger.

To be
operated

$418, 309, 922

1

255, 968

0

418, 565, 890

1

Because the merging bank is the only operating bank
involved in the proposed transaction, there can be no
adverse effect on competition resulting from consummation of the proposed merger. The resulting bank
will conduct the same banking busmess at the same
locations and with the same name as presently used
by the merging bank.
Applying the statutory criteria, it is concluded that
the proposed merger is in the public interest and the
application is, therefore, approved.
APRIL 2,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

[This merger] * * * is part of a transaction which
will result in a presently existing bank becoming
a wholly-owned subsidiary of a one-bank holding company. Thus, * * * [it] is merely a part of a corporate
reorganization and as such will have no effect on
competition.

THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF SOUTH CAROLINA, COLUMBIA, S.C., AND WASHINGTON STREET NATIONAL BANK, COLUMBIA, S.C.
Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

The First National Bank of South Carolina, Columbia, S.C. (13720), with
and Washington Street National Bank, Columbia, S.C. (13720), which had
merged July 19, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (13720) and title "First
National Bank of South Carolina." The merged bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On January 31, 1969, The First National Bank of
South Carolina, Columbia, S.C, and the Washington
Street National Bank (organizing), Columbia, S.C,
filed an application with the Comptroller of the Cur180



$236, 793, 768
240, 000
236, 800, 968

To be
operated

41
0
41

rency for permission to merge under the charter of the
the latter and with the title of the former.
The First National Bank of South Carolina, Columbia, S.C, holds IPC deposits of $163 million in its main
office and 42 branches.
The Washington Street National Bank (organizing),

Columbia, S.C., is a nonoperating institution which
was organized as a step in the corporate reorganization
of the merging bank. With the exception of directors'
qualifying shares, all of the stock of the charter bank is
owned by First Bankshares Corporation of South
Carolina, a South Carolina corporation.
Since the charter bank is a nonoperating institution,
approval of this application will have no effect on competition. Service to the public will not be affected by
this transaction as the resulting bank will operate
through the personnel and physical facilities of the
merging bank. Approval of the merger will, however,
facilitate the corporate reorganization of the merging
bank.

Applying the statutory criteria, we find that this proposal is in the public interest and the application is,
therefore, approved.
MARCH 10,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

[This merger] * * * is part of a transaction which
will result in a presently existing bank becoming a
wholly-owned subsidiary of a one-bank holding company. Thus, * * * [it] is merely a part of a corporate
reorganization and as such will have no effect on
competition.

S T . LOUIS COUNTY NATIONAL BANK, CLAYTON, M O . , AND COUNTY NATIONAL BANK, CLAYTON, M O .
Banking offices

Total assets

Name of bank and type of transaction

To be
operated

In
operation

St. Louis County National Bank, Clayton, Mo. (14538), with
and County National Bank, Clayton, Mo. (14538), which had
merged July 31, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (14538) and title "St. Louis
County National Bank." The merged bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On April 28, 1969, the St. Louis County National
Bank, Clayton, Mo., and the County National Bank
(organizing), Clayton, Mo., applied to the Comptroller
of the Currency for permission to merge under the
charter of the latter and with the title of the former.
St. Louis County National Bank, the merging bank,
is headquartered in Clayton, Mo., and has no other
offices. This bank, with total resources of $154 million
and IPC deposits of $128 million, was originally chartered in November 1945.
County National Bank, the charter bank, is being
organized to provide a vehicle to transfer ownership of
the merging bank to the County National Bancorporation. The charter bank will not be operating as a commercial bank prior to the merger.
Because the merging bank is the only operating bank
involved in the proposed transaction, there can be no




$155,994,399
120,000

2
0

156, 114,399

2

adverse effect on competition resulting from consummation of the proposed merger. The resulting bank will
conduct the same banking business at the same locations and with the same name as presently used by the
merging bank.
Applying the statutory criteria, it is concluded that
the proposed merger is in the public interest and the
application is, therefore, approved.
JUNE 23,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

[This merger] * * * is part of a transaction which
will result in a presently existing bank becoming a
wholly-owned subsidiary of a one-bank holding company. Thus, * * * [it] is merely a part of a corporate
reorganization and as such will have no effect on
competition.

181

PROVIDENT NATIONAL BANK, PHILADELPHIA, PA., AND SOWER NATIONAL BANK, PHILADELPHIA, PA.

Banking offices
Total assets

Name of bank and type of transaction

To be
operated

In
operation

Provident National Bank, Philadelphia, Pa. (15422), with
and Sower National Bank, Philadelphia, Pa. (15422), which had
merged Aug. 13, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (15422) and title "Provident
National Bank." The merged bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On May 13, 1969, the Provident National Bank,
Philadelphia, Pa., and the Sower National Bank (organizing), Philadelphia, Pa., applied to the Comptroller
of the Currency for permission to merge under the
charter of the latter and with the title of the former.
Provident National Bank, the merging bank, is headquartered in Philadelphia, Pa., and has 37 offices located throughout southeastern Pennsylvania. This
bank has total resources of $958.8 million and IPC
deposits of $750.2 million.
Sower National Bank, the charter bank, is being
organized to provide a vehicle to transfer ownership
of the merging bank to the Provident National Corporation. The charter bank will not be operating as a
commercial bank prior to the merger.
Because the merging bank is the only operating bank

$948, 727, 022
255, 000

35
0

948, 982, 022

35

involved in the proposed transaction, there can be no
adverse effect on competition resulting from consummation of the proposed merger. The resulting bank
will conduct the same banking business at the same
locations and with the same name as presently used by
the merging bank.
Applying the statutory criteria, it is concluded that
the proposed merger is in the public interest and the
application is, therefore, approved.
JULY 3,1969.
SUMMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

[This merger] * * * is part of a transaction which
will result in a presently existing bank becoming a
wholly-owned subsidiary of a one-bank holding company. Thus, * * * [it] is merely a part of a corporate
reorganization and as such will have no effect on
competition.

THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO, CHICAGO, I I I . , AND FIRST CHICAGO BANK, N.A.,

CHICAGO, I I I .

Banking offices
Total assets

Name of bank and type of transaction

To be
operated

In
operation

The First National Bank of Chicago, Chicago, 111. (8), with
and First Chicago Bank, National Association, Chicago, 111. (8) which had
merged Aug. 15, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (8) and title "The First
National Bank of Chicago." The merged bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On March 10, 1969, The First National Bank of
Chicago, Chicago, 111., and the First Chicago Bank,
National Association (organizing), Chicago^ 111., filed
an application with the Comptroller of the Currency
for permission to merge under the charter of the latter
and with the title of the former.
182



$5, 429, 899, 596
254, 184

1
0

5,430,153,780

The First National Bank of Chicago, Chicago, 111.,,
was organized in 1863 and now holds IPC deposits of
nearly $4 billion.
The First Chicago Bank, National Association (organizing), Chicago, III, is a nonoperating institution
which was organized as a step in the corporate reorganization of the merging bank. With the exception of
directors' qualifying shares, all of the stock of the

charter bank is owned by First Chicago Corporation,
a Delaware corporation.
Since the charter bank is a nonoperating institution,
approval of this application will have no effect on
competition. Service to the public will not be affected
by this transaction as the resulting bank will operate
through the personnel and physical facilities of the
merging bank. Approval of the merger will, however,
facilitate the corporate reorganization of the merging
bank.
Applying the statutory criteria, we find that this

proposal is in the public interest and the application
is, therefore, approved.
APRIL 18,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

[This merger] * * * is part of a transaction which
will result in a presently existing bank becoming a
wholly-owned subsidiary of a one-bank holding company. Thus, * * * [it] is merely a part of a corporate
reorganization and as such will have no effect on
competition.

THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY IN STEUBENVILLE, STEUBENVILLE, OHIO, AND SECOND NATIONAL BANK IN STEUBENVILLE, STEUBENVILLE, OHIO
Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

The First National Bank and Trust Company in Steubenville, Steubenville, Ohio
(2160), with
and Second National Bank in Steubenville, Steubenville, Ohio (2160), which had.
merged Sept. 2, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (2160) and title "The
First National Bank and Trust Company in Steubenville." The merged bank at
date of merger had
,

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On May 6, 1969, The First National Bank and Trust
Company in Steubenville, Steubenville, Ohio, and the
Second National Bank in Steubenville (organizing),
Steubenville, Ohio, applied to the Comptroller of the
Currency for permission to merge under the charter
of the latter and with the title of the former.
The First National Bank and Trust Company in
Steubenville, the merging bank, is headquartered in
Steubenville, Ohio, and has six offices throughout Jefferson County. This bank has total resources of $78.3
million and IPC deposits of $63.6 million.
Second National Bank in Steubenville^ the charter
bank, is being organized to provide a vehicle to transfer ownership of the merging bank to the First Steuben
Bancorp, Inc. The charter bank will not be operating
as a commercial bank prior to the merger.
Because the merging bank is the only operating bank




$80, 293, 403
115,950

i
\

To be
operated

6 |.

o ;.

80, 409, 353

involved in the proposed transaction, there can be no
adverse effect on competition resulting from consummation of the proposed merger. The resulting bank will
conduct the same banking business at the same locations and with the same name as presently used by the
merging bank.
Applying the statutory criteria, it is concluded that
the proposed merger is in the public interest and the
application is, therefore, approved.
JUNE 24,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

[This merger] * * * is part of a transaction which
will result in a presently existing bank becoming a
wholly-owned subsidiary of a one-bank holding company. Thus, * * * [it] is merely a part of a corporate
reorganization and as such will have no effect on
competition.

183

THE MERCHANTS NATIONAL BANK OF CEDAR RAPIDS, CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA, AND IOWA NATIONAL BANK OF CEDAR RAPIDS, CEDAR
RAPIDS, IOWA
Banking offices
Total assets

Name of bank and type of transaction

In
operation

The Merchants National Bank of Cedar Rapids, Cedar Rapids, Iowa (2511),
with
and Iowa National Bank of Cedar Rapids, Cedar Rapids, Iowa (2511), which
had
merged Sept. 2, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (2511) and title of "The
Merchants National Bank of Cedar Rapids." The merged bank at date of merger
had
.

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On February 24, 1969, The Merchants National
Bank of Cedar Rapids, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and the
Iowa National Bank of Cedar Rapids (organizing),
Cedar Rapids, Iowa, applied to the Comptroller of the
Currency for permission to merge under the charter of
the latter and with the title of the former.
The Merchants National Bank of Cedar Rapids, the
merging bank, is headquartered in Cedar Rapids, and
has two offices in Cedar Rapids. This bank, with total
resources of $161.7 million and IPC deposits of $101.3
million, was originally chartered in 1881.
Iowa National Bank of Cedar Rapids, the charter
bank, is being organized to provide a vehicle to transfer
ownership of the merging bank to Banks of Iowa, Inc.
The charter bank will not be operating as a commercial
bank prior to the merger.
Because the merging bank is the only operating bank

To be
operated

$161, 136,638

2

250, 000

0

161, 386, 638

2

involved in the proposed transaction, there can be no
adverse effect on competition resulting from consummation of the proposed merger. The resulting bank will
conduct the same banking business at the same locations and with the same name as presently used by
the merging bank.
Applying the statutory criteria, it is concluded that
the proposed merger is in the public interest and the
application is, therefore, approved.
APRIL 7,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

[This merger] * * * is part of a transaction which
will result in a presently existing bank becoming a
wholly-owned subsidiary of a one-bank holding company. Thus, * * * [it] is merely a part of a corporate
reorganization and as such will have no effect on
competition.

THE BOATMEN'S NATIONAL BANK OF ST. LOUIS, ST. LOUIS, MO., AND RIVERFRONT NATIONAL BANK, ST. LOUIS, M O .
Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
To be
operated

In
operation

The Boatmen's National Bank of St. Louis, St. Louis, Mo. (12916), with
and Riverfront National Bank, St. Louis, Mo. (12916), which had
merged Sept. 8, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (12916) and title "The
Boatmen's National Bank of St. Louis." The merged bank at date of merger h a d . . . .

COMPTROLLERS DECISION

On April 10, 1969, the Riverfront National Bank
(organizing), St. Louis, Mo., applied to the Office of
the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to

184



$292, 222, 372
243, 541
292,465,914

1
0
1

merge with The Boatmen's National Bank of St. Louis,
St. Louis, Mo., under the charter of the former and
with the title of the latter.
The Boatmen's National Bank of St. Louis, the
merging bank, is located in St. Louis, a city of some

700,000 people. The bank presently has IPG deposits
of $269.6 million, making it the third largest bank in
St. Louis.
The Riverfront National Bank, St. Louis, Mo.,
owned by the Boatmen's Bancshares, Inc., is being
organized as a means to transfer ownership of the
Boatmen's National Bank of St. Louis to the Boatmen's
Bancshares, Inc. With the exception of the directors'
qualifying shares, all shares of the resulting bank will
be owned by the Boatmen's Bancshares, Inc.
Because the Boatmen's National Bank of St. Louis
is the only operating bank in the proposed transaction,
there can be no adverse effect on competition resulting
from consummation of the proposed merger. The re-

FRANKLIN NATIONAL BANK, MINEOLA, N.Y.,

sulting bank will continue to conduct the merging
bank's business at the present location under title of
The Boatmen's National Bank of St. Louis. The application is, therefore, approved.
JUNE 23,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

[This merger] * * * is part of a transaction which
will result in a presently existing bank becoming a
wholly-owned subsidiary of a one-bank holding company. Thus, * * * [it] is merely a part of a corporate
reorganization and as such will have no effect on
competition.

AND FRANKLIN BANK OF N E W YORK (N.A.), MINEOLA,

N.Y.

Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

Franklin Bank of New York (National Association), Mineola, N.Y. (12997), with,
and Franklin National Bank, Mineola, N.Y. (12997), which had
consolidated Sept. 22, 1969, under charter and title of "Franklin National Bank."
The consolidated bank at date of consolidation had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On July 18, 1969, Franklin National Bank, Mineola,
N.Y., and Franklin Bank of New York (National Association) (organizing), Mineola, N.Y., applied to the
Comptroller of the Currency for permission to consolidate under the charter and with the title, of the
former.
Franklin National Bank, the charter bank, is headquartered in Mineola, and has 82 offices throughout
New York City and Long Island, N.Y. This bank, with
total resources of $2.7 billion and IPC deposits of $1.6
billion, was originally chartered in 1926.
Franklin Bank of New York (National Association),
the new bank, is being organized to provide a vehicle
to transfer ownership of the charter bank to the Franklin New York Corporation. The new bank will not be
operating as a commercial bank prior to the
consolidation.
Because the charter bank is the only operating bank




$248, 380
2,665,516, 746

To be
operated

0
86

2,665, 765, 126

86

involved in the proposed transaction, there can be no
adverse effect on competition resulting from consummation of the proposed consolidation. The resulting
bank will conduct the same banking business at the
same locations and with the same name as presently
used by the charter bank.
Applying the statutory criteria, it is concluded that
the proposed consolidation is in the public interest and
the application is, therefore, approved.
AUGUST 21,1969.
SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

[This merger] * * * is part of a transaction which
will result in a presently existing bank becoming a
wholly-owned subsidiary of a one-bank holding company. Thus, * * * [it] is merely a part of a corporate
reorganization and as such will have no effect on
competition.

185

NATIONAL BANK OF WESTGHESTER, W H I T E PLAINS, N.Y.,

AND NATIONAL BANK OF WESTCHESTER, W H I T E PLAINS, W H I T E PLAINS,

N.Y.

Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

National Bank of Westchester, White Plains, N.Y. (10525), with
and National Bank of Westchester, White Plains, White Plains, N.Y. (10525),
which^iad
merged Sept. 26, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (10525) and title "National
Bank of Westchester." The merged bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On February 25, 1969, the National Bank of Westchester, White Plains, N.Y., and the National Bank of
Westchester, White Plains (organizing), White Plains,
N.Y. applied to the Comptroller of the Currency for
permission to merge under the charter of the latter and
with the title of the former.
National Bank of Westchester, the merging bank, is
headquartered in White Plains, and has 33 offices
throughout Westchester County and one in Dutchess
County. This bank, with total resources of $480.4 million and IPC deposits of $347.4 million, was originally
chartered in 1833.
National Bank of Westchester, White Plains, the
charter bank, is being organized to provide a vehicle to
transfer ownership of the merging bank to Lincoln
First Banks, Inc. The charter bank will not be operating as a commercial bank prior to the merger.
Because the merging bank is the only operating bank
involved in the proposed transaction, there can be no

To be
operated

$453, 114,339

33

246, 758

0

453,361,097

33

adverse effect on competition resulting from consummation of the proposed merger. The resulting bank will
conduct the same banking business at the same locations and with the same name as presently used by the
merging bank.
Applying the statutory criteria, it is concluded that
the proposed merger is in the public interest and the
application is, therefore, approved.
AUGUST 25,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

The proposed merger is part of a plan of Lincoln
First Banks, Inc., a registered bank holding company
incorporated in New York, to acquire New Bank as a
wholly-owned subsidiary.
Considered in and of itself, and apart from any possible subsequent acquisition of New Bank by Lincoln
First Banks, the instant merger is merely part of a corporate reorganization and as such will have no effect
on competition.

CENTRAL NATIONAL BANK AND T R U S T COMPANY OF ENID, ENID, O K L A . , AND BROADWAY NATIONAL BANK OF ENID, ENID, O K L A .

Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

Central National Bank and Trust Company of Enid, Enid, Okla. (12044), with. .
and Broadway National Bank of Enid, Enid, Okla. (12044), which had
merged Sept. 30, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (12044) and title "Central
National Bank & Trust Co., of Enid." The merged bank at date of merger had. .

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On June 2, 1969, the Central National Bank and
Trust Company of Enid, Enid, Okla., and the Broadway National Bank of Enid (organizing), Enid, Okla.,
186



$39,816,455
250, 000
39,816,455

To be
operated
2
0

2

applied to the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to merge under the charter of the latter and with
the title of the former.
Central National Bank and Trust Company of Enid,
the merging bank, is headquartered in Enid and has

an additional office in Enid. This bank, with total resources of $36.5 million and IPC deposits of $28.2
million, was originally chartered in 1921.
Broadway National Bank of Enid, the charter bank,
is being organized to provide a vehicle to transfer ownership of the merging bank to the Central Service
Corporation. The charter bank will not be operating as
a commercial bank prior to the merger.
Because the merging bank is the only operating bank
involved in the proposed transaction, there can be no
adverse effect on competition resulting from consummation of the proposed merger. The resulting bank
will conduct the same banking business at the same

locations and with the same name as presently used
by the merging bank.
Applying the statutory criteria, it is concluded that
the proposed merger is in the public interest and the
application is, therefore, approved.
JULY 30,1969.
SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

[This merger] * * * is part of a transaction which
will result in a presently existing bank becoming a
wholly-owned subsidiary of a one-bank holding company. Thus, * * * [it] is merely a part of a corporate
reorganization and as such will have no effect on
competition.

CENTRAL NATIONAL BANK IN CHICAGO, I I I . , AND CENTRAL BANK OF CHICAGO, N.A., CHICAGO, I I I
Banking offices
Name of hank and type of transaction

Total assets
To be
operated

In
operation

Central National Bank in Chicago, Chicago, 111. (14362), with
and Central Bank of Chicago, National Association, Chicago, 111. (14362), which
had
merged Sept. 30, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (14362) and title "Central
National Bank in Chicago." The merged bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On February 11, 1969, the Central National Bank
in Chicago, Chicago, 111., and the Central Bank of
Chicago, National Association (organizing), Chicago,
111., applied to the Comptroller of the Currency for
permission to merge under the charter of the latter and
with the title of the former.
Central National Bank in Chicago, the merging
bank, is headquartered in Chicago, 111. This bank,
with total resources of $471.9 million and IPC deposits
of $331.4 million, was originally chartered on July 31,
1936.
Central Bank of Chicago, National Association, the
charter bank, is being organized to provide a vehicle to
transfer ownership of the merging bank to the Central
National Chicago Corporation. The charter bank will
not be operating as a commercial bank prior to the
merger.

383-814—70-




-13

$447, 723, 953
248, 480

1
0

447,731, 153

1

Because the merging bank is the only operating bank
involved in the proposed transaction, there can be no
adverse effect on competition resulting from consummation of the proposed merger. The resulting bank
will conduct the same banking business at the same location and with the same name as presently used by the
merging bank.
Applying the statutory criteria, it is concluded that
the proposed merger is in the public interest and the
application is, therefore, approved.
MARCH 27,1969.
SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

[This merger] * * * is part of a transaction which
will result in a presently existing bank becoming a
wholly-owned subsidiary of a one-bank holding company. Thus, * * * [it] is merely a part of a corporate
reorganization and as such will have no effect on
competition.

187

CENTRAL-PENN NATIONAL BANK OF PHILADELPHIA, BALA-CYNWYD, PA., AND BROAD AND WALNUT NATIONAL BANK, BALA-CYNWYD »
PA.
Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

Central-Penn National Bank of Philadelphia, Bala-Cynwyd, Pa. (723), with
and Broad and Walnut National Bank, Bala-Cynwyd, Pa. (723), which had
merged Sept. 30, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (723) and title "Central
Penn National Bank." The merged bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On May 22, 1969, the Central-Penn National Bank
of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pa., and the Broad and
Walnut National Bank (organizing), Philadelphia, Pa.,
applied to the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to merge under the charter of the latter and
with the title of "Central Penn National Bank."
Central-Penn National Bank of Philadelphia, the
merging bank, is headquartered in Philadelphia and
has 24 offices throughout Greater Philadelphia. This
bank, with total resources of $457.7 million and IPC
deposits of $352.5 million, was originally chartered in
1828.
Broad and Walnut National Bank, the charter bank,
is being organized to provide a vehicle to transfer ownership of the merging bank to the CP Financial Corp.
The charter bank will not be operating as a commercial bank prior to the merger.

$449, 904, 308
250, 107

To be
operated

24
0

450, 154,415

24

Because the merging bank is the only operating bank
involved in the proposed transaction, there can be no
adverse effect on competition resulting from consummation of the proposed merger. The resulting bank will
conduct the same banking business at the same locations and with the same name as presently is used by
the merging bank.
Applying the statutory criteria, it is concluded that
the proposed merger is in the public interest and the
application is, therefore, approved.
JULY 9,1969.
SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

[This merger] * * * is part of a transaction which
will result in a presently existing bank becoming a
wholly-owned subsidiary of a one-bank holding company. Thus, * * * [it] is merely a part of a corporate
reorganization and as such will have no effect on
competition.

FIRST SECURITY NATIONAL BANK OF BEAUMONT, BEAUMONT, TEX., AND SECURITY NATIONAL BANK, BEAUMONT, TEX.
Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

First Security National Bank of Beaumont, Beaumont, Tex. (4017), with
and Security National Bank, Beaumont, Tex. (4017), which had
merged Sept. 30, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (4017) and title "First
Security National Bank of Beaumont." The merged bank at date of merger had. .

COMPTROLLER'S DECISION

On April 29, 1969, the First Security National Bank
of Beaumont, Beaumont, Tex., and the Security National Bank (organizing), Beaumont, Tex., applied to
the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to
merge under the charter of the latter and with the
title of the former.
188



$145, 145, 768
257, 200
145, 402, 968

To be
operated
1
0
1

The First Security National Bank of Beaumont, the
merging bank, is headquartered in Beaumont, Tex.,
and has no other offices. This bank, with total resources of $142 million and IPC deposits of $59 million,
was originally chartered on April 9,1889.
Security National Bank, the charter bank, is being
organized to provide a vehicle to transfer ownership

of the merging bank to the First Security National
Corporation. The charter bank will not be operating
as a commercial bank prior to the merger.
Because the merging bank is the only operating
bank involved in the proposed transaction, there can
be no adverse effect on competition resulting from consummation of the proposed merger. The resulting bank
will conduct the same banking business at the same
locations and with the same name as presently used by
the merging bank.
Applying the statutory criteria, it is concluded that

the proposed merger is in the public interest and the
application is, therefore, approved.
JULY 3,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

[This merger] * * * is part of a transaction which
will result in a presently existing bank becoming a
wholly-owned subsidiary of a one-bank holding company. Thus, * * * [it] is merely a part of a corporate
reorganization and as such will have no effect on
competition.

THE SECURITY NATIONAL BANK OF SIOUX CITY, SIOUX CITY, IOWA, AND IOWA SECURITY NATIONAL BANK, SIOUX CITY, IOWA
Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets

The Security National Bank of Sioux City, Sioux City, Iowa (3124), with
and Iowa Security National Bank, Sioux City, Iowa (3124), which had
merged Sept. 30, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (3124) and title "The
Security National Bank of Sioux City, Iowa." The merged bank at date of merger
had
...

$82, 046, 366
250, 000
82, 296, 366
i

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On May 20, 1969, The Security National Bank of
Sioux City, Sioux City, Iowa, and Iowa Security National Bank (organizing), Sioux City, Iowa, filed an
application with the Comptroller of the Currency for
permission to merge under the charter of the latter and
with the title of "The Security National Bank of Sioux
City, Iowa.*'
The Security National Bank of Sioux City was chartered in 1884 and now holds I PC deposits of about
$53 million.
The Iowa Security National Bank, the charter bank,
is being organized to provide a vehicle to transfer ownership of the merging bank to the Security National
Corporation. The charter bank will not be operating as
a commercial bank prior to the merger.
Since the charter bank is a nonoperating institution,
approval of this application will have no effect on com-




petition. Service to the public will not be affected by
this transaction as the resulting bank will operate
through the personnel and physical facilities of the
merging bank. Approval of the merger will, however,
facilitate the corporate reorganization of the merging
bank.
Applying the statutory criteria, we find that this
proposal is in the public interest and the application
is, therefore, approved.
JULY 16,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

[This merger] * * * is part of a transaction which
will result in a presently existing bank becoming a
wholly-owned subsidiary of a one-bank holding company. Thus, * * * [it] is merely a part of a corporate
reorganization and as such will have no effect on
competition.

189

THE LIBERTY NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY OF OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLA., AND LIBERTY BANK,
OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLA.

N.A.,

Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

The Liberty National Bank and Trust Company of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
City, Okla. (11230), with
and Liberty Bank, National Association, Oklahoma City, Okla. (11230), which had.
merged Oct. 1, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (11230) and title "The
Liberty National Bank and Trust Company of Oklahoma City." The merged
bank at date of merger had
~ ^ ._.. .._.

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On May 27, 1969, The Liberty National Bank and
Trust Company of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma City,
Okla., and the Liberty Bank, National Association (organizing), Oklahoma City, Okla., applied to the
Comptroller of the Currency for permission to merge
under the charter of the latter and with the title of the
former.
The Liberty National Bank and Trust Company of
Oklahoma City, the merging bank, is headquartered
in Oklahoma City, and is a single office bank. This
bank, with total resources of $419.9 million and IPC
deposits of $238.5 million, was originally chartered in
1918.
Liberty Bank, National Association, the charter
bank, is being organized to provide a vehicle to transfer ownership of the merging bank to the Liberty National Corporation. The charter bank will not be
operating as a commercial bank prior to the merger.

To be
operated

$415,894,411
240,000
415,901,611

Because the merging bank is the only operating bank
involved in the proposed transaction, there can be no
adverse effect on competition resulting from consummation of the proposed merger. The resulting bank
will conduct the same banking business at the same
location and with the same name as presently used
by the merging bank.
Applying the statutory criteria, it is concluded that
the proposed merger is in the public interest and the
application is, therefore, approved.
AUGUST 6,1969.
SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

[This merger] * * * is part of a transaction which
will result in a presently existing bank becoming a
wholly-owned subsidiary of a one-bank holding company. Thus, * * * [it] is merely a part of a corporate
reorganization and as such will have no effect on
competition.

LINCOLN NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY OF FORT WAYNE, FORT WAYNE, IND., AND ALLEN COUNTY NATIONAL BANK,
FORT WAYNE, IND.
Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

Lincoln National Bank and Trust Company of Fort Wayne, Fort Wayne, Ind.
(7725), with
and Allen County National Bank, Fort Wayne, Ind. (7725), which had
,
merged Oct. 31, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (7725) and title "Lincoln
National Bank and Trust Company of Fort Wayne." The merged bank at date of
merger had

190



$272,352,471
248, 448
272, 359, 971

To be
operated

COMPTROLLERS DECISION

On April 17, 1969, the Lincoln National Bank and
Trust Company of Fort Wayne, Fort Wayne, Ind., and
the Allen County National Bank (organizing), Fort
Wayne, Ind., applied to the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to merge under the charter of the
latter and with the title of the former.
Lincoln National Bank and Trust Company of Fort
Wayne, the merging bank, is headquartered in Fort
Wayne, Ind., and has six offices throughout Allen
County. This bank, with total resources of $252.3
million and IPC deposits of $203.8 million, was originally chartered in May 1905.
Allen County National Bank, the charter bank, is
being organized to provide a vehicle to transfer ownership of the merging bank to the Lincoln Tower Corporation. The charter bank will not be operating as a
commercial bank prior to the merger.

Because the merging bank is the only operating bank
involved in the proposed transaction, there can be no
adverse effect on competition resulting from consumtion of the proposed merger. The resulting bank will
conduct the same banking business at the same locations and with the same name as presently used by the
merging bank.
Applying the statutory criteria, it is concluded that
the proposed merger is in the public interest and the
application is, therefore, approved.
SEPTEMBER 17,1969.
SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

[This merger] * * * is part of a transaction which
will result in a presently existing bank becoming a
wholly-owned subsidiary of a one-bank holding company. Thus, * * * [it] is merely a part of a corporate
reorganization and as such will have no effect on
competition.

THE PHILADELPHIA NATIONAL BANK, PHILADELPHIA, PA., AND PNB NATIONAL BANK, PHILADELPHIA, PA.
Banking offices
Name of hank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

The Philadelphia National Bank, Philadelphia, Pa. (539), with
and PNB National Bank, Philadelphia, Pa. (539), which had
merged Nov. 1, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (539) and title "The
Philadelphia National Bank." The merged bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On February 13, 1969, The Philadelphia National
Bank, Philadelphia, Pa., and the PNB National Bank
(organizing), Philadelphia, Pa., applied to the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to merge under
the charter of the latter and with the title of the
former.
The Philadelphia National Bank, the merging bank,
is headquartered in Philadelphia, and has 49 offices
throughout the Greater Philadelphia Area. This bank,
with total resources of $2 billion and IPC deposits of
$1.3 billion, was originally chartered in 1859.
PNB National Bank, the charter bank, is being organized to provide a vehicle to transfer ownership of the
merging bank to the PNB Corporation. The charter
bank will not be operating as a commercial bank prior
to the merger.
Because the merging bank is the only operating bank




$2,015,620,546
250, 000

To be
operated

52
0

2, 046, 298, 456

52

involved in the proposed transaction, there can be no
adverse effect on competition resulting from consummation of the proposed merger. The resulting bank will
conduct the same banking business at the same locations and with the same name as presently used by the
merging bank.
Applying the statutory criteria, it is concluded that
the proposed merger is in the public interest and the
application is, therefore, approved.
APRIL 2,1969.
SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

[This merger] * * * is part of a transaction which
will result in a presently existing bank becoming a
wholly-owned subsidiary of a one-bank holding company. Thus, * * * [it] is merely a part of a corporate
reorganization and as such will have no effect on
competition.

191

FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF HUNTSVILLE, HUNTSVILLE, T E X . , AND WALKER COUNTY NATIONAL BANK, HUNTSVILLE, T E X .

Banking offices
Total assets

Name of bank and type of transaction

To be
operated

In
operation

First National Bank of Huntsville, Huntsville, Tex. (4208), with
and Walker County National Bank, Huntsville, Tex. (4208), which had
merged Dec. 1, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (4208), and title of "First
National Bank of Huntsville." The merged bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On July 16, 1969, the First National Bank of Huntsville, Huntsville, Tex., and the Walker County National Bank (organizing), Huntsville, Tex., applied
to the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to
merge under the charter of the latter and with the title
of the former.
The First National Bank of Huntsville, the merging
bank, is headquartered in Huntsville, Tex. This bank,
with total resources of $17 million and IPC deposits of
$10.6 million, was originally chartered in 1890. The
Walker County National Bank, the charter bank, is
being organized to provided a vehicle to transfer ownership of the merging bank to First Huntsville Corporation. The charter bank will not be operating as a
commercial bank prior to the merger.
Because the merging bank is the only operating bank
involved in the proposed transaction, there can be no

$16, 181,495
120,000

1
0
1

16, 188, 795

adverse effect on competition resulting from consummation of the proposed merger. The resulting bank
will conduct the same banking business at the same
location and with the same name as presently used by
the merging bank.
Applying the statutory criteria, it is concluded that
the proposed merger is in the public interest and the
application is, therefore, approved.
AUGUST 29,1969.
SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

[This merger] * * * is part of a transaction which
will result in a presently existing bank becoming a
wholly-owned subsidiary of a one-bank holding company. Thus, * * * [it] is merely a part of a corporate
reorganization and as such will have no effect on
competition.

SCARSDALE NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, SCARSDALE, N . Y . , AND THE SCARSDALE NATIONAL BANK & TRUST COMPANY,
SCARSDALE, N . Y .

Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
To be
operated

In
operation

Scarsdale National Bank and Trust Company, Scarsdale, N.Y. (11708), with
and The Scarsdale National Bank & Trust Company, Scarsdale, N.Y. (11708),
which had
merged Dec. 5, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (11708) and title "Scarsdale
National Bank and Trust Company." The merged bank at date of merger had. . . .

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On September 9, 1969, Scarsdale National Bank and
Trust Company and The Scarsdale National Bank &
Trust Company (organizing), applied to the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to merge under

192



$73, 302, 900

5

123,221

0

73,426, 121

5

the charter of the latter and with the title of the former.
Scarsdale National Bank and Trust Company, the
merging bank, is headquartered in Scarsdale. This
bank, with total resources of $76.9 million and IPC deposits of $64.5 million, was originally chartered in 1920.
The Scarsdale National Bank & Trust Company,

the charter bank, is being organized to provide a vehicle to transfer ownership of the merging bank to the
Charter New York Corporation. The charter bank will
not be operating as a commercial bank prior to the
merger.
Because the merging bank is the only operating bank
involved in the proposed transaction, there can be no
adverse effect on competition resulting from consummation of the proposed merger. The resulting bank
will conduct the same banking business at the same locations and with the same name as presently used by
the merging bank.
Applying the statutory criteria, it is concluded that
the proposed merger is in the public interest and the
application is, therefore, approved.
NOVEMBER

4,1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

The proposed merger is part of a plan under which
Charter New York Corporation, a registered bank
holding company, proposes to acquire all of the voting
shares of The Scarsdale National Bank & Trust Co.
(organizing), a nonoperating institution and as a contemporaneous transaction, to effect the merger of
Scarsdale National Bank & Trust Co. into The Scarsdale National Bank & Trust Co. (organizing).
The effect of these transactions will be to transfer control of an existing bank to a registered bank holding
company. In and of itself, however, the proposed
merger would merely combine an existing bank with
a nonoperating institution; as such, and without regard to acquisition of the surviving bank by Charter
New York Corporation, the proposed merger would
have no effect on competition.

T H E FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF TOPEKA, TOPEKA, KANS., AND T H E SECOND NATIONAL BANK OF TOPEKA, TOPEKA, K A N S .

Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

The First National Bank of Topeka, Topeka, Kans. (3078), with
and The Second National Bank of Topeka, Topeka, Kans. (3078), which had
merged Dec. 5, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (3078) and title "The
First National Bank of Topeka." The merged bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLERS DECISION

On July 31, 1969, The Second National Bank of
Topeka and The First National Bank of Topeka applied to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
for permission to merge under the charter of the
former and with the title of the latter.
The First National Bank of Topeka, the merging
bank, is headquartered in Topeka, Kans. The bank has
total resources of $158.9 million and IPC deposits of
$90.6 million.
The Second National Bank of Topeka, the charter
bank, is being organized to provide a vehicle to transfer ownership of the merging bank to First Topeka
Bankshares, Inc. The charter bank will not be operating
as a commercial bank prior to this merger.
Because the merging bank is the only operating bank
involved in the proposed transaction, there can be no




$155,429,588
250, 000

To be
operated
2
0

155,429,588

2

adverse effect on competition resulting from consummation of the proposed merger. The resulting bank will
conduct the same banking business at the same locations and with the same name as presently used by the
merging bank.
Applying the statutory criteria, it is concluded that
the proposed merger is in the public interest and the
application is, therefore^ approved.
OCTOBER 1,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

[This merger] * * * is part of a transaction which
will result in a presently existing bank becoming a
wholly-owned subsidiary of a one-bank holding company. Thus, * * * [it] is merely a part of a corporate
reorganization and as such will have no effect on
competition.

193

THE FULTON COUNTY NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY OF GLOVERSVILLE, GLOVERSVILLE, N.Y., AND THE FULTON COUNTY
NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, GLOVERSVILLE, N.Y.

Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

The Fulton County National Bank and Trust Company of Gloversville, Gloversville, N.Y. (3312), with
and The Fulton County National Bank and Trust Company, Gloversville, N.Y.
(3312), which had
merged Dec. 5, 1969, under charter and title of the latter bank (3312). The merged
bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On August 29, 1969, The Fulton County National
Bank and Trust Company (organizing), Gloversville,
N.Y., applied to the Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency for permission to merge with The Fulton
County National Bank and Trust Company of Gloversville, Gloversville, N.Y., under the charter and with the
title of the former.
The Fulton County National Bank, the merging
bank, is located in Gloversville, N.Y., a city of 21,741.
The bank was chartered in 1852 and presently has I PC
deposits of $21.2 million. At the time of the application it had three branches in addition to its main
office.
The Fulton County National Bank and Trust Company, owned by Charter New York Corporation, a
holding company, is being organized as a means to
transfer ownership of The Fulton County National
Bank and Trust Company of Gloversville to the holding company. Prior to the merger, the organizing bank
will not be operational. With the exception of the directors' qualifying shares, all of the shares of the resulting bank will be owned by the holding company.
Because the merging bank is the only operating bank
in the proposed transaction, there can be no adverse

To be
operated

$25, 640, 683
120, 492
25,761,175

effect on competition resulting from consummation of the proposed merger. The resulting bank will
continue to conduct the merging bank's business at
the present locations under title of The Fulton County
National Bank and Trust Company.
The application is, therefore, approved.
NOVEMBER 4,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

The proposed merger is part of a plan under which
Charter New York Corporation, a registered bank
holding company, proposes to acquire all of the voting
shares of Fulton County National Bank and Trust
Company (organizing), a nonoperating institution and
as a contemporaneous transaction, to effect the merger
of Fulton County National Bank & Trust Company of
Gloversville into Fulton County National Bank and
Trust Company (organizing). The effect of these transactions will be to transfer control of an existing bank
to a registered bank holding company. In and of itself,
however, the proposed merger would merely combine
an existing bank with a nonoperating institution; as
such, and without regard to acquisition of the surviving bank by Charter New York Corporation, the
proposed merger would have no effect on competition.

THE CITY NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY OF KANSAS CITY, KANSAS CITY, MO., AND CITY BANK, N.A., KANSAS CITY, M O .

Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

The City National Bank and Trust Company of Kansas City, Kansas City, Mo.
(13936), with
and City Bank, National Association, Kansas City, Mo. (13936), which had
merged Dec. 19, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (13936) and title "The
City National Bank and Trust Company of Kansas City." The merged bank at date
of merger had

194



$360, 124, 521
301, 961
360, 133, 521

To be
operated

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On September 19, 1969, The City National Bank
and Trust Company of Kansas City, Kansas City, Mo.,
and the City Bank, National Association (organizing),
Kansas City, Mo., applied to the Comptroller of the
Currency for permission to merge under the charter of
the latter and with the title of the former.
The City National Bank and Trust Company of
Kansas City, the merging bank, is headquartered in
Kansas City, and is a unit bank. This bank, with total
resources of $370.2 million and IPC deposits of $236.7
million, was originally chartered in 1913.
City Bank, National Association (organizing), is
being organized to provide a vehicle to transfer ownership of the merging bank to Missouri Bancshares,
Inc., a Missouri corporation. The charter bank will not
operate as a commercial bank prior to the merger.
Since the merging bank is the only operating bank

involved in the proposed transaction, there can be no
adverse effect on competition from consummation of
the proposed merger. The resulting bank will conduct
the same banking business at the same locations and
with the same name as presently used by the merging
bank.
Applying the statutory criteria, it is concluded that
the proposed merger is in the public interest and the
application is, therefore, approved.
NOVEMBER 19,1969.
SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

[This merger] * * * is part of a transaction which
will result in a presently existing bank becoming a
wholly-owned subsidiary of a one-bank holding company. Thus, * * * [it] is merely a part of a corporate
reorganization and as such will have no effect on
competition.

COMMERCIAL NATIONAL BANK & TRUST COMPANY, MUSKOGEE, O K L A . , AND COMMERCIAL BANK, N.A., MUSKOGEE, O K L A .

Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

Commercial National Bank & Trust Company, Muskogee, Okla. (12890), with...
and Commercial Bank, National Association, Muskogee, Okla. (12890), which had.
merged Dec. 31, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (12890) and title "Commercial National Bank & Trust Company." The merged bank at date of merger
had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On August 8, 1969, the Commercial National Bank
& Trust Company, Muskogee, Okla., and the Commercial Bank, National Association (organizing), Muskogee, Okla., applied to the Comptroller of the
Currency for permission to merge under the charter
of the latter and with the title of the former.
Commercial National Bank & Trust Company, the
merging bank, is headquartered in Muskogee, Okla.
The city is 50 miles southeast of Tulsa, Okla., and has
an estimated population of 42,000. The merging bank,
organized February 25, 1926, has enjoyed steady and
stable growth, and presently its assets total $30.9 million with IPC deposits of $22.6 million.
Commercial Bank, National Association, the charter
bank, organized April 14, 1969, is being utilized as a
means of transferring ownership of the merging bank to
the Commercial Landmark Corporation which owns
all shares of the new bank with the exception of 500
383-814—70



-14

$32, 609, 338
124,054

To be
operated
2
0

32, 733, 391

2

director's qualifying shares. The charter bank has not
been operating as a commercial bank prior to this
merger.
Because the merging bank is the only operating bank
involved in the proposed transaction, there can be no
adverse effect on competition resulting from consummation of the proposed merger. The resulting bank will
conduct the same banking business at the same location
and with the same name as presently used by the merging bank.
Applying the statutory criteria, it is concluded that
the proposed merger is in the public interest and the
application is, therefore, approved.
NOVEMBER 19,1969.
SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

[This merger] * * * is part of a transaction which
will result in a presently existing bank becoming a
195

wholly-owned subsidiary of a one-bank holding company. Thus, * * * [it] is merely a part of a corporate
•Sfr

reorganization and as such will have no effect on
competition.
-X- -K-

FARMERS AND MERCHANTS NATIONAL BANK, WINCHESTER, V A . , AND APPLE CITY NATIONAL BANK, WINCHESTER, V A .

Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

Farmers and Merchants National Bank, Winchester, Va. (6084), with
and Apple City National Bank, Winchester, Va. (6084), which had
merged Dec. 31, 1969, under charter of the latter bank (6084) and title "Farmers
and Merchants National Bank." The merged bank at date of merger had

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On June 25, 1969, Farmers and Merchants National
Bank and Apple City National Bank (organizing) applied to the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to merge under the charter of the latter and with
the title of the former.
Farmers and Merchants National Bank, the merging
bank, is headquartered in Winchester, Va. This bank
has total resources of $66.5 million and IPC deposits
of $52.5 million.
Apple City National Bank, the charter bank, is
being organized to provide a vehicle to transfer ownership of the merging bank to the F&M National Corporation. The charter bank will not be operating as a
commercial bank prior to this merger.
Because the merging bank is the only operating bank
involved in the proposed transaction, there can be no

$69, 838, 382
150,000

To be
operated

12
0

69, 988, 382

12

adverse effect on competition resulting from consummation of the proposal. The resulting bank will conduct the same banking business at the same locations
and with the same name as presently used by the
merging bank.
Applying the statutory criteria, it is concluded that
the proposed merger is in the public interest and the
application is, therefore., approved.
AUGUST 6,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

[This merger] * * * is part of a transaction which
will result in a presently existing bank becoming a
wholly-owned subsidiary of a one-bank holding company. Thus, * * * [it] is merely a part of a corporate
reorganization and as such will have no effect on
competition.

///. Additional approvals
A. Approved, but in litigation.
T H E IDAHO FIRST NATIONAL BANK, BOISE, IDAHO, AND FIDELITY NATIONAL BANK OF TWIN FALLS, TWIN FALLS, IDAHO

Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

Fidelity National Bank of Twin Falls, Twin Falls, Idaho (11100), with
and The Idaho First National Bank, Boise, Idaho (1668), which had
applied for permission to merge Oct. 25, 1968, under charter and title of the latter
bank (1668). The application was approved Jan. 22, 1969. The pending merger
was challenged by Justice Department Feb. 14, 1969, and is presently in litigation.

196



$22, 944, 424
403, 224, 078

4
48

To be
operated

COMPTROLLERS DECISION

On October 25, 1968, The Idaho First National
Bank, Boise, Idaho, with deposits of $357 million, and
Fidelity National Bank of Twin Falls, Twin Falls,
Idaho, with deposits of $20 million, applied to the
Comptroller of the Currency for permission to merge
under the charter and with the title of the former.
Idaho, the 13th largest State in area, ranks only 43d
in population. The estimated 1967 population of the
State was 699,000. The number of people per square
mile in Idaho is eight, as compared to 341 per square
mile in Maryland and 255 per square mile in Pennsylvania. The major portion of Idaho's populace, viz.
72.9 percent, is centered in the Snake River Plain,
which extends across the southeastern part of the State
from Lewis Falls to Idaho Falls. While the State is at
present sparsely populated, it is anticipated that its
population will grow in direct proportion to the greater
utilization of the State's irrigation potentialities. The
lumber industry is of major importance to the economy
of the State, being second only to agriculture. Scenic
beauty and abundance of wildlife combine to make
tourism the third most: important industry. Mining is
also an important element; the mining of phosphate
rock has recently experienced a sharp rise and has produced the ancillary effect of promoting the growth
of the chemical industry in Idaho. Additionally, manufacturing, dominated by food processing, is growing in
importance. A significant percentage of those employed
in Idaho derive their livelihood from various Federal
Government activities, including the care of extensive
federally-owned land.
Generally, Idaho is divided into six major trade centers: Coeur d'Alene, in the north; Lewiston, in the
north-central region; Boise, in the south; Twin FallsBurley, in the south-central region; and Idaho Falls
and Pocatello, in the east. The south-central trade center is made up of four counties: Cassia, Jerome, Minidoka, and Twin Falls. Agriculture dominates the
economy of this area. The census population of the
four-county area is slightly in excess of 84,000, and
almost half of these people reside in Twin Falls County.
In other words, the population of Twin Falls County is
approximately equal to that of the other three counties
combined. Additionally, Twin Falls County is by far
the most industrialized of the four counties, having
within its borders 57 manufacturing plants, most of
which are engaged in food processing activities. In
1963, these four counties had 14.6 percent of the retail
trade in the State, and approximately 75 percent of that
trade was handled in the towns of Twin Falls, Burley,




and Jerome. Twin Falls, the fourth largest city in the
State, is the marketing locale for the nine counties in
Magic Valley and is the most important trading area
in the south-central trade area.
The charter bank, The Idaho First National Bank,
is headquartered in Boise, Idaho, and presently operates
48 offices in virtually every section of the State. It is
the largest of the commercial banks headquartered in
the State of Idaho.
The merging bank, Fidelity National Bank of Twin
Falls, has its head office in the city of Twin Falls. It
operates two branch offices, one in Hazel ton, 14 miles
to the east, and the other in Filer, 8 miles to the west
of the city of Twin Falls. Fidelity National Bank of
Twin Falls limits almost all of its activities to the needs
of the agricultural segment of the community as evidenced by the fact that 72 percent of its loans are farm
loans. Moreover, the merging bank has no trust department, offers no FHA or VA real estate loans, has only
nominal consumer installment loans, has no specialists
outside of agriculture, and offers no credit card.
This merger will not significantly affect the statewide competitive posture of the charter bank. The 26
commercial banks headquartered in Idaho presently
operate 165 banking offices—not included in the 165
offices are four branch offices which have not as yet
been opened but for which applications have been approved—or a population per banking office ratio of
slightly in excess of 4,200 as compared with a national
average of more than 6,200 persons per banking office.
The charter bank competes vigorously with several aggressive and progressive statewide banking institutions.
The main source of this competition comes from: First
Security Bank of Idaho, National Association, the second largest commercial bank in Idaho, with $326
million in deposits and 50 offices scattered throughout
the State; Bank of Idaho, the third largest bank in the
State, with $120 million in deposits and 20 offices
throughout the State; and Idaho Bank and Trust Company, the fourth largest bank in the State, with deposits
of $68 million and with eight offices in an arc stretching from Boise through Burley to Pocatello. First Security Bank of Idaho, N.A., is a subsidiary of the First
Security Corporation, Salt Lake City, Utah, an organization with almost $820 million in deposits. Bank of
Idaho is a member of the $8 billion Western Bancorporation, the largest bank holding company in the
country. Because of their membership in these large organizations and the benefits deriving; therefrom, both
First Security Bank of Idaho, N.A., and Bank of Idaho
exert a competitive force in the State far in excess of
that normally exerted by commercial banks of com197

parable size which are not so affiliated. Spirited competition is also generated in the northern half of the
State by financial institutions headquartered in Spokane, Wash. These Spokane-based institutions owe
their presence as a competitive force in the State largely
to a history of inadequate transportation links between
the northern and southern sections of the State. Consequently, Spokane, 50 miles to the west of Coeur
d'Alene and easily accessible to residents of northern
Idaho, became the cultural and business center for
northern Idaho. Savings and loan associations, with
deposits of $271 million as of December 31, 1967, and
other financial institutions located within the State are
important competitive statewide factors.
The merging bank, Fidelity National Bank of Twin
Falls, is in direct competition with several commercial
banks with offices in the city of Twin Falls and its
local environs. First Security Bank of Idaho, N.A., has
a branch in Twin Falls. Twin Falls Bank and Trust
Company, the fifth largest bank in the State with assets
of $24 million, has its head office and a branch within
the geographic limits of the city of Twin Falls and
another branch approximately 5 miles to the east in
the town of Kimberly. Having received permission from
the State authorities, Bank of Idaho is expected to open
a de novo branch in the city of Twin Falls in the spring
of 1969.
The main offices of The Idaho First National Bank
and Fidelity National Bank of Twin Falls are approximately 130 miles apart. The charter bank has a branch
office in Buhl, in Twin Falls County, 9 miles to the west
of the merging bank's branch at Filer; a branch in
Wendell, in Gooding County, 16 miles to the north of
Filer; and a branch in Rupert, in Minidoka County,
29 miles to the east of the merging bank's branch in
Hazelton. Based upon the proximity of the offices at
Buhl and Filer, it might appear that the participating
banks are competitors. However, analysis of the facts
establishes that any direct competition which exists between the two banks is so minute as to be insignificant.
A study of the participants' records shows that there is
less than 3 percent penetration of one bank into the
other's service area, and that the degree of commonality
of accounts between the two banks is less than 1 percent. Competition on so small a scale is tantamount to
no competition at all.
Whether this merger will substantially lessen potential competition between the participating banks turns
on the question of whether it is reasonable for The
Idaho First National to enter the city of Twin Falls via
the de novo branch office route. The charter bank has
applied to this Office on two occasions for permission
198



to open a de novo branch in the city of Twin Falls.
It withdrew its first application in August 1959. The
second application was denied on April 2, 1963. Additionally, since 1962, The First National Bank of Idaho
has made four applications and two requests for reconsideration for permission to open a de novo branch in
the town of Burley. AH of these requests have been
denied, the latest denial was in July 1968. Denial of
these applications was based primarily on the ground
that the area was adequately banked at that time, and
that the establishment of an additional branch unit
was not warranted. It would seem that the only substantial change in the operative facts upon which these
denials were based is the anticipated opening of a de
novo branch office by Bank of Idaho in the city of
Twin Falls. In summary, it appears that de novo
branching by the charter bank is not a reasonable
alternative as a means of entering the city of Twin
Falls.
This proposed merger will have a procompetitive
effect on the service area in question. At present, First
Security Bank of Idaho, N.A., is the only full-service
bank in the city of Twin Falls. Bank of Idaho will offer
vigorous competition when its recently approved de
novo branch office in the city of Twin Falls is in full
operation. In like manner, the introduction into the
area of a third competitor, The Idaho First National
Bank, pursuant to this merger, will stimulate competition for First Security Bank, of Idaho, N.A., and Bank
of Idaho by providing another alternative to which
the residents may look for a full range of banking
services.
This proposed merger is in the public interest. Because of its heavy concentration on farm loans, Fidelity
National Bank of Twin Falls has not served the other
banking needs of the community. The resultant bank,
however, will offer a trust department, FHA and VA
real estate loans, consumer installment loans, specialists
in fields other than agriculture, a credit card and other
banking services. In short, a bank of limited service
capabilities will be replaced by a full-service bank.
Moreover, the decrease in the number of farms concomitant with the increase in the size of existing farms
has created need for lending capability in excess of
that of the merging bank. The higher lending limit
available as a result of this merger would serve to
meet that need and thereby benefit the service area
concerned as well as the economy of the entire State.
Effectuation of this merger will neither significantly
alter the degree of concentration or unsettle the banking structure in the State, or in the merging bank's
service area, nor give The Idaho First National Bank a

marked advantage over its competitors. On the contrary, not only are any slightly adverse competitive
effects outweighed by the procompetitive effects of this
merger proposal, but also the convenience and needs
of the community are promoted and the public interest is served.
Applying the statutory criteria, it is found that the
proposed merger is in the public interest. The application, is, therefore, approved.
JANUARY 22,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

This merger involves the first and sixth largest
banks in Idaho.
The closest offices of the merging banks are 9 and
17 miles apart, with no banks in the intervening
area. The three First National offices located within
50 miles of any Fidelity branch have 186 accounts
drawn from areas in which Fidelity operates, and
Fidelity has 174 accounts drawn from areas in which
these three First National branches are located;
these branches of the merging banks have 20 common accounts. It would appear, in view of the scope
of operations of the merging banks, the proximity of
their branches, and the absence of intervening
banks, that there is some direct competition that
would be eliminated by this merger.
Three banks operate in Twin Falls: Fidelity,
Twin Falls Bank and Trust Company (total deposits,
$24.3 million), and First Security National Bank
(total deposits, $326.4 million), the second largest
bank in Idaho. Five banks operate in Twin Falls
Gounty as a whole. As of June 30, 1966, Fidelity had
the second largest share, or 36 percent, of IPG deposits in Twin Falls and the second largest share, or
30 percent, of such deposits in the county as a whole;
First National held the third largest share, or 11 percent, of county IPG deposits. If this merger were consummated, First National would hold 41 percent of

such deposits in Twin Falls County and two banks
would hold about 85 percent of such deposits.
Idaho law permits statewide de novo branching.
First National, the largest bank in the State, with 34
percent of State deposits, appears to be the most likely
potential entrant into Twin Falls; this of course, would
increase the existing competition between First National and Fidelity.
According to the application, First National has
made numerous efforts to gain de novo entry into the
Twin Falls area over the past 10 years, but all of
these requests have been denied by the Comptroller
of the Currency due to the low ratio of population
to banking offices existing in this area. However, we
note that Bank of Idaho (total deposits, $119 million),
the third largest bank in the State and a subsidiary
of Western Bancorporation, has been authorized to
open a branch in Twin Falls by State authorities.
Therefore, we conclude that First National, as the
State's largest bank, is still a possible de novo entrant
into Twin Falls.
This merger will eliminate some direct competition
between the merging banks and will substantially enhance the high degree of concentration in Twin Falls
Gounty. It will also eliminate the potential for enhanced competition which would flow from de novo
entry by the State's largest bank into Twin Falls itself.
Moreover, banking in Idaho is highly concentrated.
Two banks hold about 66 percent of total commercial
bank deposits in the State and three banks hold about
77 percent. Under these conditions, it is particularly
important that viable smaller banks, with the potential
to compete with the largest banks for the business
of large industrial customers, either through internal
growth or through combination with other small banks
in separate local markets, not be absorbed by the
State's largest banks.
We conclude that the merger will have a significantly adverse effect on competition.

THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF SUNBURY, SUNBURY, PA;, AND SNYDER COUNTY TRUST COMPANY, SELINSGROVE, PA:

Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

Snyder County Trust Company, Selinsgrove, Pa., with
.
...
and The First National Bank of Sunbury, Sunbury, Pa. (1237), which had
applied for permission to merge Feb. 25, 1969, under charter of the latter bank
(1237) and title "First National Bank and Trust Company." The application was
approved Sept. 26, 1969. The pending merger was challenged by Justice Department Oct. 24, 1969, and is presently in litigation.




$19, 157, 800
35,133,605

To be
operated

2
3

199

COMPTROLLER'S DECISION

On February 25, 1969, The First National Bank of
Sunbury, Sunbury, Pa., and Snyder County Trust
Company, Selinsgrove, Pa., applied to the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to merge under
the charter of the former and with the title of "First
National Bank and Trust Company."
The charter bank, with IPC deposits of $28 million, was originally organized in 1831, and presently
operates two banking offices in Sunbury and a branch
office in Shamokin Dam. The bank is departmentalized and has capable personnel heading each department. Its well-developed installment loan and trust
departments contribute substantially to the bank's
earnings. However, because of its limited lending
ability, the bank has had to participate several large
loans with its New York and Philadelphia correspondent banks and has lost some customers in the process.
The merging bank, with IPC deposits of $17 million,
was originally organized in 1925, and presently operates a branch office in Shamokin Dam. While the
bank is presently well-managed it faces a management
succession problem when its president, now 76 years
old, retires. It has only one other operating officer.
Earnings at the bank have been fair and it is in need
of additional capital. The installment loan and trust
departments of this bank are small and have not contributed significantly to the bank's earnings. Because
of its limited lending ability and a high ratio of loans
to deposits, the bank has had to participate several
loans and also sell loans which it has originated.
Sunbury, the home of the charter bank, has a present population of about 15,000 and is the seat of
Northumberland County, which has a popualtion of
over 100,000. Sunbury is only 52 miles to the north
of Harrisburg, the State capital. Situated at the confluence of the north and west branches of the
Susquehanna River, the city is part of the Central Susquehanna Valley Area which is one of the richest
agricultural areas in the eastern United States. Due primarily to the decline in importance of anthracite coal
mining in the area. Northumberland County experienced an economic decline and a downtrend in population. However, a diversified industrial economy has
been developing in recent years, and continuing aggressive efforts are being made by the community to
attract new industry.
Selinsgrove, home of the merging bank, has a population of about 4,000 and is located on the west side
of the Susquehanna River which serves as a natural
dividing line between Snyder and Northumberland
200



counties. Only twro narrow bridges cross the river, one
in Sunbury and the other in Northumberland. Selinsgrove is the home of the Susquehanna University,
which has an enrollment of 1,200 students, and provides employment for 300 persons, and the Susquehanna State Hospital, which has 2,000 patients, and
employs about 1,300 workers. Industry in the area
employs about 1,000 persons. The area is well provided
with retail and wholesale establishments, and residential and recreational facilities.
The application describes a 10-county area, which
includes all the counties adjacent to the home county
of the charter bank, constituting the geographic market into which the bank could branch under the law.
The area, which is referred to as "Appalachia," embraces much of the depressed Pennsylvania anthracite
coal fields and its economy is generally below the standards enjoyed by the eastern and western ends of the
State. A diversified industrial economy is gradually
developing. The area relies heavily upon manufacturing which, in 1963, contributed about 26 percent of
personal income in the area. The road system is about
to undergo dramatic changes. The Pennsylvania Department of Highways has secured legislative appropriations of over $30 million for road improvements and
changes in the vicinity of Sunbury and Selinsgrove.
The Pennsylvania Shortway, which bisects the area,
will soon be completed. The Pennsylvania Anthracite
Expressway will cut diagonally through the area,
eventually connecting Binghamton, N.Y., directly with
Harrisburg via Scranton. The Department of Forests
and Waters is building a 2,800-foot-long dam on the
Susquehanna River at Sunbury which will create a vast
lake and a recreational site running 10 miles upstream.
The area is endowed with many colleges and universities. The prospects for future economic growth are
excellent. This creates a need for expanded banking
services and additional capital funds to aid and enhance this growth.
Banking competition in the 10-county area is provided by 174 offices of 86 banks, with total aggregate
deposits of approximately $1.3 billion. If this merger
is consummated, the resulting bank would represent 4
percent of the area's total deposits. The strongest competition emanates from the 59 banks located in the four
counties of Northumberland, Dauphin, Lycoming, and
Schuylkill. They operate a total of 131 banking offices,
and have total aggregate deposits of over $1 billion.
The resulting bank would represent 4.8 percent of this
total. Strongly competing in the area are 32 savings
and loan associations, 65 credit unions, 33 sales finance

companies, 70 small loan companies, and 88 consumer
discount outlets.
Both participating banks have offices in Shamokin
Dam, and there are presently 142 common customers
with accounts of $1,000 or more; of these accounts only
a few exceed $10,000, indicating a strong reliance on
Federal deposit insurance. Approval of this merger
will eliminate whatever competition now exists between
these banks in the Shamokin Dam area. On the other
hand, it will solve the management and capital problems at the merging bank and will benefit the customers of the merging bank by providing a bank with
greater resources and expanded banking services to
meet their needs, in particular, installment loan and
trust services.
Consummation of this merger will create a more
viable, competing institution, with greater resources
and able to provide better sendees to the area it serves.
The resulting economies of scale from the combined
operation will increase earnings enabling the bank to
set up electronic data processing equipment in its trust
department and maintain an adequate managerial
staff. The resulting bank with its greater resources will
be in a better position to aid the growing industries in
its area by making available to them the needed local
capital funds.
Considered in the light of the statutory criteria, this
merger is deemed to be in the public interest. It is,
therefore, approved.
SEPTEMBER 26,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

The head offices of the merging banks are approximately 6 miles apart, and each has a branch office in
the town of Shamokin Dam. While their main offices
lie on opposite sides of the Susquehanna River, there
are no banks in the intervening area, other than the
competing offices of the merging banks in Shamokin
Dam. Therefore, it would appear that this merger will




eliminate substantial direct competition between the
merging banks.
Moreover, as each of the merging banks could be
permitted to branch or merge into the home office
county of the other (as First National has done in
Shamokin Dam), this merger will eliminate the potential for greater competition between them.
An appropriate market in which to measure the competitive effects of this merger is a four-county area surrounding the communities of Sunbuiy and Selinsgrove,
consisting of Snyder, Northumberland, Union, and
Montour counties. As of June 30, 1966, First National
held the largest share, approximately 15.7 percent, of
I PC demand deposits in this area, while Snyder Trust
held the second largest share, approximately 7.9 percent^ of such deposits. Their combined share of such
deposits would have been over 23 percent, about four
times as large as that of the next largest bank.
Even these substantial concentration statistics possibly understate the competitive effects of this merger,
for competition between the merging banks would appear to be most direct in the Sunbury-Selinsgrove area
of the Susquehanna Valley, where there are few banking alternatives. Thus, within 5 miles of either Sunbury
or Selinsgrove, there are, in addition to the five offices
maintained by the merging banks, only four offices operated by three other commercial banks. First National
and Snyder Trust are far larger than the other banks in
this immediate area; as of June 30, 1966, First National
held approximately 54 percent of IPC demand deposits in the area, while Snyder Trust held approximately 27 percent of such deposits. While these shares
may slightly overstate the impact of this proposed
merger, it will clearly combine the most important competitive alternatives in the Sunbury-Selinsgrove area,
and tend to deter the possible development of a more
competitive commercial banking structure in the area.
For these reasons, we conclude that the proposed
merger will have a significantly adverse effect upon
competition.

201

NATIONAL BANK & TRUST COMPANY OF CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA, YORK, P A . , AND T H E READING T R U S T COMPANY, READING, P A . ,
AND LANCASTER COUNTY FARMERS NATIONAL BANK, LANCASTER, P A .

Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

Lancaster County Farmers National Bank, Lancaster, Pa. (683), with
The Reading Trust Company, Reading, Pa., with
and National Bank & Trust Company of Central Pennsylvania, York, Pa. (694),
which had
applied for permission to consolidate Mar. 21, 1969, under charter of the latter
bank (694) and title "National Central Bank." The application was approved
Nov. 14, 1969. The pending consolidation was challenged by Justice Department
Dec. 11, 1969, and is presently in litigation.

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On March 21, 1969, the National Bank and Trust
Company of Central Pennsylvania, York, Pa., the Lancaster County Farmers National Bank, Lancaster, Pa.,
and The Reading Trust Company, Reading, Pa. applied to the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to consolidate under the charter of National Bank
and Trust Company of Central Pennsylvania and with
the title "National Central Bank." A public hearing
on the application was held on August 14, 1969, in
Harrisburg, Pa.
A primary motive for the proposal is to establish a
local banking institution in south-central Pennsylvania
of sufficient size to keep pace with the burgeoning economy in the area. The three applicants, individually,
are insufficient in size to generate the expansion necessary to provide the financial resources and services
local customers now require. As a result, too many
firms in the area take their financial business to major
city banks, to the detriment of local banks and the
regional economy.
While south-central Pennsylvania is the geographical
area to be immediately affected by this proposal, it
must be viewed in relation to all of southeast Pennsylvania of which it is part, both geographically and economically. Southeast Pennsylvania encompasses all or
most of the 19 counties lying in the southeastern quadrant of the state. Within this quadrant are the following cities: Philadelphia, Harrisburg, York, Lancaster,
Reading, Pottsville, Allentown, Bethlehem, Pottstown,
Norristown, and Lebanon. The south-central area involved in this proposal includes 11 of the 19 counties
and the cities of Harrisburg, York, Lancaster, Reading, Pottsville, and Lebanon.
This south-central area of Pennsylvania affected by
this proposal centers around the cities of York, Lancaster, and Reading, where the participating banks
202



$133,481,829
138,086,601

13
8

258,844,519

To be
operated

21

maintain their main offices. These cities form a crescent with York on the southwestern horn and Reading
on the northeastern horn. York lies 22 miles west of
Lancaster and 55 miles southwest of Reading. Reading
is 30 miles northeast of Lancaster. Lancaster is 45
miles northwest of Wilmington, Del., and 60 miles
north of Baltimore, Md. Philadelphia, to the east of
these cities, is 55 miles from Reading, 65 miles from
Lancaster, and 90 miles from York.
The transportation facilities available in this section of Pennsylvania make any city located therein an
ideal distribution point. The highway complex in the
south-central Pennsylvania region is particularly attractive to industries seeking new sites. Harrisburg sits at
the conjunction of Interstate 83, running south to Baltimore; the Pennsylvania Turnpike, which spans the
State from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia; Interstate 81,
which will join New Orleans to Canada; Interstate 78,
which connects with Allentown and Bethlehem; and
U.S. 15, which goes from Williamsport, Pa., to Frederick, Md., where it meets Interstate 70. A new interstate highway is now under construction between
Harrisburg and Lancaster. Because of the ease and convenience of transportation this complex of roads offers
to industry and shippers, some 70 motor carriers have
set up operations in Harrisburg. At this time, there are
30 freight terminals handling merchandise in and out
of the city. Harrisburg, York, and Lancaster are each
served by two railroads. Three commercial and two
commuter airlines serve York and Harrisburg and two
airlines serve Lancaster. Reading, the hub of Berks
County, is served by two Federal highways and three
congested State roadways. Two railroads—the Reading and Penn-Central—and four airlines—Allegheny,
Eastern, Suburban, and General—also serve the city
of Reading.
This south-central Pennsylvania area, commonly re-

ferred to as "Pennsylvania Dutch Country/' encompasses a six-county area. These six counties, Berks,
Chester, Dauphin, Lancaster, Lebanon, and York,
cover 4,362 square miles, or almost 10 percent of the
total land area of the State and contain an estimated
1.4 million people. Over 230,000 persons are employed
in 2,732 manufacturing plants, which represent 15
percent of the State total. New construction in the six
counties accounted for 20 percent of the State total in
1967, lending support to the claim that this area is one
of the fastest growing, most dynamic areas in the entire
country. From 1960 to 1967, the rate of population increase of these six counties was more than double that
of the State as a whole. From a relatively simple agrarian economy, the area has become, within the past
decade, a major industrial and distribution center. The
excellent transportation developed within the past 10
years, the general labor tranquility, and availability of
land have all played a vital role in the expansion of
local concerns and the relocation of other companies
to the trade area. Although farming and its concomitant need for specialized financing remain an important consideration with farm cash receipts of the six
counties representing 31 percent of the State total, the
metamorphosis which has been taking place within
the region now requires a bank capable of providing
the new and expanding services required by business,
industry, and government.
Lancaster, York, and Berks, home counties of the
applicant banks, not only rank first, second, and third,
respectively, in the number of farms and income from
farming in Pennsylvania, but the three counties also
rank in the top 10 counties in the number of manufacturing plants and total employment. Of 15 major labor
markets in the State, the cities of Lancaster and Reading had the lowest unemployment figures in 1967, a
position they held since 1960. In 1967, unemployment
was 1.7 percent for Reading and 1.8 percent for Lancaster. York, the third home office city, was not far
behind with only 2.3 percent of its civilian work force
unemployed as of 1967—a figure that gave the city
third place among 15 major labor markets in Pennsylvania. In 1966, these three counties accounted for almost 10 percent of the total value of goods exported
by Pennsylvania manufacturing establishments.
Lancaster, with a population of approximately
57,000, is the fourth major city within the six-county
area and is the prospective headquarters city for the
resulting bank. The population of the city and its environs increased by some 23 percent between 1950 and
1960. Lancaster County is the leading agricultural
country in the State with cash receipts in 1965 more




than double those of any other county. However, there
has been substantial growth in industry, as is evidenced
by the $3 million increase in capital expenditures between 1964 and 1966, the $253 million increase in
value of production, and the 20 percent increase in
industrial employment, compared to the State average of only 8 percent, during the period 1960 to 1969.
Major employers within the county include the Armstrong Cork Co., employing 21,280, and the Hamilton
Watch Co., employing 4,200. During the past decade,
20 new plants, employing 6,000 workers, have been
added to the industrial complex. Since 1958, 22,000
nonfarm jobs have been made available, representing
an increase of more than 24 percent, double that of the
State's overall growth. Lancaster is one of the few
counties where unemployment is seldom, if ever, a
problem with unemployment figures rarely exceeding
2 percent. This city is easily accessible to all major
eastern cities and it exports many products to these
cities.
York is an area that has changed from a primarily
agriculturally oriented economy to an industrial-agricultural mix. Heavy industry, today, plays a major role
and created 2,000 jobs between January 1967 and
October 1968. The population of the county increased
by over 25 percent between 1950 and 1960. Today,
such prominent national concerns as Caterpillar
Tractor, Borg-Warner, Allis Chalmers, and Teledyne
have large investments in plant facilities in the York
area.
Reading, the county seat of Berks County, with a
population of approximately 100,000, has undergone
a shift in employment from the textile industry to
metals, chemical and allied products, and electrical
machinery. The city is the hub of the entire county.
The value of production increased by $200 million
between 1964 and 1966, and there are 14 companies
employing more than 1,000 persons each. Major employers in the Reading area include Carpenter Steel
Co., employing 5,000; Curtis Electro Corp., employing 5,000; Textile Machine Works, employing 4,000;
and Vanity Fair Mills, employing 5,000. The county
population, estimated at 293,000 in 1967, has increased
by some 14 percent over the 1950 figure.
National Bank and Trust Company of Central Pennsylvania, the largest of the three consolidating banks,
with $205.4 million in IPC deposits and 21 branches,
was chartered as a National bank in 1865. The bank's
primary service area is limited to York and Dauphin
counties although it does operate a branch in Columbia in Lancaster County and another in Cumberland
County. Within its sendee area, 32 banks have their
203

headquarters and are operating 81 branch offices in
which they have a total of $1.3 billion in deposits.
National Central's primary banking competitors are
the $198 million Dauphin Deposit Trust Company in
Harrisburg, the $173 million Harrisburg National
Bank and Trust Company, and the $143 million York
Bank and Trust Company. The bank held 17.4 percent of the commercial bank deposits in Cumberland,
Dauphin, and York counties at year-end 1968. This
represented a decrease in the share of the market held
by National Central from 19.8 percent in 1964. There
has been a steady and consistent decline in the share
of the market held by National Central from 1964
through 1968, notwithstanding the bank's growth by
$50 million, or almost 30 percent.
Lancaster County Farmers National Bank, with
IPC deposits of $110.2 million and 12 branches, was
chartered in 1864. There are 22 banks, operating 40
branches within the county, holding some $559 million in deposits. Primary competition for the bank
derives from the $95 million Fulton National Bank
and the $73 million Conestoga National Bank, both
headquartered in the city of Lancaster. Although this
bank held 21.9 percent of the commercial bank deposits in Lancaster County at year-end 1968, this figure
represents a decrease in its share of the market. In this
case, the bank's share of the market declined by 4 percent from 1964 when its share of the market was 25.9
percent. The percent of deposits held by the two largest
and three largest banks in the county also declined
during this 1964 to 1968 period. At year-end 1964, the
three largest banks headquartered in the county, Conestoga National Bank, Fulton National Bank, and the
applicant, controlled 59.2 percent of the commercial
bank deposits in Lancaster County. By year-end 1968,
these three banks controlled 54 percent of the commercial bank deposits in the county, and in each bank
there had been a decline in its market share at a time
when total bank deposits in the county were increasing
by nearly 50 percent.
The Reading Bank and Trust Company was
chartered as a State institution in October 1886. This
bank, with IPC deposits of $107.7 million, operates
seven branches throughout Berks County. Thirteen
banks, operating 53 offices, are headquartered in the
county. Its primary competition derives from the $437
million American Bank and Trust Company of Pennsylvania and the $187 million Bank of Pennsylvania.
The bank held 13.9 percent of the total deposits of
commercial banks headquartered in Berks County at
year-end 1968. As is the case with the other applicant
banks, the share of the market held by Reading Trust

204



declined between 1964 and 1968, from 16.8 to 13.9
percent, despite the fact that the bank's deposits grew
by more than 50 percent during this period.
Pennsylvania banking is a curious mixture of limited
branching into contiguous counties and deeply ingrained parochial attitudes on the part of the population outside the two major metropolitan areas of
Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. This combination helps to
explain why there are 516 separate banks in the State
operating 1,597 branches, making Pennsylvania the
ninth most populous State in terms of banks, and third
most populous in terms of branches. Only California
and New York have more banking offices than Pennsylvania. In terms of banking concentration, the State
ranks 27th of the 50 States in the share of deposits held
by the largest, two largest, and five largest commercial
banks, respectively.
The Pennsylvania branch banking statute has a significant impact on this proposed consolidation. Under
the terms of this law, a bank may branch de novo in
the county wherein the main office is located and in
counties contiguous thereto. By reason of this State
law, the National Bank and Trust Company of Central
Pennsylvania can branch de novo in York, Lancaster,
Dauphin, Adams, and Cumberland counties. The Lancaster County Farmers National Bank can branch in
six counties, viz. Lancaster, Dauphin, Lebanon, Berks,
Chester, and York. The Reading Trust Company is
permitted to branch de novo in Berks, Lancaster,
Lebanon, Chester, Lehigh, Montgomery, and Schuylkill counties. On consummation of this consolidation
and the relocation of the main office of the charter
bank to Lancaster, the resulting bank will have the
same branching rights as are now possessed by the
Lancaster County Farmers National Bank. Following
consummation, the constituent banks will have relinquished their right to branch in Adams, Cumberland, Lehigh, Montgomery, and Schuylkill counties.
Customers in the trade areas of the three banks tend
to be clannish in nature and opposed to outside influence ; this phenomenon is evidenced by the fact that
banks within the trade area confine their activities, for
the most part, to their home counties. For example,
in the instant case, both Lancaster County Farmers
National Bank and The Reading Trust Company have
no branches outside their home counties. In fact, not a
single bank headquartered in Lancaster County has a
branch office outside that county, although under
Pennsylvania law, six counties are open to these Lancaster banks for de novo branching. Of the 22 banks
with offices in Lancaster County, only three have headquarters and operate outside the county, and no office

of these out-of-county banks is located in the city of
Lancaster. No bank has successfully branched de novo
into Lancaster County in the past 35 years, the only
successful entry into the county being through acquisition.
Although the six-county area, into which the resulting bank may branch, contains somewhat less than 10
percent of the State's population, it contains almost 15
percent of the State's banks with 77 of the State total
of 516 banks. Both in terms of number of people per
bank and number of people per banking office, the
six-county area ranks well ahead of the remainder of
the State. For example, according to a 1966 census,
there were 18,181 people per bank in the six-county
area, and 4,821 people per banking office in the same
area; this compares with an average of 22,427 people
per bank and 5,511 people per banking office for the
State as a whole. These banks control well over $3
billion in banking assets.
In addition to the competition derived from banks
both in and out of the six-county area, applicant banks
compete vigorously with other financial institutions.
There are some 62 savings and loan associations in the
six counties, with total assets exceeding $712 million.
Credit unions too play an important role, with 153 outlets in the six counties. In all, there are some 610 financial institutions in the six-county area. Each of these
institutions competes with the others in some capacity,
whether it be through the making of loans or the acceptance of deposits. Denying the existence of such
competition in no way lessens its effect or impact upon
customers within the trade area, nor upon the banks
operating therein. It is within this financial milieu that
applicant banks conduct their business and compete.
These banks also face out-of-territory competition by
the major metropolitan banks in New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Baltimore. Harrisburg, for example, is only 80 miles from Baltimore, 105 miles
from Philadelphia, 197 miles from Pittsburgh, and 186
miles from New York. Excellent road, rail, and air
transportation make these cities easily accessible not
only to Harrisburg but to the other cities in this sixcounty complex. Representatives of the large metropolitan banks headquartered in Philadelphia, New
York, Pittsburgh, and Baltimore are continually soliciting business in areas served by the applicant banks.
In the context of banking competition in this southcentral region of Pennsylvania, the amount of actual
competition between the participating banks to be
eliminated by this proposal is inconsequential. The
fact that National Bank and Trust Company of Central Pennsylvania derives 57.9 percent of its deposits




from York County and 30.9 percent from Dauphin
County indicates that it does not compete either with
the Lancaster County Farmers National Bank, which
derives 94.2 percent of its deposits from Lancaster
County, or with Reading Trust County, which gets
91.2 percent of its deposits from Berks County.
It is only in Columbia in Lancaster County, where
both National Bank and Trust Company of Central
Pennsylvania and Lancaster County Farmers National
Bank have a branch office, that any sign of competition
can be discovered. This competition, when viewed, in
relation to the economy of Columbia and in the context of banking in this region, is de minimis.
Very aggressive competition comes from out-of-area
metropolitan banks vying for the prime commercial
and industrial business generated in the area. The large
banks in Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, New York, and
Baltimore canvass the area by direct-mailing solicitations, newspaper advertisements, and travelling representatives. Recently a Philadelphia bank installed a
resident trust officer in Lancaster to solicit local trust
accounts. Two other Philadelphia banks have commenced the operation of computer centers in this southcentral Pennsylvania area. Another Philadelphia bank
competes in this area through the Bank Americard
which it introduced into the York area, and which it
promotes through full-page ads in local papers that
identify it as Philadelphia-oriented. It is clear that the
Philadelphia banks do compete with the participating
banks and will continue to compete aggressively with
the resulting bank.
Since this application does not involve any significant, presently existing, competition among the applicant banks, the question presented is one of potential
competition and the elimination of such theoretical
competition. Under present State law, National Central cannot branch into Berks County or Chester
County, and Reading Trust cannot branch into either
York or Dauphin County. The area where competition
would most likely arise, Lancaster, is an area that is
both unrealistic and beyond reasonable probability for
de novo branching by either National Central or Reading Trust. The fact that no bank has successfully
branched de novo into Lancaster County in the past
35 years, mitigates the argument that the two banks
are likely potential entrants into this area. Nor is Lancaster Farmers a strong potential entrant into Berks,
York, or Dauphin counties. The bank has never shown
an inclination to branch outside its home county, and
although it is the largest bank headquartered in Lancaster County, there is nothing to indicate that future
patterns will be different from the past. In fact, each
205

of the banks has shown a propensity for staying within
its service area. Virtually all of the loan deposit business
of the three banks originates within their respective
market areas. None of them derives any substantial
business from the other's service area.
The potential competition that could be developed
between the participating banks through expansion
of their separate branching systems is not significant.
It is neither feasible nor possible to expand by branching on the scale required to provide the growth and
size needed by the participants to satisfy the growing
needs of the local economy. To urge branch expansion
by the separate participants in order to develop a potential competition between them at some distant time in
the future is a negative approach that ignores the present needs of the local economy and works to entrench
the city banks in their dominant position in the State.
The establishment of de novo branches by the participating banks and other local banks in the past has
minimized the opportunity for opening more de novo
offices. Several recent applications for new charters
and branches have been declined, particularly in the
Lancaster and York areas. The argument that these
areas are already well-banked finds reasonable basis
in statistics showing that the ratio of persons to banking
offices has decreased substantially over the past 10
years. In Lancaster, the ratio has dropped from 6,300
to 5,400 persons per banking office, whereas in York
it dropped from 6,100 to 4,800.
De novo branching by the applicants into each
other's service areas is not feasible economically. With
their present resources, none of them has the capacity
to incur the great expense of penetrating a new area.
Acquiring real estate, one of the major cost items, is
difficult as most of the favorable sites have already
been taken.
The need for regional banking is clearly indicated
by the economic and banking climate as it presently
exists, and as it is expected to exist in the future. No one
bank of these three is capable, either in terms of managerial or financial resources, of meeting the growing
needs of this burgeoning area. Services now offered to
only a limited extent, such as money management, lock
box, international banking, data transmission, commercial factoring, and corporate trust services,, will become
full-time, fully competitive services. The increased size
of the resulting bank will permit greater financing of
risk ventures particularly in the area of ghetto and
small business financing.
The resulting bank will have both the capital and
managerial skills to expand into Chester and Lebanon
counties, and to compete effectively against the $504
206



million American Bank and Trust Company of Reading and large Montgomery County-headquartered
banks, including the Industrial Valley Bank, the Continental Bank and Trust Company, and Central Penn
National Bank, each with total resources exceeding
$500 million. In addition, strong area competition will
be provided by "The Commonwealth National Bank,"
an approved combination of the Harrisburg National
Bank, Conestoga National Bank, and The First National Bank of York. Presently, there is no single bank
capable of providing the additional services that the
consolidated bank proposes to perform. No one bank
has either the financial or managerial resources to offer
their respective communities these services. Economic
and population expansion in southeastern Pennsylvania
have created a need for regional banking. This consolidation appears to be one important method of
achieving an acceptable and reasonable solution to this
need.
It is concluded that this proposal is in the public interest and meets the relevant statutory criteria. The
consolidation is therefore approved.
NOVEMBER 14,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

The proposed consolidation will have its primary
effects in Berks, Lancaster, York, and Dauphin counties in south-central Pennsylvania and in the cities of
Reading, Lancaster, York, and Harrisburg which lie
therein.
The proposed consolidation would combine the
largest bank headquartered and operating in York and
Dauphin counties with the largest bank headquartered
in Lancaster County and the third largest bank headquartered in Berks County. National Central, the resulting institution, would become the largest bank in
the four-county area, with total deposits in excess of
$454 million.
The proposed consolidation would eliminate a limited amount of competition; National Central and
Lancaster Bank both operate offices in Columbia, Lancaster County.
Under Pennsylvania law, National Central and
Reading Trust could be permitted to establish de novo
branches in Lancaster County and Lancaster Bank
could be permitted to establish de novo branches in
York, Berks, and Dauphin counties.
National Central would appear to be the second
largest, and Reading Trust one of the largest, of all
commercial banks eligible to branch into the city of
Lancaster and elsewhere in Lancaster County. Com-

mercial banking in Lancaster County is concentrated;
as of June 30, 1966, the three largest banks held approximately 58 percent of county IPC demand deposits; Lancaster Bank, the largest, held over 25
percent of such deposits. National Central presently
operates one office in the western part of Lancaster
County, which would facilitate more substantial de
novo entry into the county, as a whole, including those
areas presently served by Lancaster Bank.
Lancaster Bank would appear to be among the
largest potential entrants into Dauphin, York, and
Berks counties. Commercial banking in each of these
three counties is highly concentrated: as of June 30,
1966, the four largest banks in York County held over
79 percent of county IPC demand deposits; the three
largest banks in Dauphin County held approximately
80 percent of county IPC demand deposits; and the
three largest banks in Berks County held over 80 percent of county IPC demand deposits. On that date, National Central held the largest share, about 30 percent,
of York County IPC demand deposits and the third
largest share, about 18 percent, of Dauphin County
IPC demand deposits. Reading Trust held the third
largest share, about 16 percent, of such deposits in
Berks County.
Thus, the proposed consolidation would have the
serious effects (1) of eliminating National Central as
a probable potential entrant into Lancaster County,
where it is the second largest potential entrant; and

(2) of eliminating Lancaster Bank as a probable potential entrant into Dauphin County, where it is the
second largest potential entrant, and York County,
where it is the third largest potential entrant. Potential competition would also be eliminated between Lancaster Bank and Reading Trust, in Berks and
Lancaster counties. Each of the three banks would
appear to possess sufficient resources to branch de novo
into the aforementioned markets, thereby creating the
potential of greater competition among them. In the
alternative, each might enter such markets by merger
with one of the smaller banks located therein; such
entry would have a lesser impact on potential competition. The seriousness of these effects is made clear
by the fact that the resulting bank—which would control some 21 percent of total deposits in the four-county
area—would not only be the largest bank operating in
the area but would be larger than all but one of the
banks eligible to enter any part of the area at the
present time.
The most important sources of potential competition
within each of the four counties must come primarily
from within the four-county area rather than outside.
For these reasons, we conclude that the proposed consolidation would have a significantly adverse effect on
potential competition, particularly in Lancaster and
Dauphin counties and to a somewhat lesser extent in
York and Berks counties.

