The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
1960 annual report
FEDERAL
RESERVE
with a special section on...
BANK OF CLEVELAND
Population Changes, 1950-1960,
in the
FOURTH FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT
Business activity reached new high ground in 1960,
but receded moderately during the latter part of the year.
Short-run contractions in business activity are characteristic of a dynamic free-enterprise system. Each of the
three postwar adjustments has been shallow and short, and
each has been followed by sustained periods of rapid growth.
Maladjustments in the Fourth Federal Reserve District
have centered around steel and closely related heavy industries, which bulk large in the economy of our region. Meanwhile, many sections of the economy maintained or bettered
the performance of the preceding year.
Monetary policy in 1960 responded flexibly and promptly
to underlying economic conditions. The Federal Reserve
System took significant steps to relieve pressures on the
banking
system and to encourage the use of funds for
investment, production, and employment. Interest rates
moved lower as the demand for funds subsided and the
credit base increased.
During 1960 the nation's international balance of payments has been helped by an improvement in export trade.
Monetary policy has been designed to encourage sustainable
growth in business activity and employment and to promote
confidence in the dollar. Meanwhile, the nation's substantial
gold reserve allows time to attack the balance of payments
problem on a broad national front.
We greatly appreciate the assistance and cooperation
given us by leaders in banking, industry, and agriculture.
Chairman
1
of the Board
President
Table of Contents
Problems for Monetary Policy
3
Population Changes, 1950-1960, in the
Fourth Federal Reserve District
8
A Note on Automation
23
Statement
of Condition
24
Earnings and Expenses
25
Directors
_.............................................
26
Officers
27
Branch Directors and Officers
28
PROBLEMS
FOR MONETARY POLICY
ance, if any, should be made in the formulation of monetary
policy for such restraint as may be inherent in the current
loan-deposit ratio?
Excess of Liquidity. Another of last year's uncertainties was the liquidity of the economy. In the course of
economic recovery during 1958-9, an expansion of the money
supply (using the conventional meaning) had been substantially supplemented by the issuance of short - term
Treasury bills which were contemplated by many holders
as nothing less than interest-bearing cash - the best of
both worlds. Here was a potential source of difficulty for
the monetary authorities. At a time when the situation
generally might call for continued restraint, a considerable
portion of holders might attempt to convert into conventional cash for corporate and other purposes. This contingency did not materialize. There was no significant
exodus from Treasury bills; no new nonbank buyers had
to be found.
Moreover, this was the first year since calendar 1954
in which there was no net increase in the amount of
Treasury bills outstanding. Over the past year as a whole
the Treasury experienced a cash surplus; monetary policy
was free from the exigencies which often accompany deficit
financing.
All of this does not mean that the question of liquidity
has been solved. The volume of short-term Treasury bills
outstanding in the hands of nonbank holders is approximately $39 billion-an aggregate of liquid assets equal to
roughly 26 percent of total demand deposits in existence.
It is only in an environment of retarded economic activity
A year ago in this space attention was called to the
emergence of what were designated as "three potentially
critical problems" with which monetary policy might have
to come into closer grips during 1960. Today it seems appropriate, first to review the denouement, if any, of the
perplexities envisioned a year ago, and then to delineate
those which seem most likely to cause furrowed brows
during 1961.
Lending Capacity. One of the mooted unknowns of a
year ago was the question of the lending capacity of the
commercial banking system. The ratio of loans to deposits
had risen to the highest point in nearly three decades.
Because of the relatively well-loaned-up position of many
banks, it was visualized that further loan expansion into
the 'Sixties would sooner or later be inhibited unless it be
accompanied by deposit growth.
This specific threat-if
that it was-drew
still closer
during the early months of 1960 as loan volume continued
to expand in response to economic conditions. After midyear, however, partly because of an apparent diminution
in loan demand, and partly because of a slow rise in deposits,
the ratio began to recede. By year end it had retraced
essentially all of the first-half bulge-but
no more. Thus
the question still remains unanswered: How much allow-
3
INDEX
1957=100
INDUSTRIAL
PRODUCTION
and
MONETARY
POLICY
120
115
~------------~-------------*------------~~----------~
~------------~-------------*------------~~----------~
Steel
Strike
INDUSTRIAL
PRODUCTION
(lett scale)
. . . months before
industrial production 100 1----------.....••
~~------------¥.~----------~l---------------1
such as the present that this bogy
turned definitely
tends to disappear from view.
downward,
monetary
policy had begun
to 95 1-4t'-~l_--------------1
The Gold Situation.
In coneasethe reservepositrast to the liquidity question,
tion of the banking 90 ~.--__,'"-------*---------------;.E--------------;f----------------I
l,OOO
the third potential problem of a
system. In terms of
500
year ago permitted scarcely any
netborrowedreserves, 85 I-...,.-~"=""'t-----*---------------;.E--------------'=,-:f---------------I
the preceding policy
relaxation. It was observed here
of restraint reached
that domestic monetary policy for
its peakin July 1959.
the first time might have to take
Eighteenmonthslater
500
a substantial degree
into consideration not only the
of ease had been retraditional criteria--employment
1--------------4 1.000
established.
and prices--but also the situation
with regard to this country's in1961
1960
1959
1958
ternational balance of payments.
The manner in which this potenall-time high of industrial production by a margin of 3
tial problem became more and more real during 1960 is repercent, and a newall-time high in the gross national prodviewed in a subsequent paragraph. Meanwhile, the fact
uct by a margin of 4 percent. But the year was not very
that two of the three specters of a year ago failed to reach
old when it became apparent that a certain zest was lacka critical stage is not necessarily a propitious omen, paring. Moreover, the average of wholesale prices, particuticularly when it appears that the escape was provided
larly
nonagricultural products, was trending slowly downpartly by an adverse turn in business developments.
ward,
attesting to a slackening of demand. The prices
The remainder of this review is devoted to the current
of
common
stocks turned downward after reaching an
edition of demonstrative problems for monetary policy
all-time
high
in January. Two phases of share liquidaand their evolution during the past year. Each of the four
tion
exacted
a
toll from business psychology. The second
is illustrated in an accompanying chart.
phase
covered
the
period June to October in which month
Recession or What? The first to be considered is the
equity
prices
were
the
lowest in nearly two years. Moreover,
business outlook at year end and its significance for monethe
economy
was
functioning
in a fiscal climate quite in
tary policy. The profile of economic activity is depicted by
contrast to that of 1959 when nongovernment demand for
the upper curve in the first of the accompanying charts.
goods and services was being supplemented by a Treasury
On the whole, the year did establish a newall-time
cash deficit of something like $7 billion.
high in employment by a margin of some 2 percent, a new
-#'..I.=--*
MILLION
4
$
INDEX OF
2nd HALF
JUNE=loo
CHANGE
CHANGE
IN MONEY
SUPPLY*
(Second Half,
Selected Years)
It was in this kind of envi. . . there was some
ronment, both actual and prospecincrease in the native, that the immediate objective
tion's active money
of monetary policy was shifted,
supply during the second half of 1960, as
albeit rather gradually in the earcompared with slight
ly stages. As may be observed in
contractions in 1957
the accompanying chart, months
and 1959, and with
sharper gains in such
before
industrial
production
years as 1954 and
turned definitely downward, the
1958.
reserve position of member banks
had begun to ease. The 1958-9
policy of Ie ani n g against the
booming wind had reached its
greatest intensity in July 1959,
when measured in terms of net
borrowed reserves.