B. Approved, but abandoned after litigation.
CROCKER-CITIZENS NATIONAL BANK, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., AND BANK OF SONOMA COUNTY, SEBASTOPOL, CALIF.

Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
In
operation

Bank of Sonoma County, Sebastopol, Calif., with
and Crocker-Citizens National Bank, San Francisco, Calif. (1741), which had. . . .
applied for permission to merge Dec. 9, 1968, under charter and title of the latter
bank (1741). The application was approved Mar. 6, 1969, but was abandoned
by the banks May 1, 1969, after filing of antitrust suit by the Justice Department.

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On December 9, 1968, the Crocker-Citizens
National Bank, San Francisco, Calif., and the Bank
of Sonoma County, Sebastopol, Calif., applied to the




$22, 880, 439
4, 296, 053, 904

To be
operated

3
276

Comptroller of the Currency for permission to merge
under the charter and with the title of the former.
Crocker-Citizens National Bank, the charter bank,
operates 276 branches in 37 of California's 58 counties.
It is the fourth largest commercial bank in the State
207

with I PC deposits of $3.2 billion. As a large, statewide
institution, the charter bank offers a full complement
of modern services to its customers.
The Bank of Sonoma County, with I PC deposits of
$19 million, operates its main office in Sebastopol and
its two branches in Forestville and Guerneville. Sebastopol is located in the western part of Sonoma County
approximately 60 miles north of San Francisco and
8 miles west of Santa Rosa, the county seat of Sonoma
County. The bank serves an area containing a population of approximately 26,000 people.
The western half of Sonoma County is primarily
agricultural. Livestock and apple production are major
sources of income, although tourism has become important to the economy. This area is served by the
merging bank, a branch of Bank of America, N.A.,
and The Sierra National Bank. Banks located in Santa
Rosa, Sonoma County's commercial and residential
center, also solicit business from the western part of
the county.
The charter bank has adequate financial resources,
capable management, and extremely satisfactory prospects for the future. On the other hand, the merging
bank has been governed by most of the same policies
and uses much of the same physical plant and banking techniques as it did 15 years ago. Because of this,
the merging bank now finds itself having to deal with
the problems of modernizing and expanding its physical facilities, updating equipment, and recruiting
experienced executive personnel and specialists.
The merging bank's market share in the western
Sonoma County area is decreasing in the face of intense competition from Bank of America's Sebastopol
branch which is generating 3.5 times as much growth
as the merging bank. At present, the merging bank
holds only 9 percent of the deposits and 8 percent of
the loans in all the Sonoma County banks.
Consummation of this proposal will have no adverse
effects on banking competition. As applicant banks
do not compete with each other to any significant
extent, the number of banking alternatives in the
Sebastopol area will not be reduced by this proposal.
The relatively large number of banks per capita in
the area indicates that de novo entry by the charter
bank into Sebastopol is very unlikely. The resulting
bank would hold a total of only 12 percent of the
deposits and 11 percent of the loans in the county.
The merger will not change Crocker-Citizens' rank
among banking institutions in the State of California,
or in Sonoma County. The increase in Crocker-

208



Citizens' percentage of total deposits and loans in the
State will be de minimis.
The substitution of a branch of a statewide bank
for the Bank of Sonoma County will bring competitive
stimulus into the area in the form of trust, international banking, and computer services, all presently
available through Bank of America's Sebastopol
branch. Finally, the replacement of the Bank of
Sonoma County by Crocker-Citizens National Bank
will be of considerable benefit to the convenience and
needs of the Sebastopol community.
The proposal appears to benefit the public interest
without producing anticompetitive effects. The application is, therefore, approved.
MARCH 6,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

Crocker-Citizens, the fourth largest bank in California, operates four branches in Sonoma County.
Western Sonoma County, where Sonoma Bank has
its offices, is separated from eastern Sonoma County,
where Crocker-Citizens operates its offices, by a sparsely
populated, low lying plain that, because of occasional
flooding, is presently unsuited for development. However, these two areas are connected by good roads;
Santa Rosa, in eastern Sonoma County, is by far the
largest community and trading center in the region,
and about one-third of the residents of Sebastopol,
the major city in western Sonoma County, commute
to Santa Rosa to work. Accordingly, Crocker-Citizens
is a competitive alternative to Sonoma Bank. This
merger will eliminate significant direct competition between offices of Crocker-Citizens and Sonoma Bank.
Banking in Sonoma County is presently highly concentrated. As of June 30, 1966, 11 banks operated
offices in the county. As of that date, three banks held
78 percent of county IPC deposits. Sonoma Bank held
the fourth largest share, or 9.5 percent, of such deposits
and Crocker-Citizens held the fifth largest share, or
5.2 percent of such deposits. Consummation of the proposed merger would increase the resulting bank's share
of county IPC deposits to 14.7 percent, and increase
the share of the four largest banks in terms of local
operations, from 87 percent to 92 percent of such
deposits.
The proposed merger would eliminate significant
existing competition between Crocker-Citizens and
Sonoma Bank and would substantially increase concentration in Sonoma County. Therefore, we conclude
that this proposed merger would have a significantly
adverse effect on competition.

THE CONNECTICUT BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, HARTFORD, CONN;, AND THE CONNECTICUT NATIONAL BANK, BRIDGEPORT, CONN.
Banking offices
Total assets

Name of bank and type of transaction

In
operation

The Connecticut Bank and Trust Company, Hartford, Conn., with
and The Connecticut National Bank, Bridgeport, Conn. (335), which had
applied for permission to consolidate Sept. 12, 1968, under charter of the latter
bank (335) and title "Connecticut National Bank and Trust Company." The
application was approved Apr. 14, 1969, but was abandoned by the banks June 17,
1969, after filing of antitrust suit by the Justice Department.

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On September 12, 1968, The Connecticut National
Bank, Bridgeport, Conn., and The Connecticut Bank
and Trust Company, Hartford, Conn., applied to the
Comptroller of the Currency for permission to consolidate under the charter of the former and with the
title "Connecticut National Bank and Trust Company." A public hearing was held on this application in
Boston, Mass., on January 15, 1969.
The proposal, which will give Connecticut its first
statewide bank and the first with assets in excess of $1
billion, is made in response to the economic forces which
have generated tremendous industrial growth in the
State. Between 1958 and 1963, the value added to the
economy by manufacturing rose from $2.9 billion to
$4.5 billion, an increase of 55.1 percent. During those
years total banking assets increased 32 percent. From
1950 to 1960, the population increased 26.3 percent to
2.5 million, and is presently estimated at nearly 3 million. The State now has 1.41 percent of the Nation's
population, but only 1.06 percent of the Nation's banking resources.
A continuing lag in banking growth will pose a serious problem in the State for two major reasons: (1)
Connecticut has no city large enough to become a financial center with sufficient resources to finance the
large and growing resident industries, businesses, and
public undertakings, and (2) the large banks located
in the Boston and New York areas have filled the banking void, and will continue to siphon banking business
from Connecticut unless the local institutions become
strong enough to compete in their own State for the
larger accounts.
The early subdivision of Connecticut, the third
smallest State in land area in the United States, into
169 towns having autonomous political structures,
created an equal number of trading areas and diffused
the population throughout them. Even today the economic development follows town lines; a banking office




$895, 475. 783
323,604^851

To be
operated

46
42

established in a town normally will draw customers
almost exclusively from within the limits of that town.
Only the two largest cities in the State, Hartford
and Bridgeport, have developed a suburban area that
extends beyond the traditional political boundaries.
This diffused growth of population, in what is now
the fifth most densely populated State in the country,
accounts for the fact that the largest city in the State
has a population of substantially less than 200,000, and
that the four largest cities, Hartford, Bridgeport, New
Haven, and Stamford, contain in the aggregate only 19
percent of the State's population.
The decentralization of population is further explained by Connecticut's location between States containing two of the largest metropolitan areas in the
country. Connecticut lies on the north shore of Long
Island Sound, between New York, on the west, Rhode
Island, on the east, and Massachusetts, on the north.
Hartford, the capital of the State, is only 121 miles from
New York City, and 102 miles from Boston. Bridgeport is only 60 miles from New York City. Hartford
and Bridgeport, with New Haven, Meriden, New
Britain, and Waterbury between them, have developed
into a rapidly growing, highly industrialized corridor
between New York and Boston; this has been aided by
an excellent, high-speed highway system.
Hartford, the home office city of the merging bank,
is the largest city in Connecticut, and has a population
of 163,000. Located in the productive north-central
part of the State, Hartford contains a diversity of
manufacturing concerns and, because of its status as
the State capital, draws many government employees.
In addition, it is known as the insurance capital of the
world. The area has enjoyed substantial growth and
development, and its economic prospects continue to
be excellent.
Bridgeport, the home office city of the charter bank,
is located 52 miles southwest of Hartford on Long
Island Sound, and has a population of 153,000. Bridge-

209

port's harbor and its location 60 miles southeast of New
York City have made it a manufacturing center, particularly in the field of transportation equipment, machinery, and primary metals. Although less diversified
than the Hartford economy, the Bridgeport area has
experienced steady growth and has every reasonable
prospect of continued and increased productivity.
The 10 largest banks in the State are dispersed
through this corridor. Although Connecticut law
permits statewide branching through merger and
limited de novo branching, only two banks serve more
than one of Connecticut's six largest cities: the charter
bank and the State National Bank and Trust Company
serve Bridgeport; the former also serves Waterbury and
the latter serves Stamford. There are two reasons for
this limited geographical bank expansion. The first is
that the decentralized population growth in the State
has created limited markets, coextensive in nearly all
cases with town lines, and the second is that the home
office protection feature of Connecticut's branching law
has closed 41 of the most populous towns to de novo
branching. A third restriction on the ability of Connecticut banks to expand geographically is their size:
Connecticut banks are very small in light of the highly
industrialized economy and the 3 million population
they serve. The 10 largest banks had the following assets as of December 31, 1968:
Principal
Bank

Hartford National Bank &
Trust Company
The Connecticut Bank &
Trust Company
Fairfield County Trust Company
Connecticut National Bank
State National Bank of Connecticut
City Trust Company
First New Haven National
Bank
Colonial Bank & Trust Company
Second National Bank
Union & New Haven Trust
Company

office
Hartford

Total
assets
{thousands)

$1,063,466

Hartford

989, 326

Stamford

363, 355

Bridgeport
Bridgeport

345, 800
339, 934

Bridgeport
New Haven

293, 568
280, 515

Waterbury

231,488

New Haven
New Haven

174,925
136, 195

Applicant banks ranked second and fourth in size
at that time. The Connecticut Bank and Trust Company, with assets of $989 million, is headquartered in
Hartford, and operates 45 branches in the central and
eastern portions of Connecticut. The bank offers a full
range of modern, specialized banking services, including an international department and full trust services.
The charter bank, on the other hand, with $345 million in assets, operates 41 branches, primarily in the
southwestern part of the State, close to New York City.
210



Between the two separate service areas of these banks
lie New Haven and several other towns, half of which
are closed to branching and all of which contain numerous banking offices.
The widely dispersed population, the localized nature of trading and financial markets, and the small
size of the banking institutions in relation to the industrial economy of Connecticut have enabled out-ofState banks to capture a significant volume of banking
business from within the State. In particular, the large
banks of New York and Boston have taken advantage
of their proximity to Connecticut to enter its commercial and industrial lending markets. The Federal Reserve Board, which divided the State of Connecticut
by placing the southwestern half in its New York district and the remainder of the State in its Boston district, recognizes the influence of these out-of-State
banks in Connecticut.
The competitive impact of out-of-State banks in
Connecticut is marked. The State of Connecticut, as
of June 30, 1967, had placed over 60 percent of its
funds in New York banks and 4.3 percent in other
out-of-State banks. The large insurance companies
headquartered in Hartford had more funds on deposit
in New York and Boston than in Connecticut banks.
In return, specialized services which cannot feasibly
be offered by the smaller Connecticut banks are made
available to these depositors by the out-of-State banks.
Utilities in Connecticut are forced to borrow very
heavily from out-of-State banks in order to finance
their statewide operations. In 1967, The Connecticut
Power and Light Co. obtained approval of the Securities Exchange Commission to borrow over $41 million, $20 million of which was provided by New York
banks. In 1968, the company borrowed $45 million,
$21.4 million of which came from New York banks.
During the same years the Hartford Electric Light Co.
borrowed $25 million and $27 million, respectively,
nearly one-third of which was obtained from a Boston
bank. Similarly, in 1964, The Connecticut Yankee
Atomic Power Co. borrowed $25 million, half of which
was supplied by Boston and New York banks. In addition, the Connecticut and Hartford power companies
mentioned above issued $40 million in short-term notes
to a New York commercial paper dealer.
Private companies in Connecticut also rely heavily
on New York and Boston banks for credit and services.
Securities Exchange Commission records show a sizable number of Connecticut firms borrowing many
millions of dollars annually from out-of-State banks.
On the retail or personal banking level, New York
banks compete with Connecticut banks for accounts,

particularly among the many residents of Fairfield
County who commute to New York City. Figures show
that the high average personal income in Connecticut
is not reflected in the level of deposits maintained in
Connecticut banks, but that New York banks have
higher per capita deposits than the State's per capita
income would warrant. While the per capita deposit
ratio in Connecticut is highest in Hartford, it becomes
lower as figures from areas closer to New York are
studied. Further, financing statements filed under Uniform Commercial Code requirements in Fairfield
County, near New York, and the town of Enfield, near
the Massachusetts border, indicate that during a
3-month period in 1968, 12 percent and 29 percent,
respectively, were filed by out-of-State banks. Thus, on
every level of banking, both in the retail market as well
as in the commercial and industrial lending areas,
Connecticut banks must compete with out-of-State institutions much larger than themselves.
Although fragmentation of population and competition from outside banks have limited the growth and
size of Connecticut banks, competition for the banking
business remaining within the State is very lively.
While there is no statewide banking market in Connecticut, there are six major financial markets located
in and around the six largest cities in the State, viz.
Hartford, Bridgeport, New Britain, New Haven, Stamford, and Waterbury. As noted previously, only two of
the 10 largest banks in the State operate in more than
one of these markets. The home office protection feature of the State's branching law reinforces this decentralized development and greatly inhibits de novo expansion into established markets.
The Connecticut Bank and Trust Company competes in only three of the nine standard metropolitan
statistical areas in the State. These three areas, Hartford, Meriden, and New London-Groton-Norwich,
contain 31 percent of the population of the nine
SMSA's in Connecticut. Within these three statistical
areas, the Connecticut Bank and Trust operates 35
offices, in competition with 68 offices of other commercial banks, and 58 offices of savings banks. Collectively,
these competing banking offices hold deposits of $2,182
billion and loans of $1,638 billion.
The Connecticut National Bank, the charter bank,
competes only in portions of the Waterbury, New
Haven, Bridgeport, Norwalk, and Stamford standard
metropolitan statistical areas, which contain 44 percent of the population of the State's nine SMSA's.
Within these areas, the charter bank operates 34 offices, in competition with 147 offices of other commercial banks, and 61 offices of savings banks. Collectively,




these competing banks held deposits of $4,025 billion
and loans of $3,159 billion.
It should be noted at this juncture that savings
banks in Connecticut have broad powers and compete
with commercial banks in nearly every phase of financial activity. The liberal statutes of Connecticut have
removed many of the restraints from savings banks
and have made them more responsive to community
needs. Their branching powers, for example, are similar to those of commercial banks; savings banks may
not branch into towns serving as the home office city
of another savings bank. They are not foreclosed, however, from branching into towns served by the head
office of a commercial bank. The traditional mortgage
lending feature of savings banks has been supplemented by Connecticut law to include personal and
consumer loans; savings banks may now make loans
secured by life insurance cash values and securities. In
1967, they were given the power to make collateral
loans to finance the purchase of automobiles and other
consumer goods. They also have broad powers to make
home improvement loans and unsecured loans. Statutory limits on loans by savings banks have been
relaxed; maximum amounts for most personal and
consumer loans have been raised from $1,000 to $5,000
and maturities from 18 months to 5 years. Both maximums are doubled for education loans. Lending limits for savings banks in each lending area have also
been liberalized as have traditional collateral restrictions and other regulatory conditions.
The net result of the continual expansion of savings
bank powers has been a tremendous increase in their
lending outside of the mortgage field. Between 1962
and 1967, their personal consumer lending increased
threefold, while loans represented by residential mortgages decreased from 91.56 percent of their total loans
to 84.12 percent. Other advantages, such as more liberal interest rate ceilings on savings accounts. Federal
income tax shelters, broader investment powers, and
the power to sell life insurance, indicate that savings
banks will continue to make further competitive inroads on financial activities formerly reserved to commercial banks.
At the present time there are 70 savings banks in
Connecticut, having assets approximately equal to
those of commercial banks in the State. The largest,
People's Savings Bank, is located in Bridgeport and
had assets of $545.6 million at the end of 1967. The
second largest, Society for Savings, headquartered in
Hartford, had assets of $511.9 million at the end of
1967. Both are substantially larger than any of the
commercial banks in Connecticut except Connecticut
211

Bank and Trust Company and Hartford National
Bank and Trust Company.
The commercial banking structure in Connecticut,
as in every other State, is also affected by other financial and nonfinancial competitors. Savings and loan
associations, for example, have successfully competed
for over $1 billion in savings. The two largest, which
are located in Hartford and Bridgeport, compete directly with the applicant banks. Credit unions, rapidly

growing in popularity with the residents of the State,
are becoming a more substantial factor in financial
markets. In addition, insurance companies and government agencies are competing for a share of the total
savings generated by Connecticut residents. The following table summarizes the intensity of the competition for savings dollars available in the State, and
highlights the small share acquired by all the commercial banks in the State.

Savings in Connecticut, at year-end
[Dollars in thousands]
1965
Amount

Insured commercial banks—IPG time deposits
$1, 144, 118
Mutual savings banks—IPC time deposits
3, 675, 942
Savings and loan associations—savings capital
953, 000
United States Savings Bonds—current redemption value of bonds held by
individuals i
1, 006, 480
Credit unions—assets
236,845
Postal savings—balance to credit of depositors 1
6, 884
Life insurance reserves i
2, 424, 780
Mutual investment funds—market value of net assets *
528, 000
U.S. Government marketable securities with maturity within 1 year from date
of issue 13
707, 120
Total
The Connecticut Bank and Trust Co
Percent held of service area total
The Connecticut National Bank
Percent held of service area total

1966

Percent

Amount

Percent

10. 7 $1, 298, 436
34. 4 3, 825, 582
8. 9 1, 030, 498

11.5
33. 9
9. 1

9. 4
2.3
.1
22. 7
4. 9

1, 015, 040
248,687
4, 006
2, 556, 013
522, 000

9. 0
2.2
. 1
22. 7
4. 6

6.6

773, 700

6.9

10, 683, 169

100. 0

11, 273, 962

100. 0

112, 759

1.1
3. 9
.9
3. 5

133, 920

1. 2
4. 4
.9
3. 5

97,750

104, 130

1

Connecticut estimated at 2 percent of the national total.
Connecticut estimated at 1.5 percent of the national total.
Total held other than by U.S. Government investment accounts, Federal Reserve and commercial banks, insurance companies,
and savings and loan associations.
SOURCE : Connecticut Credit Union League, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Home Loan Bank Board, Federal
Reserve Board, Institute of Life Insurance, Investment Company Institute, and U.S. Department of Commerce.
2
3

Only one area of financial activity in Connecticut
lies solely within the powers of commercial banks: The
holding of demand deposits. But demand deposits are
subject to competition from commercial banks outside the State. As of June 30, 1967, commercial banks
in Connecticut held total IPC demand deposits of
$1.86 billion. The two applicant banks held combined
IPC demand deposits of $454.36 million, or less than
25 percent of the State totals. While figures are not
available to indicate the amount of demand deposits
originating in Connecticut and held by out-of-State
banks, presumably large borrowers do maintain substantial compensating balances in New York and
Boston banks. The large loans obtained by Connecticut corporations from New York and Boston indicate
that substantial demand deposits also are maintained
out of State. In addition, many retail accounts are
maintained outside of Connecticut by those who com212



mute to New York and Boston. Considerable numbers
of checks deposited by Connecticut retailers, particularly in Fairfield County, are drawn by their customers
on New York banks, indicating that a significant segment of Connecticut residents maintain demand deposits in New York.
In the lending areas, it is clear that competitive
forces in Connecticut militate against a concentration
of financial resources and domination of the financial
scene in the State. Competition for mortgage loans
among commercial banks, savings banks, savings and
loan associations, and other nonfarm mortgage lenders within the State left commercial banks with an
estimated share of 11.8 percent in 1965 and 12.2 percent in 1966. The Connecticut Bank and Trust Company held only 1.2 percent of the State total and only
4.4 percent of the total in its own service area. Connecticut National Bank held 1.2 percent of the State

total and 4.5 percent of the total in its service area. In
the consumer credit field, commercial banks in Connecticut accounted for only 37.3 percent and 36.6 percent of the total loans in 1965 and 1966, respectively.
Of this volume, the merging bank held 6.8 percent of
the total during both years, and 25.4 percent and 25.2
percent, respectively, in its own service area. Charter
bank held 2.6 percent and 2.5 percent of the totals
statewide, and 9.9 percent and 9.5 percent of the consumer loans in its service area. These figures do not
reflect the effect on competition from out-of-State
banks, which is considerable, as the following examples
illustrate. As noted before, in 1968, 12 percent of the
financing statements in Fairfield County, and 29 percent of those in the town of Enfield, were filed by outof-State commercial banks. Information on the extent
to which out-of-State banks compete for unsecured
personal loans is not available.
In the field of business credit, Connecticut commercial banks made only 16.7 percent of the total
volume of loans in 1965 and 16.1 percent in 1966. The
merging bank made 3.3 percent of the totals for both
years, and 12.4 percent and 12.3 percent of those in its
local area. The charter bank made 0.8 percent of the
total and 3.1 percent and 3.2 percent, respectively, of
the business loans in its local area. These figures omit
the influence of two major sources of business capital
in the State: Public sales of securities and loans made
by out-of-State banks. It is in the field of business credit
that out-of-State bank competition is greatest. A random review of statements filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission by Connecticut-based businesses
in 1967 showed several major borrowings from New
York banks alone in amounts ranging from $5 million
to more than $50 million.
Commercial banks held only 20 percent and 20.1
percent, respectively, of the farm mortgage loans in
dollar volume in 1965 and 1966. The Connecticut
Bank and Trust held 2.1 percent and 2 percent and
Connecticut National Bank held 1 percent and 0.9
percent. In their respective areas, the merging bank
held 7.9 percent and 7.5 percent while the charter
bank held 3.7 percent and 3.3 percent. Connecticut
Bank and Trust, during the same period, held 4.5 percent and 3.7 percent of the total dollar volume of
agricultural loans, an area in which Connecticut National Bank is not represented.
It is clear that commercial banks in Connecticut,
even in the aggregate do not dominate the State's financial scene. It is equally clear that no one bank in
the State has a sufficient share of the financial business
transacted to overshadow its competitors. On the con-




trary, the market is open to all competitors, bank and
nonbank, financial and nonfinancial, within the State
and without.
Within their respective areas, both applicant banks
have had a diminishing share of the business done by
commercial banks. In 1954, Connecticut Bank and
Trust held 41.2 percent of the commercial banking
assets in its area, 40.8 percent of deposits, and 39.4 percent of loans. As of June 30, 1968, it had declined
to 36 percent of assets and deposits and 33 percent of
loans. In 1954, Connecticut National Bank held 21.5
percent of the assets of all commercial banks operating in the area it currently serves, 20.9 percent of deposits, and 19.3 percent of loans. As of June 30, 1968,
these figures had been reduced to 14.5, 14.8, and 13.3
percent, respectively. During the past; 10 years 19 new
banks have been chartered in Connecticut, all of which
are located either within the local areas of the applicant banks or in adjoining areas. All achieved profitable operations within a relatively short time. Eighteen
are still in existence; one was taken over by merger.
This decrease in concentration of commercial banking resources has been accompanied by the increased
activity of mutual savings banks, whose personal and
consumer lending activities increased threefold between 1962 and 1967, as well as by intensified competition from other financial and nonfinancial institutions
and, especially, by out-of-State banks. In no single area
of finance do the State's commercial banks hold a majority of the market. Rather, they face a continued loss
of their share of the business Connecticut's thriving
economy is generating.
The proposed merger will have no adverse effect on
the present competitive situation in Connecticut. The
applicant banks presently operate in completely different areas. Connecticut Bank and Trust maintains its
offices primarily in Hartford and in eastern Connecticut, while Connecticut National Bank operates largely
in the Bridgeport and Waterbury areas of southwestern
Connecticut. No town accommodates offices of both
banks; in fact there are no adjoining towns in which
both banks have offices. Connecticut National's Prospect and Wolcott branches are 11 miles from Connecticut Bank and Trust's Meriden offices, the closest offices
of the two banks. Extensive studies of the accounts of
these offices of both banks indicate that the percentage
of customers living in one bank's service area and banking in the other's is insignificant. In every type of account, except one, the overlap was substantially less
than 1 percent, both in the number of accounts and in
dollar amounts. The one exception, where 3.79 percent
of Connecticut National's Waterbury-area demand ac-

213

counts have addresses in Connecticut Bank and Trust's
service area, represents accounts of either the State
of Connecticut or a statewide public utility, rather
than local individual or commercial accounts. In fact,
studies indicate that even in the towns closest to each
other's service area, over 90 percent of all accounts
in any one branch come from customers with addresses
within the town in which that branch is located. Of
the 41 common customers having accounts of over
$50,000, all but 5 have business operations in both
areas or are publi cbodies serving both areas.
The lack of actual competition between Connecticut
National Bank and Connecticut Bank and Trust cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed even though
State law permits branching into each other's service
area. As of 1966, 101 of Connecticut's 169 towns contained populations of less than 5,000. Connecticut Bank
and Trust serves 24 towns, 6 of which are closed to de
novo branching by the home office protection statute.
These six towns contain 41.7 percent of the total population of the towns within Connecticut Bank and
Trust's service area. Of the 18 towns open to de novo
branching, only 4 have populations per banking office
in excess of 10,000: Mansfield, Middletown, Wethersfield, and Winchester. All four towns are far from
Connecticut National Bank's service area. At least
three towns intervene between a branch of Connecticut National Bank and any one of the four "open"
towns.
Similarly, 5 of the 23 towns comprising Connecticut
National Bank's service area are closed to de novo
branching. These five contain 48.5 percent of the population of Connecticut National's service area. Of the
remaining 18 towns, none has a population per banking office in excess of 9,000; 6 have less than 5,000 persons per office. It has been the consistent policy of Connecticut Bank and Trust to branch de novo only into
towns having 10,000 to 12,000 people per banking
office.
Eighteen towns lie between the present service areas
of the applicant banks, nine of which are closed to de
novo branching. Of the nine remaining "open" towns,
all have at least one banking office for every 5,000
persons.
In the past 10 years, the service areas of both banks
have changed very little. The only branches established
by Connecticut Bank and Trust in the direction of the
service area of Connecticut National are in Wallingford, and those were established by merger. Connecticut Bank and Trust has established no de novo
branches toward Connecticut National Bank's service
area in the last 10 years. Its only expansion to the

214



northeast also occurred by merger. Of the 17 de novo
branches opened by Connecticut Bank and Trust during that time, 11 are located in Hartford, West Hartford, or East Hartford. The other 6 have been in eastern Connecticut, away from Connecticut National's
service area. Similarly, all of Connecticut National's
de novo branches opened during that time have been
either in or west of its established service area and
away from Connecticut Bank and Trust's sphere of
operations. Connecticut National has not participated
in a merger since 1958 when it took over a bank in
South Norwalk.
Testimony offered at the hearing on this proposal
revealed that neither Connecticut National nor Connecticut Bank and Trust has ever considered as feasible the establishment of new branches in the service
area of the other. The restrictions of State law, the
economics of branching, and the struggle of both
banks to remain competitive in their present service
areas have restricted their ability to enlarge their geographical limits into unfamiliar metropolitan areas.
In the combined service areas of the applicant banks,
the resulting bank will have a smaller share of the
banking business than Connecticut Bank and Trust
presently has in its service area, and a larger share in
Connecticut National's area, where competition from
New York banks is greater and where the need for more
competitive local banking institutions is also greater.
Connecticut National has been primarily a retail institution. The substitution of the resulting bank, with
its much higher lending capabilities and expertise in
commercial and industrial lending, will greatly intensify competition between the resulting bank and New
York banks for larger accounts based in Connecticut.
Much of the banking public in Connecticut will be
unaffected by the merger. The long history of local
town banking and the multitude of banking offices in
Connecticut, which the merger will leave unchanged,
as well as the fact that the applicant banks operate
in different areas, indicate that the merger will not
affect the personal and smaller business accounts in
the State. The primary effects of the merger will be the
creation of an institution large and varied enough to
compete with large banks in New York and Boston, as
well as the other sizable Connecticut banks, for the
multimillion dollar accounts generated in Connecticut.
These effects will be most profound in Fairfield County
where the largest banks have lending limits of less than
$2 million. The resulting bank will have a lending limit
of approximately $8 million and will offer such services
as a complete international department, economic research staff, freight payment plan, and accounts re-

ceivable financing, all presently unavailable in the service area of Connecticut National Bank.
In the four-State area where banks compete for
large Connecticut accounts, the resulting bank will
rank 12th in size, holding only 1.2 percent of the assets
of the 20 largest banks in this area. The fact that
only two Connecticut banks are large enough to qualify
for the list, and that the assets of the two when combined account for only 2 percent of the total assets of
the 20, indicates the large disparity in size between the
Connecticut banks and their regional competitors, and
emphasizes the insignificance of the concentration of
resources that will occur when the assets of Connecticut National and Connecticut Bank and Trust are
combined. As noted before, the combination of assets
will strengthen competition for large accounts, and
will have little effect on the existing competition for
local accounts in Connecticut.
The single area in which the merger will affect the
local accounts is that the statewide scope of the resulting bank can be expected to attract customers whose
businesses are statewide in nature. Statewide businesses
will be able to enjoy the convenience and economy of
dealing with a single institution; credit information
can be gathered on a statewide basis for the convenience of manufacturers and retailers. But perhaps the
most important beneficial result of the merger will be
the creation of an institution that can effectively utilize
the financial resources of the State, within the State.
The uneven distribution of wealth in Connecticut and
the huge demand for funds in the metropolitan areas
of the State can be remedied by a bank whose geographical scope of operations permits efficient allocation of capital funds. Banks in Bridgeport, for example,
have had a consistently higher loan-to-deposit ratio
during the past several years than have those in Hartford. The greater rate of growth in Bridgeport and
Fairfield County indicates that capital needs there are
more pressing than elsewhere in the State. This principle is further supported by the facts that interest
rates on loans are higher in Fairfield County than elsewhere, and that per capita deposits in that county are
lower than in New Haven or Hartford or, indeed, than
in most out-of-State cities of comparable size, notwithstanding the fact that per capita income in the county
is substantially higher than the national average.
The proposed merger will tend to reverse the trends
that are proving detrimental to the commercial banks
in Connecticut which have suffered a diminishing share
of the financial markets and which face increasing
competition from large and powerful out-of-State
banks. The tremendous economic growth and increas-




ingly large commercial and industrial enterprises in
the State require banks that can offer capital and
services that contribute to the growth and productivity
of the State, rather than the fragmented and inadequate existing institutions that are able, by law, to
provide only minor percentages of local financial
requirements.
Larger banking institutions are needed in Connecticut. The Connecticut legislature has formally sanctioned the concept of statewide banking; geographical
and historical considerations, as well as the practical
operation of the branching statute, have prevented the
natural expansion of individual banks throughout the
State. The multitude of small banks located in Connecticut will continue to serve well the personal and
smaller commercial accounts generated in the areas in
which such banks are located. But the major industries
and the statewide business operations will be well served
by an aggressive bank, well-located and large enough to
counter some of the out-of-State competition. The only
feasible method of providing such a bank is by merger
or consolidation. It is concluded that the proposal is
in the public interest according to the relevant statutory criteria and with regard for the intent of Connecticut law. The consolidation is, therefore, approved.
APRIL 14,1969.
SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

CBT serves the eastern half of the State and CN
serves the southwest quarter of the State. The closest
offices of CN and CBT are about 9 miles apart; several banks, with total deposits ranging from $165 million to $11 million, operate in the intervening area.
This suggests that there may be some limited degree of
competition between these banks, especially for larger
loans and deposit accounts.
Connecticut law permits statewide de novo branching, in any city or town where no bank operates its
head office. Of Connecticut's 169 towns, 128, with
about half of the State's population, or over 1,400,000
inhabitants, are open to de novo branching by either
CBT or CN. Thus, opportunities to branch de novo
appear abundant. CBT, the State's largest bank, with
about 9.4 percent of State commercial bank deposits,
and CN the third largest bank, with about 3.4 percent
of such deposits, appear to be two of the most likely
de novo entrants into these towns. Each has the resources to open such branches, and their past histories
indicate dispositions to expand through de novo
branching; since 1960, CBT and CN opened, respectively, 16 and 18 de novo branches.
Of the 24 towns in CBT's self-designated service

215

area, 18, with a total population of about 463,300,
are open to de novo branching. In all these towns,
CBT is the largest bank in terms of total deposits;
in 5 of these towns, with populations ranging from
5,300 to 11,000, CBT has the only banking offices; and
in 8 more of these towns, with populations ranging
from 10,800 to 53,000, it has 50 percent or more of the
banking offices.
Of the 23 towns in CN's self-designated service area,
18, with a population of about 405,000, are open to
de novo branching. In all of these towns, CN is the
largest bank in terms of total deposits; in two of these

towns, with populations of 6,200 and 10,300, CN has
the only banking office; and in nine of these towns,
with populations ranging from 4,800 to 56,700, CN
has 50 percent or more of the banking offices.
Thus, the proposed merger would not only eliminate the development of greater competition between
the two banks through de novo branching, but will
further entrench these banks in their dominant positions in most of the markets in which they now operate.
Therefore, we conclude that this proposed merger
would have a significantly adverse effect on
competition.

THE NATIONAL BANK OF MANASSAS, MANASSAS, VA., AND THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF QUANTICO, QUANTICO, VA.
Banking offices
Name of bank and type of transaction

Total assets
To be
operated

In
operation

The First National Bank of Quantico, Quantico, Va. (12477), with
and The National Bank of Manassas, Manassas, Va. (5032), which had
applied for permission to merge Jan. 15, 1969, under charter of the latter bank
(5032) and title "First National Bank of Quantico and Manassas." The application
was approved Apr. 15, 1969, but was abandoned by the banks June 3, 1969, after
filing of antitrust suit by the Justice Department.

COMPTROLLER S DECISION

On January 3, 1969, The First National Bank of
Quantico, Quantico, Va., and The National Bank of
Manassas, Manassas, Va., applied to the Comptroller
of the Currency for permission to merge under the
charter of the latter and with the title of "First National Bank of Quantico and Manassas."
The participating banks are located in Prince William County in the northern Virginia section of the
Washington Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area.
Banking in the metropolitan area is characterized by
a high degree of decentralization. Of the 68 banks in
the area only 13 have more than $100 million in resources, and of these only three are located in Virginia.
In northern Virginia there are 27 banks with less than
$50 million in resources which is more small banks than
in the District and southern Maryland combined.
While the District and Maryland each have three banks
with resources in excess of $500 million, Virginia has
only one. The Virginia banks, which have been particularly hampered in their growth by the State's restrictive branching laws, have attempted to expand through
the holding company route.
216



$12,916,566
15, 157,972

4
6

Prince William County, with an estimated population of 100,000, is one of the rapidly growing communities in the Washington Metropolitan Area and
future prospects are excellent. Most of the work force
is employed in government, trade, and services^ and for
a large number of residents it is a bedroom community
to Metropolitan Washington.
The charter bank, an affiliate of the First Virginia
Bankshares Corporation, was organized in 1896 and
now operates five banking offices in Prince William
County and a facility in Fauquier County. The bank,
with IPC deposits of $11 million, ranks 47th in size
among all commercial banks competing within the
Washington Metropolitan Area. The merging banks
together represent less than one-half of 1 percent of
deposits in the metropolitan area, and less than 1 percent of the deposits of banks located in the northern
Virginia portion of the metropolitan area.
The merging bank, chartered in 1923, presently operates five banking offices in Prince William County.
The bank, with IPC deposits of $9 million, because of
lack of adequate capital and limited resources has not
been able to compete eflFectively with the larger banks
operating in the area, and has not been able to meet

adequately the credit needs of its customers. The bank
now faces a management succession problem.
The merging banks, besides competing with the
other banks in northern Virginia, receive strong competition from the large banks doing business in the
metropolitan area including Richmond and Baltimore
banks which have been drawn into the northern Virginia market to fill the credit needs of the expanding
area economy. Those include First and Merchants
National Bank and The Bank of Virginia, in Richmond; Maryland National Bank, First National Bank
of Maryland, and Union Trust Company of Maryland,
in Baltimore; and The Riggs National Bank of Washington, D.G., American Security and Trust Company,
and The National Bank of Washington, in the District
of Columbia.
There is no significant competition presently existing
between the merging banks. Although the Woodbridge
offices of the merging banks are only 1 mile apart, they
are located in different shopping centers and each
serves its own local market. Because of its limited resources and internal problems, the merging bank is not
an effective competitor nor a potentially significant
competitor to either the charter bank or other area
banks.
The addition of the merging bank to the charter
bank will have little effect upon overall competition in
either the Washington Metropolitan Area or in northern Virginia. Consummation of this merger will have
its effect in Prince William County where, besides solving the management and other problems in the merging bank, it will introduce a bank better able to meet
the needs of this community. This merger will not
eliminate a banking alternative in the area.
Considered in the light of the statutory criteria, this
merger is judged to be in the public interest and is,
therefore, approved.
APRIL 15,

1969.

SUMMARY OF REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL

Both banks operate in Prince William County, Va.
National of Manassas has a total of seven offices in the
county and National of Quantico has four. National
of Manassas is a subsidiary of First Virginia Bankshares. It would own 95.8 percent of the stock of the
resulting bank; First Virginia controls banks with
$414.6 million in deposits throughout most of the major
areas of Virginia.




The proposed merger would eliminate existing direct
competition between the merging banks in Prince
William County, as a whole, and particularly in the
Woodbridge area, where these banks have branch
offices less than 1 mile apart. There are presently two
other banks operating in the county. The largest bank,
The American Bank, with 13 offices, has five offices in
the county, three in Woodbridge, one In Manassas, and
one in Dumfries; the second largest, the Peoples National Bank, has offices in Manassas and Woodbridge.
In general, competition is centered in Woodbridge,
Manassas, Dumfries, and Quantico. These communities are within an area having about a 9-mile radius.
The proposed merger would cause an increase in
concentration in Prince William County. National of
Manassas and National of Quantico now control 20
percent and 18 percent, respectively, of the total deposits in Prince William County. The resulting bank
would thus control approximately 39 percent of the
total deposits and 40 percent of I PC demand deposits
in the county. Furthermore, should the merger be consummated, the number of banks headquartered in
Prince William County will be reduced to three, with
the two largest banks holding 87 percent of the total
county deposits.
Although Prince William County is part of the
Washington, D.C. SMSA, any measurement based on
the entire area would not reflect accurately the alternatives available to Prince Wrilliam County residents
and businesses. Therefore, we conclude that the most
appropriate market in which to measure the impact of
this merger is Prince William County.
While the applicants do contend that the management and capital problems of Quantico National can
be solved only be merger (claims which we do not pass
on), we note that by Virginia law, Quantico National
can merge with any bank in the State. Furthermore, no
bank may enter the county except by acquiring an
existing bank. Since two of the four banks in the county
are already affiliates of bank holding companies
(American Bank belongs to Virginia Commonwealth
Bankshares), it is very important to preserve the remaining independent banks in this market as the bases
of additional entry rather than allowing competitors
already in the market to eliminate them. We conclude that the proposed merger would have a significantly adverse effect on competition in Prince William
County.

217

APPENDIX B

Statistical Tables

3-814—70

15




Statistical Tables
Table No.