During the latter months of 1959 and into early 1960,
the slackening of restraint was moderate. Beginning in
March, however, the movement toward ease attained greater
momentum. By June, member banks were literally out of
debt (net) to the Federal Reserve banks; and by November, borrowings had almost vanished. Some easing was accomplished by means of open market purchases of Government securities, and some by the validation of all vault
cash as legal reserves, as well as by a further lowering of
percentage requirements at central reserve city banks. In
any event, the transformation
from relative tightness to
moderate ease was not accidental; it was intentional-if
not
precisely calculated from month to month.
By year end, however, this question was still unanswered: Should policy be predicated on the assumption
"Demand
100.0
99.5
99.0
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT.
OCT.
Semi-monthly
Deposits and Currency
NOV.
averages,
seasonally
adjusted
DEC.
for 1954,1958,1960
that the current economic malaise will be relatively short
and mild and will respond to traditional remedies? If not,
what more can monetary policy do if its actions should result in accentuating the outflow of gold and short-term
capital?
Reflation of the Money Supply. The second problem of
current concern is the recent rate of reflation of the nation's
active money supply. The twelve months ended at mid-1960
(not shown on chart) witnessed a somewhat unusual degree
of shrinkage in aggregate demand deposits. To some extent, especially in the earlier stages, this had been deliberately encouraged as a means of deterring inflationary
forces; to some extent it was an autonomous development
not in accord with expectations and intent.
During the second half of 1960 the secular upward
trend resumed once more. The expansion since June is shown
5
MONEY RATES
Yields on 91·day
Treasury bills and
Aaa corporate
bonds
(daily averages
in the accompanying chart against
by months)
a background of the expansions
...
during the past
experienced d uri n g the early
year, the cost of
short-term money destages of recovery in 1954 and in
clined substantially in
1958. (The rate of shrinkage
response to conditions
which occurred in the second half
of monetary ease. The
cost of longer-term
of such years as 1957 and 1959 is
capital, however, reo
also shown.)
ceded only moderately
Any judgment as to the proover the same period.
priety of the rate of expansion of
demand deposits in the latter
months of 1960 must take into
a c c 0 u n t the extraordinary increase in commercial bank savings
deposits over the same period-a
much sharper increase than that which was observed in
earlier reflationary movements.
The problem for 1961 in this case is the determination
of the rate of demand deposit growth which would be most
auspicious, and how it can be promoted without precipitating new strains on the balance of payments.
The Cost of Long-term Money. A third area which contains some ingredients for potential trouble is one which
has to do with money rates, particularly the rate on longterm funds-funds
used to finance residential construction,
corporate expansion, and municipal improvements.
During the past year, the cost of credit and capital
declined as would be expected, given the change in monetary
policy. The cost of short-term money declined from 4lj2
percent to 21;2 percent or less, in terms of the market rate
on 91-day Treasury bills (depicted in an accompanying
JULY
AUG.
SEPT.
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
JAN.
FEB.
MAR.
APR.
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG.
SEPT.
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
chart). The cost of long-term money, as represented by the
market yield of outstanding Aaa corporate bonds, decreased
only around Ij2 percent. In neither of these categories was
the decline as noticeable as in previous periods of ease
such as 1954 and 1958. And what is more conspicuous is the
fact that there was virtually no net decline during the
latter half of 1960, at the very time when the softness in
business activity was becoming most evident, and greater
monetary ease was being contrived.
It is not within the purview of this discussion to look
into the several conceivable causes of the so-called stickiness
of rates. Long-term rates (which have been the focus of
greater attention) are some distance removed from the
direct path of monetary policy. They are influenced largely
by implicit market forces - by the collective evaluation
of prospects by lenders and borrowers of capital. In any
6
----
1947 thru
~(annUaIIY)
U. S. GOLD STOCKS
and
-
~
case, the question at the close
of 1960 was: Does the current
cost of long-term money represent
an impediment to the resumption
of economic growth? If a lower
cost is desirable, precisely what
would be the most expedient rate
and how could it be maintained
without sacrificing the services
and functions of a free market?
"-
GOLD STOCKS
SHORT·TERM
LIABILITIES
to FOREIGNERS*
(weekly)
1959
V
'50
BILLION$
20
15
'55
f\.
-.....~
V~
. . . short-term liabilities to foreigners
increased rapidly from
March until August. In
subsequent weeks further accumulation of
such liabilities was
being impeded by a
strong outward movement of gold.
~
20
19
18
~
17
../
V
""~
~
~ABILITIES
FO EIGNERS
(end of month)
16
last date plotted:
for aold stocks, Dec. 21
for liabilities, Oct. 31 P
15
3rd
"Exclusive of international
institutions
---
Q
4th
1959
The Reduction in Gold Stocks. The fourth problem confronting monetary policy as of year end is the gold outflow,
which was alluded to earlier. As may be noted in the
accompanying chart, this problem remained obscure during
the first half year; it was not until July that the outward movement of gold was resumed and attracted renewed publicity. The transfer of ownership of short-term
credits to foreigners - as distinguished from the transfer
of the metal itself - had reappeared somewhat earlier, as
reflected in the renewed rise in short-term liabilities to
foreigners beginning in March. That increase was halted
in later months - partly because of an accelerated gold
outflow which offset further accruals, and possibly because of some actual improvement in the balance of
payments.
Q
1st
---1-------
Q
2nd
Q
3rd
1960
Q
-------1
4th
Q
--
1961 ---
In the case of this fourth problem, the situation clearly
is more nearly crucial than it was a year ago. It may be
amenable to solution in several ways-by measures, policies,
and attitudes adopted domestically, by forthright cooperation from abroad (of which some indications have already
appeared), by a cooling off of the boom overseas, or by
some combination of all three.
The problem goes far beyond the jurisdiction of the
Federal Reserve System. Conceivably some surcease will
emerge for one cause or another during 1961. If it should
not, then domestic monetary and credit policies may have
to be formulated with increased emphasis upon international
factors. In preserving the vitality of the key currency of
the Western World, appropriate monetary policy must be
consistent with both domestic and international needs.
7
METROPOLITAN
AREAS
(in order of population)
Population Changes, 1950-1960,
in the
FOURTH FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT
The taking of a decennial Census of Population brings an unusual opportunity for assessing the human resources of the Fourth
Federal Reserve District. According to the preliminary census reports for 1960, the Fourth District had a population increase of 14
percent since 1950, while the United States had a 17 percent increase.
Population changes within the Fourth District have included widely
different patterns of gains and declines, as shown on the following
pages in terms of metropolitan areas, central cities and suburbs,
various classifications of cities of 5,000 to 50,000, and counties.
Metropolitan areas include one or more complete counties, containing a central city of at least 50,000 population. The Springfield
Metropolitan Area, for example, includes only one county because
both the central city of Springfield and the suburban area of Springfield are contained within the boundary of Clark county. The Dayton
Metropolitan Area, however, includes Montgomery County, which is
the location of the central city of Dayton, and also Greene and Miami
counties; the latter two counties are included within the Dayton Metropolitan Area because the central city of Dayton draws heavily on the
population of these two counties for its suburban labor force and trade.
There are seventeen metropolitan areas which are located completely within the Fourth District. Since 1950, these metropolitan
areas have had an 18 percent increase in population. Of the five
metropolitan areas which have shown the largest population increase,
four lie between Cleveland and Cincinnati. The eight metropolitan
8
Pittsburgh
(Allegheny, Beaver,
Washington, Westmoreland)
Cleveland
(Cuyahoga, Lake)
Cincinnati
(Hamilton, Ohio; Campbell
and Kenton, Ky_)
Dayton
(Greene, Miami,
Montgomery)
Columbus
(Franklin)
Akron
(Summit)
Youngstown
(Mahoning, Trumbull)
Toledo
(Lucas)
Canton
(Stark)
Erie
(Erie)
Lorain-Elyria
(Lorain)
Hamilton-Middletown
(Butler)
Wheeling
(Marshall and Ohio,
W_ Va.: Belmont, Ohio)
Steubenville-Weirton
(Jefferson, Ohio; Brooke and
Hancock, W. Va_)
Springfield
(Clark)
Lexington
(Fayette)
Lima
(Allen)
Total Metropolitan Areas
1960
Population
% Change
1950-1960
2,392,086
+8%
1,786,740
+22%
1,060,068
+17%
689,339
+33%
680,183
+35%
508,788
+24%
507,557
+22%
454,472
+15%
337,984
+19%
247,538
+13%
215,822
+46%
198,166
+35%
189,490
-4%
168,293
+7%
130,701
+17%
129,722
+29%
102,785
+17%
9,799,734
+18%
areas which had a moderate population increase are located in northern and southwestern Ohio. Of the four remaining metropolitan areas, three had small population increases and one underwent a decline.
I
I
I
~
METROPOLITAN
AREAS
,., •• ~_
I
••• J,. •• ~---
I
I
l}
-------_ ... -,
I
I
I
~
I
1
:
I
I
----~-------r
I
I
I
}--
--CORI\IN-ELYRIA
I
!
I
_~
rI
,J
I
:
:
""
I
I
I
I
I
r-'
(
I
••
I
I
I
I
PITTSBURGH
I
I
I.
I
i------ :
I
L_
I
I
I
I
I
~ ~,.•.•••..
,.~,-,
I
..~
I
......
.----'----,-.....
,
l
....
------~-1--,
:
~•
II
I
I
I
I
I
,
••.•
II
I
I
I
"r
..,or'
r
,-
.~- -- --,. -- --l.-T-----"I
I
I
I, ,_,
I
1
J
I
-'
--.(
_
- __ ""'
I
I
I,
~--
I
MBUS :
".,
I,
I
I
POPULATION CHANGES
1950-1960
Increase of 25% or more
Increase of 15% to 25%
Increase less than 15%, or decrease
SUBURBS
+60%
+40%
PITTSBURGH
Metropolitan
CENTRAL CITIES
+20%
Area
VS. SUBURBS
o
-10%
CLEVELAND
Metropolitan
Marked growth of suburban communities, coupled with
relatively small increases, or even outright declines, in
populations of central cities is commonly recognized as a
feature of the nineteen fifties. How the trend worked out
in the Fourth District is shown by percentage rates of increase or decrease in the bar charts on this page and the
facing page.
The migration of population to the suburbs has thus
changed the population proportions between central cities
and suburbs. For example, in 1950 the corporate city of
Pittsburgh accounted for 31 percent of its metropolitan
area, but by 1960 Pittsburgh's proportion had fallen to 25
percent. The corporate city of Cleveland's proportion deSUBURBS
SUBURBS
••
•••
CITY
DAYTON
Metropolitan
•
Area
COLUMBUS
Metropolitan
Area
10
Area
clined from 62 to 49 percent of its metropolitan area during
the same period. (Whichever year, 1950 or 1960, is considered, however, it should be understood that the corporate
city of Cleveland is larger in population than the corporate
city of Pittsburgh; conversely, whichever year is considered,
the Metropolitan Area of Pittsburgh, which is defined so as
to include four counties, is larger than the two-county
Metropolitan Area of Cleveland.)
It will be noted from the accompanying illustrations
that the Youngstown Metropolitan Area presents a somewhat special case. The two-county Youngstown Metropolitan
Area registered a 22 percent increase in population between
1950 and 1960; at the same time the population of the city
of Youngstown decreased by 2 percent (from 168,330 to
165,844) while the population of the city of Warren increased by 19 percent (from 49,856 to 59,546 and the suburban communities of the two cities increased by 42 percent (from 198,358 to 282,167).
The twelve suburban areas of the Fourth District which
have shown very large population gains are suburbs of
metropolitan areas which have generally been the location
of large new investment in manufacturing industry and a
large rise in employment in service trades. Of the four
suburban areas which have shown a smaller population gain
(or, in one case, a population decline) three are suburbs of
metropolitan areas which have been traditional centers of
the coal or steel industries .
SUBURBS
••
-
CENTRAL CITIES
(in order
CITY
Population
Changes, 1950 -1960
SUBURBS
of metropolitan
% Change
Central
CINCINNATI
Metropolitan
Area
+17%
-5%
+67%
+41%
Akron
Youngstown
Warren
Toledo
Canton
Erie
Lorain
Elyria
Hamilton
Middletown
Wheeling
Steubenville
Weirton
Springfield
Lexington
-2%
+6%
+25%
+5%
-2%
+19%
+4%
-4%
+4%
+33%
+43%
+24%
+25%
-10%
Lima
-8%
+17%
+5%
+12%
-2%
Totals
+2%
•
•
SUBURBS
YOUNGSTOWN
YOUNGSTOWN
Metropolitan
Area
Area
11
Suburbs
Cleveland
Cincinnati
SUBURBS
AKRON
Metropolitan
1950-1960
-12%
Dayton
At the same time, it may be observed that the so-called
"decline" of the central city does not necessarily imply
deterioration. Due to the demands for downtown commercial
expansion and better roads to the suburbs, large central
cities have replaced part of their existing housing areas
with new offices, expanded factories and thruways. Furthermore, a declining population of a central city does not necessarily mean that the central city has been allowed to become
unattractive. During the time that the population of Pittsburgh was declining more than any other central city in the
Fourth District, Pittsburgh, as is well known, accomplished
a remarkable downtown redevelopment project which has
increased the beauty and convenience of that city's center.
City
areas)
Pittsburgh
Columbus
SUBURBS
of population
VS.
+57%
+66%
+63%
+42%
+51%
+35%
+26%
+56%
+52%
-1%
{ +10%
+47%
+49%
+41%
+36%
BEYOND THE
METROPOLITAN
AREAS
LOCATION OF FRINGE CITIES
Outlying
City
I
•
Fringe cities lie outside a metropolitan area, yet are within a 25 mile
radius of the center of a central city,
Fringe vs. Outlying Cities
FRINGE
VS.