B-l
B 2
—
B-3
B-4
B-5
B-6
B-7
B-8
B-9
B-10
B-ll
B-12
B—13
B-14
B-l5
B-l6
B-l7
B-l8
B-l9

Title

Comptrollers of the Currency, 1863 to the
present
Administrative Assistants to the Comptroller of
the Currency and Deputy Comptrollers of the
Currency
Regional Administrators of National banks
Changes in the structure of the National Banking
System, by States, 1863-1969
Charters, liquidations, and changes in issued
capital stock of National banks, calendar 1969.
Applications for National bank charters, approved and rejected, by States, calendar 1969.
Applications for National bank charters, by
States, pursuant to corporate reorganization,
calendar 1969
Newly organized National banks, by States,
calendar 1969
National bank charters issued and mergers consummated pursuant to corporate reorganizations, by States, calendar 1969
State chartered banks converted to National
banks, calendar 1969
National bank charters issued pursuant to
corporate reorganizations, by States, calendar
1969
National banks reported in voluntary liquidation, calendar 1969
National banks merged or consolidated with
State banks, calendar 1969
National banks converted into State banks,
calendar 1969
Purchases of State banks by National banks,
calendar 1969
Consolidations of National banks, or National
and State banks, calendar 1969
Mergers of National banks, or National and
State banks, by States, calendar 1969
Mergers resulting in National banks, by assets of
acquiring and acquired banks, 1960-69
Domestic branches entering the National banking
system, by de novo opening, merger, or conversion, by States, calendar 1969

220




221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
235
236
238
238
239
240
241
242
248
249

Table No.
Title
B—20 Domestic branches of National banks closed, by
States, calendar 1969
B-21 Principal assets, liabilities, and capital accounts
of National banks, by deposit size, year-end
1968 and 1969
B-22 Dates of reports of condition of National banks,
1914-69....
B-23 Total and principal assets of National banks,
by States, June 30, 1969
B-24 Total and principal liabilities of National banks,
by States, June 30, 1969
B—25 Capital accounts of National banks, by States,
June 30, 1969
B-26 Total and principal assets of National banks.
by States, Dec. 31, 1969
B-27 Total and principal liabilities of National banks,
by States, Dec. 31, 1969
B—28 Capital accounts of National banks, by States,
Dec. 31, 1969
B-29 Loans of National banks, by States, Dec. 31,
1969
B-30 Income and expenses of National banks, by
States, year ended Dec. 31, 1969
B-31 Income and expenses of National banks, by
deposit size, year ended Dec. 31, 1969
B-32 Capital accounts, net income, and dividends of
National banks, 1944-69
B-33 Loan losses and recoveries of National banks,
1945-69
B-34 Securities losses and recoveries of National banks,
1945-69
B-35 Assets and liabilities of National banks, date of
last report of condition, 1950-69
B—36 Total assets of foreign branches of National banks,
year-end, 1953-69
B-37 Foreign branches of National banks, 1960-69.. .
B-38 Assets and liabilities of National banks, Dec. 31,
1919: consolidated statement
B—39 Trust assets and income of National banks, by
States, calendar 1969
B—40 Common trust funds of National and State banks,
by States, 1968 and 1969

258
260
261
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
282
284
285
285
286
287
287
287
288
289

TABLE

B-l

Comptrollers of the Currency, 1863 to the present
Name

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

9
10
11
12

13
14

15
16
17

18
19
20
21
22

McCulloch, Hugh
Clarke, Freeman
Hulburd, Hiland R
Knox, John Jay
Gannon, Henry W
Trenholm, William L. . .
Lacey, Edward S
Hepburn, A. Barton
Eckels, James H
Dawes, Charles G
Ridgely, William Barret.
Murray, Lawrence O . . . .
Williams, John Skelton. .
Grissinger, D. R
Dawes, Henry M
Mclntosh, Joseph W. . . .
Pole, John W
O'Connor, J. F. T
Delano, Preston
Gidney, Ray M
Saxon, James J
Gamp, William B. . . . . . .




Date of
appointment

May
Mar.
Feb.
Apr.
May
Apr.
May
Aug.
Apr.

9, 1863
21, 1865
1, 1867
25, 1872
12, 1884
20, 1886
1, 1889
2, 1892
26, 1893
! Jan. 1, 1898
Oct. 1, 1901
Apr. 27, 1908
Feb. 2, 1914
Mar. 17, 1921
May 1, 1923
Dec. 20, 1924
Nov. 21, 1928
May 11, 1933
Oct. 24, 1938
Apr. 16, 1953
Nov. 16, 1961
Nov. 16, 1966

Date of
resignation

8, 1865
24, 1866
3, 1872
30, 1884
1, 1886
30, 1889
June 30, 1892
Apr. 25, 1893
Dec. 31, 1897
Sept. 30, 1901
Mar. 28, 1908
Apr. 27, 1913
Mar. 2. 1921
Apr. 30, 1923
Dec. 17, 1924
Nov. 20, 1928
Sept. 20, 1932
Apr. 16, 1938
Feb. 15, 1953
Nov. 15, 1961
Nov. 15, 1966

Mar.
July
Apr.
Apr.
Mar.
Apr.

State

Indiana.
New York.
Ohio.
Minnesota.
Minnesota.
South Carolina.
Michigan.
New York.
Illinios.
Illinios.
Illinois.
New York.
Virginia.
Ohio.
Illinois.
Illinois.
Ohio.
California.
Massachusetts.
Ohio.
Illinois.
Texas.

221

TABLE

B-2

Administrative Assistants to the Comptroller of the Currency and Deputy Comptrollers of the Currency
No.

Name

Dates of tenure

State

ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANTS TO THE COMPTROLLER

Larsen, Arnold E
Faulstich, Albert J
Chase, Anthony G
Wickman, Wayne G
Nicoll, John
Howland, Jr., W. A

Dec.
July
July
Feb.
Aug.
Dec.

24,
2,
21,
27,
19,
1,

1961
1962
1965
1967
1968
1969

July
July
Feb.
Aug.
Nov.

1,
18,
25,
17,
28,

1962
1965
1967
1968
1969

Nebraska.
Louisiana.
Washington.
Texas.
New York.
Georgia.

DEPUTY COMPTROLLERS OF THE CURRENCY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43

44

Howard, Samuel T
Hulburd, Hiland R
Knox, John Jay
Langworthy, John S
Snyder, V. P
Abrahams, J. D
Nixon, R. M
Tucker, Oliver P
Coffin, George M
Murray, Lawrence O
Kane, Thomas P
Fowler, Willis J
Mclntosh, Joseph W
Collins, Charles W
Stearns, E. W
Await, F. G
Gough, E. H
Proctor, John L
Lyons, Gibbs
Prentiss, William, Jr
Diggs, Marshall R
Oppegard, G. J
Upham, C. B
Mulroney, A. J
McCandless, R. B
Sedlacek, L. H
Robertson, J. L
Hudspeth, J. W
Jennings, L. A
Taylor, W. M
Garwood, G. W
Fleming, Chapman C
Haggard, Hollis S
Camp, William B
Redman, Clarence B
Watson, Justin T
Miller, Dean E
DeShazo, Thomas G
Egertson, R. Coleman
Blanchard, Richard J
Park, Radcliffe
Faulstich, Albert J
Motter, David C
Gwin, John D....

222



1, 1865
9, 1863
31, 1867
1, 1865
. 12, 1867
24, 1872
8, 1872
3, 1886
5, 1886
3, 1887
27, 1887
25, 1890
11, 1890
. 16, 1893
7, 1893
. 11,1896
. 12, 1896
31, 1898
. 1,1898
: 27, 1899
: 29, 1899
. 2,1923
14, 1927
1, 1908
19, 1924
21, 1923
: 30, 1927
1, 1923
6, 1925
30, 1928
1, 1927
15, 1936
16, 1941
6, 1927
23, 1933
1, 1928
15, 1938
24, 1933
15, 1938
24, 1936
. 30, 1938
16, 1938
. 30, 1938
16, 1938
31, 1948
1, 1938
31, 1941
1, 1939
. 1, 1951
7, 1941
. 30, 1944
. 1, 1941
1, 1944
17, 1952
1, 1949
31, 1950
. 1, 1950
16, 1960
. 1, 1951
1, 1962
18, 1952
31, 1962
. 15, 1959
; 31, 1962
16, 1960
3, 1962
2, 1962
; 15, 1966
, 4, 1962
26, 1963
. 3, 1962
23, 1962
1, 1963
13, 1964 June 30, 1966
. 1, 1964
. 1, 1964 june"i,'i967
19, 1965
1, 1966
21, 1967

New York.
Ohio.
Minnesota.
New York.
New York.
Virginia.
Indiana.
Kentucky.
South Carolina.
New York.
Dist. of Columbia;
Indiana.
Illinois.
Illinois.
Virginia.
Maryland.
Indiana.
Washington.
Georgia.
California;
Texas.
California.
Iowa.
Iowa.
Iowa.
Nebraska.
Nebraska.
Texas.
New York.
Virginia.
Colorado.
Ohio.
Missouri.
Texas.
Connecticut.
Ohio.
Iowa.
Virginia.
Iowa.
Massachusetts.
Wisconsin.
Louisiana.
Ohio.
Mississippi.

TABLE

B-3

Regional Administrators of National banks
Region

Name

John L. Donovan
2
3
4
5

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Headquarters

I Boston, Mass.

Charles M. Van Horn
R. Coieman Egertson.
John W. Shaffer, J r . .
Page Cranford

New York, N.Y..
Philadelphia, Pa.
Cleveland, Ohio.
Richmond, Va. .

Joseph M. Reani.
Joseph G. Lutz...
Kenneth W. Leaf.
Donald B. Smith.
John R. Burt. . . .
Michael Doman..
John R. Thomas.
H. JoeSelby
Arnold E. Larsen.

Atlanta, Ga
Chicago, 111
Memphis, Tenn
Minneapolis, Minn. .
Kansas City, Mo
Dallas, Tex
Denver, Colo
Portland, Oreg
San Francisco, Calif.




States

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
Rhode Island, Vermont.
New Jersey, New York.
Pennsylvania, Delaware.
Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio.
District of Columbia, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia,
West Virginia.
Florida, Georgia, South Carolina.
Illinois, Michigan.
Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee.
Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin.
Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska.
Oklahoma, Texas.
Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming.
Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington.
California, Hawaii, Nevada.

223

TABLE

B-4

Changes in the structure of the National Banking System, by States, 1863-1969
Consolidated and merged
under 12 U.S.C. 215

12 U.S.C. 214

Consolidated

Merged

15, 777

701

434

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas . . .
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia...
Florida

203
8
33
165
608
267

4
0
1
1
20
5

137

11
NO COO

Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana...
Maine

207
7
112

8
1
0

979

20

In
operation
Converted Merged or Dec. 31,
to State consolidated 1969

Liquidated

Insolvencies

•D OO OO
vjCD NO

Organized
and opened
for business
1863-1969

45
0
6
39
66
56

62
2
21
55
391
86

0
0
0
0
4
0

0
1
1
0
17
0

88
5
4
68
68
120

7

69

1

27

18
13
42

15

1
7
43

0
0
0

8
0
0

5
11
209

87
4
65

8
1
1

0
0
2

60
1
8

299

6

1

418

4* CD NO

4
1
0
2
0
1

122
100
172
80
49
21

0
4

9
11
4
0
0
1

47
86
98
197
38
97

157
386
350
516
98
325

3
41
11
8
5
13

12
13
3
0
4
4

17
28
77
116
16
58

8

205
243
198
110
53
79
69
207
157
192
35
148

OOOCO

. ...

4
2
2
2
0
6

00 OO




4
0
0
2
42
0
7
0
0
1

1

76

76

0

0

2
1
3

1
0
5

83
4
5

199
8
23

2
0
0

0
1
0

126
4
50

443
97
1,025
163
263
721
781
153
1,293
69

51
1
125
8
3
32
12

23
1
70
21
0
16
5
3
91
1

59
25
130
44
100
112
85
31
211
2

152
37
441
58
118
336
454
102
491
58

1
0
11
0
0
2
7

20
0
75
9
0
6
0
4
81
0

137
33
173
23
42
217
218
11
315
5

3

20

0

33

43

49

2
1
6
0
3
44

93
36
142
6
17
28

81
94
574
21
29
74

2
2
33
3
1
1

244
198
299
78

18
11
9
0

8
0

51
38
54
12

139
68
115
26

0
0

1
1

0
0

0
0

0
1

46
85
283

OO

221
1,333

OO

13

13
9
45
4
3
23

OO

136
224

OO

...

4

O O NO O

205

413
18
86

CO

224

4,669

14
4
6
11
4
8

o

Virgin Islands
Puerto Rico

302

42
0
35
227
98
205
77
37
16
13

CM CN CO

South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

118

—

.

New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina . .
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
..
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island

6,734

449
564
459
250
122
128

. .

Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska . .
Nevada
New Hampshire

2,819

CMO

United States

with State
banks

banks

48

2

11

4
2
6
10

529
10
26
103

1
0
0
0

27
81
121
40

0
0

1
0

TABLE

B-5

Charters, liquidations, and changes in issued capital stock of National banks, calendar 1969
Capital stock
Capital notes and
debentures

Number of
banks
Common

Increases:
Banks newly chartered:
Primary organization.
Reorganizations
Conversions of State banks. . . ,
Capital stock:
Preferred
Common:
662 cases by statutory sale
692 cases by statutory stock dividend. .
6 cases by statutory consolidation
53 cases by statutory merger
I case by conversion of preferred stock.
60 cases by conversion of capital notes.
Capital notes and debentures:
61 cases by new issue
Other
Total increases.

*75

$15,956,503

15

16, 068, 750

51,054,424
367, 664, 574
8, 978, 513
33, 866, 124
221, 903
1, 695, 779

$9, 450, 000

495, 506, 570

9, 450, 000

68,137,000

2, 075, 000
50, 000

1
f7
J82

29
10

75,000 I.

18,821,790
8, 248, 990

10, 225, 000

2, 967, 358
901, 625
'2,'990," 920'

3, 928, 750
9, 645, 959

136

Total decreases.

$7, 186,000

60, 951, 000
90

Decreases:
Bank ceasing operations:
Voluntary liquidations:
Succeeded by National banks
Succeeded by State banks
No successors
Conservatorship
Receivership
Statutory consolidations
Statutory mergers
Converted into State banks
Merged or consolidated with State banks.
Insolvent
,
Other
Capital stock:
12 Preferred: Retired
Common:
6 cases by statutory reduction
0 cases by statutory consolidation....
11 cases by statutory merger
Capital notes and debentures:
Retirements
42 Converted to common s t o c k . . . . . . . . .

Preferred

33, 163, 325

6, 896, 108

19, 870, 959

Net change
,
Charters in force Dec. 31, 1968, and issued capital.

-46
4,717

462, 343, 245 2, 553, 892
5,729,052,612 58,331,967

48, 266, 041
1, 281, 222, 461

Charters in force Dec. 31, 1969, and issued capital.

4,671

6, 191,395,857 I 60,885,859

1, 329, 488, 502

^Includes 59 Reorganized Banks with capital stock of $3,450,000.00.
•[•Includes 2 consolidated reorganized banks.
|Includes 56 Reorganized Banks.
NOTE: Premium on sale of common stock. . $149, 535, 201. 52 (581 cases)
Premium on Convertible Notes
7, 950, 181. 00 (60 cases)




157,485,382.52

(641 cases)

225

TABLE

B-6

Applications for National bank charters, approved and rejected, by States, calendar 1969*
Approved

Rejected

Approved

COLORADO

Lakewood Colorado National Bank, Lakewood
First National Bank in Aspen, Aspen
Wheat Ridge National Bank, Wheat Ridge.
Denver
Unincorporated area of Arapahoe County
Arapahoe Colorado National Bank, Unincorporated Area of Arapahoe County.

Feb. 5
Apr. 2
June 12

First National Bank of Lucedale, Lucedale
Ripley
July 14
Aug. 27

Mar. 19
Apr. 18

MISSOURI

Springfield National Bank, Springfield

July

Dec. 18
NEBRASKA

Feb. 13

Kearney.

FLORIDA

Central Park First National Bank, Unincorporated Area of Orange County...
Citizens National Bank of Davie, Davie. ..
Peoples Hialeah National Bank, Hialeah..
Beach National Bank of Pompano Beach,
Pompano Beach
Unincorporated Area of Dade County
Second National Bank of North Miami
Beach, North Miami Beach
Congress National Bank, Palm Springs....
Second National Bank of Delray Beach,
Delray Beach
Unincorporated Area West of Altamonte
Springs
Barnett First National Bank in Seminole
County, Unincorporated Area of Seminole County
Hialeah

Rejected

MISSISSIPPI

NEW JERSEY

June 24
Ocean City
Atlantic National Bank, Atlantic City
Aug. 5
The First National Bank, Piscataway,
Piscataway Township
Sept. 4

Feb. 13
Apr. 18
Apr. 18
Apr. 23
Sept. 16

NEW YORK

Oyster Bay

Sept. 16
Oct. 14

Oct. 22
TEXAS

Nov. 12
Dec. 15
Dec. 15
Dec. 18

GEORGIA

First National Bank of Doraville, Doraville. Aug. 26
ILLINOIS

Lake Forest National Bank, Lake Forest.. Dec. 30

Fort Worth
Nederland
Dickinson
Dickinson
American National Bank, Corpus Christi...
Portland
Houston
Northwest National Bank, Houston
Houston
Jetero National Bank, Aldine
Madison—Southern National Bank,
Houston
Houston Intercontinental National Bank,
Houston
American National Bank, H u m b l e . . . . . . . .
Pan American National Bank, Houston. .. .

Jan.
May 27
June 27
Oct. 13

31

Feb. 3
Mar. 17
Mar. 17
May 27
3

June

June 27

Oct. 13
Oct. 14
Nov. 3
Dec. 15

LOUISIANA

Abbeville
Mandeville

June 24
July 14
MASSACHUSETTS

Danvers

Febi

3

St. George
VIRGINIA

Lynchburg
Jefferson National Bank, Lynchburg
Warsaw

MICHIGAN

First Independence National Bank of
Detroit, Detroit
Jan. 22
Novi
Nov. 5
MINNESOTA

Park-Grove National Bank, Village of
Cottage Grove
May 27
Suburban National Bank of Roseville,
Roseville
June 26

Sept. 9




Mar. 11
Dec*.' 15

WASHINGTON

Olympia

Feb. 25
WEST VIRGINIA

Citizens National Bank of St. Albans, St.
Albans
Mar. 17
First National Bank of Chester, Chester... Aug. 4
WISCONSIN

First West Towne National Bank of
Madison, Madison
Feb. 27
Tri City National Bank of Hales Corners,
Hales Corners
Sept. 4

* Excludes conversions, and charters to be issued pursuant to corporate reorganizations.

226

. . . .June 25

TABLE B-7

Applications for National bank charters', by States, pursuant to corporate reorganizations, calendar 1969
Approved Rejected

Approved Rejected

CALIFORNIA

Crocker Bank, National Association, San
Francisco
Pueblo Bank, a national banking association, Beverly Hills
Newport Bank, N. A., Newport Beach
Gateway Bank, National Association, El
Segundo

NEW YORK—continued

Jan.

2

J a n . 16
Feb. 10
Dec. 9

The Fulton County National Bank and
Trust Company, Gloversville
Mar. 24
The Scarsdale National Bank & Trust
Company, Scarsdale
May 13
Franklin Bank of New York (National
Association), Mineola
June 4
Bank of Auburn, National Association,
Auburn
_ . . . Aug. 14

ILLINOIS
NORTH CAROLINA

Central Bank of Chicago, National Association, Chicago
Jan.
First Chicago Bank, National Association,
Chicago

Feb.

Commercial Bank of Peoria, National
Association, Peoria

2

PNB National Bank, Rocky Mount

12

Mar, 11

INDIANA
Allen County National Bank, Fort Wayne.. Jan. 30

OHIO

__ .
, „ . . « ,
Second National Bank in Steubenville,
Steubenville
Feb. 17
National Bank of Coshocton, Coshocton. . July 29
The Guernsey County National Bank,
Cambridge
July 31
OKLAHOMA

IOWA

Iowa National Bank of Cedar Rapids,
Cedar Rapids.
Jan. 2
Iowa Security National Bank, Sioux City.. Feb. 20
KANSAS

r

MASSACHUSETTS
New England Merchants Bank (National
Association), Boston

Dec. 12

t x- • I T i nu-ii- i
>
~
Chillicothe National Bank, Chillicothe....
First National Bank of Buchanan County,
St. Joseph
County National Bank, Clayton.
Riverfront National Bank, St. L o u i s . . . . . .
City Bank, National Association, Kansas
City

T
o
Jan. 8 . . . . . . . .
Feb. 4
Feb. 7 . . . .
Apr. 4
May 16

NEW JERSEY

NEW YORK

3S3-S14—70




16

Mar. 27

The Fourth Bank of Tulsa, National Association, Tulsa
PENNSYLVANIA
National Bank, Philadelphia.........
locust Street National Bank, Philadelphia.
Blythe National Bank, Umontown
Sower National Bank, Philadelphia
Broad and Walnut National Bank, Bala^ J S X S ^ " ' ^ ' \ ' ' ^ ' ' W V'V ' V '
CCNB National Bank, New Cumberland..
P N B

Sept. 16

J a n . 30
Feb. 6
Feb. 20
Apr. 1
£ pr * SI
Sept. 25

ISLAND

Rhode Island Hospital Trust National
B a n k providencef
J a n . 23
July 28
R h o d e s National Bank, Providence
J

/

SOUTH CAROLINA
Washington Street National Bank, Columbia
J a n . 17
TEXAS

Second Jersey National Bank, Jersey City.. J a n . 9
National State Bank of New Jersey,
Newark
Apr. 18
The Second Warren County National
Bank, Washington Borough
Nov. 21 . . . . . . . .

The Chase Bank of New York (National
Association), New York
Capital City National Bank, Albany
First National Bank, Yonkers

£ first Bank and Trust Company of
Tulsa
> National Association, Tulsa
Jan. 2
Broadway National Bank of Enid, E n i d . . . Mar. 4
Commercial Bank, National Association,

R H O D E

MISSOURI
n,.,..

Th

Muskogee

Johnson County Bank, National Association, Prairie Village.. ,
Jan«
7
The Second National Bank of Topeka,
The°Merchants Bank of Topeka', National'
™
Association, Topeka
Apr. 17
r

Jan. 27

Milam National Bank, Houston
Ambank, National Association, Austin
Security National Bank, Beaumont
Walker County National Bank, Huntsville.,
First City Bank National Association,
Houston
Bank of Fort Worth, N.A., Fort Worth. . ..

Jan.
Jan.
Mar.
Apr.

2
23
26
15

Aug. 29
Nov. 7

VIRGINIA
J a n . 24
Feb. 19 . . . . . . . .
Feb. 19 . . . . . . . .

NB National Bank, Charlottesville
Manassas Bank, N.A., Manassas

Jan. 2
July 25

227

TABLE B-8
Newly organized National banks, by States, calendar 1969*
Title and location of bank

Charter
No.

Total capital
accounts
$11,360,000

Total, United States: 16 banks.
COLORADO

15695
15763

500, 000
500, 000

Lakewood Colorado National Bank, Lakewood.
Wheat Ridge National Bank, Wheat Ridge

1, 000, 000
FLORIDA

15739
15748
15759
15770
15724

Citizens National Bank of Davie, Davie
Peoples Hialeah National Bank, Hialeah
United National Bank of Dadeland, Miami
Second National Bank of North Miami Beach, North Miami Beach.
Beach National Bank of Pompano Beach, Pompano Beach

510,000
700, 000
750,000
750,000
1, 000, 000
3,710,000

ILLINOIS

15765

The First National Bank of McHenry, McHenry

15697

First Plymouth National Bank, Minneapolis.

750,000

MINNESOTA

500, 000
NEW JERSEY

15733

The Pennsville National Bank, Pennsville Township

750, 000

TEXAS

15744
15764

Great Southwest National Bank of Arlington, Arlington.
Northwest National Bank, Houston

600, 000
1, 250, 000
1,850,000

WASHINGTON

450, 000

15741

Columbia Center National Bank, Kennewick

15773
15777

First National Bank of Chester, Chester.
Citizens National Bank of St. Albans, St. Albans.

WEST VIRGINIA

1,000,000
750,000
1, 750, 000

WISCONSIN

15699

First Northwestern National Bank of Milwaukee, Milwaukee.

^Excludes charters issued pursuant to corporate reorganizations.

228



600, 000

TABLE

B-9

National bank charters issued* and mergers consummated pursuant to corporate reorganizations, by States, calendar 1969
Effective date
of merger

Operating bank
New bank
Resulting bank

Total
capital
accounts

Total
assets

CALIFORNIA

Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, San Francisco
WF National Bank, San Francisco
Charter issued Feb. 27, 1969
Feb. 28, 1969

Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, San Francisco

$367, 263, 434

$5, 156, 989, 337

42, 269, 751

664,931,259

1, 074, 620, 561

19, 169, 256, 269

327, 562, 760

4, 753, 726, 161

3, 731, 911

61, 352, 665

82,851,463

1,009,021,847

78, 264, 782

957, 129,503

25, 584, 452

435, 105, 532

57, 958, 157

929, 707, 952

484, 583, 352

6, 459, 065, 927

Southern California First National Bank, San Diego
First National Bank of San Diego, San Diego
Charter issued Feb. 28, 1969
Feb. 28, 1969

Southern California First National Bank, San Diego
Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association, San Francisco
B.A. National Bank, San Francisco
Charter issued Apr. 1, 1969
Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association, San Francisco..

Apr. 1, 1969

Crocker-Citizens National Bank, San Francisco
Crocker Bank, National Association, San Francisco
Charter issued Apr. 15, 1969
Crocker-Citizens National Bank, San Francisco

Apr. 21, 1969

Newport National Bank, Newport Beach
Newport Bank, N.A., Newport Beach
Charter issued May 20, 1969
Newport National Bank, Newport Beach...

May 31, 1969

CONNECTICUT

Hartford National Bank and Trust Company, Hartford
Pearl Street National Bank, Hartford
Charter issued Apr. 18, 1969
Hartford National Bank and Trust Company, Hartford

Apr. 30, 1969

GEORGIA

j

The First National Bank of Atlanta, Atlanta
Atlanta National Bank, Atlanta
Charter issued Apr. 7, 1969
Apr. 8, 1969

The First National Bank of Atlanta, Atlanta.
The Fulton National Bank of Atlanta, Atlanta
The Bank of the South, National Association, Atlanta
Charter issued Apr. 25, 1969

May 1, 1969

The Fulton National Bank of Atlanta, Atlanta. . . . . . .
ILLINOIS

| American National Bank and Trust Company of Chicago, Chicago
! American National Bank of Chicago, Chicago
I Charter issued Mar. 26, 1969
Mar. 31, 1969

I

i American National Bank and Trust Company of Chicago, Chicago.
Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Company of Chicago,
Chicago
Continental National Bank, Chicago
Charter issued Mar. 25, 1969

Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Company of Chicago,
i
Chicago
See footnotes at end of table.

Mar. 31, 1969f




229

TABLE B-9—Continued
National bank charters issued* and mergers consummated pursuant to corporate reorganizations, by States, calendar 1969
Effective date

Operating bank
New bank
Resulting bank

of merger

Total
capital
accounts

Total
assets

ILLINOIS—continued

The First National Bank of Chicago, Chicago
First Chicago Bank, National Association, Chicago
Charter issued Aug. 14, 1969
Aug. 15, 1969

The First National Bank of Chicago, Chicago

$559,745, 177

$5, 430, 153, 780

Central National Bank in Chicago, Chicago
Central Bank of Chicago, National Association, Chicago
Charter issued Sept. 23, 1969
Sept. 30, 1969

Central National Bank in Chicago, Chicago

24, 101, 759

447, 731, 153

70, 444, 720

977, 562, 790

20, 967, 549

272, 359, 971

17,028,454

161, 386, 638

5, 396, 775

82, 296, 366

3, 426, 232

51,256,244

17,553,740

155,429,588

8, 064, 383

101, 350, 325

INDIANA

The Indiana National Bank of Indianapolis, Indianapolis
Tower National Bank, Indianapolis
Charter issued May 12, 1969
May 12, 1969

The Indiana National Bank of Indianapolis, Indianapolis
Lincoln National Bank and Trust Company of Fort Wayne, Fort Wayne
Allen County National Bank, Fort Wayne
Charter issued Oct. 29, 1969

Oct. 31, 1969

Lincoln National Bank & Trust Co. of Fort Wayne, Fort Wayne
IOWA

The Merchants National Bank of Cedar Rapids, Cedar Rapids
Iowa National Bank of Cedar Rapids, Cedar Rapids
Charter issued Aug. 26, 1969
Sept. 2, 1969

The Merchants National Bank of Cedar Rapids, Cedar Rapids
The Security National Bank of Sioux City, Sioux City
Iowa Security National Bank, Sioux City
Charter issued Sept. 25, 1969

Sept. 30, 1969

The Security National Bank of Sioux City, Sioux City
KANSAS

The Johnson County National Bank and Trust Company, Prairie Village
Johnson County Bank, National Association, Prairie Village
Charter issued Apr. 23, 1969
May 1, 1969

The Johnson County National Bank & Trust Co., Prairie Village
The First National Bank of Topeka, Topeka
The Second National Bank of Topeka, Topeka
Charter issued Dec. 3, 1969

Dec. 5, 1969

The First National Bank of Topeka, Topeka
MAINE

Canal National Bank, Portland
Middle Street National Bank, Portland
Charter issued May 29, 1969
June 2, 1969
Canal National Bank, Portland
See footnotes at end of table.

230



TABLE B-9—Continued
National bank charters issued* and mergers consummated pursuant to corporate reorganizations, by States, calendar 1969
Operating bank
New bank
Resulting bank

Effective date
of merger

Total
capital
accounts

Total
assets

MARYLAND

Maryland National Bank, Baltimore
Bay National Bank, Baltimore
Charter issurd Apr. 28, 1969
Apr. 30, 1969

Maryland National Bank, Baltimore.

$81,334,065

$1,062,453,693

24, 030, 147

303, 308, 294

6, 595, 139

89, 998, 749

4, 075, 554

43, 201, 537

11,646,246

156,114,399

25, 864, 130

292,465,914

39, 057, 879

360, 133, 571

9,303,719

144, 607, 228

27, 736, 736

418, 895, 205

MASSACHUSETTS

Worcester County National Bank, Worcester
County Bank of Worcester, National Association, Worcester
Charter issued Mar. 17, 1969
Mar. 21, 1969

Worcester County National Bank, Worcester
The Mechanics National Bank of Worcester, Worcester
Mechanics National Bank, Worcester
Charter issued Apr. 3, 1969

Apr. 7, 1969

The Mechanics National Bank of Worcester, Worcester
Commonwealth National Bank, Boston
Commonwealth Bank, N.A., Boston
Charter issued May 23, 1969

May 31, 1969

Commonwealth National Bank, Boston
MISSOURI

St. Louis County National Bank, Clayton
County National Bank, Clayton
Charter issued July 29, 1969
July 31, 1969

St. Louis County National Bank, Clayton
The Boatmen's National Bank of St. Louis, St. Louis
Riverfront National Bank, St. Louis
Charter issued Sept. 3, 1969

Sept. 8, 1969

The Boatmen's National Bank of St. Louis, St. Louis
The City National Bank and Trust Company of Kansas City, Kansas City
City Bank, National Association, Kansas City
Charter issued Dec. 18, 1969

Dec. 19, 1969

The City National Bank and Trust Company of Kansas City, Kansas City.
NEBRASKA

National Bank of Commerce Trust and Savings Association, Lincoln
Capital City National Bank, Lincoln
Charter issued Mar. 20, 1969

Mar. 24, 1969

National Bank of Commerce Trust and Savings Association, L i n c o l n . . . .
NEW JERSEY

The First Jersey National Bank, Jersey City
Second Jersey National Bank, Jersey City
Charter issued May 26, 1969
The First Jersey National Bank, Jersey City
May 29, 1969
See footnotes at end of table.




231

TABLE B-9—Continued
National bank charters issued* and mergers consummated pursuant to corporate reorganizations, by States•, calendar 1969
Operating bank
New bank
Resulting bank

Effective date
of merger

Total
capital
accounts

Total
assets

$1, 167,576,439

$17,765,434,232

NEW YORK

The Chase Manhattan Bank, National Association, New York
The Chase Bank of New York, National Association, New York
Charter issued Jun. 2, 1969
June 4, 1969

The Chase Manhattan Bank, National Association, New York. .
The Peoples National Bank of Long Island, Patchogue
Peoples Bank of Long Island, National Association, Patchogue
Charter issued Jun. 18, 1969.

June 20, 1969

The Peoples National Bank of Long Island, Patchogue

4, 804, 544

70, 356, 108

Franklin Bank of New York, National Association, Mineola
Franklin National Bank, Mineola
Charter issued Sep. 22, 1969
Sept. 22, 1969f

Franklin National Bank, Mineola

180, 810, 905

2, 665, 765, 126

National Bank of Westchester, White Plains
National Bank of Westchester, White Plains, White Plains
Charter issued Sep. 26, 1969
Sept. 26, 1969

National Bank of Westchester, White Plains

30, 275, 435

453, 361, 097

4, 846, 240

73, 426, 121

2, 645, 598

25,761,175

7,011,251

92, 937, 631

6, 091, 267

80, 409, 353

32, 933, 882

354, 922, 800

42, 298, 169

418,565,890

Scarsdale National Bank and Trust Company, Scarsdale
The Scarsdale National Bank & Trust Company, Scarsdale
Charter issued Dec. 4, 1969
Dec. 5, 1969

Scarsdale National Bank and Trust Company, Scarsdale
The Fulton County National Bank and Trust Company of Gloversville,
Gloversville
The Fulton County National Bank and Trust Company, Gloversville
Charter issued Dec. 4, 1969

Dec; 5, 1969

The Fulton County National Bank and Trust Company, Gloversville. . .
NORTH CAROLINA

First National Bank of Eastern North Carolina, Jacksonville
Financial National Bank, Jacksonville
Charter issued Mar. 14, 1969
Mar. 14, 1969

First National Bank of Eastern North Carolina, Jacksonville
OHIO

The First National Bank and Trust Company in Steubenville, Steubenville
Second National Bank in Steubenville, Steubenville.
Charter issued Aug. 27, 1969
Sept. 2, 1969

The First National Bank and Trust Company in Steubenville, Steubenville
OKLAHOMA

National Bank of Tulsa, Tulsa
Union Security National Bank of Tulsa, Tulsa
Charter issued Mar. 28, 1969
Mar. 31, 1969

National Bank of Tulsa, Tulsa
The First National Bank and Trust Company of Tulsa, Tulsa
The First Bank and Trust Company of Tulsa, National Association, Tulsa
Charter issued June 20, 1969

July 1, 1969
The First National Bank and Trust Company of Tulsa, Tulsa.
See footnotes at end of table.
232



TABLE B-9—Continued
National bank charters issued* and mergers consummated pursuant to corporate reorganizations, by States, calendar 1969
Effective date

Operating bank
New bank
Resulting bank

of merger

Total
capital
accounts

Total
assets

OKLAHOMA—continued

Central National Bank and Trust Company of Enid, Enid
Broadway National Bank of Enid, Enid
Charter issued Sept. 26, 1969
Sept. 30, 1969

Central National Bank and Trust Company of Enid, Enid.

$4, 697, 797

$39,816,455

37, 137,904

415,901,611

j The Liberty National Bank and Trust Company of Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma City
Liberty Bank, National Association, Oklahoma City
Charter issued Sept. 30, 1969
Oct. 1, 1969

The Liberty National Bank and Trust Company of Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma City.
Commercial National Bank & Trust Company, Muskogee
Commercial Bank, National Association, Muskogee
Charter issued Dec. 29, 1969

Dec. 31, 1969

Commercial National Bank & Trust Company, Muskogee.

3, 345, 728

32, 733, 391

PENNSYLVANIA

Western Pennsylvania National Bank, Pittsburgh
William Penn National Bank, Pittsburgh
! Charter issued Mar. 24, 1969
Mar. 31, 1969

j Western Pennsylvania National Bank, Pittsburgh
!
Pittsburgh National Bank, Pittsburgh
New National Bank, Pittsburgh
Charter issued Apr. 29, 1969

Apr. 30, 1969

| Pittsburgh National Bank, Pittsburgh

70, 298, 552

851,802,513

136,961,641

1,643,630,716

Lincoln National Bank, Philadelphia
Locust Street National Bank, Philadelphia
Charter issued June 12, 1969
June 17, 1969

j Lincoln National Bank, Philadelphia...

3, 384, 257

51, 336, 262

86, 159, 355

948, 982, 022

33, 480, 018

450, 154, 415

175,291,921

2,046, 298, 456

49,711,968

569,710,320

Provident National Bank, Philadelphia
Sower National Bank, Philadelphia
j Charter issued Aug. 11, 1969
Aug. 13, 1969

| Provident National Bank, Philadelphia.
Centrai-Penn National Bank of Philadelphia, Bala-Cynwyd
Broad and Walnut National Bank, Bala-Cynwyd
Charter issued Sept. 29, 1969

Sept; 30, 1969

Central-Penn National Bank, Bala-Cynwyd
The Philadelphia National Bank, Philadelphia
PNB National Bank, Philadelphia
Charter issued Oct. 28, 1969

Nov: 1, 1969

The Philadelphia National Bank, Philadelphia.
RHODE ISLAND

Rhode Island Hospital Trust Company, Providence
Rhode Island Hospital Trust National Bank, Providence
Charter issued May 26, 1969
May 29, 1969 | Rhode Island Hospital Trust National Bank, Providence,
See footnotes at end table.




233

TABLE B-9—Continued
National bank charters issued* and mergers consummated pursuant to corporate reorganizations, by States, calendar 1969
Operating bank
New bank
Resulting bank

Effective date
of merger

Total
capital
accounts

Total
assets

SOUTH CAROLINA

The Citizens and Southern National Bank of South Carolina, Charleston
Citizens National Bank, Charleston
Charter issued June 30, 1969
June 30, 1969

The Citizens and Southern National Bank of S.C., Charleston

$25,041,167

$318,375,395

SOUTH CAROLINA

The First National Bank of South Carolina, Columbia
Washington Street National Bank, Columbia
Charter issued July 14, 1969
July 19, 1969

19, 578, 356

236, 800, 968

58, 803, 820

785,618,398

22, 980, 020

First National Bank of South Carolina, Columbia

278,571,881

TENNESSEE

Jan. 17, 1969

The First National Bank of Memphis, Memphis
The Second National Bank of Memphis, Memphis
Charter issued Jan. 16, 1969
The First National Bank of Memphis, Memphis
TEXAS

Houston National Bank, Houston
Milam National Bank, Houston
Charter issued Mar. 27, 1969
Mar 27 1969
Southern National Bank of Houston, Houston
Southern Bank, National Association, Houston, Houston
Charter issued Mar. 31, 1969
Mar. 31, 1969

Southern National Bank of Houston, Houston

7, 736,036

126,823,027

June 2, 1969

The American National Bank of Austin, Austin
Ambank, National Association, Austin
Charter issued May 28, 1969
The American National Bank of Austin, Austin

8, 732, 456

153,105, 713

9,450,844

145,402, 968

1,905,412

16,188, 795

First Security National Bank of Beaumont, Beaumont
Security National Bank, Beaumont
Charter issued Sept. 30, 1969
Sept. 30, 1969

First Security National Bank of Beaumont, Beaumont
First National Bank of Huntsville, Huntsville
Walker County National Bank, Huntsville
Charter issued Nov. 26, 1969

Dec. 1, 1969

First National Bank of Huntsville, Huntsville
VIRGINIA

First & Merchants National Bank, Richmond
Main Street National Bank, Richmond
Charter issued Feb. 26, 1969
First & Merchants National Bank, Richmond
Feb. 26, 1969
See footnotes at end of table.

234



49,492,421

720,710,297

TABLE B-9—Continued
National bank charters issued* and mergers consummated pursuant to corporate reorganizations, by States', calendar 1969
Operating bank
New bank
Resulting bank

Effective date
of merger

Total
capital
accounts

Total
assets

VIRGINIA—continued

National Bank and Trust Company, Charlottesville
NB National Bank, Charlottesville
Charter issued Apr. 22, 1969
Apr. 30, 1969

National Bank and Trust Company, Charlottesville

$7,494,091

$95, 793, 927

5,261,248

69, 988, 382

Farmers and Merchants National Bank, Winchester
Apple City National Bank, Winchester
Charter issued Dec. 24, 1969
Dec. 31, 1969

Farmers and Merchants National Bank, Winchester

*Includes only charter issuances related to mergers consummated during 1969. For a full listing of all charters issued during 1969,
pursuant to corporate reorganization, see table B—11.
f Consolidation.
TABLE B-10

State chartered banks converted to National banks, calendar 1969*

Title and location of bank

Charter
No.

Effective
date of
charter
1968

Total: 15 banks.
15693
15694
15696
15698
15700
15709
15715
15718
15735
15737
15738
15745
15750
15758
15760

First National Bank, Middle River
Conversion of Middle River State Bank.
National Union Bank, Columbiana
Conversion of The Union Banking Co. of
Colombian a.
First National Bank, Glenwood
Conversion of First State Bank of Glenwood.
Hiawatha National Bank, Hager City
Conversion of Bay City State Bank.
Security Bank N.A., Washington
Conversion of Security Bank.
New Jersey Bank (N.A.), Clifton
Conversion of New Jersey Bank & Trust Co.
First American National Bank, Chandler......
Conversion of First American Bank.
Sprague National Bank, Caledonia
Conversion of Sprague State Bank.
First National Bank of Folkston, Folkston
,
Conversion of Peoples Banking Co.
Lisbon National Bank, Lisbon
Conversion of Lisbon Savings Bank and Trust
Co.
Tri City National Bank of Oak Creek, Oak Creek.
Conversion of Tri City State Bank.
Kansas National Bank & Trust Co., Prairie
Village.
Conversion of Kansas State Bank & Trust Co.
National Bank of Sallisaw, Sallisaw
,
Conversion of Sallisaw State Bank.
First Trust Company of Albany, N.A., Albany. ,
Conversion of First Trust Co. of Albany.
Community Bank and Trust Co., N. A., Fairmont.
Conversion of Community Bank and Trust
Company.