(fringe
listed
cities
OUTLYING CITIES
in order
of percent
1960
Population
Huron
Medina
Franklin
Kent
Rittman
Perrysburg
Wadsworth
Lebanon
Orrville
St. Marys
Georgetown
(Ky.)
London
Eaton
Wapakoneta
Dover
Bowling Green
Delaware
Paris (Ky.)
Urbana
Sharpsville
(Pa.)
Richmond (Ky.)
Ravenna
Winchester
(Ky.)
New Philadelphia
Salem
East Palestine
Farrell (Pa.)
Sharon (Pa.)
New Castle (Pa.)
Wellsville
East Liverpool
The decentralizing tendencies of the '50s were not limited to the movement of population from central cities to
suburbs as identified in the two previous pages. In fact the
movement went beyond the county lines which make up the
boundaries of metropolitan areas.
In order to make the point clear, a comparison may be
made between population changes in certain cities which are
referred to here as "fringe cities" and population changes
in other cities termed "outlying cities".
Fringe cities lie outside a metropolitan area, yet are
within a twenty-five mile radius of the center of a central
city. Outlying cities are the remaining cities which lie more
than twenty-five miles from the center of a central city.
Total, 31 Fringe Cities
Total, Outlying Cities
The fringe cities of the entire District showed a 10
percent increase in population over the decade, while the
outlying cities on the average gained only 7 percent.
To a large extent the population gains of fringe cities
are associated with the population gains of the metropolitan
areas to which they are adjacent. The metropolitan areas of
Lorain-Elyria, Dayton, Columbus and Hamilton-Middletown, for example, had large increases in population amounting to an average of 35 percent. (See table on p. 8.) Fringe
cities which are neighboring to these four metropolitan
areas had similarly large population increases amounting to
5,163
8,227
7,918
17,748
5,378
5,515
10,590
5,967
6.464
7,728
6,859
6,368
5,011
6,718
11,231
13,60-3
13,242
7,724
10,406
6,024
11,327
10,864
10,149
14,128
13,797
5,241
13,584
25,211
44,714
7,078
22,158
change)
% Change
1950·1960
+105%
+61%
+47%
+43%
+41%
+38%
+33%
+29%
+25%
+25%
+24%
+22%
+18%
+16%
+14%
+13%
+12%
+12%
+12%
+11%
+10%
+10%
+10%
+9%
+8%
+1%
0%
-5%
-8%
-9%
-10%
346,135
+10%
1,059,222
+7%
an average of 31 percent. Pittsburgh, Steubenville-Weirton,
and Wheeling metropoltan areas, on the other hand, had
population changes amounting to an average increase of
only 7 percent. At the same time, six cities which are classified here as fringe cities, and which are located near the
Ohio-Pennsylvania border, showed a 7 percent decrease in
population over the interval of the decade.
13
CITIES OF
--l.-~----....
; r.....
-"
r'•.....
:.--~....--------./
I
~••
,rJ
•
SHARON
-----""
•
"
J,I
I
f
~
.-
.,
"
NEW CASTLE
~"".a,........•.••
" .•"
I
I -
I
I
I
I
POPULATION CHANGES
1950·1960
•
Increase of 15% or more
•
Increase to 15%
•
Decline
NOTE: Lightly shaded areas indicate counties included within metropolitan
areas.
25,000 - 50,000
POPULATION
\
Beyond the Nletropolitan Areas
CITIES OF 25,000 TO 50,000
1960
Population
Findlay
Newark
Lancaster
Marion
Mansfield
Sandusky
Ashland (Ky.)
Sharon (Pa.)
Zanesville
New Castle (Pa.)
Portsmouth
The same list of cities of the Fourth District which lie
outside of metropolitan areas, and which have been classified
as either "fringe" or "outlying" cities in the preceding two
pages, may now be classified according to their size in 1960.
Three size classifications are employed in this pair of pages
and the succeeding four pages, viz. 25,000 to 50,000 population as of 1960 for the largest size; 10,000 to 25,000 for
the intermediate size; and 5,000 to 10,000 for the smallest
size.
This pair of pages deals with the eleven cities of the
Fourth District which have a population in the range of
25,000 to 50,000, but which are located outside of metropolitan areas. Eight are located in Ohio, and the remaining
three are located in western Pennsylvania or eastern Kentucky.
The average population increase of the eleven cities of
this size category has been 5 percent, which is considerably
lower than the 14 percent increase for the Fourth District.
Findlay, Newark, and Lancaster had population increases
above the average of the District. Sandusky, Mansfield, and
Marion had population increases, but the gains were at a
lower rate than the Fourth District average. Ashland (Ky.)
had no population change, while Sharon (Pa.) Zanesville,
New Castle (Pa.) and Portsmouth underwent population
declines.
Total, 11 Cities
30,241
41,807
28,964
37,058
47,198
31,731
31,150
25,211
38,510
44,714
33,410
389,994
% Change
1950·1960
+27%
+22%
+20%
+10%
+8%
+8%
0%
-5%
-5%
-8%
-9%
+5%
The three cities of the 25,000-50,000 size category
which showed the largest population gains (mentioned
above as being Findlay, Newark and Lancaster) are all
located in Ohio. In each case the employment statistics
show a substantial rise in manufacturing employment over
the interval of a decade, a rise which has been larger than
the average for the Fourth District. Also, the three named
cities are located in relatively prosperous farm areas of the
rich, glaciated land of western or north-central Ohio. The
agricultural factor in the population gains of such cities
does not apply by way of any increase in the number of
farmers (generally the number of farmers is declining)
but rather by a demand for a multitude of service or product
accessories which are needed on modern farms.
In three of the four cities of the 25,000-50,000 range
which showed population decreases between 1950 and 1960,
the employment statistics show marked declines in manufacturing employment. In addition, agriculture has not
greatly prospered in the areas surrounding these four cities.
15
/
•
:.----.\.
,,.
MEADVIL~;V
..--.-----
•
.
_1_,
WARREN
----
_r~-,
:
I.••.
•
•
i
FARRELL
-----'.,/
I
.-
(
i
u
!\..'"
(
~ ~,. "J"
-'.;;:~_"1~~~~ITY
..."
\
I
BUTLER
I
POPULATION CHANGES
1950·1960
•
Increase of 15% or more
•
Increase to 15%
•
Decline
10,000 - 25,000
POPULATION
OIL CIT~rJ
I
CITIES OF
NOTE: Lightly shaded areas indicate counties included within metropolitan areas.
Beyond the Metropolitan
Areas
CITIES OF 10,000 TO 25,000
1960
Population
Northern Ohio and western Pennsylvania are dotted
with cities in the population range of 10,000 to 25,000. These
cities pinpoint the location of old trade routes which ran
between the East and the Midwest. North of Columbus there
were two principal routes: One ran from the Erie canal
west through Van Wert, Ohio, and the other went from the
Erie canal west through Greenville, Ohio. There was also a
route which ran north and south between Toledo on Lake
Erie and Marietta on the Ohio River.
Kent
Athens
Wadsworth
Norwalk
Defiance
Sidney
Galion
Circleville
Chillicothe
Ashland
17,748
16,448
10,590
12,855
14,525
14,600
12,643
11,010
24,732
17,420
Wooster
Greenville
Bucyrus
Washington
Dover
16,916
10,538
12,261
12,275
11,231
C.H.
Bowling Green
Tiffin
Fremont
Delaware
Coshocton
Urbana
Bellefontaine
Indiana (Pa.)
Richmond (Ky.)
Ravenna
Winchester
(Ky.)
Fostoria
New Philadelphia
Van Wert
Mt. Vernon
The forty-six cities of the Fourth District which are
in this population classification had a population increase of
8 percent between 1950 and 1960, which is below the Fourth
District average. Fourteen of them, however, had large
population gains ; they lie either in an area which stretches
from Greenville to Kent or in an area between Washington
C. H. and Athens. Ten of these fourteen cities lie within two
hours' shipping distance of Ohio's metropolitan areas. Such
cities have become important suppliers of manufactured and
agricultural products to metropolitan areas.
Salem
Marietta
Ashtabula
Conneaut
Farrell (Pa.)
Cambridge
Warren (Pa.)
Ellwood City (Pa.)
Connellsville (Pa.)
Ironton
E. Liverpool
Oil City (Pa.)
Butler (Pa.)
Meadville (Pa.)
Uniontown (Pa.)
The twenty-one cities which had moderate population
gains are widely scattered.
Middlesborough
(Ky.)
Total, 46 Cities
Eleven cities of the District showed population declines,
due in numerous cases to the adverse fortunes of coal mining.
17
13,603
21,402
18,676
13,242
13,067
10,406
11,334
12,969
11,327
10,864
10,149
15,695
14,128
11,275
13,238
13,797
16,678
24,313
10,367
13,584
14,458
14,478
12,388
12,728
15,597
22,158
17,665
20,873
16,556
17,690
12,408
672,905
% Change
1950·1960
+43%
+41%
+33%
+32%
+29%
+27%
+27%
+26%
+23%
+22%
+21%
+19%
+19%
+16%
+14%
+13%
+13%
+13%
+12%
+12%
+12%
-11%
+10%
+10%
+10%
+10%
+9%
+9%
+9%
+9%
+8%
+4%
+3%
+1%
0%
-2%
-3%
-4%
-4%
-5%
-9%
-10%
-11%
-13%
-14%
-14%
+8%
CITIES OF
,
BRYAN
~
.••••
l}___
rL_, _ ••
,
.••••
--------~-1.....
PERRYSBURp
I
1
I
I
~APOLEON:
5,000 -10,000
PORT CUN ON
1
•••••
POPULATION
HURON
:
~ __ BE6LEVUE _.----
MEDINA
...•..
ILLARD
,r--'------1'-------.,
,
,
:
:
:
r'"
-------r'
~
;~-----r----L-T-- --1r"'-,
I
I
I
"
~
:~::
______
•••
"
I
KENTON,
..•.. l~r'_~..-~----.,--
I
.••
I
_____
"r--t· ..r------:
~1>,l'IlARYS:
:
I
L_
I
-,._l __
:
~---~
::
::
--""\...
It"
-L_-.-J
~____:
I
.a.,""
r----:
f
~--~----~
I
I
I
:
r-------,J
EATON
._,
I
"""
-,
.~-.
"
----~
:
L
I
.•-r"l/".....
i'
L
{,
,"--------
--J-,,,
,
I
I •••.
- ••-
I
:
:
,:
:
1
I
rL----"!._
'1
I
.••
,
•.,
I
'_r---,
r-.r
t.
~_ .•. _
~
__ ."
•••. _ WE4'biON"
: •••••
JACKSON
-L,
""..:-..•••_-_
J
r:
I
--I
r-:«
r-
~
I
L,
LeaAN
:
.••.
_.r_;_J .•. -'\._T"-~
GREENFIELD
HILLSBORO:
:
::
:
------r---- ..i
WILMINGTON ----,-
,,
UHRICf/SVILLE
I
-v ; ----.
cnr
"'T-- ---
'-']
"
I
10.,
1
:
r-------,..
•.I
•••••
ORO
I
L..,
.•••••
..••.
I
ORRVILLE
r..J-------
r-----:
~
~
I
...-;:
I
-r
\
\
SHELBY,,:
r-J,
I
1
1
:
:
L: ~
t
I
C..J.,..••
_,
~--i
,
\...,
_
'1:
i-'----,
1
f
I
.•..-,
.• ~I
L
'I
'
GALUROUS
POPULATION CHANGES
1950·1960
..•••. Increase of 15% or more
...••
Increase to 15%
...••
Decline
NOTE: Lightly shaded areas indicate eounties included within metropolitan
areas.
"
,
Beyond the Metropolitan
Areas
CITIES OF 5,000 TO 10,000
Huron
Medina
Franklin
Rittman
Perrysburg
New Martinsville (W. Va.>
Celina
Lebanon
Napoleon
Orrville
St. Marys
Georgetown (Ky.)
Port CIinton
London
Geneva
Wilmington
Bellevue
Eaton
Wapakoneta
Bryan
Shelby
Willard
Grove City (Pa.)
Paris (Ky.)
Greenfield
Sharpsville
(Pa.)
Gallipolis
Jackson
Logan
Somerset
(Pa.)
Hillsboro
Kenton
Ford City (Pa.)
E. Palestine
Mt. Sterl ing (Pa.)
Cities which have a population in the range of 5,000
to 10,000 show two patterns in their location. In northern
and southwestern Ohio nearly all such cities are fairly near
metropolitan areas; one-half of them lie within 25 miles
of the center of a metropolitan area and are considered
here to be "fringe" cities, as identified on page 13. A more
scattered geographic pattern is shown by cities of the 5,00010,000 class which are located in southeastern Ohio, parts
of western Pennsylvania, and southeastern Kentucky.
The fifty-one cities of the Fourth District which fall
in this population class had a population gain of 9 percent,
which is lower than the Fourth District average. Nineteen
of them, however, had large population increases. Nearly
all of the nineteen cities are located within two hours' shipping distance of the metropolitan areas of northern and
southwestern Ohio.
Cities of this size class which are located in Kentucky
and other southern areas of the District generally had
either moderate population gains or declines. Such cities
tend to be centers for farm products, farm services and
light industry which is intended to serve a local market,
and some of them are historic centers of the coal mining
industry. Where new industry has not entered to offset the
decline in coal mining, employment and subsequently population have declined.
% Change
1950·1960
5,163
8,227
7,918
5,378
5,515
5,623
7,642
5,967
6,702
6,464
+105%
+61%
+47%
+41%
+38%
+38%
+34%
+29%
+26%
+25%
+25%
+24%
+23%
+22%
+20%
+20%
+20%
+18%
+16%
+15%
+15%
+14%
+13%
+12%
+11%
+11%
+11%
+7%
+6%
+6%
+6%
+3%
+2%
+1%
+1%
0
-1%
-2%
-2%
-5%
-5%
-7%
-7%
-7%
-9%
-10%
-12%
-13%
-16%
-22%
7,728
6,859
6,828
6,368
5,669
8,858
8,256
5,011
6,718
7,316
9,123
5,429
8,342
7,724
5,418
6,024
8,740
6,932
6,325
6,291
5,411
8,747
5,441
5,241
5,321
Wellston
Somerset
(Ky.)