Minn. . . . Jan. 15

Outstanding
capital stock

Surplus, undivided
profits and
reserves

Total assets

$16,069,773

State

$47, 762, 607

$851,647,289

50, 000

131,245

2, 270, 129

Ohio

Feb.

1

500, 000

1,126,855

17,540,142

Wis

Feb. 10

60, 000

205,312

3,466, 117

Wis

Feb. 20

80, 000

289, 823

3,451,700

D.C

Apr. 1

1, 772, 000

4,013,000

66, 983, 816

NJ...

Apr. 3

7, 912, 773

27,921,494f

493, 620, 782

Ariz. .

Apr. 21

350, 000

428, 170

5,110,266

Minn.

May 1

120,000

487, 620

7, 896, 732

Ga...

July

1

150,000

165, 338

2,417,387

N.H. .

July 31

75, 000

143, 429

3, 075, 236

Wis....

July 31

200, 000

296, 633

6,315,247

Kans...

Aug. 30

300, 000

557, 449

13,725,498

Okla...

Sept. 13

200, 000

501, 426

8,869,171

N.Y...

Oct. 10

4, 000, 000

10, 796, 821

202, 815, 947

W. Va.

Oct. 14

300, 000

697, 992

14,089,119

*Rhode Island Hospital Trust Company, Providence, R.I., became a National bank, Rhode Island Hospital Trust National
Bank, during a corporate reorganization pursuant to the establishment of a one-bank holding company (sec table B-9).
flncludes $7,187,000 in debentures.



235

TABLE

B-ll

National bank charters issued pursuant to corporate reorganizations, by States, calendar 1969
Title and location of bank

Charter
No.

Date of
issuance

Total: 61 actions.
CALIFORNIA

15235
3050
13044
1741
15660

Newport Bank, N.A., Newport Beach
First National Bank of San Diego, San Diego
B.A. National Bank, San Francisco
Crocker Bank, National Association, San Francisco.
WF National Bank, San Francisco

May 27
Feb. 28
Mar. 31
Apr. 15
Feb. 27

CONNECTICUT

1338

Pearl Street National Bank, Hartford .

Apr. 18
GEORGIA

1559
9617

Atlanta National Bank, Atlanta
The Bank of the South National Association, Atlanta.

Apr. 3
Apr. 29

ILLINOIS

American National Bank of Chicago, Chicago
Central Bank of Chicago, National Association, Chicago.
Continental National Bank, Chicago
First Chicago Bank, National Association, Chicago

Mar. 26
Sept. 23
Mar. 25
Aug. 14

7725
984

Allen County National Bank, Fort Wayne.
Tower National Bank, Indianapolis

Oct. 29
May 9

2511
3124

Iowa National Bank of Cedar Rapids, Cedar Rapids.
Iowa Security National Bank, Sioux City

Aug. 26
Sept. 25

Johnson County Bank, National Association, Prairie Village.
The Second National Bank of Topeka, Topeka

Apr. 21
Dec. 4

Middle Street National Bank, Portland.

May 29

13216
14362
13639
8

14420
3078

941

MARYLAND

13745

Bay National Bank, Baltimore

15399
79
1135

Commonwealth Bank, N.A., Boston
County Bank of Worcester, National Association, Worcester...
Mechanics National Bank, Worcester

May 23
Mar. 17
Apr. 3

14528
13936
12916

County National Bank, Clayton
City Bank, National Association, Kansas City.
Riverfront National Bank, St. Louis

July 29
Dec. 18
Sept. 2

Apr. 21
MASSACHUSETTS

7239

Capital City National Bank, Lincoln.

NEBRASKA

Mar. 20
NEW JERSEY

374

Second Jersey National Bank, Jersey City.

236



May 26

TABLE B-ll—Continued
National bank charters issued pursnant to corporate reorganizations^ by States, calendar 1969

NEW YORK

3312
12997
2370
12788
11708
10525

The Fulton County National Bank and Trust Company, Gloversville
Franklin Bank of New York (National Association), Mineola
The Chase Bank of New York (National Association), New York. . . .
Peoples Bank of Long Island, National Association, Patchogue
The Scarsdale National Bank and Trust Company, Scarsdale
National Bank of Westchester, White Plains, White Plains

14676 i Financial National Bank, Jacksonville.

Dec. 4
Sept. 19
May 29
June 20
Dec. 4
Sept. 26

NORTH CAROLINA

Mar. 14

6566
13923
2160

The Guernsey County National Bank, Cambridge. .
National Bank of Coshocton, Coshocton
Second National Bank in Steubenville, Steubenville.

12044
12890
11230
5171
13679

Broadway National Bank of Enid, Enid
Commercial Bank, National Association, Muskogee
Liberty Bank, National Association, Oklahoma City
The First Bank and Trust Company of Tulsa, National Association, Tulsa.
Union Security National Bank of Tulsa, Tulsa

Dec. 29
Dec. 29
Aug. 27

OKLAHOMA

Sept. 26
Dec. 30
Sept. 30
June 18
Mar. 28

PENNSYLVANIA

723
15393
539
15422
252
2222

Broad and Walnut National Bank, Bala-Cynwyd.
Locust Street National Bank, Philadelphia
PNB National Bank, Philadelphia
Sower National Bank, Philadelphia
New National Bank, Pittsburgh
William Penn National Bank, Pittsburgh

Sept. 29
June 12
Oct. 28
Aug. 11
Apr. 28
Mar. 24

RHODE ISLAND

15723

Rhode Island Hospital Trust National Bank, Providence

May 26

SOUTH CAROLINA

14425
13720

June 27
July 14

Citizens National Bank, Charleston
Washington Street National Bank, Columbia.
TENNESSEE

336

The Second National Bank of Memphis, Memphis

| Jan. 16
TEXAS

4322
4017
9353
14916
4208

Ambank, National Association Austin.
Security National Bank, Beaumont.
Milam National Bank, Houston
Southern Bank, National Association, Houston
Walker County National Bank, Huntsville

May 27
Sept. 30
j Mar. 27
Mar. 28
Nov. 28

10618
1111
6084

NB National Bank, Charlottesville
Main Street National Bank, Richmond
Apple City National Bank, Winchester

j Apr. 21
j Feb. 26
| Dec. 29




237

TABLE

B-12

National banks reported in voluntary liquidation, calendar 1969
Date of
liquidation

Title and location of bank

Total capital
accounts of
liquidated
banks

$5, 988, 394

Total: 8 National banks.
National City Bank in Chicago, Chicago, 111. (14562) absorbed by The Manufacturers National Bank of
Chicago, Chicago, 111. (14245)
First Citizens National Bank, Belmont, Miss. (15667) absorbed by First Citizens National Bank, Tupelo,
Miss. (15479)
The First National Bank of Sabina, Sabina, Ohio (8411) absorbed by The Clinton County National Bank
and Trust Company of Wilmington, Wilmington, Ohio. (1997)
First National Bank, Ursa, 111. (14489) (no absorption)
Suburban Bank of Livingston, N.A., Livingston, N.J. (15603) absorbed by First National State Bank of
New Jersey, Newark, N J . (1452)
First National Bank of Coalville, Coalville, Utah (7696) absorbed by Walker Bank and Trust Co., Salt Lake
City, Utah
Kennewick National Bank, Kennewick, Wash. (15493) absorbed by Old National Bank of Washington,
Spokane, Wash. (4668)
Utah National Bank of Provo, Provo, Utah (15054) absorbed by Zions First National Bank, Salt Lake
City, Utah (4341).

TABLE

1

2, 648, 770

Apr. 30

253, 438

June 14
Aug. 20

376,461
153,409

Sept. 15

1, 122, 155

Oct. 10

444, 924

Dec. 30

351,266

Dec. 30

637,971

Apr.

B-13

National banks merged or consolidated with State banks, calendar 1969

Title and location of bank

Effective
date

Total: 13 banks.
The Citizens National Bank of Muncy, Muncy, Pa. (3480) merged into Commonwealth Bank and Trust
Co., Wellsboro, Pa., under the title "Commonwealth Bank & Trust Company of Muncy"
The Saint Marys National Bank, St. Marys, Pa. (6589) merged into Elk County Bank and Trust Company,
St. Marys, Pa., under the title "Elk County Bank and Trust Company"
The Southern National Bank of Orangeburg, Orangeburg, S.C. (14135) merged into State Bank and Trust
Co., Greenwood S.C. under the ti3e "State Bank and Trust Company"
The First National Bank and Trust Company of Bethlehem, Bethlehem, Pa. (138) merged into First Valley
Bank, Bethlehem, Pa., under title of "First Valley Bank"
Miners National Bank of Wilkes-Barre, Wilkes-Barre, Pa. (13852) merged into United Penn Bank, WilkesBarre, Pa., under the title "United Penn Bank"
First National Bank of Hughesville, Hughesville, Pa. (3902) merged into Commonwealth Bank and Trust
Co., Muncy, Pa., under title of "Commonwealth Bank and Trust Company"
The First National Bank of Bakerton, Bakerton (P.O. Elmora) (11757) merged into Johnstown Bank and
Trust Company, Johnstown, Pa., under the title "Johnstown Bank and Trust Company"
The Union National Bank of Jersey Shore, Jersey Shore, Pa. (13197) merged into Commonwealth Bank
and Trust Company, Muncy, Pa., under the title "Commonwealth Bank and Trust Company"
The Tradesmens National Bank of New Haven, New Haven, Conn. (13704) merged into The Connecticut
Bank and Trust Company, Hartford, Conn., under the title "The Connecticut Bank and Trust Company".
First National Bank of Scotch Plains, Scotch Plains, N J . (15327) merged into Franklin State Bank,
Franklin Township (P.O. Somerset), N.J., under title "Franklin State Bank"
Clayton National Bank, Clayton, N.J. (10471) merged into Peoples Bank of South Jersey, Pilesgrove
Township, N.J., under title "Peoples Bank of South Jersey"
The National Bank of Westfield, Westfield, N J . (10142) merged into The Central Jersey Bank and Trust
Co., Freehold Township, NJ., under title of "Central Jersey Bank and Trust Company."
National Valley Bank and Trust Company, Chambersburg, Pa. (593) merged into Valley Bank and Trust
Company, Chambersburg, Pa., under title of "Valley Bank Trust Co."

238



Total
capital
accounts of
National
banks

$42, 634, 875
Mar. 31

399, 278

Apr. 1

2, 479, 558

June 2

1, 490, 870

June 30

9,801,217

June 30

13,515,993

Sept. 12

492, 891

Sept. 30

161,379

Nov. 30

701, 783

Dec. 27

3, 283, 290

Dec. 22

1,218,261

Dec. 31

1,492, 252

Dec. 31

2, 983, 736

Dec. 31

4,614,367

TABLE

B-14

National banks converted into State banks, calendar 1969

Title and location of bank

Total: 29 banks.

Effective
date

Total capital
accounts of
National
banks

$85, 657, 024

First National Bank in Loup City, Loup City, Nebr. (13620) converted into Sherman County Bank
297, 862
Jan. 1
First National Bank of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii (5550) converted into First Hawaiian Bank
Jan. 2 47,497,213
Community National Bank of Clear Lake, Clear Lake, Iowa (15251) converted into Community State
Bank of Clear Lake
371,251
Feb. 24
Woodford County National Bank of El Paso, El Paso, 111. (5510) converted into Woodford County Bank.. Mar. 17
679, 569
Southwestern National Bank of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma City, Okla. (15358) converted into Southwestern Bank & Trust Co
647, 305
Apr. 12
574, 159
Jackson National Bank, Jackson, Ga. (13897) converted into The Citizens and Southern Bank of Jackson. . May 1
May 7
The Endicott National Bank, Endicott, N.Y. (13004) converted into Endicott Bank of N.Y
2, 453, 703
2, 767, 500
The Exchange National Bank of Olean, Olean, N.Y. (2376) converted into The Exchange Bank of Olean. . May 7
Metropolitan National Bank of Syracuse, Syracuse, N.Y. (15400) converted into Metropolitan Bank of
May 7
3,396,821
Syracuse.
1, 999, 995
Redwood National Bank, San Rafael, Calif. (15047) converted into The Redwood Bank
The First National Bank of Sleepy Eye, Sleepy Eye, Minn. (6387) converted into First Security State Bank May 12
819,088
of Sleepy Eye
Richardson Heights National Bank, Richardson, Texas (15523) converted into Richardson Heights Bank June 2
923, 359
& Trust Co
Mount Vernon National Bank and Trust Co. of Fairfax County, Annandale, Va. (14893) converted into May 30
7, 896, 691
First Virginia Bank
Lincoln National Bank, Stamford, Conn. (15040) converted into Lincoln Bank and Trust Company
2,213,638
First National Bank in Ivanhoe, Ivanhoe, Minn. (13468) converted into First State Bank of Ivanhoe
394,071
Walters National Bank, Walters, Okla. (14108) converted into The Bank of Walters
,
444, 106
The First National Bank of Troup, Troup, Tex. (6212) converted into Troup Bank and Trust Company.
528, 768
The First National Bank in Traer, Traer, Iowa (14172) converted into The First Community Bank and Trust,
366, 895
Union National Bank in Houston, Houston, Tex. (15301) converted into Union Bank of Houston
1,222,412
Decatur County National Bank of Greensburg, Greensburg, Ind. (13988) converted into Decatur County
827, 588
Bank
Sept. 2
Westmoreland National Bank of Dallas, Dallas, Tex. (15404) converted into Bank of the Southwest of
711,711
Sept. 12
Dallas
Sept. 15 1, 653, 133
Conroe National Bank, Conroe, Tex. (14655) converted into Conroe Bank
Sept. 18 1, 109, 635
Airline National Bank of Houston, Tex. (15159) converted into Airline Bank
The Citizens and Southern National Bank of Sandy Springs, Sandy Springs, Ga. (14877) converted into
Oct. 1
1, 118,558
The Citizens and Southern Bank of Sandy Springs
709, 564
Buchel National Bank in Cuero, Cuero, Tex. (14164) converted into Buchel Bank and Trust Company. ... Oct. 6
The Chamblee National Bank, Chamblee, Ga. (14900) converted into The Citizens and Southern Bank of
Oct. 31
1, 782, 034
Chamblee
Northwest National Bank of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma City, Okla. (14666) converted into Northwest I
807, 949
| Nov. 3
Bank
The First National Bank of Malad City, Malad City, Idaho (8822) converted into The First Bank &
518,445
j Nov. 10
Trust Co. of Idaho
Northeast National Bank of Houston, Houston, Tex. (14837) converted into Northeast Bank of Houston. . I Dec. 5
924, 001




239

TABLE

B-15

Purchases of State banks by National banks, calendar 1969

Title and location of banks

Effective \ Total capital
date
| accounts of
State banks

$7, 097, 192

Total: 9 banks.
The First and Farmers National Bank of Somerset, Somerset, Ky. (3832) purchased the Peoples Bank,
Science Hill, Ky
Lakewood Colorado National Bank, Lakewood, Colo. (15695) purchased The Rocky Mountain Bank,
Lakewood, Colo
The First National Bank and Trust Company of Crawfordsville, Crawfordsville, Ind. (571) purchased The
Farmers State Bank, New Market, Ind
Southern California First National Bank, San Diego, Calif. (3050) purchased the Orange County Bank,
San Juan Capistrano, Calif
*
Pittsburgh National Bank, Pittsburgh, Pa. (252) purchased the Mount Pleasant State Bank, Mount Pleasant,,Pa.
.
The National Bank of Commerce of Seattle, Wash. (4375) purchased the State Bank of Wilbur, Wilbur,
Wash
Seattle-First National Bank, Seattle, Wash. (11280) purchased the Bank of Tacoma Tacoma, Wash
First National Bank of Anchorage, Anchorage, Alaska (12072) purchased the First Bank in Valdez, Valdez,
Alaska
First National Bank of Ricevillc, Riceville, Iowa (8442) purchased the Riceville State Bank, Riceville,
Iowa
,

240



Jan.

6

261,378

Feb.

5

460,000

Feb. 21

145, 000

Mar. 13

1, 365, 814

Oct. 18

1, 494, 000

Nov. 28
Nov. 29

765,000

Dec. 31
Dec. 31

2, 279, 000
134,000
193, 000

TABLE

B-16

Consolidations* of National banks, or National and State banks, calendar 1969
Effective
date

Consolidating bank
Resulting bank

Outstanding
capital
stock

Surplus

Undivided
profits and
reserves

Total assets

Total: 7 consolidations
MISSOURI

Sept. 12

Union National Bank, Kansas City (13736)
Columbia National Bank of Kansas City, Kansas City
(11472)
Columbia Union National Bank and Trust Co., Kansas City
(11472)

$2, 500, 000 $2, 500, 000 $3, 389, 655 $55, 316, 901
2, 000, 000

909, 659

6, 350, 000 4, 500, 000

1,499,313

1, 000, 000

50, 827, 857
103, 114,590

NEW JERSEY

Aug. 18

1, 341, 958 237,966,511
388, 195 112,931,942

5, 000, 000
2, 500, 000

The National State Bank, Elizabeth (1436)

7, 500, 000 12,000,000

The First National Bank of South Jersey, Egg Harbor
Township (8800)
The Salem National Bank & Trust Co., Salem (1326)

6, 000, 000
350, 000

6, 000, 000
900, 000

2, 891, 894 240, 187, 057
261, 704 14,453,013

The First National Bank of South Jersey, Egg Harbor
Township (1326).

6, 770, 000

6, 770, 000

2, 863, 598 254, 640, 070

944, 500
350, 000

1, 225, 000
400, 000

457, 285
359, 572

37, 506, 790
13,606,124

1, 644, 500

1, 625, 000

631,858

51, 112,914

3, 000, 000
1, 100, 000

7, 000, 000
1, 100, 000

1, 616, 974 145, 880, 855
40, 007, 816
870,016

9, 050, 000

4, 000, 000

1, 636, 990 185,888,666

The Harrisburg National Bank and Trust Co., Harrisburg
(580)
Conestoga National Bank, Lancaster (3987)
First National Bank of York, York (197)

4, 088, 750 10,000,000
3, 150,000
1,550,000
1, 250, 000 2, 750, 000

4,417,482 216,367,917
2, 926, 044 88, 407, 238
1, 675, 358 66,619,337

The Commonwealth National Bank, Harrisburg (580).

Dec. 31

The National State Bank, Elizabeth (1436)
First Bank and Trust Co., N.A., Fords (15255).

6, 966, 250 15,900,000

8, 941, 383 371,394,491

7, 000, 000
5, 000, 000

1, 730, 153 350, 286, 259

NEW YORK

Dec. 31 The Citizens National Bank & Trust Co., Wellsville (4988). . . .
Olean Trust Co., Olean
The Citizens National Bank & Trust Co., Wellsville (4988). .
PENNSYLVANIA

Feb. 28

Dec. 31

The First National Bank of Erie, Erie (12)
First National Bank of Meadville, Meadville (4938)
The First National Bank of Pennsylvania, Erie (12)

Dec. 31 I The Union National Bank of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh (705). . , 10,000,000 20, 000, 000 13,072,546 584, 998, 480
Peoples Union Bank and Trust Co., N.A., McKeesport
3, 868, 988 7, 131,013 I 5,834,413 207, 255, 053
(15671).
The Union National Bank of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh (705). . . 20, 000, 000 20,000,000 | 19,906,959 792, 206, 864
^Excludes consolidations involving only 1 operating bank, effected pursuant to corporate reorganizations.




241

TABLE

B-17

Mergers* of National banks, or National and State banks, by States, calendar 1969
Merging banks
Resulting bank

Effective
date

Outstanding
capital
stock

Surplus

Undivided
profits and
reserves

Total
assets

Total: 58 merger actions
ALABAMA

$25, 000

$75, 000

$70, 965

$2,014,991

300, 000

450, 000

546, 765

15,265,585

336, 250

475, 000

656,481

17,239,377

Miners and Merchants Bank of Alaska, Nome.
Alaska National Bank at Fairbanks, Fairbanks
(14747).

100, 000
500, 000

100, 000
700, 000

177,398
582, 946

4, 901, 927
29, 607, 689

Alaska National Bank of Fairbanks, Fairbanks
(14747).

700, 000

800, 000

660, 344

34,509,617

Inland Valley Bank, Hemet.
First National Bank and Trust Company, Ontario
(6268).

281, 762
879, 330

187, 762
1, 377, 500

93, 503
1, 183,401

6, 505, 653
67, 092, 206

First National Bank and Trust Company, Ontario
(6268).

1,010,815

1,715,540

1, 276, 906

73, 597, 859

Community National Bank of Fresno County,
Mendota (15182).
Community National Bank, Bakersfield (14670).

250, 000

150, 000

99, 798

6, 893, 900

710,000

710,000

573, 508

34, 737, 259

Community National Bank, Bakersfield (14670).

910, 000

910, 000

673, 306

40, 907, 084

Channel Islands State Bank, Ventura.
Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, San
Francisco (15660).

600, 000
91,317,810

400, 000
184,682,420

117,548
46,404,818

12, 905, 439
5, 392, 693, 296

Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, San
Francisco (15660).

91, 757, 810

185, 242, 420

46, 522, 366

5, 404, 500, 253

Lincoln National Bank, Santa Rosa (15408).
Commonwealth National Bank, San Francisco
(15330).

875, 000
3, 000, 000

575, 000
2, 500, 000

104, 844
723, 178

7,446, 110
61,887,458

Commonwealth National Bank, San Francisco
(15330).

3, 000, 000

2, 500, 000

723, 178

69,616,224

Coast National Bank in Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg
(13787). ^
Crocker-Citizens National Bank, San Francisco
(1741).

200, 000

280, 000

202, 935

11,472,702

103, 678, 320

103, 678, 320

38, 630, 849

4, 668, 363, 657

Crocker-Citizens National Bank, San Francisco
(1741).

103, 958, 320

103, 958, 320

38, 753, 784

4, 678, 249, 641

Bank of Santa Ana, Santa Ana.
United States National Bank, San Diego (10391).

1, 000, 000
13, 850, 000

635, 000
11,250,000

979, 989
1, 944, 054

20, 523,465
508, 125, 667

United States National Bank, San Diego (10391).
See footnote at end of table.

15,050,000

11,250,000

3,817,859

515,818,939

July 31

The American National Bank of Bridgeport,
.Bridgeport (11 loo;.
The First National Bank of Scottsboro, Scottsboro
(8963).
The First National Bank, Scottsboro, Alabama,
Scottsboro (8963).
ALASKA

Apr. 1

CALIFORNIA

Mar. 10

May 19

May 29

June 16

Nov. 14

Dec. 29

242



TABLE B~ 17—Continued
Mergers* of National banks, or National and State banks, by States, calendar 1969
Effective
date

Merging banks
Resulting bank

Outstanding
capital
stock

Surplus

Undivided
profits and
reserves

Total
assets

CONNECTICUT

Lincoln Bank and Trust Company, Stamford.
Hartford National Bank and Trust Company,
Hartford (1338).

$1,041,750
16,825,400

$731, 750
43,414,600

$278, 652
15,019,699

$29,575,221
966, 860, 862

Hartford National Bank and Trust Company,
Hartford (1338).

17,693,525

44, 306, 475

15,311,851

995, 928, 954

The Millikin Trust Company, Decatur.
The Millikin National Bank of Decatur, Decatur
(5089).

100, 000
1, 500, 000

100, 000
2, 500, 000

238, 448
2, 239, 957

1, 160,296
86, 295, 476

! The Millikin National Bank of Decatur, Decatur
! (5089).
i

1, 600, 000

2, 800, 000

2,278,406

86, 673, 609

Dec. 31 | The Twelve Mile State Bank, Twelve Mile.
t The National Bank of Logansport, Logansport
! (13580).

100. 000
935; 220

250, 000
1, 000, 000

85, 384
1,791,984

7,213,926
48, 492, 001

< The National Bank of Logansport, Logansport
j (13580).

1,016,840

1, 250, 000

1, 895, 747 !

55, 462, 090

500, 000
400, 000

32, 563
232, 932

16,698,290
16, 580, 916

2, 003, 763

232, 932

33, 279, 206

210,881

3, 445, 744

Dec. 12

Dec. 31

j

INDIANA

•

MARYLAND

May 15 j The Old Line National Bank, Rockville (15497).
| University National Bank, College Park (15365).
| University National Bank, College Park (15365).

2, 060, 000
445, 200
1,434,000

j

Dec. 31 i The Citizens National Bank of Westernport,
I Westernport (5831).
j The First National Bank of Barton, Barton (6399).
I The First National Bank of Oakland, Oakland
; (5623).

100, 000

100, 000

50, 000
500, 000

50, 000
1,000,000

145, 758
267,212

1,651,486
26, 008, 842

! The First National Bank of Oakland, Oakland
I (5623).

650, 000

1, 150,000

611,555

31, 106,072

Mar. 31 | The First State Bank of Tekonsha, Tekonsha.
! The Southern Michigan National Bank of Cold; water, Coldwater (1924).

72, 000
356, 400

72, 000
360, 000

59, 383
1,271,607

1,931,491
30, 035, 497

The Southern Michigan National Bank of Coldwater, Coldwater (1924).

420, 400

425, 000

1, 345, 989

31,966,988

Apr. 24 I The Union State Bank of Laingsburg, Laingsburg.
j Clinton National Bank and Trust Company, St.
| Johns, St. Johns (3378).

50, 000
668, 000

60, 000
733, 000

96,051
1, 274, 121

1,714,959
37, 043, 532

I Clinton National Bank and Trust Company, St,
| Johns, St. Johns (3378).
|
June 30 | Peoples State Bank of Bronson, Bronson.

732, 000

779, 000

1,370, 172

38, 758, 492

220, 000
310,000

250, 000
345, 000

88, 647
200, 707

8, 628, 983
16,497,563

585, 000

595, 000

234, 354

25, 126, 546

100, 000
750, 000

100, 000
1, 500, 000

157, 344
1,025,838

3, 175,350
50, 974, 227

850, 000

1, 600, 000

1, 183, 182

54, 149, 576

!

j

MICHIGAN

I

j The First National Bank of Quincy, Quincy (2550).
! First National Bank of Quincy, Quincy (2550).
Oct. 31 j Peoples State Bank of Maybee, Maybee.
The First National Bank of Monroe, Monroe (1587).
; The First National Bank of Monroe, Monroe (1587).
See footnote at end of table.



243

TABLE B-17—Continued
Mergers* of National banks, or National and State banks, by States, calendar 1969
Effective
date

Merging banks
Resulting bank

Outstanding
capital
stock

Surplus

Undivided
profits and
reserves

Total
assets

MISSISSIPPI

June 27

The Bank of Greenwood, Greenwood.
First National Bank of Jackson, Jackson (10523).

$350, 000
7, 518, 305

$1,050,000
20, 981, 695

$500, 993
948, 725

$26, 703, 082
367, 253, 622

First National Bank of Jackson, Jackson (10523).

8, 184, 355

21,715,645

1,329,717

394, 173,721

First National Bank of Biloxi, Biloxi (14739).
First National Bank of Hattiesburg, Hattiesburg
(5176).

300, 000
900, 000

900, 000
2, 700, 000

212,605
273, 302

23, 908, 723
48, 980, 609

First Mississippi National Bank, Hattiesburg (5176).

1, 350, 000

3, 450, 000

567, 274

73, 059,029

City Bank & Trust Company, Natchez.
Deposit Guaranty National Bank, Jackson (15548).

500, 000
8, 100, 000

1, 500, 000
23, 800, 000

318, 348
94,213

28, 746, 698
440, 122, 649

Deposit Guaranty National Bank, Jackson (15548).

8, 634, 375

25, 565, 625

252, 392

467, 004, 304

The Salem Trust Company, Salem.
The Indian Head National Bank of Nashua, Nashua
(1310).

294, 660
875, 000

281, 990
3, 625, 000

210, 389
440, 581

6, 339, 486
65, 358, 134

The Indian Head National Bank of Nashua, Nashua
(1310).

997, 775

4, 252, 225

496, 268

71, 698, 280

The Laconia National Bank, Laconia (1645).
The Peoples National Bank of Laconia, Laconia
(4037).

200, 000
125,000

300, 000
150,000

272, 370
470, 581

10, 230, 759
7, 694, 704

Laconia Peoples National Bank & Trust Company,
Laconia (4037).

452, 500

547, 500

517,951

17,810,655

The Mechanicks National Bank of Concord, Concord
(2447).
The Second National Bank of Nashua, Nashua
fC)QAf\\
(zz4UJ.
The Manchester National Bank, Manchester (1059).
Bank of New Hampshire, National Association,
Manchester (1059).

630, 000

1,400,000

630, 503

29, 718, 643

500, 000

2, 300, 000

1,191,012

52, 686, 208

300, 000

1, 800, 000

533, 355

20,927,519

2, 230, 000

5, 770, 000

1, 240, 897

103, 326, 314

803, 140

1, 120, 604

240, 910

25, 190, 763

686, 400

840, 000

242, 948

26, 187, 310

Somerset Hills & County National Bank, Basking
Ridge (6960).

1, 718, 340

1, 960, 604

255, 058

51, 378, 073

The First National Bank of Westville, Westville

350, 000

725, 000

526, 168

16,795,834

3, 303, 270

3, 696, 730

1, 392, 866

126, 943, 276

3, 828, 270

4,421,730

1, 744, 033

143, 739,109

Washington Trust Company, Washington.
National Newark& Essex Bank, Newark (1316).

400, 000
16, 105, 870

850, 000
28, 894, 130

242, 225
8, 725, 143

18, 243, 885
706, 394, 139

National Newark & Essex Bank, Newark (1316).
See footnote at end of table.

16, 725, 870

28,274, 130

10, 272, 344

724,493,271

Aug. 29

Dec. 31

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Aug. 8

Aug. 15

Nov. 28

NEW JERSEY

Jan. 10

Sept. 6

County Bank and Trust Company, of Somerset,
Franklin Township.
Somerset Hills National Bank, Basking Ridge (6960).

/1 r\A

Of\\

(1U4\5U).

Colonial National Bank, Haddonfield (14457).
Colonial National Bank, Haddonfield (14457).
Nov. 14

244



TABLE

B-17—Continued

Mergers* of National banks, or National and State banks, by States', calendar 1969
Effective
date

Merging banks
Resulting bank

Outstanding
capital
stock

Total
assets

Undivided
profits and
reserves

Surplus

NEW JERSEY—continued

$32, 296, 188

$635,011

$1, 394, 736

1, 329, 129

2, 558, 353

2, 186, 379

3, 736, 103

Nov. 28 ! The Millville National Bank, MillviUe (1270).
South Jersey National Bank, Gamden (1209).

150, 000
4, 359, 375

1, 300, 000
11, 140,625

1, 207, 151

40, 887, 548
267, 672, 525

South Jersey National Bank, Gamden (1209).

5, 076, 563

11,923,438

5, 326, 200

308, 613, 435

131,260

375, 000

6, 640, 536

6, 250, 564

Nov. 14

The Farmers and Mechanics National Bank of
Woodbury, Woodbury (3716).
Peoples National Bank of New Jersey, Westmont
(12022).
! Peoples National Bank of New Jersev, Westmont
! (12022).

Nov. 28

0
$1, 419, 500
1, 414, 237

101, 195, 907
128,598,495

5, 843, 120

7, 952, 500

52, 328

398, 597, 307

First Trenton National Bank, Trenton (1327).

5, 925, 160

8, 376, 720

8, 878, 323

404, 830, 592

Bank of Commerce, Newark.

2, 045, 000
6, 200, 000

2, 052, 375
12,040,000

| The First Jersey National Bank, Jersey City (374).

7, 836, 000

9,491,810
1, 592, 702
4, 410, 348
6,003,051

71,455,473
408, 151, 084

The First Jersey National Bank, Jersey City (374).

951,000 |
5,010,000 |

715,772
3, 305, 964

10, 969, 019
255, 798, 382

6, 836, 000

3,821,000

266,767,471

200, 000
35,314,028

594, 284
11,598,788

11,789,068
918,893, 374

35,514,028

Dec. 26

The Lambertville National Bank, Lambertville
(1272).
First Trenton National Bank, Trenton (1327).

12, 173,072

930, 682, 442

14, 501, 375

479, 606, 557

NEW YORK

Feb. 28

Nov. 28

United Bank and Trust Company, New York.
Royal National Bank of New York, New York
(15029).
Royal National Bank of New York, New York
(15029).
The Oceanside National Bank, Oceanside (12458).

1, 700, 000
5, 008, 635
5, 773, 635
200, 000

Security National Bank, Huntington (6587).

13, 684, 155

Security National Bank, Huntington (6587).

13, 904, 155
2,316,000

Dec. 31

Marine Midland Trust Company of Rockland
County, Nyack.
Marine Midland National Bank of Southeastern
New York, Poughkeepsie (465).
Marine Midland Bank of Southeastern New York,

1, 654, 444

86, 495, 299

4, 925, 000

3, 447; 739

154, 669, 793

7, 241, 000

4, 079, 583

241, 165,093

175,000
4,518,546

95, 964
1,738,321

5,419,824
146, 323, 432

4, 616, 046

1, 834, 284

151,743,255

620, 500
2, 600, 000

620, 500
4, 300, 000

15, 201
892, 176

4,231, 157
99,517,766

3, 065, 375

5, 075, 625

907, 376 |

103, 748, 922

2,224,000
2, 075, 000
5, 321, 600

N.A., Poughkeepsie (465).
NORTH CAROLINA

May 27

Bank of Varina, Fuquay-Varina
Southern National Bank of North Carolina,
Lumberton (10610).
Southern National Bank of North Carolina,
Lumberton (10610).
Aug. 29 Home Bank and Trust Company, Hendersonville. j
First National Bank of Eastern North Carolina, I
Jacksonville (14676).
j
! First National Bank of Eastern North Carolina, !
I Jacksonville (14676).
i
See footnote at end of table.




100, 000
3,636,605
3,814, 105

I

245

TABLE

B-17—Continued

Mergers* of National banks, or National and State banks, by States, calendar 1969
Merging banks

Effective

Resulting bank

Undivided

Total

profits and
reserves

Outstanding
capital
stock

assets

NORTH CAROLINA—continued

Sept. 22

The Bank of Franklin, Franklin.
The Peoples Bank, Roxboro.
First Union National Bank of North Carolina,
Charlotte (15650).

$150, 000
400, 000
17,123,825

$150,000
400, 000
25, 000, 000

$381,294
613,465
9, 837, 868

$12,482,311
20, 243, 597
963, 788, 389

First Union National Bank of North Carolina,
Charlotte (15650).

Sept. 15

17,868,825

25, 500, 000

10, 687, 627

996, 776, 328

225, 000

624, 625
41, 704, 276

242,821
18, 880, 639

22, 464, 008
1, 230, 880, 392

41,722,651

19,223,460

1, 252, 782, 980

250, 000
1,900,000

355, 457
292, 585

6, 991, 140
39, 643, 928

2,150,000

579, 456

46, 539, 404

350, 000
675, 000

815,276
552, 787

23, 929 646
24, 341, 639

875, 000

1,318,063

43, 028, 467

State Bank & Trust Company, Greenville.
North Carolina National Bank, Charlotte (13761).

14, 543, 090

North Carolina National Bank, Charlotte (13761).

15, 274, 340

OHIO

Mar. 31

The First National Bank of Utica, Utica (7596).

50, 000

The First National Bank of Newark, Newark (858).
The First National Bank of Newark, Newark (858).

750, 000

The Guardian Bank, Springfield.
The New Carlisle National Bank, New Carlisle

Sept. 30

750, 000

350, 000
325,000

(6594).
The Security National Bank, Springfield (6594).

875, 000

145, 000
947, 000

65,061
710,492

2, 094, 702
26, 328, 041

Bank of Mt. Eaton, Mt. Eaton.
First National Bank of Orrville-Dalton, Orrville
(13742).
First National Bank of Orrville-Dalton, Orrville
(13742).
The Farmers Banking Company, West Liberty.

35, 000
553, 000

1,099,000

774, 385

28,441,575

601,000

245, 000
600, 000

82,415
197, 735

3, 548, 747
13,994, 116

35, 000

810,000

280, 149

17,542,863

Bellefontaine National Bank, Bellefontaine (13749).

200, 000

Bellefontaine National Bank, Bellefontaine (13749).

270, 000

225, 000
3, 054, 380

83, 836
656, 313

4, 135, 193
89, 979, 862

Nov. 15

Dec. 31

Jan. 17

PENNSYLVANIA

Peoples Bank of Enola, Enola.
Cumberland County National Bank and Trust
Company, New Cumberland (14542).
Cumberland County National Bank and Trust
Company, New Cumberland (14542).
The Farmers Bank of Mercersburg, Mercersburg.
National Valley Bank and Trust Company, Chambersburg (593).
National Valley Bank and Trust Company, Chambersburg (593).
The First National Bank of Nuremberg, Nuremberg
(12563).
The Hazleton National Bank, Hazleton (4204).
The Hazleton National Bank, Hazleton (4204).

100, 000
1,645,620

3, 279, 380

640, 149

94, 115,055

1, 845,620

250, 000
2, 378, 000

103,690
552,831

4,612,759
58, 334, 103

2, 578, 000

649, 272

62, 946, 862

140, 000

125,016

2, 667, 097

2, 250, 000

1, 358, 000

50, 367, 934

2, 390, 000

1,483,017

53,035,031

The Bank of Lehighton, Lehighton.
Peoples First National Bank and Trust Company,
Hazleton (3893).

100, 000
1, 150, 000

300, 000
2, 300, 000

59, 406
873,621

7,217,437
53, 077, 293

Peoples First National Bank and Trust Company,
Hazleton (3893).
See footnote at end of table.

1, 310, 000

2, 620, 000

890, 398

60, 342, 001

Mar. 1

Mar. 17

Mar. 31

246



50, 000
1, 188, 000
1, 288, 000
50, 000
750, 000
800, 000

TABLE B-17—Continued
Mergers* of National banks, or National and State banks, by States, calendar 1969
Effective
date ;

Merging banks
Resulting bank

!

Outstanding
capital
stock

Surplus

Undivided
profits and
reserves

Total
assets

PENNSYLVANIA—continued

June 30

Keystone Trust Company, Harrisburg.
The Fulton National Bank of Lancaster, Lancaster
(2634).

$300, 000
1, 692, 500

$800, 000
3, 797, 500

$356, 909
3, 141, 358

$14,555, 132
117,199,301

The Fulton National Bank of Lancaster, Lancaster
(2634).

2, 067, 500

4, 597, 500

3, 423, 267

131,754,433

The First National Bank of York Springs, York
Springs (7856).
Adams County National Bank, Cumberland Township (311).

50, 000

300, 000

54, 678

4, 512, 753

1, 300, 000

2,710,000

362, 346

47, 340,533

Adams County National Bank, Cumberland Township (311).

1, 425, 000

2, 935, 000

417,024

51,853,286

First National Bank, Charieroi (14123).
First National Bank& Trust Co., Washington, Pa.,
Washington (5920).

100, 000
1, 000, 000

300, 000
2, 000, 000

557, 364
1,911,885

9, 741, 906
54,756,021

First National Bank& Trust Co., Washington, Pa.,
Washington (5920).

1,185,000

25 000, 000

2, 684, 249

64,497, 927

300, 000

400, 000

552, 822

15,525,049

5, 477, 735

11,522,265

3, 875, 503

271,978,512

The Citizens and Southern National Bank of South
Carolina, Charleston (14425).

5, 807, 735

12,192, 265

4, 128, 325

286, 560, 199

The Merchants and Planters National Bank of
Gaffney, Gaffney (10655).

300, 000

1, 200, 000

548, 670

15,408,501

The Citizens and Southern National Bank of South
Carolina, Charleston (14425).

5, 807, 735

12, 192, 265

4,128,325

278, 991, 885

The Citizens and Southern National Bank of South
Carolina, Charleston (14425).

6, 295, 235

13,204,765

4, 676, 995

294,400, 386

First National Bank of St. George, St. George
(15025).
First National Bank in Orangeburg, Orangeburg
(13918).

175,000

85, 000

295, 649

8, 023, 501

340, 000

1, 300, 000

488,913

23, 900, 597

427, 500

1, 472, 500

695, 830

31,667,889

United National Bank of Brandon, Brandon (15581).
Lyman County Bank, Kennebec.
United National Bank of Vermillion, Vermillion
(15639).

125, 000
50, 000
400, 000

200, 000
150, 000
400, 000

62, 242
43, 561
238, 837

5,260,317
2, 673, 996
16, 038, 608

United National Bank of Vermillion, Vermillion,
South Dakota, Vermillion (15639).

650, 000

750, 000

269, 640

23,972,921

First National Bank of Bristol, Bristol (6252).
The Merchants National Bank of Burlington, Burlington (1197).

50, 000
580, 000

245, 000
565, 000

26, 258
529, 202

3, 302, 474
28,904,021

The Merchants National Bank of Burlington, Burlington (1197).
See footnote at end of table.

622, 000

810,000

569, 125

32, 919, 347

July 31

Sept. 8

SOUTH CAROLINA

Feb. 1

Feb. 24

May 5

The Peoples National Bank of Conway, Conway
(10537).
The Citizens and Southern National Bank of South
Carolina, Charleston (14425).

First National Bank in Orangeburg, Orangeburg
(13918).
SOUTH DAKOTA

July 31

VERMONT

Sept. 9




247

TABLE B-17—Continued
Mergers* of National banks, or National and State banks, by States, calendar 1969
Outstanding
capital
stock

Merging banks
Resulting bank

Effective
date

Undivided
profits and
reserves

Surplus

Total
assets

VIRGINIA

$220, 000
560, 000

$268, 793
352, 627

$6, 446, 665
18,429,942

615,000

655, 000

621,419

24, 876, 607

The Citizens National Bank of Front Royal, Front
Royal (13275).

210,000

500, 000

242, 650

12, 973, 898

1,510,000

1,510,000

824, 794

53, 555, 661

Farmers and Merchants National Bank, Winchester
(6084).

1,930,000

1, 930, 000

937, 443

66, 529, 559

Commonwealth National Bank of Arlington, Arlington (15146).
Virginia National Bank, Norfolk (9885).

1, 000, 000

459, 000

51, 153

34, 777, 218

16, 177,725

23, 922, 275

14, 924, 737

817,246,421

Virginia National Bank, Norfolk (9885).