Punxsutawney
(Pa.)
Maysville (Ky.)
Franklin (Pa.)
Greenville (Pa.)
Waynesburg
(Pa.)
Uhrichsville
Titusville (Pa.)
Corbin (Ky.)
5,701
7,051
8,815
8,452
9,539
8,736
5,156
6,185
8,332
7,077
Wellsville
Kittanning (Pa.)
Windber (Pa.)
Hazard (Ky.)
Brownsville (Pa.)
7,078
6,784
6,954
5,883
5,996
Total, 50 Cities
19
1960
Population
342,458
+9%
ONE HUNDRED
AND SIXTY-NINE
POPULATION CHANGES
1950·1960
Increase of 15% or more
Increase to 15%
Decline
COUNTIES
COUNTIES OF THE FOURTH DISTRICT
1960
Population
Lake
Clermont
Geauga
Warren
Boone
Medina
Greene
lorain
Portage
Franklin
Butler
Pike
Trumbull
Montgomery
Richland
Fayette (Ky.)
Erie
Wayne
Licking
Sandusky
Summit
Wood
Pickaway
Defiance
Hancock
Fairfield
Marion
Ottawa
Preble
Miami
Stark
Huron
Delaware
Madison
Crawford
Hamilton
Cuyahoga
Beaver (Pa.)
Shelby
Auglaize
Ashtabula
Ashland
Clark
Butler (Pa.)
148,115
80,156
47,331
65,729
21,962
65,071
94,202
215,822
90,931
680,183
198,166
19,301
208,239
521,876
117,673
129,722
67,526
75,148
90,012
57,291
508,788
72,368
35,628
31,358
53,517
62,901
60,163
35,237
32,368
73,261
337,984
46,899
36,042
26,436
45,765
853,246
[,638,625
206,373
33,454
35,925
92,216
38,720
130,701
113,932
% Change
1950·1960
+95%
+90%
+78%
+71%
+69%
+61%
+60%
+46%
+42%
+35%
+35%
+32%
+31%
+31%
+29%
+29%
+29%
+28%
+27%
+24%
+24%
+21%
+21%
+21%
+21%
+21%
+20%
+20%
+20%
+20%
+19%
+19%
+19%
+19%
+18%
+18%
+18%
+18%
+17%
+17%
+17%
+17%
+17%
+17%
1960
Population
Greenup (Ky.)
Clinton
Allen
Mahoning
Washington
Kenton (Ky.)
Holmes
Lucas
Hancock (W. Va.)
Mercer
'Yo
Change
1950·1960
29,079
29,824
102,785
299,318
51,372
120,066
21,590
454,472
39,459
32,417
+17%
+17%
+17%
+16%
+16%
+15%
+15%
+15%
+15%
+15%
Fulton
29,172
Campbell (Ky.)
86,756
Williams
29,825
Mercer (Pa.)
126,284
Morrow
19,351
Henry
25,243
Brown
24,995
Erie (Pa.)
247,538
Lawrence
55,206
Westmoreland(Pa )351,735
Seneca
59,158
Putnam
28,150
Ross
60,629
Clark (Ky.)
20,951
Paulding
16,626
Champaign
29,607
34,444
Logan
Union
22,662
Knox
38,648
20,798
Carroll
Wyandot
21,586
Fayette
24,601
45,473
Darke
76,451
Tuscarawas
13,429
Jessamine (Ky.)
Columbiana
106,591
Warren (Pa.)
45,981
Brooke (W. Va.)
28,833
Allegheny (Pa.) 1,619,082
112,484
Lawrence (Pa.)
Van Wert
28,565
Madison (Ky.)
32,976
Jackson
29,220
+14%
+14%
+14%
+13%
+13%
+13%
+13%
+13%
+12%
+12%
+12%
+12%
+11%
+11%
+11%
+11%
+10%
+10%
+10%
+9%
+9%
+9%
+9%
+9%
+8%
+8%
+8%
+7%
+7%
+7%
+6%
+6%
+5%
21
1960
Population
% Change
1950·1960
Muskingum
78,271
Gallia
26,061
29,465
Highland
Woodford (Ky.)
11,668
Jefferson
100,001
Pendleton (Ky.)
9,940
Boyd (Ky.)
51,546
Marshall (W. Va.)
38,026
Coshocton
32,047
29,483
Hardin
Washington (Pa.) 214,896
Hocking
19,998
Montgomery (Ky.1 13,269
Athens
46,716
Bourbon (Ky.)
18,016
Scioto
83,637
Scott (Ky.)
15,184
Rowan (Ky.)
12,734
Guernsey
38,334
+5%
+5%
+5%
+4%
+4%
+4%
+3%
+3%
+3%
+3%
+3%
+2%
+2%
+2%
+2%
+1%
0%
0%
0%
Venango (Pa.)
Harrison (Ky.)
Mason (Ky.)
Monroe
Morgan
Crawford (Pa.)
Armstrong (Pa.)
Powell (Ky.)
Indiana (Pa.)
Adams
Clarion (Pa.)
Laurel (Ky.)
Wetzel (W. Va.)
Lewis (Ky.)
Perry
Belmont
Vinton
Meigs
Ohio (W. Va.)
Jefferson (Pa.)
Tyler (W. Va.)
Somerset (Pa.)
Harrison
Noble
-1%
-1%
-1%
-1%
-1%
-2%
-2%
-3%
-3%
-3%
-3%
-4%
-4%
-4%
-5%
-5%
-5%
-5%
-5%
-5%
-5%
-6%
-6%
-8%
64,971
13,644
18,362
15,200
12,665
77,788
79,165
6,630
75,024
19,864
37,217
24,895
19,356
12,945
27,636
83,491
10,227
22,036
67,973
46,654
9,970
77,141
17,921
10,873
1960
Population
Forest (Pa.)
Carter (Ky.)
Fleming (Ky.)
Lincoln (Ky.)
Clay (Ky.)
Grant (Ky.)
Elliott (Ky.)
Pulaski (Ky.)
Menifee (Ky.)
Fayette (Pa.)
Nicholas (Ky.)
Bracken (Ky.)
Garrard (Ky.)
Rockcastle (Ky.)
Bath (Ky.)
Greene (Pa.)
Martin (Ky.)
Wolfe (Ky.)
Robertson (Ky.)
Lee (Ky.)
Estill (Ky.)
Lawrence (Ky.)
Pike (Ky.)
Knott (Ky.)
Knox (Ky.)
Johnson (Ky.)
Jackson (Ky.)
Whitely (Ky.)
Magoffin (Ky.)
Morgan (Ky.)
Floyd (Ky.)
Breathitt (Ky.)
Letcher (Ky.)
Perry (Ky.)
McCreary (Ky.)
Bell (Ky.)
Owsley (Ky.)
Harlan (Ky.)
Leslie (Ky.)