Aug. 15

$50. 000
440, 000

Farmers and Merchants National Bank, Winchester
(6084).

May 23

People's Bank, Mount Jackson.
Massanutten Bank of Shenandoah Valley, National
Association, Strasburg (15566).
First Virginia Bank, N.A., Strasburg (15566).

Apr. 30

17, 177,725

24, 381, 275

14, 975, 891

851,531,017

The First National Bank of Quantico, Quantico
(12477).
Virginia National Bank, Norfolk (9885).

200, 000

350, 000

287, 007

13, 948, 950

18, 250, 000

24,381,275

15,492, 113

912,331,648

Virginia National Bank, Norfolk (9885).

18, 680, 000

24, 501, 275

15, 757, 620

926, 284, 233

Monroe County Bank, Sparta.
The Farmers National Bank of Sparta, Sparta
(11463).

105,000
100,000

180, 000
200, 000

120, 773
79, 894

5, 220, 337
4, 947, 252

Union National Bank & Trust Company, Sparta
(11463).

Dec. 19

205, 000

380, 000

200, 667

10, 167, 589

WISCONSIN

Nov. 21

* Excludes mergers involving only 1 operating bank, effected pursuant to corporate reorganization.
TABLE

B-18

Mergers resulting in National banks, by assets of acquiring and acquired banks,

1960-69*

Assets of acquired bank
Assets of acquiring bank\
Under $10
million

Total

78
104
85
93
172

0
13
29
30
123

0
0
7
15
36

532

195

58

0
0
0
0
14

78
117
121
141
365

23

14

J822

•Includes all forms of acquisitions involving 2 or more banks, from May 13, 1960, through Dec. 31, 1969.
fin each transaction, the bank with larger total assets was considered to be the acquiring bank.
{Comprises 791 transactions, 16 involving 3 banks, 6 involving 4 banks, and 1 involving 5 banks.

248



Total

O O O CO O
CM

Under $10 million
$10 million to $24.9 million
$25 million to $49.9 million
$50 million to $99.9 million
$ 100 million and over

$10 million to $25 million to $50 million to $100 million
49.9
24.9
99.9
and over
million
million
million

TABLE

B-19

Domestic branches entering the National Banking System, by de novo opening, merger, or conversion, by States, calendar 1969
Branches opened for business
Charter j
No.

Title and location of bank
Other than
local

274

Total

Total

604

878

1
1
1
1
1
19
2
1
1
2
0
1
5
2
12
1
1
2
16
0
1

1
1
1
1
1
22
2
2
1
2
2
1
5
3
14
1
2
2
16
1
1

ALABAMA

14414
4067
1595
13097
1814
8963
6173

State National Bank of Alabama, Decatur
The First National Bank of Huntsville, Huntsville
The First National Bank of Mobile, Mobile
The Merchants National Bank of Mobile, Mobile
The First National Bank of Montgomery, Montgomery
The First National Bank, Scottsboro, Alabama
The City National Bank of Tuscaloosa, Tuscaloosa

.

ALASKA

14651
14747

National Bank of Alaska, Anchorage
Alaska National Bank of Fairbanks, Fairbanks.
ARIZONA

3728
14324

First National Bank of Arizona, Phoenix
The Valley National Bank of Arizona, Phoenix

13637
1950
7240

ARKANSAS

First National Bank of Eastern Arkansas, Forest City
The First National Bank of Fort Smith, Fort Smith
The Merchants National Bank of Fort Smith, Fort Smith

15347
14670
14695
15450
15453
2419
15235
6919
15180
6268
15532
15349
3050
10391
13044
9655
15330
1741
15660
2158
15357

15617
14146

CALIFORNIA

Alameda First National Bank, Alameda
Community National Bank, Bakersfield
City National Bank, Beverly Hills
National Bank of Agriculture, Delano
Escondido National Bank, Escondido
Security Pacific National Bank, Los Angeles
Newport National Bank, Newport Beach
Central Valley National Bank, Oakland
Security National Bank, Oakland
_.
First National Bank and Trust Company, Ontario
Commercial and Farmers National Bank, Oxnard
Valley National Bank, Salinas
Southern California First National Bank, San Diego
United States National Bank, San Diego
Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association, San Francisco
Bank of California, National Association, San Francisco
Commonwealth National Bank, San Francisco
Crocker-Citizens National Bank, San Francisco
Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, San Francisco
The First National Bank of San Jose, San Jose
San Joaquin Valley National Bank, Tulare
COLORADO

Continental National Bank, Englewood
The First National Bank in Fort Collins, Fort Collins

335
4
15542
1338
720
2
15354
780
15363

CONNECTICUT

The Connecticut National Bank, Bridgeport
The State National Bank of Connecticut, Bridgeport
The Constitution National Bank, Hartford
Hartford National Bank and Trust Company, Hartford
The Home National Bank and Trust Company, Meriden
The First New Haven National Bank, New Haven
Orange National Bank, Orange
The Waterbury National Bank, Waterbury
Westport National Bank, Westport




249

TABLE B-19—Continued
Domestic branches entering the National Banking System, by de novo opening, merger, or conversion^ by States, calendar 1969

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

3425
5046
15700

The National Bank of Washington, Washington
The Riggs National Bank of Washington, D.C., Washington
Security Bank, N.A., Washington
GEORGIA

1559
9617
10270
13068
15546

The First National Bank of Atlanta, Atlanta
The Fulton National Bank of Atlanta, Atlanta
The First National Bank & Trust Company in Macon, Macon
The Citizens and Southern National Bank of Georgia, Savannah
First National Bank and Trust Company, Vidalia
HAWAII

14911

Hawaii National Bank, Honolulu, Honolulu
IDAHO

14444
1668

First Security Bank of Idaho, National Association, Boise
The Idaho First National Bank, Boise

5525
14368
3854
14268
8043
13216
14526
14486
14504
14661
1365
14411
1961
14390
8937
13809
2413
205
14595

The Anna National Bank, Anna
First Arlington National Bank in Arlington Heights, Illinois, Arlington Heights
The Merchants National Bank of Aurora, Aurora
The First National Bank in Carlyle, Carlyle
The Casey National Bank, Casey
American National Bank and Trust Company of Chicago, Chicago
Commercial National Bank of Chicago, Chicago
The Lincoln National Bank, Chicago
Marquette National Bank, Chicago
The Steel City National Bank of Chicago, Chicago
The First National Bank of Elgin, Elgin
Elmhurst National Bank, Elmhurst
First National Bank of Flora, Flora
The First National Bank of Highland Park, Highland Park
The First National Bank of Lake Forest, Lake Forest
First National Bank in Paxton, Paxton
Citizens First National Bank of Princeton, Princeton
The First National Bank of Springfield, Springfield
Wheaton National Bank, Wheaton

ILLINOIS

INDIANA

12132
14379
571
14398
984
869
2747
2234
1988

The National City Bank of Evansville, Evansville
The Calumet National Bank of Hammond, Hammond
The First National Bank and Trust Company of Crawfordsville, Crawfordsville
The First National Bank in Huntington, Huntington
The Indiana National Bank, Indianapolis
Merchants National Bank & Trust Company of Indianapolis, Indianapolis....
The First-Merchants National Bank of Michigan City, Michigan City
The Merchants National Bank of Muncie, Muncie
The Second National Bank of Richmond, Richmond
IOWA

14799
117
13702

City National Bank of Cedar Rapids, Cedar Rapids
The First National Bank of Marion, Marion
The National Bank of Waterloo, Waterloo
KANSAS

3909

The Merchants National Bank of Topeka, Topeka

250



4
2

TABLE B-19—Continued
Domestic branches entering the National Banking System, by de novo opening, merger, or conversion, by States, calendar 1969
Branches opened for business

Charter
No.

Title and location of bank
Local

\ Other than
local

Total

KENTUCKY

12293
718
14894
4090
906
109
7030
3832

The Third National Bank of Ashland, Ashland
The First National Bank and Trust Company of Coving ton, Covington .. .
Fort Knox National Bank, Fort Knox
The State National Bank of Frankfort, Frankfort
First Security National Bank and Trust Company of Lexington, Lexington .
First National Bank of Louisville, Louisville
Pikeville National Bank & Trust Company, Pikeviile
The First and Farmers National Bank of Somerset, Somerset

13737
14168
13732
14086
5023
14849
13655
13688
11795
3595
13345

City National Bank of Baton Rouge, Baton Rouge
First National Bank in DeRidder, DeRidder
First National Bank of Jefferson Parish, Gretna
The Citizens National Bank in Hammond, Hammond
The First National Bank of Lafayette, Lafayette
Lakeside National Bank of Lake Charles, Lake Charles
The Ouachita National Bank in Monroe, Monroe
The Hibernia National Bank in New Orleans, New Orleans.
The First National Bank of Ruston, Ruston
The First National Bank of Shreveport, Shreveport
Lafourche National Bank of Thibodaux, Thibodaux

1437
13843
2260
13750
941

Merchants National Bank of Bangor, Bangor
The First National Bank of Fort Fairfield, Fort Fairfield
First-Manufacturers National Bank of Lewiston and Auburn, Auburn.
Norway National Bank, Norway
,
Canal National Bank, Portland

LOUISIANA

1!
0'
1j

oi
0I

MARYLAND

1244
13745
1413
15285
15365
381
15154
14985

The Farmers National Bank of Annapolis, Annapolis
Maryland National Bank, Baltimore
The First National Bank of Maryland, Baltimore
Belair National Bank, Bowie
University National Bank, College Park
The First National Bank & Trust Co. of Western Maryland, Cumberland.
Peoples National Bank of Maryland, Suitland
Metropolitan National Bank of Maryland, Wheaton.
MASSACHUSETTS

393
200
475
779
4771
590
1320
4774
2404
14834
261
1082
14798
308
416
1135

The First National Bank of Amherst, Amherst
The First National Bank of Boston, Boston.
New England Merchants National Bank of Boston, Boston
Plymouth-Home National Bank, Brockton
The County Bank, N.A., Cambridge
The Fall River National Bank, Fall River
The Falmouth National Bank, Falmouth
The First National Bank of Ipswich, Ipswich
The Peoples National Bank of Marlborough, Marlborough
First National Bank of Natick, Natick
The First National Bank of New Bedford, New Bedford
First Agricultural National Bank of Berkshire County, Pittsfield.
South Shore National Bank, Quincy
Third National Bank of Hampden County, Springfield
The First-Machinists National Bank of Taunton, Taunton
The Mechanics National Bank of Worcester, Worcester

383-814—70—



251

TABLE B-19—Continued
Domestic branches entering the National Banking System, by de novo openings merger, or conversion, by States, calendar 1969

1924
14925
13738
14948
13671
13995
14102
191
1731
15444
14582
1587
4398
13739
2550
1918
14523
3378
15611
10498

The Southern Michigan National Bank of Coldwater, Coldwater
City National Bank of Detroit, Detroit
Manufacturers National Bank of Detroit, Detroit
Michigan Bank, National Association, Detroit
National Bank of Detroit, Detroit
The National Bank of Eaton Rapids, Eaton Rapids
The Iron River National Bank, Iron River
The First National Bank and Trust Company of Kalamazoo, Kalamazoo . . . .
The First National Bank of Lapeer, Lapeer
Livonia National Bank, Livonia
First National Bank & Trust Company of Midland, Midland
The First National Bank of Monroe, Monroe
Hackley Union National Bank and Trust Company of Muskegon, Muskegon.
Community National Bank of Pontiac, Pontiac
First National Bank of Quincy, Quincy
Second National Bank of Saginaw, Saginaw
First National Bank & Trust Company, Sturgis
Clinton National Bank and Trust Company, St. Johns
First National Bank of Warren, Warren
The First National Bank of Watervliet, Watervliet
MISSISSIPPI

5176
15539
15386
15516
10523
13551
15661
15479
2891

First Mississippi National Bank, Hattiesburg
Southern National Bank of Hattiesburg, Hattiesburg. . .
First National Bank of Iuka, Iuka
Citizens National Bank, Jackson
First National Bank of Jackson, Jackson
First National Bank in Meridian, Meridian
First National Bank, Southaven, Mississippi, Southaven.
First Citizens National Bank, Tupelo
The First National Bank of West Point, West Point
NEBRASKA

15376
1633

14004

City National Bank of Lincoln, Lincoln. . .
The Omaha National Bank, Omaha
Packers National Bank in Omaha, Omaha.
NEVADA

14406

Security National Bank of Nevada, Reno
NEW HAMPSHIRE

5274
12889
4037
15737
1059
1310
2240
1052
1180

Merchants National Bank, Dover
The Rockingham National Bank of Exeter, Exeter
Laconia Peoples National Bank and Trust Company, Laconia...
Lisbon National Bank, Lisbon
Bank of New Hampshire, National Association, Manchester
The Indian Head National Bank of Nashua, Nashua
The Second National Bank of Nashua, Nashua
The New Hampshire National Bank of Portsmouth, Portsmouth.
First Somersworth-Rollingsford National Bank, Somersworth
NEW JERSEY

13363
6960
8704
9498
1209
10471

15709
2076

First Merchants National Bank, Asbury Park, Asbury Park
Somerset Hills & County National Bank, Basking Ridge
First National Bank and Trust Company of Beverly, Beverly
The Farmers and Merchants National Bank of Bridgeton, Bridgeton.
South Jersey National Bank, Camden
The Clayton National Bank, Clayton
New Jersey Bank (National Association), Clifton
The National Union Bank of Dover, Dover

252



2
4
1
3
5
1
16
1

3
4
1
3
5
1
21
1

TABLE B-19—Continued
Domestic branches entering the National Banking System, by de novo opening, merger, or conversion, by States, calendar 1969
Branches opened for business
Charter
No,

Title and location of bank

NEW JERSEY—continued
15419
1436
15035
12014
15570
8267
14457
374
8627
3878
6440
1270
4274
15297
1452
1116
15505
3697
329
8007
3697
5712
2257
11759
5005
15228
15327
3866
2509
1327
12425
13848
12022
1199

Eatontown National Bank, Eatontown
The National State Bank, Elizabeth, N.J., Elizabeth
Franklin Lakes National Bank, Franklin Lakes
City National Bank, Hackensack
The Hackensack Trust Company, National Association, Hackensack
The Peoples National Bank of Hackettstown, Hackettstown
Colonial National Bank, Haddonfield
The First Jersey National Bank, Jersey City
The First National Bank and Trust Company of Kearney, Kearney
Amboy-Madison National Bank, Madison Township
The Farmers and Merchants National Bank of Matawan, Matawan
The Millville National Bank, Millville
Trust Company National Bank, Morristown
New Jersey National Bank and Trust Company, Neptune
First National State Bank of New Jersey, Newark
National Newark & Essex Bank, Newark
Security National Bank, Newark
The Peoples National Bank of New Brunswick, New Brunswick
First National Bank of Passiac County, Paterson
First National Bank of Pedricktown, Pedricktown
The Peoples National Bank of Central Jersey, Piscataway
Ocean County National Bank, Point Pleasant
The Monmouth County National Bank, Red Bank, Red Bank
Citizens First National Bank of Ridgewood, Ridgewood
National Community Bank of Rutherford, Rutherford
National Bank of Secaucus, Secaucus
First National Bank of Scotch Plains, Scotch Plains
The First National Bank of Somerset County, N.J., Somerville
The First National Bank of Toms River, N J . Toms River
First Trenton National Bank, Trenton
The Union Center National Bank, Union
Belmar-Wall National Bank, West Belmar
Peoples National Bank of New Jersey, Westmont
First County National Bank and Trust Company, Woodbury, Woodbury
NEW MEXICO

12485
15499
15256
14971
14912
1750
8132

Albuquerque National Bank, Albuquerque
Fidelity National Bank, Albuquerque
Farmington National Bank, Farmington
Deming National Bank, Deming
Security National Bank of Roswell, Roswell
The First National Bank of Santa Fe, Santa Fe
The American National Bank of Silver City, Silver City

0
0
0
1
0
1
0

]

NEW YORK

15758 First Trust Company of Albany, National Association, Albany
1301 National Commercial Bank and Trust Company, Albany
11583 The Evans National Bank of Angola, Angola
5816 The National Exchange Bank of Castleton on Hudson, Castleton on Hudson
2655 First National Bank and Trust Company of Corning, Corning
11511 Marine Midland Tinker National Bank, East Setauket
6587 Security National Bank, Huntington
7703 National Bank of North America, Jamaica
1120 The Rondout National Bank of Kingston, Kingston
13956 County National Bank, Middletown
12997 Franklin National Bank, Mineola
13314 Nanuet National Bank, Nanuet
2370 The Chase Manhattan Bank (National Association), New York
1461 First National City Bank, New York

15029
1354

Royal National Bank of New York, New York
The National Bank and Trust Company of Norwich, Norwich


3S3-S14—70- - 1 8


15
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
1
2
3
1
7
10
1
1

253

TABLE

B-19—Continued

Domestic branches entering the National Banking System, by de novo opening, merger, or conversion, by States, calendar 1969
Branches opened for business
Charter
No.

Title and location of bank
Other than

Total

local

NEW YORK—continued
15558
13664
15641
13563
1342
15627
2657

Community National Bank and Trust Company of Richmond, Richmond
The First National Bank of Painted Post, Painted Post
The State of New York National Bank, Poughkeepsie
First National Bank in Sidney, Sidney
The Merchants National Bank and Trust Company of Syracuse, Syracuse
Lincoln National Bank and Trust Company of Central New York, Syracuse
The National Bank of Northern New York, Watertown

0
0
1
1
0
0
0

1
1
0
0
1
2
1

1
2
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
17

0
14
8
0
3
6
1
0
0
114

1
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1

0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0

NORTH CAROLINA

11091
15650
13761
14481
14676
10610
13859
11229
10608
4947
15673

The First National Bank of Albemarle, Albemarle
First Union National Bank of North Carolina, Charlotte
North Carolina National Bank, Charlotte
Citizens National Bank of Concord, Concord
First National Bank of Eastern North Carolina, Jacksonville
Southern National Bank of North Carolina, Lumberton
The Union National Bank of Oxford, Oxford
First National Bank of Reidsville, Reidsville
The Planters National Bank and Trust Company, Rocky Mount
The First National Bank of Anson County, Wadesboro
Wachovia Bank and Trust Company, N.A., Winston-Salem

2

1
16
8
1
4
6
1
1
2
1
131

OHIO

15416
13899
13905
3654
76
128
24

172
15423

4318
14761
7745
5065
15609
14579
183
13914
10
2604
15512
3889
15577
56

15340
15456
14290
11831
10692
858
13742
1006
13832
6594
14586
13797
2479
1997
365
2350

First National Bank, Bowling Green
The First National Bank in Bryan, Bryan
The Central National Bank at Cambridge, Cambridge
The Farmers National Bank of Canfield, Canfield
First National Bank of Canton, Canton
The First National Bank of Chillicothe, Chillicothe
The First National Bank of Cincinnati, Cincinnati
The Second National Bank of Circleville, Circleville
The Capital National Bank, Cleveland
Central National Bank of Cleveland, Cleveland
Society National Bank of Cleveland, Cleveland
The Huntington National Bank of Columbus, Columbus
The Ohio National Bank of Columbus, Columbus
Akron National Bank and Trust Company, Akron
First National Bank of Akron, Akron
The First National Bank of Ashland, Ashland
First National Bank in Bellaire, Bellaire
The Third National Bank and Trust Company of Dayton, Ohio, Dayton
The Winters National Bank and Trust Company of Dayton, Dayton
National Bank of Defiance, Defiance
The Preble County National Bank of Eaton, Eaton
Elyria Savings & Trust National Bank, Elyria
The First National Bank and Trust Company of Hamilton, Hamilton
Tower National Bank of Lima, Lima
The Central Security National Bank of Lorain County, Lorain
The Lorain National Bank, Lorain
The National City Bank of Marion, Marion
The Brown County National Bank of Mt. Orab, Mount Orab
The First National Bank of Newark, Newark
First National Bank of Orrville-Dalton, Orrville
The Piqua National Bank and Trust Company, Piqua
The National Bank of Portsmouth, Portsmouth
The Security National Bank, Springfield
First Bank of Toledo, Toledo
Van Wert National Bank, Van Wert
The Second National Bank of Warren, Warren
The Clinton County National Bank and Trust Company of Wilmington, Wilmington
The First National Bank of Wilmington, Wilmington
The Mahoning National Bank of Youngstown, Youngstown

254



0
0
0
0
0
0
2

1
0
0
0
1
1

2
0
2

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
1
1
2
1
3

TABLE B-19—Continued

Domestic branches entering the National Banking System, by de novo opening, merger, or conversion, by States, calendar 1969
Branches opened for business

Charter
No.

Title and location of bank
Other than
local

Total

OKLAHOMA

15350

Republic National Bank of Tulsa, Tulsa.
OREGON

1553
4514

First National Bank of Oregon, Portland
United States National Bank of Oregon, Portland
PENNSYLVANIA

6645
2280
723
10128
138
2428
593
355
4948
311
573
870
8854
9256
611
249
4204
3893
10188
31
6615
14098
2634
240
5773
4625
12
2252
9511
5574
14542
324
5227
15393
539
15422
252
2222
7511
12261
5920
30
694

The Merchants National Bank of Allentown, Allentown
The Citizens National Bank of Ashland, Ashland
Central Penn National Bank, Bala-Cynwyd
The Kishacoquillas Valley National Bank of Belleville, Belleville
The First National Bank and Trust Company of Bethlehem, Bethlehem
The Bradford National Bank, Bradford
National Valley Bank and Trust Company, Chambersburg
The Delaware County National Bank, Chester
The First National Bank of Coudersport, Coudersport
Adams County National Bank, Cumberland Township
The Doylestown National Bank and Trust Company, Doylestown
Marine National Bank, Erie
The Citizens National Bank of Evans City, Evans City
The First National Bank of Fairfield, Fairfield
The Gettysburg National Bank, Gettysburg
First National Bank of Mercer County, Greenville
The Hazleton National Bank, Hazleton
Peoples First National Bank and Trust Company, Hazleton
The First National Bank of Herminie, Herminie
Penn Central National Bank, Huntingdon
The Hoblitzell National Bank of Hyndman, Hyndman
First National Bank in Indiana, Indiana
The Fulton National Bank of Lancaster, Lancaster
The First National Bank of Lebanon, Lebanon
The Farmers National Bank of Lititz, Lititz
McKeesport National Bank, McKeesport
The First National Bank of Pennsylvania, Meadville
Upper Dauphin National Bank, Millersburg
The Farmers National Bank and Trust Company of Millheim, Millheim....
First Citizens National Bank, Montgomery
Cumberland County National Bank and Trust Company, New Cumberland
The First National Bank and Trust Company of Newtown, Newtown
The Cement National Bank, Northampton
Lincoln National Bank, Philadelphia
The Philadelphia National Bank, Philadelphia
Provident National Bank, Philadelphia
Pittsburgh National Bank, Pittsburgh
Western Pennsylvania National Bank, Pittsburgh
The First National Bank of State College, State College
The Peoples National Bank of State College, State College
First National Bank & Trust Co., Washington, Pa., Washington
The First National Bank of Wilkes-Barre, Wilkes-Barre
National Bank & Trust Company of Central Pennsylvania, York
RHODE ISLAND

13981
15723

Columbus National Bank of Rhode Island, Providence
Rhode Island Hospital Trust National Bank, Providence




2
20

2
28

255

TABLE B-19—Continued
Domestic branches entering the National Banking System, by de novo opening, merger, or conversion, by States, calendar 1969
Branches opened for business
Charter
No.

Title and location of bank
Other than
local

Total

SOUTH CAROLINA

2044
13720
10536
10635
13918
14425

1
1
1
2
1
8

The South Carolina National Bank of Charleston, Charleston
The First National Bank of South Carolina, Columbia
The Conway National Bank, Conway
The Peoples National Bank, Greenville
First National Bank of Orangeburg, Orangeburg
The Citizens and Southern National Bank of South Carolina, Charleston
SOUTH DAKOTA

10592
15639

Northwestern National Bank of Sioux Falls, Sioux Falls

,

United National Bank of Vermillion, Vermillion, South Dakota, Vermillion
TENNESSEE

14611
1666
14760
7397
5263
4177
13635
13539
10028
13303
15590
7314

American National Bank and Trust Company of Chattanooga, Chattanooga.
The Cleveland National Bank, Cleveland
First National Bank of Clinton, Clinton
The First National Bank of Franklin County at Decherd, Decherd
First-Citizens National Bank of Dyersburg, Dyersburg
The First National Bank of Greenville, Greenville
The Hamilton National Bank of Johnson City, Johnson City
The Hamilton National Bank of Knoxville, Knoxville
The First National Bank of Anderson County, Lake City
Third National Bank in Nashville, Nashville
First National Bank of Selmer, Selmer
The First National Bank of Tracy City, Tracy City
UTAH

4341
15243

Zions First National Bank, Salt Lake City
American National Bank, Salt Lake City.
VERMONT

1430
1197
194

Vermont National Bank, Brattleboro
The Merchants National Bank of Burlington, Burlington
Catamount National Bank, Bennington
VIRGINIA

651
14893
15146
15492
7937
13275
15315
5290
1522
15461
9885
12477
10080
15530
2737
15117
15566
6084

United Virginia Bank/First & Citizens National, Alexandria
Mount Vernon National Bank and Trust Company of Fairfax County, Annandale
Commonwealth National Bank of Arlington, Arlington
._
Monticello National Bank, Charlottesville
..-..The First National Bank of Christiansburg, Christiansburg
The Citizens National Bank of Front Royal, Front Royal
Fairfield National Bank of Highland Springs, Highland Springs
Chesapeake National Bank, Kilmarnock
The Fidelity National Bank, Lynchburg
First National Bank of Norfolk, Norfolk
Virginia National Bank, Norfolk
The First National Bank of Quantico, Quantico
The Central National Bank of Richmond, Richmond
Metropolitan National Bank, Richmond
The First National Exchange Bank of Virginia, Roanoke
Security National Bank of Roanoke, Roanoke
First County National Bank, Strasburg
Farmers and Merchants National Bank, Winchester.
VIRGIN ISLANDS

143335

Virgin Island National Bank, St. Thomas

256



-.

....

TABLE B-19—Continued
Domestic branches entering the National Banking System, by de novo openings merger; or conversion, by States, calendar 1969

I
Charter
No.

Branches opened for business

Title and location of bank
Local

Other than
local

Total

WASHINGTON

15233
6074
13230
4375
14394
11280
15418
4668
3417
12293

Valley National Bank of Auburn, Auburn
First National Bank in Port Angeles, Port Angeles
The Pacific National Bank of Seattle, Seattle
The National Bank of Commerce of Seattle, Seattle
Peoples National Bank of Washington, Seattle
,
Seattle-First National Bank, Seattle
National Bank of Mason County, Shelton
Old National Bank of Washington, Spokane
National Bank of Washington, Tacoma, Washington, Tacoma.
Puget Sound National Bank, Tacoma

1
1
1
1
1
4
0
1
1
1

0
0
0

2

1
1
3
1
9
1
1
3

1

2

1
1
1
1
1
0
1
2

2

2

0
5
1
0

WISCONSIN

2132
212
14522
144
15738
13616
15081
15424

Kellogg-Citizens National Bank of Green Bay, Green Bay
The First National Bank of Kenosha, Kenosha
Kenosha National Bank, Kenosha
The First National Bank of Madison, Madison
Tri City National Bank of Oak Creek, Oak Creek
First National Bank of Oconomowoc, Oconomowoc
Marine National Bank of Waukesha, Waukesha
First American National Bank of Wausau, Wausau




0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0

257

TABLE B-20
Domestic branches of National banks closed, by States, calendar 1969
Branches closed
Charter

No.

Title and location of bank
Local

Total

Other than
local

Total

72

126

1

54

1

ARIZONA

3728

First National Bank of Arizona, Phoenix
ARKANSAS

10004

1

First National Bank of Commerce, Paragould
CALIFORNIA

13044
1741
15047

2
2
2

3
2
2

1
4

1
4

1

Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association, San Francisco
Crocker-Citizens National Bank, San Francisco
Redwood National Bank, San Rafael

1

1

1

1

CONNECTICUT

4

15040

The State National Bank of Connecticut, Bridgeport
Lincoln National Bank, Stamford
DELAWARE

15033

Colonial National Bank, Wilmington
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

3425

The National Bank of Washington, Washington
GEORGIA

13068

2

2

21

35

1
1

The Citizens and Southern National Bank, Savannah

1
1

HAWAII

5550

First National Bank of Hawaii, Honolulu

14

IDAHO

14444
8822

First Security Bank of Idaho, National Association, Boise
The First National Bank of Malad City, Malad City
INDIANA

13759

American Fletcher National Bank and Trust Company, Indianapolis

1

1

1
1

1
1

1

1

1

1

1

1

IOWA

14799
2469

City National Bank of Cedar Rapids, Cedar Rapids
First National Bank, Clinton
KANSAS

10765

Hutchinson National Bank and Trust Company, Hutchinson
KENTUCKY

2927

First Georgetown National Bank and Trust Company, Georgetown
LOUISIANA

14477

National American Bank of New Orleans, New Orleans
MAINE

941

Canal National Bank, Portland

258



1

1

TABLE

B-20— Continued

Domestic branches of National banks closed, by States, calendar 1969
Branches closed
Charter

No.

Title and location of bank
Local

Other than
local

Total

MICHIGAN

13738
14062
13820
12697
13874

Manufacturers National Bank of Detroit, Detroit
Hillsdale County National Bank, Hillsdale
The American National Bank and Trust Company of Michigan, Kalamazoo.
The Dart National Bank of Mason, Mason
The National Bank of Wyandotte, Wyandotte
MISSISSIPPI

15667
10523
14592

First Citizens National Bank, Belmont
First National Bank of Jackson, Jackson.. .
First National Bank of Picayune, Picayune.
NEBRASKA

13953

City National Bank of Hastings, Hastings
NEW JERSEY

15709

New Jersey Bank (National Association), Clifton.
NEW YORK

1301
13004
1461

National Commercial Bank and Trust Company, Albany .
The Endicott National Bank, Endicott
First National City Bank, New York
NORTH CAROLINA

First Union National Bank of North Carolina, Charlotte
North Carolina National Bank, Charlotte
Wachovia Bank and Trust Company, N.A., Winston-Salem.

15650
13761
15673

OHIO

14761
13899

Society National Bank of Cleveland, Cleveland.
The First National Bank in Bryan, Bryan
PENNSYLVANIA

138
2428
705
13852

The First National Bank and Trust Company of Bethlehem, Bethlehem ,
The Bradford National Bank, Bradford
The Union National Bank of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh
Miners National Bank of Wilkes-Barre, Wilkes-Barre
,

1
1
10

SOUTH CAROLINA

The Citizens and Southern National Bank of South Carolina, Charleston .
The South Carolina National Bank of Charleston, Charleston
The Southern National Bank of Orangeburg, Orangeburg

14425
2044
14135

VIRGINIA

14893

Mount Vernon National Bank and Trust Company of Fairfax County, Annandale
i
!
j

16

16

WASHINGTON

13230 i The Pacific National Bank of Seattle, Seattle




259

to

o

TABLE B-21
Principal assets, liabilities, and capital accounts of National banks, by deposit size, year-end 1968 and 1969
[Dollar amounts in millions]
Securities, net
Number
of banks

Total
assets*

Cash and
cash items

Loans,
net
Total

U.S.
Treasury
securities

Deposits
Fixed
assets

Time
Total

Demand

and
savings

Capital Surplus,
Capital notes and undivided
deben- profits, and
stock
reserves
tures

1969
Total
Banks with deposits of—
Less than $1.0
1.0 to 1.9
2.0 to 4.9
5.0 to 9.9
10.0 to 24.9
25.0 to 49.9
50.0 to 99.9
100.0 to 499.9
Over 500.0

4,669

$310,263 $54, 727

$168,005 $70, 030

$29, 589

$5, 280

$256, 426

$141,092

$115,334

$6, 228

$1, 120

$15,906

21
120
758
1, 184
1,403
584
272
253
74

21
218
3,059
9,733
24, 387
22, 560
20, 932
62, 076
167,277

5
37
456
1,325
3,283
3, 126
3,065
11,246
32, 185

7
92
1,416
4,687
12,014
11,644
10, 848
32, 616
94, 681

6
77
1,013
3, 180
7,761
6,708
6,056
14, 566
30, 663

5
58
635
1,643
3,612
2,880
2,594
6,125
12,037

1
2
46
164
437
424
385
1,148
2,673

16
187
2,725
8,765
21,939
20, 098
18, 733
52, 977
130, 982

12
116
1,382
4,207
10, 174
9,557
9,066
29, 753
76, 823

4
71
1,343
4,558
11,765
10, 541
9,666
23, 224
54, 160

2
6
70
203
488
463
444
1,296
3,256

0
0
1
3
20
39
42
155
861

3
20
218
591
1,357
1, 174
1,065
3, 112
8,366

4,716

296, 594

50, 953

154, 862

76,871

35, 300

4,363

257, 884

134,629

123, 255

5,752

1,256

14,516

23
160
841
1,219
1,348
543
266
244

21
295
3,376
9,931
23,271
20, 680
20, 180
57, 870
160, 970

5
51
506
1,364
3, 111
2,806
2,894
10, 572
29, 645

9
125
1,560
4,681
11,300
10, 237
10, 160
29, 368
87,421

7
111
1,211
3,523
7,935
6,756
6,338
15,671
35,319

5
87
791
2,011
4, 108
3,221
2,966
7,322
14, 787

0
4
50
160
393
360
333
935
2, 128

19
256
3,018
8,976
21,063
18, 686
18, 208
51,621
136, 036

15
154
1,578
4,376
9,942
8,922
8,748
28, 353
72, 542

4
102
1,441
4,601
11,121
9,764
9,460
23, 268
63, 495

1
9
81
210
473
413
416
1, 175
2,975

0
0
0
2
15
33
40
149
1,018

2
26
240
588
1,250
1,018
963
2,786
7,642

1968
Total
Banks with deposits of—
Less than $1.0
1.0 to 1.9
2.0 to 4.9
5.0 to 9.9
10.0 to 24.9
25.0 to 49.9
50.0 to 99.9
100.0 to 499.9
Over 500.0

72

NOTE: Data may not add to totals because of rounding.
* After deduction of securities and loan reserves.




TABLE

B-22

Dates of reports of condition of National banks,

1914-69

[For dates of previous calls see Annual Report for 1920, vol. 2, table No. 42, p. 150]
Tear

Jan.

13
1914
1915
1916
.
. .
1917
1918
.
.. . .
!
1919 ....
...
i
1920
1921....
1922
1923
1924
1925 ..
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
,
1935
1936
1937 ...
1938 ...
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
„
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956 ...
1957 .. .
1958
1959
i960
1961
1962
1963
1964 ...
1965
1966 . .
1967
1968
1969

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

4
4
7
5
4
4
28
21

May

i
l
l
10
12
4
28
5

10
3
31
6
12
23
28
27
27
25

!

5
4
4
31
7
29
26
4
4
1
3
20
12
1
1
24
g .......
31
20
15
1
1
10
14
4
12
1
5
1
2
26
18
15
26
5
25
18
30

June
30
23
30
20
29
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
29
30
30
30
30
30
29
30
30
30
30
29
30
30
30
30
30
29
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
6
23
10
15
30
30
29
30
30
30
30
29
30

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

12
2
12
1
1

Nov.

31
10
17
20
1
17
15

31
12
8
6
15
14
10
28
10
3
4
24
29
30
25
17

1
28
2
24
18
30
6
4
10
5
30
7
5
26
1
1
24
6
3
27
28
30
1
13
20
4
30
91

i

Dec.
31
31
27
31
31
31
29
31
29
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
30
31
31
31
31
31
30
31
31
31
31
30
31
31
31
31
31
30
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
30
28
20
31
31
31
30
31
31

See Notes on next page.

383-814—70



261

NOTES

Act of Feb; 25, 1863, provided for reports of condition on
the 1st of each quarter before commencement of business.
Act of June 3, 1864—1st Monday of January, April, July,
and October, before commencement of business, on form prescribed by Comptroller (in addition to reports on 1st Tuesday
of each month showing condition at commencement of business in respect to certain items; i.e., loans, specie, deposits,
and circulation).
Act of Mar. 3, 1869, not less than 5 reports per year, on
form prescribed by Comptroller, at close of business on any
past date by him specified.
Act of Dec. 28, 1922, minimum number of calls reduced
from 5 to 3 per year.
Act of Feb. 25, 1927, authorized a vice president or an
assistant cashier designated by the board of directors to verify
reports of condition in absence of president and cashier.
Act of June 16, 1933, requires each National bank to furnish
and publish not less than 3 reports each year of affiliates
other than member banks, as of dates identical with those
for which the Comptroller shall during such year require
reports of condition of the bank. The report of each affiliate
shall contain such information as in the judgment of the
Comptroller shall be necessary to disclose fully the relations
between the affiliate and the bank and to enable the Comptroller to inform himself as to the effect of such relations upon
the affairs of the bank.
Sec. 21 (a) of the Banking Act of 1933 provided, in part,
that after June 16, 1934, it would be unlawful for any private
bank not under State supervision to continue the transaction

262



of business unless it submitted to periodic examination by
the Comptroller of the Currency or tJbe Federal Reserve bank
of the district, and made and published periodic reports of
condition the same as required of National banks under
sec. 5211, U.S.R.S. Sec. 21(a) of the Banking Act of 1933,
however, was amended by sec. 303 of the Banking Act of
1935, approved Aug. 23, 1935, under the provisions of which
private banks are no longer required to submit to examination by the Comptroller or Federal Reserve bank, nor are they
required to make to the Comptroller and to publish periodic
reports of condition. (Five calls for reports of condition of
private banks were made by the Comptroller, the first one
for June 30, 1934, and the last one for June 29, 1935.)
Sec. 7(a)(3) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (Title
12, U.S.C., sec. 1817(a)) of July 14, 1960, provides, in part
that, effective Jan. 1, 1961, each insured National bank shall
make to the Comptroller of the Currency 4 reports of condition annually upon dates to be selected by the Comptroller,
the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and the Chairman of the Board of Directors of
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or a majority
thereof. Two dates shall be selected within the semiannual
period of January to June, inclusive, and 2 within the semiannual period of July to December, inclusive, Sec. 161 of
Title 12 also provides that the Comptroller of the Currency
may call for additional reports of condition, in such form and
containing such information as he may prescribe, on dates to
be fixed by him, and may call for special reports from any particular association whenever in his judgment the same are
necessary for use in the performance of his supervisory duties.

TABLE

B-23

Total and principal assets of National banks, by States, June 30, 1969
[Dollar amounts in millions]
Securities (gross)
Number
of banks

Total
assets

Loans,
gross

Cash
assets*
U.S. Government^

State and
local

Federal
funds
soldi

Direct
lease
financing

$647

Other

United States

4,701

$305, 906

$52, 283

$34, 354

$35, 640

$1,436

$166,832

$4, 070

Alabama.
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut....
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida

89
5
4
68
69
119
29
5

3,242

483
48
183
201

440
55
284
195

6, 263

3,567

4,537

618
487
4

340
172
9

308
345
1

8
1
6
3
226
8
10

1, 650

2,435
1,479
42, 179
3, 211
2,714

527
49
319
258

24, 966
1,775
1,592

49
1
22
16
507
34
39
2

11
205

2, 122
8, 631

415
1,595

414
1,435

168
1,220

9
30

1,030
3,874

33
207

61
1

4, 162
72

735
9

332
14

409
11

23

2,409
37

38
0

Georgia
Hawaii .
Idaho..
Illinois..
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine. .

...
...
. . .

New Jersey
New Mexico. ..
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas....
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Virgin Islands

32

184

1,539
759

15

9

929

127

101

131

1

540

3

418
123

25, 147
6,593
2, 180
2,516
2,061
3,584

3,403
1,219

3,689
971

3,067
651

180
28

335
211

437
380
335
644
92

401
481
347
618
59

233
332
261
433
111

6
6
9
9
2

13,551
3,369
1,044
1,230
1,027
1,712

535

323
663

286

1,420
4, 564
6,852
3, 379

101
171
80
49
21

Maryland...
Massachusetts
Michigan.. .
Minnesota. . . .
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire

354

642

47
86
98
198
39
98
48
126
4

2,742
8,470
11,912
6,081
1,481
5, 173

354

15
24
35
63
7

255
4
1
0
3
3
11
0
0

71
7
1
1
1
2
3
30
14
20
0
21

417

95
114
86
34
39
92
2
16
14

....

2

386

17

0

....

51
2

5,238
481
26, 927
2,680
414
6,948
2,084
2,218
10, 630
1,064

112
14

2
1

569
9

117
6

1,659
1,830

1,556

1,074
1, 199

763

964
238
923
111
424
103

761
197
691
126
327
95

685

109

764
174
576
115
246
102

9
39
76
3
4
19
2
6
1

52

..
...

85

73

145
33

1,298
170
11,674

1,277
143
3,420

1,703
96
4,522

815

403

580

216
10

42
217
219
11
322
5

9,904
932
50, 006
4,650
745
12,959
4,283
3,685
19, 049
1,639

91
1,859
768
474
2,460
134

128
1,745
621
379
2,215
155

90
1,851
537
450
2,710
232

1
56
79
7
125
5

20
34
77
534
12
27
105
27
80
120
40
1

1,385
844
4,900
18, 954
893
441
4,750
5,029
1.359
4, 139
544
106

267
108
930
3, 855
155
45
677
738
187
678
73
12

185
147
600
2, 146
81
50
584
444
312
527
95
9

133
98
531
2,277
98
54
606
569
170
461
57
14

3
2
16
84
3
4
16
8
5
17
2

739
462
2,629
9,714
519
276
2,699
3,017
621
2,274
297
59

17
2
56
265
8
3
35
23
21
66
3
8

1
3
1
7
1
0

14

3, 119

602

566

276

13

1, 550

44

3

173
23

.

...
. ..
.

District of Columbia—all§ . ..

838

2,277

783

2,740
458

1, 204

224
91
4
382
8

1

0
15
7
5
21
0
0
1
6
3

*Cash, balances with other banks, and cash items in process of collection.
t Includes U.S. Treasury securities and obligations of other U.S. Government agencies and corporations.
JAlso includes securities purchased under agreements to resell.
§ Includes National and non-National banks in the District of Columbia, all of which are supervised by the Comptroller of the
Currencv.
NOTE: Data may not add to totals because of rounding. Dashes indicate amounts less than $500,000.



263

TABLE

B-24

Total and principal liabilities of National banks, by States, June 30, 1969
[Dollar amounts in millions]
Deposits
Total
liabilities
Total

United States..

Demand,
total

$279, 888 $251, 585 $131,015

Time and
savings,
total

Demand,
/JPC*

Time,
IPC*

Federal
funds
purchased^

Reserves
on loans
and
securities

$120, 570

$97,217

$107, 150

$7, 763

$3, 382

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida

2,944
324
2,262
1,340
39, 183
2,953
2,494
29
1,944
7,963

2,818
319
2,187
1,285
35, 392
2,750
2,298
29
1,869
7,577

1,527
175
938
752
14, 629
1,477
1,256
13
1,148
4, 122

1,291
144
1,249
533
20, 763
1,273
1,042
16
721
3,456

1, 178
138
754
579
11,992
1, 145
1,087
13
994
3,076

1,202
97
1,147
503
17,430
1, 115
951
16
694
3,105

23
0
5
17
958
72
41
0
11
166

36
6
23
13
432
30
29
0
18
65

Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine

3,771
67
859
22, 849
6,061
2,004
2,263
1,873
3,236
581

3,455
66
837
19,915
5,623
1,911
2,216
1,832
3, 104
540

2,054
24
386
10,412
2,952
1,075
1,228
1,018
1,828
269

1,401
42
451
9,503
2,671
836
988
814
1,276
271

1,520

1,272
24
441
8,602
2,584
807
851
771
1,090
262

120
0
2
651
187
61
4
5
33
10

47

18
299
7,830
2,056
745
832
834
1,339
238

9
353
69
21
20
22
36
7

Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire

2,515
7,701
11,017
5,593
1,344
4,676
775
2,068
702
615

2,352
6,184
10, 273
5,067
1,263
4,293
734
1,982
685
564

1,410
4,225
4,102
2,551
776
2,637
315
1,132
327
335

942
1,959
6,171
2,516
487
1,656
419
850
358
229

1,058
3,290
3,240
1,800
503
1,832
247
811
261
286

907
1,728
5, 480
2,377
464
1,512
387
829
321
216

62
282
215
334
48
290
7
57
0
3

23
103
127
62
19
49
9
26
5
7

New Jersey
New Mexico
New York...
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island

9,080
852
45, 614
4,258
687
11,827
3,866
3,432
17, 171
1,495

8,637
820
36, 162
3,791
663
11,099
3,714
3,212
15, 940
1,326

3,989
453
23, 113
2,062
267
5,058
2,065
1,355
7,355
546

4,648
367
13, 049
1,729
396
6,041
1,649
1,857
8,585
780

3,271
343
13,960
1,590
224
3,943
1,500

4,474
313
10, 870
1,478
378
5,576
1,430
1,571
7,878
751

75
6
1,993
147
4
253
77
75
266
70

109
11
662
50
9
138
37
31
200
16

South Carolina
South Dakota...
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Virgin Islands

1,264
774
4,459
17,275
819
403
4,356
4,627
1,220
3,809
493
99

1,186
745
4,067
15,919
755
391
4, 103
4,310
1,173
3,573
480
97

852
322
2,225
9,338
316
141
1,839
2, 129
581
1,670
222
23

334
423
1,842

15
13
50
189
8
4
50
60
13
47
5

2,856

2,752

1,651

1, 101

314
390
1,557
5,466
381
244
2,148
2,140
582
1,732
238
53
1,053

6
1

6,581
439
250
2,264
2, 181
592
1,903
258
74

701
254
1,510
6,881
248
125

District of Columbia—allj

1, 132

5, 966
437

1,500

1,728
450
1,285
161
16
1,440

126
726
24

39
128
16
66
1
0
14

25

*IPC deposits are those of individuals, partnerships, and corporations.
fAlso includes securities sold under agreements to repurchase.
{Includes National and non-National banks in the District of Columbia, all of which are supervised by the Comptroller of
the Currency.
NOTE : Data may not add to totals because of rounding. Dashes indicate amounts less than $500,000.
264



TABLE

B-25

Capital accounts of National banks, by States, June 30, 1969
[Dollar amounts in millions]
Preferred
stock

$22, 635

$1, 142

$59

$6, 090

$10, 287

$4, 368

$689

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Golumbia
Florida

262
24
150
126
2,564
228
191
3
160
603

0

78
8
35
35
679
65
49
1
39
207

111
8
58
49
1, 177
98
99
1

62

11
1

26
5
188
4
10
0
1
31

0
0
0
0
0

Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine

344
5
61
1,945
463
155
233
166
312
54

58
1
0
22
8
1
7
0
8
0

71
2
19
606
116
40
66
36
69
20

33
864
210
66
97
89
168
19

63
1
9
293
122
45
60
37
63
14

204
666
768
426
118
448
54
183
56
63

3
22
115
20

51
156
177
127
29
113
21
46
23
13

93
336
329
158
75
173
22
65
20
33

50
122
128
116
7
129
10
65
13
15

7
30
15
5
1
7

New Jersey. _
_
New Mexico
•
New York. ..........................
North Carolina
^
North Dakota
Ohio.
-. ~ _
~
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island

715
69
3,730
342
49
994
380
222
1,678
128

40
1
290
50
1
28

0
7
0

326
21
1,851
157
19
480
134
83
856
73

142
14
413
61
12
211
114
59
342
26

15
12
161
3
1
5
5

0
62

192
21
974
71
16
270
106
80
354
29

South Carolina.
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
.-.................
Utah
Vermont. .
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Virgin Islands

106
57
391
1,490
66
34
344
342
126
283
46
7

0

oooooo

24
17
104
473
19
9
108
111
27
86
6

51
23
171
596
36
12
153
138
64
122
21
5

27
17
90
322
11
10
79
87
30
63
17
2

4

19
55
0
1
2
0
1
4
1
0

0
0
0
1
0
1

7
43
0
1
2
6
4
8
1

District of Columbia—all*. .._.

238

13

2

50

113

58

2

-..........

.-.
...............

1
3
0

21

ON0
OO

0
0

0
0
4
0
0
0
0
OO

....

ocoo

Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire

.

0

41
0
0
0

Surplus

CM CD
COCO

.

0
0

O 1

United States. . .

CD CD
CM

Debentures

—1 i-i
CM

Common
stock

Total capital
accounts

Undivided

profits

31
34
485
59
32
1
35
109

Capital
reserves

3
35
2
1
1
17
31
0
160
7
3
3
4
1
1

4
2

57

•Includes National and non-National banks in the District of Columbia, all of which are supervised by the Comptroller of the
Currency.
NOTE: Data may not add to totals because of rounding. Dashes indicate amounts less than $500,000.




265

TABLE

B-26

Total and principal assets of National banks, by States, Dec. 31, 1969
[Dollar amounts in millions]
Securities (gross) f
Number
of banks

Total
assets

Cash
assets*

Loans,
gross

U.S.
Government
obligations

State
and local

Federal
Direct
lease
funds
soldi
financing

Other

United States

4,669

$314,048

$54, 727

$34, 229

$34, 526

$1,362

$171,702

$5,811

$696

Alabama
..
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado....
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida

88
5
4

3,345
419
2,574
1,581
42, 479
3,342
2,590

588
62
323

432
71
154

431
72
251

8
1
6

1,686
192
1,675

105
4
61

2

313

215

200

3

767

6,523
694

3,731
337

4,239
315

193
8

412
4
411

143
9
360

329
1
179

10
0
9

25, 054
1, 790
1,548

32

Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska..
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York. . . . . .
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Virgin Islands
District of Columbia—all§ . . .

68

68
120
27
5
11

33

15

575
65

277
4

58
3
44

1
0
3

209

2, 104
9,033

1,880

1,335

1,187

28

1,038
4,082

232

5

60
1

4, 332
74

833
9

290
16

387
11

24
0

2,472
35

109
1

12
0

97

8

968

129

25, 294
7, 131
2,305
2,700
2,226
3,731

563

3,551
1,520

3,517
978

150

2

418
122

3,083
640

144
28

530
482
382
703
106

374
480
356
579
58

229
336
255
426
88

5
6
9
8

13,778
3,457
1, 102
1,267
1, 108
1,806

2

360

470
1,650
1,923
1, 184
268
1,265

315
715
1,534

280
771
1,234

9
32

38
97

2,728
8,439
12,344
6,415
1,582
5,585

772

717

211
697

181
558

48

882

127

140

10, 322
961
49, 941
4,800
780
13,518
4,418
3,729
19,728
1,590

538
97
132
1,358
162
10,410
899
98
2,000
842
530
2,703
157

341
91
82
1,282
138
3,705
426
139
1,743
601
329
2,184
94

1,453
895
5, 126
19,937
897

287
121
1,049
4,249
156

189
148

141
113

100
172
80
49
21

47
86
98
197

126
4
50
137
33
173

23
42
217
218
11
315
5
20
33
77

529
10
26

103
27
81
121
40

645

2, 489
767
716

462

4,981
5, 161
1,465
4,327
584

49

687
773
199
779
102

2

0

361
352

69
12

17
59
68
101
13

2
1
2

121
178

3
51

172
71

14
19

4
24

1,459
4,696
7,099
3,476
832
2, 762

34
130

20

118

3

458

252
92
58

5
1
2

1,702
107
4,252
602
99
1,813
550
456
2,520
224

52
1

1,236
443
392
5,551
508
28, 301
2,669
417
7, 173
2,061
2,246
11,018
1,058

12

67
16

214

21
1
60
80
7
111
7
3
2

565

535

16

2, 149
80

2,307
95

70
3

50

46

4

576
446
312
528
102

600
581
181
455
61

14
18
5
14
2

771
484
2,647
10,051
528

54
12
35
137
17

1

1

0
2
1

436

114

11
6
434
176
5
605
5

6
0
15
8
6
21
0

20
2

0
0
1
6
3
1

172

401
5

290

14

2,882
3,027
666
2,355
291

74
53
57
72
9

1

120

8

13

16

0

60

19

14

3,065

565

511

288

14

1,558

1
3
1

8
0

49

*Cash, balances with other banks, and cash items in process of collection.
•("Includes investment securities and securities held in trading accounts.
JAlso includes securities purchased under agreements to resell.
§ Includes National and non-National banks in the District of Columbia, all of which are supervised by the Comptroller of the
Currency.
NOTE: Data may not add to totals because of rounding. Dashes indicate amounts of less than $500,000.

266



TABLE

B-27

Total and principal liabilities of National banks, by States, Dec. 31, 1969
[Dollar amounts in millions]
Deposits
Total
liabilities

Total
deposits

Demand
deposits,
total

Time and
savings deposits, total

Demand
deposits
IPC*

Time
deposits
IPC

$115,334

$105,961

$103,238

United States.

$287, 009

$256, 426

$141,092

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas.
California..
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia.
Florida............

3, 037
387
2, 393
1.437
39,315
3, 073
2,366
30
1,920
8,320

2,904
381
2,284
1,400
34, 359
2,846
2, 199
30
1, 845
7, 950

1,654

Georgia...
Hawaii. ..
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana..,
Iowa
Kansas. . .
Kentucky.
Louisiana.
Maine....

3,934
68
895
22, 932
6,578
2, 118
2,437
2,030
3, 373
'582

3,415
66
874

Maryland.
Massachusetts.
Michigan
Minnesota. . .
Mississippi. . .,
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
,
New Hampshire.

2,498
7,645
11,407
5,908

2, 329
6,202
10,310
5,308

1,440
5,070

1, 354
4,627

814
2,272
703
642

New Jersey
New Mexico. . . .
New York
North Carolina. .
North Dakota. . .
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island... .
South Carolina.
South Dakota. .
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia. .
Wisconsin.
Wyoming
Virgin Islands. .
District of Columbia—all{ .

187
1,020
833
15, 244
1,661
1,260
14
1, 162
4,584

1,250
194
1,264
567
19, 115
1, 185
939

1,233
149
836
640
12, 780

16
683
3,366

13

1, 305
1, 117

988
3,262

Federal
funds
purchased^

Reserves
on loans
and
securities

$9, 947

$3, 785

1, 177
104
1, 143
535
16, 297
1,061
914
16
654
3,074

38
1
34
9
1,705
106
53
0

38
6
27
15

163

31
0
20
73

1, 178
24
437
8, 126
2,567

1,059
261

198
0
0
657
280
41
24
15
60
3

51
0
10
372
70
23
20
24
39
7

13

516
33

2, 125
25
430
11, 137
3,428
1, 191
1,388
1, 151
1,965
289

1,290
41
444
9,007
2,665
851
967
823
1,246
267

1,554
18
328
8,587

932
1,603
5,932
2,380
504
1,465
423
859
354
215

1,093
3,453
3,518
2,024
586
2,043
274
933
269
301

901
1,450
5,381
2, 303
481
1,409
395
840
318
210

75
508
355
272
50
305
12
58
0
5

28
110

773
2, 168
680
596

1,397
4,599
4,378
2,928
850
3, 162
350
1,309
326
381

9, 453
877
45, 391
4, 385
720
12, 326
3, 986
3, 466
17, 806
1, 443

9,060
845
36, 226
3,978
696
11,443
3, 796
3. 157
16, 125
1,259

4,383
468
23, 814
2,308
295
5,555
2,304
1,359
7,910
561

4,677
377
12,412

3,524
364
15, 577
1,816
250
4,350
1,708
1, 163
6,588
480

4,534
314
10, 030
1,449
385
5,561
1,311
1,520
7,652
691

61
8
2, 125
123
3
404
119
171
449
126

119
11
770
59
9
146
39
39
228
16

327
823
4, 671
18, 225
823
424
554
739
321
983
530
112

1,257

920
354
2,522
10, 366
375
158

753
289
1,709
7,458
288

320
410

9
1

17

1,623

132
850
25
0
88

107

1, 887
258
22

337
442
1,839
6,322
396
254
2,266
2, 182
628
1,846
258
85

2,692

1,666

1,026

1,436

2,792

20, 144
6,093
2, 042
2,355
1,974
3,211
556

796
4,361
16, 688
771
412
4,276
4,385

1,260
3, 733
516

2,010
2, 203
632

1,670

401
5,888
1,492
1,798
8,215

698

2,206
803
928
934
1,455
247

133

1,631
1,872
488
1,442

185
16

816
848
775

5, 154
354
247
2, 151
2,109
614

147
63
20

53
10
27
6
8

13
53

59

115
23
68
4
3

217
8
4
53
59
14
51
5
1

968

17

27

1,764
237

*IPC deposits are those of individuals, partnerships, and corporations.
fAlso includes securities sold under agreements to repurchase.
{Includes National and non-National banks in the District of Columbia, all of which are supervised by the Comptroller of the
Currency.
NOTE : Data may not add to totals because of rounding. Dashes indicate amounts less than $500,000.



267

TABLE

B-28

Capital accounts of National banks, by States, Dec. 31, 1969
[Dollar amounts in millions]

Debentures

Preferred
stock

$23, 254

$1, 120

$62

$6, 166

$10,488

$4, 707

$711

270
26
155
130

0

0
0
0
0
0

79
9
35
35
683
66
49
1
39
216

113
10
58
52
1,208
101
99
1
81
262

67
5
36
34
527
63
34
1
40
113

11

71
2
19
609
118
40
67
36
72
20

124
1
33
881
217
67
98
91
171
20

67
1
11
312
134
52
67
41
65
15

51
156
181
128
31
115
21
46
22
14

94
340
329
160
83
174
22
65
20
35

46
136
145
129
1
136
13
71
15
15

8
29
16
5
1
7

202
20
982
73
16
276
108
80
352
29

336
21
1,863
159
19
502
136
83
862
72

158
16
451
70
13
235
123
61
355
30

15
14
159
4
2
5
5

25
17
104
477
19
9
113
112
28
87
6

54
23
172
604
35
12
167
140
66
123
24
4

27
18
98
328
12
11
89
101
31
71
16
2

3

50

113

66

United States
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
A r k a n s a s . . . . . . - . . . .- .-..— . .
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida

236
192
3
164
640

26
5
188
5
10
0
1
31

347
6
63
1,990
483
164
243
172
319
56

56
2
0
22
6
1
7
0
7
0

202
684
790
443
122
462
57
190
58
66

3
22
115
21
6
27
1
4
0

New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island

750
73
3 779
356
51
1,046
393
224
1,694
131

39
1
283
50
1
28
21
0
62

South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Virgin Islands

109
59
402
1,495
66
34
373
363
130
293
49

0

Georgia..........—
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine

2,647

-.

Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire

District of Columbia—all* . . . .

7

19
36
0
1
2
0
1
4
2
0

246

13

0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
4
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
41
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
oooo

Total
capital
accounts

0
0
2

Common
stock

Undivided
Surplus

profits

Capital
reserves

9

0
4
41
1
,
1
18
29
0
166
7
4
4
4
1
1

4
2

56

9
49
0
1
2
10
4
8
1
2

* Includes National and non-National banks in the District of Columbia, all of which are supervised by the Comptroller of the
Currency.
NOTE: Data may not add to totals because of rounding. Dashes indicate amounts less than $500,000.

268



TABLE

B-29

Loans of National banks, by States, Dec. 31, 1969
[Dollar amounts in millions]

Loans

Loans
secured
by real
estate

Loans to
financial
institutions

United States.

$171,702

$40, 575

$10,607

$4, 769

Alabama
Alaska;
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia.
Florida

1,686

288
83
474
197

67

22

192

1,676

767

1,310

1,038
4,082

355
546
8
347
920

121
20
0
117
201

2,472
35

399
14

156

13, 778
3, 457
1, 102
1, 267
1, 108
1,806
360

2, 505
1, 129

1,272

1,459
4, 696
7,099
3 476
832
2, 762

15

....
....
....
....
....

5
8
18
401
25
33
0
14
112

Commercial
and
industrial
loans

Personal
loans to
individuals

$5, 143

$68, 221

$37, 586

$4, 801

36

582
62
467
228

622
41
424
243

70

9,907

4,607

524
432
3
259

495
427
4
264

54

1,423

1,297

37
75

21

879
13

938
6

52

Loans
to
farmers

194
51
730
218

2

Other
loans

20
9
560
52
89

180
35
49

301
319
128

57
113
4

14
48
2

426
682
2,851
958
170
509

83
273
486
220
23
233

34
42
149
79
22
81

3

2

18
3
47
175
32
113
90

106

131

158
156
105

31
9
3

36
4
2

396
10
5

325
127
119

273
134
150

17
3
8

5, 552
508
28, 301
2, 669

....

299
196

27
2
5
643
55
20
28

1,236
443
392

Maryland. .
Massachusetts
Michigan. . .
Minnesota . . .
Mississippi. . .
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire

South Carolina
South Dakota.
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Virgin Islands

7,539

25, 054
1, 790
1,549

Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine

New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island. .

89
21

Loans to
purchase
or carry
securities

2, 198
83
4,222
318

200
12
2,690
83

85
7
1,578
48

11
51
82
31

1,428
168
15,415
1, 232

1,456
166
3,420
877

174
21
894
80

563

458

.

...

District of Columbia—all*

122

7

131

169

6,501

2, 144

980
241
375

950
262
323

4
375
88
14
9

63
25
8

289
772
106

368
486
106

16
43
6

445
2,605
1,919
1, 193
258
1, 154

415
914
1,415
779
286
638

38
177
232
72
41
34

88
338
75
231
287

5

3

3

7, 173
2,061
2,246
11,018
1,058

2,051
367
567
2,991
443

327
90
116
587
46

113
17
17
126
4

82
191
112
132

2,063
752
972
4, 328
318

2,276
555
441
2,429
203

261
89
21
425
44

771
484
2,647
10.051
528
290
2,882
3,027
666
2, 355
291
60

111
120
419
1, 151
188
135
865
727
225
812
67 |
34

35
6
170
630
19
104
200
15
85
2
0

8
6
60
642
13
4
38
36
5
25
4
0

14
146
45
500
23
8
60
152
8
57
53
0

268
105
1,032
4,498
156
58
741
1, 165
152
734
90
16

300
96
869
2,335
118
78
987
697
251
551
73
10

35
5
52
295
11
7
87
50
10
91

1, 557

510

186

24

—

430

50

417

. ..

159

...

139

73

106

357

88

9
—

•Includes National and non-National banks in the District of Columbia, all of which are supervised by the Comptroller of the
Currency.
NOTE : Data may not add to totals because of rounding. Dashes indicate amounts of less than $500,000.




269

O

TABLE

B-30

Income and expenses of National banks,* by States, year ended Dec. 31, 1969
[Dollar amounts in thousands]
United States

4,669
Number of banks.
Operating income:
Interest and fees on loans
$12,492,556
Income on Federal funds sold and securities purchased under agreements to resell
473, 181
Interest and dividends on investments:
1, 524, 702
U.S. Treasury securities
Securities of other U.S. Government agencies and
264, 166
corporations
Obligations of States and political subdivisions .
1, 302, 223
Other securities
81,591
Trust department income
562, 368
Service charges on deposit accounts
659, 101
Other service charges, collection and exchange
426, 787
charges, commissions, and fees
434, 527
Other operating income
Total operating income

Operating expense:
Salaries and wages of officers and employees
Pensions and other employee benefits
Interest on deposits
Expense of Federal funds purchased and securities
sold under agreements to repurchase
Interest on borrowed money
Interest on capital notes and debentures
Occupancy expense of bank premises, net
Furniture and equipment, depreciation, rental costs,
servicing, etc
Provision for loan losses (or actual net loan losses). .
Other operating expenses
Total operating expense

Income before income taxes and securities gains or losses.
Applicable income taxes
,
Income before securities gains or losses
Net securities gains or losses (after tax effect)
Net income before extraordinary items
Extraordinary charges or credits
Minority interest in consolidated subsidiaries
Net income




Alabama

Arizona

88

Arkansas

California

Colorado

68

Alaska

68

120

27

$56,416 $1,924,777

$140,656

$117,476

$1,060

Connecticut Delaware

$127,777

$15,745

$127,006

5,653

644

1,560

2,308

76, 196

3,884

3,605

164

20, 896

2,297

9, 113

8,794

148, 456

17, 165

7,637

428

3,445
16,468
460
4,753
10, 634
3,943
2,788

681
2,559
96
181
2, 114
1,337
474

1,582
10, 306
343
3,877
8,776

2, 187
7,403
336
1, 137
4,484

29, 399
158,056
13, 306
72, 135
124, 344

2,021
12, 111
450
11, 150
11,802

2,431
12,711
479
9,676
7,717

77
29
8
0
86

4, 122
1,961

1,242
1,021

88, 333
60, 255

8,480
2,921

4,133
1,893

38
31

18,221,202

196,817

26, 128

168, 646

85, 328 2, 695, 257

210,640

167, 758

1,921

3, 402, 598
529, 968
6,036,219

41, 785
5,977
55, 526

7,074
783
7,256

38,819
5,536
57,501

18, 663
535,218
79, 262
2,353
22, 880 1, 044, 365

44, 747
5,895
57, 122

40, 426
6,905
43, 574

448
44
577

777, 062
255,791
56, 282
618, 849

1,965
621
0
5,855

10
22
10
1, 124

3,583
5
1,052
6,534

1,290
757
251
3,763

106, 701
30, 605
8,787
105, 444

6,250
2,433
253
7,137

2,664
1,400
475
8,297

2
0
0
78

467, 453
296,201
1, 865, 576

6,411
6,813
24, 695

1,041
710
3,055

4,201
2,592
18,836

3,590
1,938
10, 952

56,231
49, 826
206, 877

7,473
4,070
31, 127

5, 113
2,456
20, 097

69
4
253

14, 305, 999

149, 648

21,085

138,659

66, 437 2,223,316

166, 507

131,407

1,475

3,915,203
1, 259, 146
2, 656, 057
-125,716
2,530,341

47, 169
15, 548
31,621
-167
31,454
+ 238
0

5,043
965
4,078
-195
3,883
-129
0

18,891
5,328
13,563
-180
13,383
-280
-17

471,941
151,520
320,421
-7,475
312,946
- 1 , 520
-10

44, 133
16, 354
27, 779
-1,163
26,616
— 139
0

36,351
13,760
22,591
-702
21,889
-28
0

446
143
303
-8
295
0
0

31,692

3,754

13,086

311,416

26, 477

21,861

295

+ 3,974
-36

2, 534, 279

29, 987
9,926
20,061

+ 29
20, 090
+ 35
0

20, 125

Changes in capital accounts:
Increases :
Net income transferred to undivided profits.....
Capital stock, notes and debentures sold or
issued, including premium received
Addition to surplus, undivided profits and
reserves incident to mergers and consolidations.
Transfers from reserves on loans and securities...
All other increases

2, 534, 279

31,692

3,754

20, 125

13,086

311,416

26, 477

21,861

295

290,517

1, 102

100

59

1,336

8, 553

2,896

1,912

252, 116
69, 392
163, 009

360
95
7,369

100
0
165

0
0
546

0
331
1,739

3, 640
13,287
16, 801

188
21
3,784

1,098
39
526

0
0
21

775, 034

8,926

365

605

3, 406

42, 281

6, 889

3, 575

21

1,063,666
4, 429

11,724
0

798
0

7,306
0

4,037
1

145, 730
0

10, 990
0

9, 943
0

70
0

203, 782

0

20

14

62

13,341
293, 103
129,400

0
1,536
7,022

0
0
153

0
3, 181
182

28
1,312
1,689

1,707, 721

20, 282

971

10, 683

1,601,592

20, 336

3, 148

10, 047

22,510,611

260, 293

23, 847

Ratios:
Net income before dividends to capital accounts
(percent)

11.26

12. 18

15. 74

13.44

10.44

12.08

Total operating expense to total operating revenue (percent)

78.51

76.03

80. 70

82.22

77.86

82.49

Total increases

Decreases:
Cash dividends declared:
On common stock
On preferred stock
Capital stock, notes and debentures retired,
including premium paid
Reduction in surplus, undivided profits and
reserves incident to mergers and consolidations.
Transfers to reserves on loans and securities
All other decreases
Total decreases

Net change in capital accounts
Capital accountsf

See footnotes at end of table;




0

0

56
52, 119
11,029

0
2,756
2,609

0
2,300
228

0
10
74

7, 129

235, 465

16,355

12,471

154

9,363

118,232

17,011

12,965

162

2, 578, 567

227, 880

187, 208

2,687

11.62

11.68

11.98

79. 05

78. 33

76.78

149, 762 125,398

26,531

to
to

TABLE

B-30—Continued

Income and expenses of National banks,* by States,year ended Dec. 31, 1969
[Dollar amounts in thousands]
District of
Columbia

Number of banks

11

Operating income:
Interest and fees on loans
Income on Federal funds sold and securities purchased under agreements to resell
Interest and dividends on investments:
U.S. Treasury securities
Securities of other U.S. Government agencies
and corporations
Obligations of States and political subdivisions.
Other securities
Trust department income
Service charges on deposit accounts
Other service charges, collection and exchange
charges, commissions, and fees
Other operating income

Idaho

Hawaii

Illinois

60

1

8

$80, 254 $300, 763 $212,517

$3, 275

$41, 589

209

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

122

100

172

$980, 225 $248, 240

$74, 343

$90, 675

418

Total operating expense

Income before income taxes and securities gains or losses
Applicable income taxes
Income before securities gains or losses
Net securities gains or losses (after tax effect)
Net income before extraordinary items
Extraordinary charges or credits
Minority interest in consolidated subsidiaries
,

3,266

21, 666

5,914

77

1, 109

32, 765

14, 420

2,563

4,025

19, 126

53, 683

15, 343

813

5,415

148, 587

44, 971

15,676

21, 299

2,750
6,224
504
4, 170
5,833

24,621
45, 962
1,481
15, 110
22, 950

2,544
16, 731
1,557
8,098
15, 584

2
374
5
0
57

29
5,410
145
437
3,467

30, 927
114,696
8,406
57, 172
29, 184

8,341
24,409
1,048
11,066
13,999

3,868
8, 170
300
3,023
4,707

4,787
12, 293
304
2,548
6,550

1,689
1,575

14, 962
13,510

5,342
11,942

179
24

2,315
270

22, 384
43, 148

11,316
4,708

3,267
2,700

4, 303
1,847

514, 708

295, 572

4,806

60, 186 1, 467, 494

382,518

118,617

26, 535
2,824
31,123

98, 868
13, 341
153, 255

64,061
10, 773
64, 476

1,038
116
2,040

12, 927
1,725
19, 170

225, 541
37, 870
557,917

73, 140
10,615
116,420

1, 136
1,853
57
4,641

15, 706
1,343
1,618
14, 143

16,886
14, 033
2,234
12, 350

17
0
75
263

100
29
0
1,333

79, 358
29, 544
1,240
40, 083

3,398
3,497
15, 050

17, 128
14,211
69, 140

9,801
4,935
40, 379

116
207
540

1,670
858
6,662

30, 289
21,361
131,776

90, 114

Operating expense:
Salaries and wages of officers and employees
Pensions and other employee benefits
Interest on deposits
Expense of Federal funds purchased and securities
sold under agreements to repurchase
Interest on borrowed money
Interest on capital notes and debentures
Occupancy expense of bank premises, net
Furniture and equipment, depreciation, rental
costs, servicing, etc
Provision for loan losses (or actual net loan losses)..
Other operating expenses




Georgia

125,391

Total operating income

Net income. . .

Florida

398, 753

239, 928

4,412

44, 474

1, 154, 979

35, 277
15, 736
19,541
—246
19,295
+262
0

115,955
32, 906
83, 049
—3,419
79, 630

394
34
360

15,712
5,623
10, 089
— 1 , 624
8,465

+501
0

55, 644
18,031
37, 613
—4,917
32, 696
— 1 , 585
0

19,557

80, 131

31, 111

363

+3
363
0
0

—9
0
8,456

148,631

24, 102
3, 137
37, 203

29, 052
3,684
44, 346

16, 190
1,269
343
13,054

1,937
476
84
4,049

1,393
462
466
4,072

11,838
8,016
45, 808

5,925
1,388
14, 819

4,549
3,617
16, 868

296, 693

93, 120

108, 509

312,515
93, 297
219,218
— 7 , 559
211,659
+ 1,387
—27

85, 825
28, 745
57, 080
— 1 , 307
55, 773

40, 122
12,348
27, 774
—385
27, 389

—31
0

25, 497
8,273
17,224
+ 160
17,384
+ 160
0

213,019

55, 742

17,544

27, 331

—58
0

Changes in capital accounts:
Increases:
Net income transferred to undivided profits.

19, 557

80, 131

31, 111

26

25, 367

7,704

25
194
562

2,494
244
5,014

2,171
314
1,308

807

33, 119

11,497

7,975
632

23, 159
0

15,052
0

0

280

0
1,212
430

8,456

213,019

55,742

17,544

27,331

10, 503

11,718

1,234

352

0
0
35

570
2,519
8,554

330
4,997
3,995

87
74
3, 756

34
121
3,977

35

22, 146

21,040

5, 151

4,484

3, 133
0

87, 388
5

19,816
0

6,074
0

9,009
18

3,586

0

38

5,847

0

0

1,000
7, 190
4,082

45
5,206
1,331

0
355
57

4
17,625
7,520

172
3,732
4,257

11
1,724
1,759

0
2, 063
2,297

10, 249

35,711

25, 220

160

3,545

112,580

33, 824

9,568

13,387

10, 115

77, 539

17,388

203

4,946

122, 585

42, 958

13, 127

18,428

159,226

601,663

340, 206

4,996

60, 632

1,931,555

461, 696

156,558

232, 944

Ratios:
Net income before dividends to capital accounts
(percent)

12.28

13.31

9. 14

7.27

13.95

11.03

12.07

11.21

11.73

Total operating expense to total operating revenue
(percent)

71.87

77.47

81. 17

91.80

73.89

78.70

77.56

78.50

73.01

Capital stock, notes and debentures sold or
issued, including premium received
Addition to surplus, undivided profits and reserves incident to mergers and consolidations .
Transfers from reserves on loans and securities...
All other increases
Total increases.

Decreases:
Cash dividends declared:
On common stock
On preferred stock
Capital stock, notes and debentures retired,
including premium paid
Reduction in surplus, undivided profits and reserves incident to mergers and consolidations.
Transfers to reserves on loans and securities
All other decreases
Total decreases

Net change in capital accounts.
Capital accounts f

See footnotes at end of table.




363

160
0

to

1

TABLE

B-30—Continued

Income and expenses of National banks* by States', year ended Dec. 31, 1969
[Dollar amounts in thousands]
Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

197

38

97

$372, 731 $495, 133 $248, 019

$61, 649

$195, 918

Kentucky

Number of banks.
Operating income:
Interest and fees on loans
Income on Federal funds sold and securities purchased
under agreements to resell
Interest and dividends on investments:
U.S. Treasury securities
Securities of other U.S. Government agencies
and corporations
Obligations of States and political subdivisions.
Other securities
Trust department income
,
Service charges on deposit accounts
,
Other service charges, collection and exchange
charges, commissions, and fees
Other operating income
Total operating income.

Operating expense:
Salaries and wages of officers and employees
Pensions and other employee benefits
,
Interest on deposits
Expense of Federal funds purchased and securities
sold under agreements to repurchase
Interest on borrowed money
Interest on capital notes and debentures
Occupancy expense of bank premises, net
Furniture and equipment, depreciation, rental costs,
servicing, etc
Provision for loan losses (or actual net loan losses)...
Other operating expenses
Total operating expense.

Income before income taxes and securities gains or losses. .
Applicable income taxes.
Income before securities gains or losses
Net securities gains or losses (after tax effect)
Net income before extraordinary items
Extraordinary charges or credits
Minority interest in consolidated subsidiaries
Net income.




Louisiana

80

49

$76,621

$129,227

3,935

5,952

1,351

6,839

15,112

15, 272

4,751

2,549

8,915

17, 181

28, 476

3,073

16, 353

36, 151

68, 795

30, 052

9,261

31,853

1,833
9,885
317
1,825
4,565

2,951
16,915
625
2,149
9,087

235
4,066
114
1,702
1,876

1,867
10, 833
451
3,335
7,963

3, 160
31,855
1,680
20, 464
17,806

8,604
44,521
4,020
18,051
20, 782

7,492
25, 298
769
13,279
11,786

906
6,546
191
1, 181
5,627

5,021
20, 572
1, 197
12,888
5,934

1,794
1,409

6,044
3,325

962
444

2,097
1,869

14, 349
22, 205

10, 626
10, 651

11,729
10, 564

3,604
2,824

6,493
9,790

119,365

204, 751

41, 187

159, 076

535,513

696, 455

363, 739

94, 338

298, 581

24, 375
3,390
34, 687

38, 615
5,628
563 033

9,391
1,473
10, 827

33, 376
4,948
35, 122

109, 152
17,961
91, 743

120, 257
19, 981
278, 196

60, 761
9,793
116,321

18,085
2,646
21,371

53, 723
7,368
74, 609

906
186
0
4,080

4,888
2,038
308
8,049

688
146
0
1,765

6,030
1,001
168
7,398

31,016
65, 985
911
20, 822

27, 748
8,611
5,608
24, 665

22, 947
8,665
996
9,965

4,853
334
299
2,594

29, 154
1,528
1,224
8,513

3,676
2,793
14,971

6,853
5,482
26, 606

1,640
589
5,843

5,352
2,167
21, 104

13,369
9,649
49, 782

16,588
6,258
60, 480

12,684
3,910
38, 684

3,501
3,112
14, 653

8,390
3,653
30, 743

89,064

154,500

32, 362

116,666

410, 390

568, 392

284, 726

71,448

30,301
9,604
20, 697
—484
20,213
+215
0

50,251
17,216
33, 035
—30
33, 005
+ 1,423
0

8,825
2, 133
6,692
—215
6,477
-16
0

42,410
15,902
26, 508
—1,911
24, 597

125, 123
49, 134
75, 989
—6,089
69, 900

79,013
28, 084
50, 929
— 2 , 480
48, 449

22, 890
7,576
15,314
—754
14, 560

79, 676
29, 861
49, 815
—902
48, 913

—23
0

+ 138
0

128, 063
41, 634
86, 429
— 1 , 149
85, 280
+ 163
0

+59
0

—92
0

—31
0

20,428

34,428

6,461

24, 574

7ft 038

85,443

48, 508

14,468

48, 882

21

47

$27, 364 $107,469

86

98

Missouri

218,905

Changes in capital accounts:
Increases:
Net income transferred to undivided profits.

20, 428

34, 428

6,461

24, 574

70, 033

35, 443

48, 508

14, 468

48, 332

1, 149

1,296

528

3,060

15,457

19,291

3,689

2,336

9, 272

292
1,252
1,635

32
1,642
2,881

40
50
182

1,599
46
1, 359

3, 185
228
5,092

1,092
17
1,621

85
6,034
1, 160

2,750
1, 639
458

3, 169
2,009
2,410

4,323

5,851

800

6,064

23, 962

22,021

10, 963

7, 183

16,860

6,591
0

10,422
146

3, 135
0

9,338
0

34,631
0

27, 566
227

20, 449
0

7,487
0

20, 967
61

0

302

0

0

40

392

48

20

0
2,527
2,041

176
5, 176
2, 904

0
415
300

0
2, 663
2,443

244
6, 376
3,500

134
11,497
1, 042

0
4,641
1,425

172
1,716
437

5, 977
2,680

11, 159

19, 126

3,850

14, 444

44, 791

40, 858

26, 563

9, 832

29, 685

13,597

21, 153

3,411

16, 194

49, 209

66, 606

32,913

11,819

36, 057

165,421

309, 627

54, 085

197,209

661,575

760, 117

426, 230

116,570

445,431

Ratios:
Net income before dividends to capital accounts
(percent)

12.35

11. 12

11.95

12.46

10.59

11.24

11.38

12.41

10.97

Total operating expense to total operating revenue
(percent)

74.61

75.46

78.57

73.34

76.63

81.61

78.28

75.74

73.32

Capital stock, notes and debentures sold or
issued, including permium received
Addition to surplus, undivided profits and
reserves incident to mergers and consolidations
Transfers from reserves on loans and securities..
All other increases
Total increases
Decreases:
Cash dividends declared:
On common stock
On preferred stock
Capital stock, notes and debentures retired,
including premium paid
Reduction in surplus, undivided profits and
reserves incident to mergers and consolidations
Transfers to reserves on loans and securities....
All other decreases
Total decreases.
Net change in capital accounts
Capital accountsf

See footnotes at end of table.

to




TABLE B-30—Continued
Income and expenses of National banks,* by States,year ended Dec, 31, 1969
[Dollar amounts in thousands]
Montana

Number of banks

48

Nebraska

New
Hampshire

Nevada

50

126

New
Jersey
137

New
Mexico
33

New
York

North
Carolina

173

North
Dakota

23

42
•

Operating income:
Interest and fees on loans
Income on Federal funds sold and securities purchased under agreements to resell
Interest and dividends on investments:
U.S. Treasury securities
Securities of other U.S. Government agencies
and corporations
Obligations of States and political subdivisions.
Other securities
Trust department income
Service charges on deposit accounts
Other service charges, collection and exchange
charges, commissions, and fees
Other operating income
Total operating income

Operating expense:
Salaries and wages of officers and employees
Pensions and other employee benefits
Interest on deposits
Expense of Federal funds purchased and securities
sold under agreements to repurchase
Interest on borrowed money
Interest on capital notes and debentures
Occupancy expense of bank premises, net
Furniture and equipment, depreciation, rental costs,
servicing, etc
Provision for loan losses (or actual net loan losses). . .
Other operating expense
Total operating expense

Income before income taxes and securities gains or losses.
Applicable income taxes
Income before securities gains or losses
Net securities gains or losses (after tax effect)
,
Net income before extraordinary items
,
Extraordinary charges or credits
Minority interest in consolidated subsidiaries
Net income




$29, 923 $363, 182

$37, 926 $1, 996, 573 $213, 843 $28, 424

$33, 276

$90, 998

$33, 721

1,295

3,201

1,766

2,316

17,593

2,198

6, 150

13,498

4,849

4,501

54, 841

794
4,411
114
356
2,994

4,944
9,070
315
3,950
4,944

216
2,756
130
729
2,912

12,829
59, 297
5,506
15, 653
25, 753

1,415
474

4,846
2,768

487
3,631
96
1,341
3, 110
784
1,207

767
644

6,945
5,596

51,279

138, 534

50, 992

44, 894

567, 195

9,633
1,526
19, 100

28,515
3, 993
38, 869

10,651
1,426
15,200

9,855
1,546
9,960

63, 996

3, 136

674

6, 139

167,911

15, 832

5,974

996
3,929
89
980
3,470
1,991
720

12, 758
172,587
14, 286
101, 359
60, 779

4,057
22, 809
948
10, 265
11, 115
9,840
6, 188

1,204
3,553
83
619
2,089

58, 438

2, 770, 570 298, 033

44,515

114,214
18, 835
181, 964

12,495
1, 607
16, 258

456,421
83, 968
1, 065, 301

70, 196
11,990
81, 545

7,376
1, 166
18,612

52, 272
128, 049

1,504
391

1,523

4,368
433
155
3,913

29
77
0
2, 103

281
132
21
1,885

5,556
1,298
1,885
23, 914

663
150
69
2,018

168, 206
12, 838
17,028
95, 743

9, 164
2,405
2,469
11,077

214
98
71
1,325

1,459
625
7,304

5, 763
2, 640
18, 528

1, 352
2,564
6,620

1,353
598
6,641

15,473
5,695
61, 870

1,968
1,482
7,180

48, 942
36, 722
224, 666

9,419
2,268
32, 966

1,353
485
4,587

699
309
61

42, 239

107, 177

40, 022

32, 272

430, 704

43, 890

2, 209, 835

233, 499

35, 287

9,040
2,335
6,705
-18
6,687

10, 970
4,374
6,596

136,491
34, 366
102, 125
- 3 , 740
98, 385
— 116
0

560, 735
186, 180
374, 555
—35, 883
338, 672

64, 534
21, 876
42, 658
-4,116
38, 542

0

12,622
4, 564
8,058
-115
7,943
-26
0

14, 548
5, 197
9,351
-10

0

31,357
10, 154
21,203
-238
20, 965
-49
0

+ 171
0

9,228
2,785
6,443
-137
6,306
-11
0

6,710

20,916

6,700

7,917

98, 269

9,499

339, 287

38,713

6,295

+23

+99
6,695

+5

9,341
+ 158
0

+615
0

Changes in capital accounts:
Increases:
Net income transferred to undivided profits
Capital stock, notes and debentures sold or
issued, including premium received
Addition to surplus, undivided profits and
reserves incident to mergers and consolidations,
Transfers from reserves on loans and securities..
All other increases

6, 710

20, 916

6, 700

7,917

98, 269

9,499

339, 287

38,713

6, 295

505

0

2, 130

24, 233

768

48, 479

12,339

0
495
234

647
540
4,298

0
12
597

4,817
272
818

15,436
1, 180
3,594

0
115
864

169,044
326
4, 159

3,274
127
7,179

0
290
165

727

5,990

609

8,037

44,443

1,747

222, 008

22, 919

461

3,502
0

8,428
6

2,937
0

2,946
0

35, 399
3

3,336
0

181,437
2,936

17,456
0

2,338
0

0

0

0

93

35

162,049

0

0

0
700
215

3
2,819
2,854

0
780
17

0
388
707

2,088
5,951
4, 145

0
737
343

991
50, 474
8,969

0
4, 197
5,662

0
238
659

4, 422

14, 110

3, 734

4,041

47, 679

4,451

406, 856

27,315

3, 235

3,015

12, 796

3,575

11,913

95, 033

6,795

154,439

34,317

3,521

55, 222

183,069

55y 755

60, 971

706, 698

69, 197

3,717,452

340, 123

49, 366

Ratios
Net income before dividends to capital accounts
(percent)

12. 15

11.43

12.02

12.98

13.91

13.73

9. 13

11.38

12.75

Total operating expense to total operating revenue
(percent)

82.37

77.37

78.49

71.88

75.94

75.11

79.76

78.35

79.27

Total increases
Decreases:
Cash dividends declared:
On common stock
On preferred stock
Capital stock, notes and debentures retired,
including premium paid
Reduction in surplus, undivided profits and
reserves incident to mergers and consolidations
Transfers to reserves on loans and securities....
All other decreases
Total decreases
Net changes in capital accounts
Capital accountsf

See footnotes at end of table.