4,509
20,649
10,733
16,701
20,642
8,754
6,304
34,102
4,251
168,185
6,653
7,398
9,684
12,231
9,088
39,345
10,129
6,495
2,444
7,390
12,401
12,050
67,788
16,849
25,130
19,652
10,668
25,665
11,088
10,908
41,519
15,475
29,911
34,934
12,330
35,004
5,329
50,765
10,926
Total 169
Counties
14,864,814
'10 Change
1950·1960
-9%
-9%
-10%
-11%
-11%
-11%
-11%
-11%
-11%
-11%
-12%
-12%
-12%
-12%
-13%
-13%
-13%
-15%
-15%
-15%
-16%
-16%
-17%
-17%
-17%
-18%
-19%
-20%
-20%
-20%
-22%
-23%
-24%
-25%
-26%
-27%
-27%
-29%
-30%
+14%
Note: All counties are in Ohio
unless otherwise designated.
FOURTH DISTRICT SUMMARY
Cleveland
Cluster
..
..
Cleveland Metropolitan
Akron
Youngstown
Canton
Lorain-Elyrla
Pittsburgh
Area
..
Total
+23%
2,392,086
189,490
168,293
..
1,060,068
689,339
198,166
130,701
..
Area
..
Area
+7%
+8%
-4%
+7%
+24%
+17%
+33%
+35%
+17%
680,183
454,472
247,538
129,722
102,785
+35%
+15%
+13%
+29%
+17%
9,799,734
Areas
+18%
Cities of 25,000·50,000
(outside of metropolitan
areas)
389,994
+5%
Cities of 10,000·25,000
(outside of metropolitan
areas)
672,905
+8%
Cities of 5,000·10,000
(outside of metro pol itan areas)
342,458
Toto', cities outside of
metropolitan areas
Total
rural
population,
+9%
1,405,357
Rural population
of counties
containing
cities of
5,000·50,000
(outside of
metro pol itan areas)
Rural population
of entire
counties containing
no city
as large as 5,000
as
Total, 4th District
defined above
The accompanying summary table brings together the
population picture for the Fourth District.
Sub-totals,
expressed as percentage shares of the grand total, show that
66 percent of the Fourth District's population lives in metropolitan areas, 9 percent lives in cities from 5,000 to 50,000
which are located outside of metropolitan areas, and 25 percent lives in the remainder of the District, which is classified here as "rural".
The rural classification employed here has been adopted
for convenience in rounding out the picture. This classification arbitrarily counts the entire population of counties
which make up metropolitan areas as urban, with no allowance for rural components. On the other hand, the classification counts as entirely rural the populations of all cities
below 5,000 which are located outside of metropolitan areas.
(According to Census classification of "rural", the rural
population of the Fourth District was 31 percent of total
population in 1960.)
Twelve of the seventeen metropolitan areas which are
listed in the summary table have been specially arranged
into "clusters". The Pittsburgh cluster, for example, includes the Pittsburgh, Wheeling, and Steubenville-Weirton
Metropolitan Areas. The Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Cincinnati clusters, taken together, contain more than one-half
of the Fourth District's population. Two of the three
clusters had gains in population which were larger than the
District gain. The Cincinnati cluster had a population increase of 24 percent, while the Cleveland cluster had a
population increase of 23 percent and the Pittsburgh cluster
had a 7 percent population gain. (The five metropolitan
areas which are not parts of clusters, as well as the individual metropolitan areas which are included in the three
clusters, were discussed on page 8.)
+22%
+24%
+22%
+19%
+46%
2,078,274
Metropolitan
Metropolitan
3,356,891
1,786,740
508,788
507,557
337,984
215,822
Area
Cluster
Cincinnati Metropolitan
Dayton
Hamilton·Middletown
Springfield
Columbus
Toledo
Erie
Lexington
Lima
% Change
1950·1960
2,749,869
Cluster
Pittsburgh
Metropolitan
Wheeling
Steubenville·Weirton
Cincinnati
1960
Population
2,475,756
+7%
+11%
1,183,967
-2%
3,659,723
+6%
14,864,814 +14%
22
in the selection of specific equipment, and prospective
changes in the organization of work and of personnel. Continuation and intensification of preparations for the advent
of the computer are planned for 1961.
Analysis of work methods specifically designed for the
turn to the computer represents, in one sense, a continuation of methods studies which have been given much attention in recent years, and which yield rich returns in
efficiency of work. A new aspect, however, which is now in
full swing, is the training of selected members of bank
personnel for technical programming for the computer; it
is planned to have this work done by employees familiar
with the bank's procedures rather than by outside technicians.
Concurrent with the preparation for the electronic data
processing system, progress has been made in the related
program of automated processing of checks through use of
encoded magnetic ink characters. In that program, the bank
shares with other Reserve banks and with the entire commercial banking system in an effort to streamline the
processing of the growing mountain of paper checks generated by modern business and banking procedures. The
check-processing program has been made possible by the
cooperation of office equipment manufacturers and check
printers throughout the nation.
Pilot tests of various types of equipment recently developed for automatic sorting and listing, with factory rated
processing speeds in excess of 40,000 checks per hour, are
expected to be completed before the end of 1961. The
arduous task of handling well over a million checks every
working day at the three offices of this bank is expected
to be considerably lightened when the full effect of check
automation takes hold some years hence.
Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland is considering an
electronic data-processing system for delivery and installation early in 1962. The computer system which is to be
selected from alternative possibilities will be fully transistorized, with core memory and magnetic tape drives, as well
as other appropriate input and output accessories. It will
be suitable for use in the data processing involved both in
regular bank operations and in original research applications.
Reasons for making the turn to electronic data processing include the assurance of greater speeds in operation and
promptness in achieving utilizable results, as well as the
unleashing of new types of computations which will enhance
the bank's services and which would not have been feasible
under the older methods of data processing. Total volume
of employment at the bank will be affected little, if at all.
Moderate savings on costs of processing the existing
work load are contemplated as likely for the first few years
of electronic operation. Savings are expected to be increased
over the long pull, especially in view of larger work loads
and the development of new types of statistical tasks.
During the year 1960, a considerable share of staff
talent at the bank was devoted to detailed studies of feasibility of electronic data processing, cost estimates, factors
23
Dec. 31,1959
Dec. 31,1960
Gold Certificate Account
Redemption Fund for Federal
$1,357,217,756
92,223,845
$1,634,684,463
87,707,525
1,449,441,601
31,021,730
33,051,387
1,722,391,988
34,132,800
32,179,897
.
1,515,515,718
1,788,704,685
.
752,000
750,000
.
.
.
.
249,174,000
778,386,000
1,072,356,000
218,493,000
225,602,000
909,674,000
953,250,000
215,040,000
Reserve Notes
TOTAL GOLD CERTIFICATE
RESERVES
Federal Reserve Notes of Other Banks
.
Other Cash
.
TOTAL CASH
Comparative
ASSETS
Discounts and Advances
U.S. Government Securities:
Bills
Certificates
Notes
Bonds
TOTAL U.S. GOVERNMENT
Statement
Cash Items in Process of Collection
Bank Premises
Other Assets
of Condition
2,318,409,000
2,303,566,000
.
2,319,161,000
2,304,316,000
.
.
.