-2

to
TABLE

B-30—Continued

Income and expenses of National banksf by States', year ended Dec. 31, 1969
[Dollar amounts in thousands]
Ohio

Number of banks
Operating income:
Interest and fees on loans
Income on Federal funds sold and securities purchased
jnder agreements to resell
Interest and dividends on investments:
U.S. Treasury securities
Securities of other U.S. Government agencies and
corporations
Obligations of States and political subdivisions.
Other securities
Trust department income
Service charges on deposit accounts
Other service charges, collection and exchange
charges, commissions, and fees
Other operating income
Total operating income

Operating expense:
Salaries and wages of officers and employees
Pensions and other employee benefits
Interest on deposits
Expense of Federal funds purchased and securities
sold under agreements to repurchase
Interest on borrowed money
Interest on capital notes and debentures
Occupancy expense of bank premises, net
Furniture and equipment, depreciation, rental costs,
servicing, etc
Provision for loan losses (or actual net loan losses)...
Other operating expenses
Total operating expense

Income before income taxes and securities gains or losses.
Applicable income taxes
Income before securities gains or losses
Net securities gains or losses (after tax effect)
Net income before extraordinary items
Extraordinary charges or credits
Minority interest in consolidated subsidiaries
Net income




Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode
Island

South
Carolina

South
Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

217

218

11

315

5

20

33

77

529

$485, 360

$156,485

$170, 723

$752, 184

$78,051

$58, 363

$33, 408

$198, 775

$730, 466

24,012

8,364

491

32, 580

408

2, 168

763

6,036

34, 819

84, 686

30, 916

16, 574

96, 280

6,043

7,794

7, 185

26, 930

90, 108

10,411
70, 089
3,441
19,474
27, 596

2,608
18, 871
3,222
4,929
11, 150

2, 186
17,874
315
5, 044
14, 373

13,467
92, 646
6, 102
45, 804
22, 880

402
9,050
294
7,149
2,870

1,678
5, 180
150
2, 123
5,940

1,084
3,881
126
690
2,637

3, 168
18, 886
808
6,823
10, 205

24, 026
84, 205
3, 795
29, 139
36, 636

12,281
9,939

6,428
3,859

5,821
3,341

19,672
9,636

3,016
929

2, 161
2, 107

1,778
657

8,321
6,891

21, 220
16, 858

747, 289

246, 832

236, 742

1,091,251

108, 212

87, 664

52, 209

286, 843

1,071,272

132,502
17,315
240, 580

48, 293
6,327
72, 589

50, 044
8,223
86, 788

185, 263
31, 550
355, 130

17, 661
4,299
33, 048

24, 250
3,695
12,447

9,666
1,508
19,449

55, 925
8,516
76, 933

182,969
24, 497
307,081

25, 236
4,529
1,379
22, 783

8,634
1,332
979
6, 100

11, 745
1,437
0
8,900

37, 629
26, 969
3,314
35, 045

5,356
1,290
22
3,357

874
130
11
2,980

104
66
14
1,815

14,716
8, 182
917
9,091

71,627
15,633
975
25, 745

18, 384
11, 308
93, 664

8,280
5,954
27, 751

5,820
2,589
21,068

26, 474
10, 597
110,911

2,472
1,949
12, 078

3,876
794
13, 039

1,725
803
5,335

10, 002
5, 191
36, 075

30, 069
25, 598
131,750

567, 680

186, 239

196, 614

822, 882

81,532

62, 096

40, 485

225, 548

815, 944

179,609
53, 570
126, 039
- 8 , 577
117,462

+ 70

60, 593
17, 156
43, 437
-879
42, 558
-68

268, 369
77, 633
190, 736
- 9 , 672
181,064

+20
0

61, 295
18, 804
42,491
-1,241
41, 250
-12

0

11,724
3,860
7,864
-261
7,603
-13
0

255, 328
80, 862
174,466
-10,438
164, 028

-1

26, 680
9,752
16, 928
-902
16, 026
-69
0

25, 568
10, 118
15, 450
-121
15, 329

0

40, 128
12,577
27, 551
-1,934
25,617
0
0

+ 17

+2, 127
-3

117,532

42, 489

25, 617

181, 145

15, 957

15, 349

7,590

41, 255

166, 152

+81

Changes in capital accounts:
Increases:
Net income transferred to undivided profits....

117,532

42, 489

25,617

181, 145

15, 957

15, 349

7,590

41, 255

166, 152

9,624

2, 052

240

19,022

825

1, 705

253

2,359

20, 474

12, 747
11,271
7,454

2, 740
1, 132
4,243

58
0
1

7,545
2, 726
14, 772

50
0
587

2, 743

46
1,938

368
278
675

354
4,710
1,241

759
2,855
11,469

41,096

10, 167

299

44, 065

1,462

6,432

1,574

8,664

35, 557

45, 622
0

16, 233
21

12, 331
0

77, 884
292

8, 069
0

5, 753
0

3, 524
0

13, 105
0

62, 824
52

0

0

0

4,092

12

0

25

25

48

159
12,251
4,475

191
3,285
4,402

0
5, 182
32

6, 153
18,256
13, 137

0
1,628
20

0
2,081
1,236

7
226
627

0
6, 126
2,709

20
20, 287
10, 596

Total decreases

62, 507

24, 132

17,545

119,814

9,729

9,070

4, 409

21,965

93, 827

Net change in capital accounts

96, 121

28, 524

8,371

105, 396

7,690

12,711

4,755

27, 954

107, 882

997, 111

377, 695

220, 660 1,653,251

127,537

103, 905

57, 094

388, 950

1,456, 173

Ratios:
Net income before dividends to capital accounts
(percent),,,

11.79

11.25

11.61

10.96

12.51

14,77

13.29

10.61

11.41

Total operating expense to total operating revenue
(percent)

75.97

75.45

83.05

75.41

75.34

70.83

77.54

78.63

76. 17

Capital stock, notes and debentures sold or issued,
including premium received
Addition to surplus, undivided profits and reserves incident to mergers and consolidations.
'I'ransfers from reserves on loans and securities..
All other increases
Total increases

Decreases:
Gash dividends declared:
On common stock
On preferred stock
Capital stock, notes and debentures retired, including premium paid
Reduction in surplus, undivided profits and reserves incident to mergers and consolidations
Transfers to reserves on loans and securities
All other decreases

Capital accountsf

See footnotes at end of table.

to
to




ro
O

TABLE

B-30—Continued

Income and expenses of National banks* by Slates, year ended Dec. 31, 1969
[Dollar amounts in thousands]

Utah

Number of banks
Operating income:
Interest and fees on loans
Income on Federal funds sold and securities purchased
under agreements to resell
Interest and dividends on investments:
U.S. Treasury securities
Securities of other U.S. Government agencies
and corporations
Obligations of States and political subdivisions.
Other securities
Trust department income
Service charges on deposit accounts
Other service charges, collection, and exchange
charges, commissions, and fees
Other operating income
Total operating income

Operating expense:
Salaries and wages of officers and employees
Pensions and other employee benefits
Interest on deposits
Expense of Federal funds purchased and securities
sold under agreements to repurchase
Interest on borrowed money
Interest on capital notes and debentures
Occupancy expense of bank premises, net
Furniture and equipment, depreciation, rental costs,
servicing, etc
Provision for loan losses or (actual net loan losses)...
Other operating expenses
Total operating expense




Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West
Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

District of
Columbia—
all%

Virgin
Islands

10

26

103

27

81

121

40

1

14

$40,351

$19,492

$212,698

$237,616

$44,312

$162,016

$22, 773

$4, 692

$118,051

1,624

927

5,263

3,435

3,432

7,233

685

271

3,840

3,782

2,307

27, 001

21,905

13,981

23, 278

4,849

494

26, 284

592
4, 116
186
1,085
3, 125

288
1,922
180
386
1,333

5,346
21,910
723
8,185
12,448

1,360
21,854
636
9,474
23, 042

1,804
5,849
350
1,566
1,762

5,231
16, 723
909
5,551
6,338

469
2,126
188
287
1,759

0
595
7
0
127

2,957
10, 094
574
7,617
8,643

2,532
391

215
334

8,251
3,775

10, 370
7,727

1,086
1,222

7,089
5,858

987
538

112
279

2,363
1,813

57, 784

27, 384

305, 600

337,419

75, 364

240, 226

34,661

6,577

182, 236

9,068
1,293
19,590

5,723
844
10, 382

62, 245
9,586
98, 103

82, 035
11,287
100,214

13, 904
1,702
23,409

44, 929
8,315
85, 014

7, 111
778
11,551

1,475
148
3,442

36, 728
3,911
47, 145

2,261
469
0
1,809

61
25
44
992

6,080
1,453
85
10,055

11,108
1,179
0
14, 094

1,677
87
38
2,467

7,007
1,612
234
8,546

349
292
52
1,364

0
20
0
134

2,177
2,180
651
7,818

1,315
665
5,957

812
344
2,984

9, 129
4,519
38, 889

10,022
4,327
35, 948

1,910
1,126
10, 000

8,143
2,339
24, 925

951
815
4,409

91
92
631

4,554
4,173
20,291

42, 427

22,211

240, 144

270,214

56, 320

191,064

27, 672

6,033

129,628

Income before income taxes and securities gains or losses..
Applicable income taxes
Income before securities gains or losses
Net securities gains or losses (after tax effect)
Net income before extraordinary items
Extraordinary charges or credits
Minority interest in consolidated subsidiaries
Net income.
Changes in capital accounts:
Increases:
Net income transferred to undivided profits .
Capital stock, notes and debentures sold or
issued, including premium received
Addition to surplus, undivided profits and
reserves incident to mergers and consolidations
Transfers from reserves on loans and securities.
All other increases
Total increases.

Decreases:
Cash dividends declared:
On common stock
On preferred stock
Capital stock, notes and debentures retired,
including premium paid
,
Reduction in surplus, undivided profits and
reserves incident to mergers and consolidations
,
Transfers to reserves on loans and securities.
All other decreases

+ 203
0

5,173
1,468
3,705
-132
3, 573
-44
0

6,437

3,529

44,912

6,437

3,529

15,357
6,323
9,034
-2,800
6, 234

65, 456
19,592
45, 864
-1,097
44, 767

67, 205
22, 640
44, 565
— 208
44, 357

6,989
1,952
5,037
-38
4,999

544
0
544
0
544

52, 608
23, 290
29,318
-77
29,241

44, 339

0
13, 122

44,912

44, 339

128

10,881

70

0
8
48

246
25
153

7, 318

3,393
13,237

123
3,900
7,499

7
255
1, 197

334
273
1, 151

140
9
486

25
0
0

25
194
562

56

552

34, 829

11,592

2, 259

5, 101

1,979

25

807

3,761
0

1,292
29

19,021
0

14, 654
0

4, 170
0

12, 784
0

1,910
0

-15
—3

+ 61
0

+ 39
0

33,715

5,060

583

29, 503

13, 122

33, 715

5,060

583

29, 503

800

3,343

1,344

+262

0

26

11,929
632

152

66

0
1, 135
1,970

0
2,237
1,709

0
473
329

0
233
38

0
1,699
430

20, 151

7,275

16, 882

2,712

271

14, 690

52,681

35, 780

8, 106

21,934

4,327

337

15, 620

33,710

345, 424

344, 100

125, 720

282, 033

46, 459

6,493

238, 374

9.89

10.47

13.00

12.89

10.44

11.95

10.89

8.98

12.37

73.42

81. 11

78.58

80.08

74.73

79.54

79.84

91.73

71. 13

740
5,750
1,549

513
3,936
1,048

4,377

2,090

27, 060

2, 116

1,991

65, 060

Ratios:
Net income before dividends to capital accounts
(percent)
Total operating expense to total operating revenue
(percent)

Capital accounts f

15,574
33, 588

+

+ 137

0
346
357

Net change in capital accounts.

49, 162

+ 103
33,691
+ 24
0

434
78
104

Total decreases

19,044
5,753
13,291
-192
13,099

^Includes all banks operating as National banks at year end, and full year data for those State banks converting to National banks during the year.
flncludes the aggregate book value of debentures, preferred stock, common stock, surplus, undivided profits, and reserves. These are averages from the June and
December call dates in the year indicated and the previous December call date.
% Includes National and non-National banks in the District of Columbia, all of which are supervised by the Comptroller of the Currency.
NOTE: The information in this table is not directly comparable to that for 1968, due to a change in report format.
00




TABLE B-31
Income and expenses of National banks,* by deposit size,year ended Dec. 31, 1969
[Dollar amounts in thousands]
Banks with deposits in December 1969, of—
Total

Number of banks

4,669

$10,000.1
$2,000.0
$2,000.1
$5,000.1
$100,000.1
j $25,000.1
$50,000.1
Over
and under to $5,000.0 to $10,000.0 to $25,000.0 to $50,000.0 to $100,000.0 U $500,000.0 $500,000.0
to

141

758

1, 184

Operating income:
$12,492,556
$7, 201 $101,443 $337, 257
Interest and fees on loans
Income on Federal funds sold and securities
6,923
391
473, 181
23, 229
purchased under agreements to resell
Interest and dividends on investments:
33, 595
1, 524, 702 3,287
90,231
U.S. Treasury securities
Securities of other U.S. Government
8,586
507
264, 166
25, 672
agencies and corporations
Obligations of States and political sub7, 144
266
1, 302, 223
35,318
divisions
816
Other securities
81,591
50
2, 120
129
Trust department income
0
562, 368
653
8,386
Service charges on deposit accounts
543
659, 101
30, 647
Other service charges, collection and ex250
3,490
426, 787
11,017
change charges, commissions, and fees
2,089
434, 527
192
6,062
Other operating income
Total operating income




18,221,202

12, 687

172,601

1,403

584

$866,411

$835, 278

272

253

74

$792, 391 $2, 391, 336 $7, 161,239

56, 191

46, 530

33, 041

85, 005

221,871

193,512

153, 600

135, 773

324, 585

590, 119

50, 954

42, 667

36, 208

48, 568

51,004

112,490
6,966
6,595
75, 388

111, 855
5,748
18, 595
67, 444

107, 990
4,600
29, 285
52, 533

283, 983
15,494
121,497
146, 203

643,177
45, 797
385,614
277, 957

25, 939
15,529

26, 989
18,511

26, 509
17,308

92, 719
65, 008

239, 874
309, 828

562, 206 1, 409, 975 1,327,217

1, 235, 638 3, 574, 398

9, 926, 480

Operating expense:
Salaries and wages of officers and employees..,
Pensions and other employee benefits
Interest on deposits
Expense of Federal funds purchased and
securities sold under agreements to repurchase
Interest on borrowed money
Interest on capital notes and debentures
Occupancy expense of bank premises, net.
Furniture and equipment, depreciation, rental
costs, servicing, etc
Provision for loan losses (or actual net loan
losses)
Other operating expenses.

260, 653
36, 878
447, 649

240, 678
34, 988
420, 854

719,946
111,429
1,048,801

1,741,031
293, 701
3, 389, 848

12, 040
4,656
2,382

113, 736
23, 595
7,761

50,571

6, 790
3,396
1,949
49, 475

46, 178

128,334

640, 540
221,082
43, 066
318,562

14, 620

36, 804

38, 346

37, 778

125, 113

210, 182

4,741
22, 958

15,502
72, 833

32, 947
179,287

26,621
167,986

24, 568
148, 568

59, 044
418,358

132,314
853, 655

9,898

136,253

442, 163

1, 105, 154

1,039,743

972, 690

3, 915,203
1,259, 146
2, 656, 057
125, 716
2, 530, 341
+ 3,974
-36

2,789
628
2, 161
40
2, 121

36, 348
8, 692
27, 656
1, 159
26, 497

304,821
84, 372
220, 449
6, 154
214,295

287, 474
85, 359
202, 115
7,573
194,542

-12
0

-154
-27

+ 2,294

262, 948
78, 040
184, 908
4,859
180,049

-3

120,043
32, 189
87, 854
3,363
84,491
-68
-27

+7

+ 126
0

Net income.

2, 534, 279

2, 127

26, 485

84, 396

214, 114

196,843

180, 175

532, 950

1,297, 189

Cash dividends declared:
On common stock.. .
On preferred stock. .

1,063,666
4,429

714
0

7,411
0

23, 032
5

60, 572
71

62, 456
33

61,933
29

208, 262
518

639, 286
3,773

1,068,095

714

7,411

23, 037

60, 643

62, 489

61,962

208, 780

643, 059

Total operating expense.

Income before income taxes and securities gains or
losses
Applicable income taxes
Income before securities gains or losses
Net securities losses (after tax effect)
Net income before extraordinary items
Extraordinary charges or credits
Minority interest in consolidated subsidiaries.

Total cash dividends declared.

3, 402, 598
529, 968
6,036,219

3, 778
282
2, 696

41, 341
3, 770
53, 050

119,520
13, 740
185,000

777, 062
255, 791
56, 282
618,849

0
16

1
437

85
160
10
5,821

799
587
91
19,471

467, 453

293

4,317

296, 201
1, 865, 576

464
1,931

14, 305, 999

+9

275,651
35, 180

488,321
3,072
2,299
1,022

2, 756, 117
818,281
269, 119
549, 162
19,405
529, 757

+ 3, 196

•Includes all banks operating as National banks at year-end, and full year data for those State banks converting to National banks during the yean

ro
CO




7, 843, 981
2, 082, 499
700, 747
1,381,752
83, 163
1,298,589
-1,417

+ 17

to

TABLE

B-32

Capital accounts, net incomey and dividends of National banks,

1944-69

[Dollar amounts in thousands]
Capital stock {par value)*
Tear {last call)

Cash dividends

Preferred

1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969

Common

Total

Total
capital
accounts*

$110,597
80, 672
53, 202
32, 529
25, 128
20, 979
16, 079
12, 032
6,862
5,512
4,797
4, 167
3,944
3, 786
3,332
3,225
2,050
2,040
9,852
24, 304
27,281
28, 697
29, 120
38, 081
57, 704
62, 453

$1,440,519
1,536,212
1,646,631
1, 736, 676
1, 779, 362
1, 863, 373
1, 949, 898
2,046,018
2, 171,026
2, 258, 234
2,381,429
2, 456, 454
2, 558, 111
2, 713, 145
2, 871, 785
3, 063, 407
3, 257, 208
3, 464, 126
3, 662, 603
3, 861, 738
4, 135, 789
4, 600, 390
5, 035, 685
5,224,214
5, 503, 820
6, 165, 757

$1,551, 116
1,616,884
1, 699, 833
1, 769, 205
1, 804, 490
1, 884, 352
1, 965, 977
2, 058, 050
2, 177,888
2, 263, 746
2, 386, 226
2,460,621
2, 562, 055
2,716,931
2,875, 117
3, 066, 632
3, 259, 258
3, 466, 166
3, 672, 455
3, 886, 042
4, 163, 070
4, 629, 087
5, 064, 805
5, 262, 295
5, 561, 524
6,228,210

$4, 114,972
4,467,618
4, 893, 038
5, 293, 267
5, 545, 993
5,811,044
6, 152, 799
6, 506, 378
6, 875, 134
7, 235, 820
7, 739, 553
7, 924, 719
8, 220, 620
8, 769, 839
9, 412, 557
10, 003, 852
10, 695, 539
11,470,899
12, 289, 305
13, 102,085
14, 297, 834
16, 111,704
17,971,372
19,095,324
20, 585, 402
22, 158, 066

Number
of banks

5,031
5,023
4,013
5,011
4,997
4,981
4,965
4,946
4,916
4,864
4,796
4, 700
4,659
4,627
4,585
4,542
4,530
4,513
4,503
4,615
4,773
4,815
4,799
4,758
4,716
4,669

Net income
before
dividends

$411,844
490, 133
494, 898
452, 983
423, 757
474, 881
537,610
506, 695
561,481
573, 287
741, 065
643, 149
647, 141
729, 857
889, 120
800,311
1,046,419
, 042, 201
I, 068, 843
1,205,917
1,213,284
I, 387, 228
I, 582, 535
I, 757,491
1,931,556
>, 534, 029

On
preferred
stock

On
common
stock

$5, 296
4, 131
2,427
1,372
1,304
1, 100
712
615
400
332
264
203
177
171
169
165
99
119
202
1, 126
1,319
1,453
1,348
2, 124
4,344
4,428

$139,012
151,525
167, 702
182, 147
192,603
203, 644
228, 792
247, 230
258, 663
274, 884
299, 841
309, 532
329, 777
363, 699
392, 822
422, 703
450, 830
485, 960
517,546
547, 060
591,491
681, 802
736,591
794, 056
892, 934
1, 063, 647

Ratios {percent)
Net income Cash divibefore
dends to
dividends net income
before
to capital
dividends
accounts

10.01
10.97
10. 11
8.56
7.64
8. 17
8.74
7. 79
8. 17
7.92
9.58
8. 12
7.87
8.32
9.45
8.00
9.78
9.09
8.70
9.20
8.49
8.61
8.81
9.20
9.38
11.44

*These are averages of data from the Reports of Condition of the previous December, and June and December of the respective years.
NOTE: For earlier data, see Annual Reports of the Comptroller of the Currency, 1938, p. 115, and 1963, p. 306.




35.04
31. 76
34.38
40.51
45. 76
43. 11
42.69
49.04
46. 14
48.01
40.50
48. 16
50.99
49.85
44. 20
52.84
43. 09
46.64
48.44
45.46
48.86
49.25
46.63
45.30
46.45
42. 15

Cash dividends on
preferred
stock to
preferred
capital
4. 79
5. 12
4.56
4.22
5. 19
5.24
4.43
5. 11
5.83
6.02
5.50
4.87
4.49
4.52
5.07
5. 12
4.83
5.83
2.05
4.63
4.83
5.06
4.63
5.58
7.53
7.09

Total cash
dividends
to capital
accounts

3.53
3.48
3.48
3.47
3.50
3.52
3. 73
3.81
3.77
3.80
3.88
3.91
4.01
4. 15
4. 18
4.23
4.22
4.24
4.21
4. 18
4. 15
4.24
4. 11
4. 17
4.36
4.82

TABLE

B-33

Loan losses and recoveries of National banks, 1945-69
[Dollar amounts in thousands]

Tear

Ratio of net
Total loans end Net losses or losses or net
of year, net
recoveries ( + ) recoveries ( + )
to loans

Tear

Ratio of net
Total loans end Net losses or losses or net
of year, net
recoveries ( + )recoveries ( + )
to loans

Percent

1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958

$13, 948, 042
17, 309, 767
21, 480, 457
23, 818, 513
23, 928, 293
29, 277, 480
32, 423, 777
36, 119, 673
37, 944, 146
39, 827, 678
43, 559, 726
48, 248, 332
50, 502, 277
52, 796, 224

+ $7,740
3, 207
29,913
19,349
33, 199
14,445
22, 108
19,326
32, 201
25, 674
29, 478
41, 006
35, 428
38, 173 i

+0.06

.02
. 14
.08
. 14
.05
.07
.05
.08
.06
.07
.08
.07
.07

$59,961,989
63, 693, 668
67, 308, 734
75, 548, 316
83, 388, 446
95, 577, 392
116,833,479
126,881,261
136,752,887
154,862,018
168, 004, 686

1959.
1960.
1961.
1962.
1963.
1964.
1965.
1966.
1967.
1968.
1969.
Average for
1945-69..,

64, 827, 930

+ $25,767
130, 177
112,412
97,617
121, 724
125,684
189,826
240, 880
279, 257
257, 280
303. 357
88, 790

Percent
.04
.20
.17
.13
. 15
. 13
. 16
. 19
.20
. 17
. 18
. 14

NOTE : For earlier data, including figures on gross losses and chargeoffs and gross recoveries, see Annual Report of the Comptroller
of the Currency, 1947, p. 100 and 1968, p.'233.
TABLE

B-34

Securities losses and recoveries of National banks,
[Dollar amounts in thousands]

Tear

Total securities I Losses and
end of year, \ chargeoffs*
net
\

Ratio of net
losses to
securities

1945-69

Total securities
end of year,
net

Losses and
chargeoffs*

$42, 652, 855
43,852, 194
. . . . 49, 093, 539
51, 705, 503
52,601,949
54, 366, 781
57, 309, 892
.
. . 57, 667, 429
69,656,371
. .
76,871,528
70, 216, 983

$483, 526
154,372
51,236
47, 949
45, 923
86, 500
67^ 898
302, 656
149, 545
344, 068
286,215

Tear

Percent

1945.
1946.
1947.
1948.
1949.
1950.
1951.
1952.
1953.
1954..
1955..
1956..
1957.,
1958..

$55, 611, 609
46, 642, 816
44, 009, 966
40, 228, 353
44; 207, 750
43, 022, 623
43, 043, 617
44, 292, 285
44, 210, 233
48, 932, 258
42, 857, 330
40, 503, 392
40, 981, 709
46, 788, 224

$74, 627
74; 620
69, 785
55, 369
23, 595
26, 825
57, 546
76, 524
119, 124
49, 469
152,858
238, 997
151, 152
67, 455

0.04
.09
. 10
.07
.04
.04
. 12
. 15
.25
.08
.32
. 56
.35
.12

1959
I960
1961 .
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969

Average for
1945-69...

50, 053, 088

130,313

Ratio of net
losses to
securities
Percent
1.09
.30
.08
.08
.07
. 15
. 11
.52
.21
44

!41
.26

NOTE: For earlier data, including figures on gross losses and chargeoffs and gross recoveries, see Annual Report of the Comptroller
of the Currency, 1947, p. 100 and 1968, p. 234.




285

TABLE B-35
Assets and liabilities of National banks, date of last report of condition,

1950-69

[Dollar amounts in thousands]

Tear

1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969

Number
of banks

Total assets*

4, 965 $97, 240, 093
4,946 102,738,560
4, 916 108, 132, 743
4, 864 110, 116, 699
4, 796 116, 150, 569
4,700 113,750,287
4,659 117,701,982
4, 627 120, 522, 640
4,585 128,796,966
4, 542 132, 636, 113
4, 530 139, 260, 867
4, 513 150, 809, 052
4, 505 160, 657, 006
4,615 170,233,363
4, 773 190, 112, 705
4, 815 219, 102, 608
4,799 235,996,034
4,758 263,374,709
4, 716 296, 593, 618
4, 669 310, 263, 170

Cash and
due from
banks

$23, 813, 435
26,012,158
26, 399, 403
26, 545, 518
25, 721, 897
25,763,440
27,082,497
26, 865, 134
26,864,820
27, 464, 245
28, 674, 506
31, 078, 445
29, 683, 580
28,634,500
34, 065, 854
36, 880, 248
41,689,580
46,633,658
50, 952, 691
54, 727, 953

Total
securities,
net

$43, 022, 623
43,043,617
44, 292, 285
44, 210, 233
48, 932, 258
42,857,330
40,503,392
40, 981, 709
46,788,224
42, 652, 855
43, 852, 194
49, 093, 539
51, 705, 503
52,601,949
54, 366, 781
57, 309, 892
57,667,429
69,656,371
76, 871, 528
70, 030, 342

Loans, net

Total
\ Liabilities
deposits
for
borrowed
money

Other
liabilities

$89, 529, 632
$76, 644
94,431,561
15,484
99, 257, 776
75, 921
100, 947, 233
14, 851
106, 145, 813
11, 098
104,217,989
107,796
107,494,823
18,654
109, 436, 311
38, 324
117,086,128
43,035
119, 637, 677
340, 362
124, 910, 851
110, 590
135, 510, 617
224, 615
142, 824, 891 1, 635, 593
150,823,412
395,201
169, 616, 780
299, 308
193, 859, 973
172, 087
206,456,287 1,105,147
231,374,420
296,821
257, 883, 926
689, 087
256,426, 791 2, 283, 717

$1, 304, 828
1,621,397
1, 739, 825
1, 754, 099
1, 889, 416
1,488,573
1,716,373
1, 954, 788
1,999,002
2, 355, 957
3, 141, 088
3, 198, 514
3, 446, 772
5,466,572
5, 148, 422
7, 636, 524
9,975,692
11,973,852
16, 496, 707
28, 284, 638

Other assets

$29, 277,480 $1, 126, 555
32,423,777
1,259,008
36, 119, 673
1, 321, 382
37, 944, 146
1, 416, 802
39, 827, 678
1, 668, 736
43,559,726
1,569,791
48,248,332
1,867,761
50, 502, 277
2, 173, 520
52,796,224
2,347,698
59, 961, 989
2, 557, 024
63, 693, 668
3, 040, 499
67, 308, 734
3, 328, 334
75, 548, 316
3, 719, 607
83,388,446
5,608,468
95, 577, 392
6, 102, 678
116, 833, 479
8, 078, 989
127,453,846
9,185,179
136,752,887 10,331,793
154, 862, 018 13, 907, 381
168, 004, 686 17, 500, 189

Capital

$2, 001, 650
2,105,345
2, 224, 852
2, 301, 757
2, 485, 844
2,472,624
2,638,108
2, 806, 213
2,951,279
3, 169, 742
3, 342, 850
3, 577, 244
3, 757, 646
4,029,243
4, 789, 943
6, 089, 792
6,299,133
6,602,519
7, 008, 482
7, 347, 948

Surplus,
undivided
profits and
reserves
$4, 327, 339
4,564,773
4, 884, 369
5, 107, 759
5, 618, 398
5,463,305
5,834,024
6, 278, 004
6,717,522
7, 132, 375
7, 755, 488
8, 298, 062
8, 992, 104
9,518,935
10, 258, 252
11, 334, 232
12,159,775
13,127,097
14, 515, 416
15, 906, 249

NOTE: For earlier data, revised for certain years and made comparable to those in this table, references should be made as follows: years 1863 to 1913, inclusive
Annual Report of the Comptroller of the Currency, 1913; figures 1914 to 1919, inclusive, report for 1936; figures 1920 to 1939, inclusive, report for 1939; and figures 1936 to
1949, inclusive, report for 1966:
*After deduction of securities and loan reserves.




TABLE

B-36

Total assets of foreign branches* of National banks, year-end

1953-69

[Dollar amounts in thousands]
1953
1954.
1955.
1956
1957.
1958.
1959.
1960.
1961

$1, 682, 919
1,556,326
1, 116,003
, 1, 88
1,301,883
1, 342, 616
1, 405, 020
1,543,985
1, 628, 510
1,780 926
780, 926

1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969

$2, 008, 478
2,678,717
3,319,879
7, 241, 068
9, 364, 278
11, 856, 316
16,021,617
28, 217, 139

^Includes military facilities operated abroad by National banks in 1966 and thereafter.

TABLE

B-37

Foreign branches of National banks, 1960-69
1
Number of branches
operated by
National banks

End of year

93
102
111
124
138

1960.
1961.
1962.
1963.
1964.

National bank
branches as a percentage of total
foreign branches of
U.S. banks

i

75.0
75.6
76.6
77.5
76.7

TABLE

End of year

1965
1966
1967
1968
1969

National bank
Number of branches branches as a percentage of total
operated by
foreign branches of
National banks
U.S. banks

93.5
94.3
95.5
95.0
93.0

196
230
278
355
428

B-38

Assets and liabilities of foreign branches* of National banks, Dec. 31, 1969: consolidated statement
Gash and cash items.
Due from banks (time and demand)
Securities
Loans, discounts and overdrafts
Customers' liability on acceptances
Fixed assets
Other assets
Due from head office and branches (gross)
Total

[Dollar amounts in thousands]
Total demand deposits
$225, 519
Total time deposits
4, 352, 936
U.S. Government deposits
341, 632
Certified checks, officers' checks, official checks. .
9, 109, 486
942, 874
114, 064
Total deposits
347, 127
Other liabilities and borrowed funds
12, 783, 501
Liabilities on acceptances
Due to head office and branches (gross, including
28,217, 139
capital)
Total

$2, 704, 449
19, 297, 775
234, 964
93, 369
22, 330, 557
703, 317
940, 727
4, 242, 538
28, 217, 139

^Includes military facilities.

383-814—70


-20

287

TABLE

B-39

Trust assets* and income of National banks, by States, calendar 1969
[Dollar amounts in millions]

Number
of banks

United States.

1,678

Employee
benefit
accounts f

42, 551

Other
trust
accounts %

71,738

Total
trust
accounts

114,289

Agency
accounts §

30, 249

Total,
trust and
agency
accounts

144, 536

Trust
department
income
amounts {Dollar
in thousands)

565, 815

Alabama
994
205
27
4,753
789
119
1, 113
Alaska
51
181
24
34
17
11
4
Arizona
465
500
38
35
538
2
3, 877
Arkansas
226
252
13
30
265
26
1, 137
California
17
13,238
72, 135
7,725
11,817
1,421
4,092
Colorado
318
253
30
1,670
11, 150
1,099
1,352
Connecticut
817
271
11
2,561
9,676
1,472
1,744
Delaware
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
District of Columbia ||.
901
6
284
2,237
7,617
1,051
1,335
2,986
Florida
3,334
15, 110
348
2,702
284
82
Georgia
299
26
2,765
8,098
1,416
1,049
1,348
Hawaii
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Idaho
81
437
9
50
59
3
22
Illinois
161
3,821
15,865
57, 172
6,298
5,745
12,043
Indiana
820
345
95
3, 197
11,066
2,032
2,377
Iowa
232
725
74
419
493
47
3,023
Kansas
405
451
45
88
539
45
2,548
Kentucky
165
501
296
335
39
52
1,825
Louisiana
77
414
114
223
337
20
2, 149
Maine
73
329
30
226
256
17
1,702
661
353
3,335
Maryland
11
1,014
538
123
Massachusetts. . .
963
45
4,836
20, 464
1,481
2,393
3,874
Michigan
34
1,200
6,813
18,051
3, 168
2,445
5,613
Minnesota
744
813
21
3,169
13,279
1,612
2,425
Mississippi
8
210
160
202
20
42
1, 181
Missouri
34
822
490
3,379
2,067
2,557
12,888
Montana
13
47
356
60
5
42
12
Nebraska
188
537
671
859
134
19
3,950
Nevada
17
226
5
205
209
3
1,341
138
New Hampshire.
63
201
729
131
19
7
15,653
1,926
New Jersey
1,668
658
84
2,582
258
New Mexico. . . .
36
246
980
193
210
18
18
76
New York
6,468
28, 270
101,359
8,428
21,801
13, 373
North Carolina..
499
16
798
2,942
10, 265
1,644
2,443
North Dakota. . .
9
96
619
72
86
10
14
968
58
Ohio
6,376
19,474
3,874
5,408
1,534
Oklahoma
255
798
38
202
1,255
4,929
1,000
Oregon
106
924
610
819
208
2
5,044
Pennsylvania... .
138
2,567
14,871
7,874
12, 304
45, 804
4,430
Rhode Island. . .
354
193
3
1,667
1, 120
1,313
7, 149
South Carolina..
458
57
2, 123
364
515
7
95
South Dakota. ..
11
99
69
88
690
9
19
523
Tennessee
30
140
1,770
1, 107
1,247
6,823
Texas
137
3,783
5,272
1, 180
6,452
29, 139
1,489
Utah
69
144
213
10
223
2
1,085
11
48
386
Vermont
11
44
59
3
Virginia
739
50
182
1,223
1,405
2,144
8, 185
Washington
298
11
298
1,902
1,307
1,605
9,474
West Virginia. . .
306
327
29
356
21
32
1,566
Wisconsin
935
365
38
219
1, 154
1,520
5,551
Wyoming
75
3
49
52
23
287
14
*As of December 31, 1969.
fEmployee benefit accounts include all accounts for which the bank acts as trustee, regardless of whether investments are
partially, or wholly, directed by others. Insured plans or portions of plans funded by insurance are omitted, as are employee benefit
accounts held as agent.
^Includes all accounts, except employee benefit accounts and corporate accounts, for which the bank acts in the following, or
similar capacities: Trustee (regardless of whether investments are directed by others), executor, administrator, guardian; omits
all agency accounts and accounts for which the bank acts as registrar of stock and bonds, assignee, receiver, safekeeping agent,
custodian, escrow agent, or similar capacities.
§Includes both managing agency and advisory agency accounts.
|| Includes National and non-National banks in the District of Columbia, all of which are supervised by the Comptroller of the
Currency.
NOTE : Data may not add to totals because of rounding.
288



TABLE B-40
Common trust funds of National and State banks, by States, 1968 and 1969*
Number of banks
with common
trust funds

Number of common trust funds

Number of account
participations

Total assets (Dollar Percent change in
amounts in millions)
in assets

1968

1968

1969

1968

602

United States

1969
642

1,429

1,590

343, 590

14
1
15
12
42
43
55
13
11

2, 338
51
3, 131
1, 141
26, 847
6, 630
9,007
3. 260
3^041

2,427
52
3,446
1,388
24, 983
7,892
10, 658
3,405
3,488

28.0
0 7
107. 7
14.8
716.7
230. 1
261. 1
94 2
104.4

1969

1968

1969

373, 083 $9, 553. 5 $9, 203. 2

1967-68 1968-69
14.4

-3.7

28.3
0.8
109.5
15.7
596.2
192.9
306.2
109. 8
95.0

23.9
16. 7
30. 7
24.4
16.9
15.2
31.5
13 4
5.3

1. 1
14 3
1 7
6. 1
-16.8
-16.2
17.3
16 6
-9.0

Alabama. . . .
.
. . .
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut. .
....
Delaware
..
District of Columbia

7
1
4
4
13
16
17
3
6

7
12
17
18
3
6

16
1
13
8
41
34
44
11
12

Florida
Georgia
Hawaii....
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas.
Kentuckv
Louisiana .
Maine

21
10
3
3
22
17
4
7
8
3
9

24
12
3
3
27
22
5
8
8
3
10

52
22
8
5
56
42
9
14
19
6
21

58
28
10
7
65
54
10
16
22
7
24

4, 734
5, 667
1,790
923
13,003
5, 116
1,249
948
3, 076
408
2,836

5, 185
6, 488
2.011
^284
14, 183
5, 660
1,382
1,322
3,379
593
3,199

105.4
137.9
37.2
12.4
520 7
107. 1
30. 0
16.9
62.9
6 2
76.7

103. 2
177.4
43. 1
21.7
491. 0
95.5
29. 1
18.5
62.7
9 3
76.9

23. 3
15.8
35.8
65.3
14 2
28.0
38.9
21.6
24.3
59 0
14.6

— 2. 1
28.6
15.9
75.0
—5 7
-10.8
-3.0
9.5

Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada.
New Hampshire

7
28
14
13
3
10
4
5
1
4

7
28
17
14
3
10
4
5
1
4

18
62
43
38
7
26
6

21
68
54
39
6
27
6

3
6

3
6

6,524
14,908
10,319
7,286
1,913
11,658
730
2,607
554
364

7,010
13,836
12,588
7, 890
1,269
11,798
770
2,914
568
365

173.6
552.5
290.5
168 7
29. 1
327.7
9. 9
56. 8
q 4
13.2

162.9
455. 7
332.4
148.4
14.8
296.6
9.5
61.4
8 6
11.8

3
7.'7
34.5
35 4
49.2
10.8
30. 3
50. 7
10 6
15.8

-8.8
-17.5
14.4
— 12 0
-49. 1
-9.5
4.0
8. 1
—8 5
-10.6

New J e r s e y . . .
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina. .
North Dakota
Ohio.
Oklahoma. . . .
Oregon.
Pennsylvania. .
Rhode Island..

22

20

11
<
>
33
6
4
88
3

27
11
3
33
6
4
90
3

49
9
84
27

7,863
1,584
30, 244
10,052

7, 356
1,809
32, 275
9, 985

839

961

96
16
13
173
13

44
12
86
28
11
94
16
14
187
14

13,624
1, 732
5, 500
67, 628
2,282

14,663
1,886
5, 342
70, 705
2,483

151.9
31.4
1, 613.4
221. 9
7. 9
405. 1
49. 7
107.6
1,531.2
58.2

128.2
33.9
1,466.4