555,899,237
8,617,022
17,767,789
565,403,408
9,315,267
22,453,372
$4,414,959,766
$4,690,192,732
$2,574,550,235
$2,570,371,585
.
.
.
.
1,253,849,313
37,749,426
20,116,000
6,600,563
1,460,302,533
32,803,569
31,320,000
26,294,895
.
1,318,315,302
1,550,720,997
.
.
406,097,241
2,596,988
457,026,300
2,438,680
.
4,301,559,766
4,580,557,562
37,800,000
75,600,000
36,265,000
72,530,000
840,170
SECURITIES
TOTAL LOANS AND SECURITIES
TOTAL ASSETS
LIABILITIES
Federal Reserve Notes
Deposits:
Member Bank-Reserve
U.S. Treasurer-General
Foreign
Other Deposits
TOTAL
Accounts
Account
DEPOSITS
Deferred Availability
Other Liabilities
Cash Items
TOTAL LIABILITIES
CAPITAL ACCOUNTS
Capital Paid In
Surplus
Other Capital Accounts
..::0__
TOTAL LIABILITIES
AND
CAPITAL ACCOUNTS
Contingent Liability on Acceptances
for Foreign Correspondents
24
Purchased
$4,414,959,766
$4,690,192,732
$
$
21,826,800
7,407,000
Comparison
of Earnings
and Expenses
1959
Total Current Earnings
Net Expenses
_
_
_ _.
$76,455,955
12,746,585
.
CURRENT NET EARNINGS
_ _ _
.
80,521,299
63,709,370
209,320
16,502
840,170
817
9,083,117
4,506
.
1,050,307
9,104,125
.
569
Additions to Current Net Earnings:
Profit on Sales of U.S. Government Securities
(Net)
_
_ _.
Transferred from Reserves for Contingencies
(Net)
_._
All Other
_.
TOTAL ADDITIONS
_
Deductions from Current Net Earnings
Net Additions
Net Earnings
_.._
25
_
Before Payments
Dividends
_
Paid U.S. Treasury
Transferred
_
(Interest
to Surplus
__
_
_..
to U.S.
1,049,738
9,103,947
81,571,037
72,813,317
2,219,154
76,281,883
2,150,830
74,774,987
3,070,000
$ 4,112,500
_._ _'_'.'.' .
on F.R. Notes)
_
_
_
178
$
Chairman
ARTHUR B. VAN BUSKIRK
Vice President and Governor
T. Mellon and Sons
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Deputy Chairman
JOSEPH H. THOMPSON
Vice Chairman of the Board
The M. A. Hanna Company
Cleveland, Ohio
RAY H.
Federal Reserve
Bank
of Cleveland
The National
Directors 1961
ADKINS
President
Bank of Dover
Dover, Ohio
FRANCIS H. BEAM
Chairman of the Board
The National City Bank of Cleveland
Cleveland, Ohio
AUBREY J. BROWN
Professor of Agricultural Marketing and
Head of Department of Agricultural Economics
University of Kentucky
Lexington, Kentucky
CHARLES Z. HARDWICK
Executive Vice President
The Ohio Oil Company
Findlay, Ohio
Chairman
W. CORDES SNYDER, JR.
of the Board and President
Blaw-Knox Company
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
EDWIN J. THOMAS
Chairman of the Board and
Chief Executive Officer
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
Akron, Ohio
PAUL A.
WARNER
President
The Oberlin Savings Bank Company
Oberlin, Ohio
Member, Federal Advisory Council
The First
26
REUBEN B. HAYS
Chairman of the Board
National Bank of Cincinnati
Cincinnati, Ohio
President
DONALD S. THOMPSON
First Vice President
W. BRADDOCK HICKMAN
.. Senior Vice President
ROGER R. CLOUSE .. Vice President and Secretary
GEORGE H. EMDE
Cashier
EDWARD A. FINK
Vice President
CLYDE HARRELL
Vice President
L. MERLE HOSTETLER
Vice President
RICHARD G. JOHNSON
Vice President
JOHN W. KOSSIN
Vice President
MARTIN MORRISON
Vice President
PAUL C. STETZELBERGER
Vice President
ELFER B. MILLER
General Auditor
PHILLIP B. DIDHAM
Assistant Vice President
ELMER F. FRICEK
Assistant Vice President
HARRY W. HUNING
Assistant Vice President
JOSEPH M. MILLER
Assistant Vice President
JOHN E. ORIN
Assistant Vice President
PAUL BREIDENBACH
Counsel
ADDISON T. CUTLER
Special Economist
FRED O. KIEL
Senior EconomistOffice Manager, Research Department
GEORGE T. QUAST
Chief Examiner
CHARLES J. BOLTHOUSE
Assistant Cashier
CHARLES E. CRAWFORD
Assistant Cashier
ANNE J. ERSTE
Assistant Cashier
ROBERT G. HOOVER
Assistant Cashier
JOHN J. HOY
Assistant Cashier
HARMEN B. FLINKERS
Assistant Secretary
ALVAH R. MILLS ..... Assistant General Auditor
WILBUR D. FULTON
Officers 1961
27
Branch
Directors
and
Officers
DIRECTORS
Pittsburgh
-
DIRECTORS
1961
-
1961
Chairman
Chairman
JOHN T. RYAN, JR.
President
Mine Safety Appliances Company
Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania
HOWARD E. WHITAKER
Chairman of the Board
The Mead Corporation
Dayton, Ohio
G. L. BACH
Dean
Graduate School of Industrial Administration
Carnegie Institute of Technology
Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania
H. W. GILLAUGH
President
The Third National Bank and Trust
Company of Dayton, Ohio
Dayton, Ohio
A.
IVAN JETT
Farmer
Georgetown, Kentucky
BRUCE BOWDEN
Vice President
Mellon National Bank and Trust
Company
Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania
Cincinnati
S. L. DRUMM
President
West Penn Power Company
Greensburg, Pennsylvania
LOGAN T. JOHNSTON
President
Armco Steel Corporation
Middletown, Ohio
WALTER C. LANGSAM
President
University of Cincinnati
Cincinnati, Ohio
SAMUEL R. EVANS
President
Windber Trust Company
Windber, Pennsylvania
CHAS. J. HEIMBERGER
President
The First National Bank of Erie
Erie, Pennsylvania
LERoy
M. MILES
President
First National Bank and Trust
Company of Lexington
Lexington, Kentucky
WILLIAM A. STEELE
President
Wheeling Steel Corporation
Wheeling, West Virginia
FRANK J . VAN LAHR
President
The Provident Bank
Cincinnati, Ohio
OFFICERS
OFFICERS
JOHN W. KOSSIN
JOHN A. SCHMIDT
PAUL H. DORN
CHARLES E. HOUPT
FRED S. KELLY
Roy J. STEINBRINK
-
1961
Vice President
Cashier
Assistant Cashier
Assistant Cashier
Assistant Cashier
Assistant Cashier
28
-
1961
RICHARD G. JOHNSON
PHIL J. GEERS
JOHN BIERMANN, JR
GEORGE W. HURST
WALTER H. MACDoNALD
Vice President
Cashier
Assistant Cashier
Assistant Cashier
. Assistant Cashier
(
@FedFRASER