The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
Minutes for
To:
January 25, 1961
Members of the Board
From: Office of the Secretary
Attached is a copy of the minutes of the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System on
the above date.
It is not proposed to include a statement
ith
to any of the entries in this set of
Tinutes in the record of policy actions required to
be maintained pursuant to section 10 of the Federal
Reserve Act.
Should you have any question with regard to
the minutes, it will be appreciated if you will advise
the Secretary's Office. Otherwise, please initial below.
Tr You were present at the meeting, your initials will
Indicate approval of the minutes. If you were not present,
itials will indicate only that you have seen the
.
t:
iZ:
r
Chin. Martin
Gov. Szymczak
Gov. Mills
Gov. Robertson
Gov. Balderston
Gov. Shepardson
Gov. King
1;1
Minutes of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System on
Wednesday, January 25, 1961.
PRESENT:
Mt.
Mt.
Mt.
Mt.
Mt.
Mt.
Mt.
The Board met in the Board Room at 10:00 a.m.
Martin, Chairman
Balderston, Vice Chairman
Szymczak
Mills
Robertson
Shepardson
King
Sherman, Secretary
Kenyon, Assistant Secretary
Molony, Assistant to the Board
Fauver, Assistant to the Board
Hackley, General Counsel
Farrell, Director, Division of Bank Operations
Johnson, Director, Division of Personnel
Administration
Mr. Masters, Associate Director, Division of
Examinations
Mr. Hexter, Assistant General Counsel
Mr. Daniels, Assistant Director, Division of
Bank Operations
Mr. Hostrup, Assistant Director, Division of
Examinations
Mr. Nelson, Assistant Director, Division of
Examinations
Miss Hart, Assistant Counsel
Mr. Potter, Legal Assistant
Mr. Leavitt, Supervisory Review Examiner, Division
of Examinations
Mr. McClelland, Supervisory Review Examiner,
Division of Examinations
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Discount rates.
The establishment without change by the Federal
Rese
rve Banks of Boston and Atlanta on January 23, 1961, of the rates on
disc
°I.Ints and advances in their existing schedules was approved unanimously,
With tu
he understanding that appropriate advice would be sent to those Banks.
Items circulated to the Board.
The following item, which had been
ated to the members of the Board and copies of which are attached
1/25/61
-2-
to these minutes under the respective item numbers indicated, were approved
Una
nimously:
Item No.
1
Letter to the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
regardi g
c
n the application of State Bank and Trust
°1711ParlY, Ann Arbor, Michigan, for permission to
establish
an in-town branch.
Letter to Lake City Bank, Warsaw, Indiana,
41ellding the Board's previous approval of an
4-nvestment in bank premises.
2
3
r etter to the Presidents of all Federal Reserve
i
vallks requesting comments on the redemption,
sZ1111cation, and destruction of unfit United
orates paper currency under the revised regulations
, the Treasury Department that became effective
ul4LY 1, 1960.
Bank Stock Corporation of Milwaukee
(Items 4-7).
Pursuant to
the view that had been expressed by a majority of the members, the Board
°11 December 29, 1960, issued a notice of tentative decision to approve the
al*dcation of Bank Stock Corporation of Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin,
to acquire stock of The Bank of Commerce, Milwaukee.
The notice was
IpUblished in the Federal Register on January 5, 1961, and the only comment
of objections to the
l'eeelved in the ensuing 15-day period was a statement
teat
ative decision filed by the Department of Justice. The document,
14441 restated some of the major arguments advanced by the Department at
e .,
—4-Ler stages of the consideration of the application, had been distributed
to
the members of the Board with a memorandum from the Legal Division dated
JanUary 19,
1961.
1/25/61
-3Following comments by Miss Hart, the staff responded to questions
by members of the Board concerning various aspects of the case, and
e01181deration was given to whether the potential management situation at
The Bank of Commerce, if the present application should be denied,
l'ePresented a factor deserving more emphasis than had been given to it
14 the
Board's tentative statement.
The members of the Board then expressed their views on the case,
be6lrin1ng with Governor Mills, who said he felt that the opinions of the
13ePeartment of Justice were entitled to be treated with great respect by
the Board.
He noted, however, that the Department had, of course, confined
itself to the factor of competition, while the Board, on the other hand,
144 required to consider pll factors that entered into the proposal.
His
(1141I Po81ti0n, Governor Mills said, was that each of the cases coming before
the Eoard under the Bank Holding Company Act must be considered indeto what
Per4entlY, and in a manner devoid of any particular philosophy as
%148 sPPropriate or inappropriate in the way of expansion by a bank holding
onip
'
7
441.
'
In this case, one of the three bank holding companies in the
41c'ealgas seeking to acquire a smaller bank located within a short distance
Or
be
the holding company's present banking operations. The bank sought to
ecluired would become essentially a service facility within the general
company system, although
already served by the banks in the holding
.
its sp
--rvices would supplement the range of facilities offered by the
1101.di
ng company's existing units. As he recalled, when the application
1/25/61
-4-
Ilas considered by the Board originally, stress was laid on the fact that
alternative
facilities were available, in the same area as that served
131r The Bank
of Commerce, from a number of other banks of fully competitive
84e s
In all the circumstances, he would adhere to his original position
that the application should be approved. If the Board should reach such
a.
decision, it was his feeling that the final statement should not differ
allY substantial way from the tentative statement, which reflected
1118.tilre consideration of the application by the Board.
Governor Robertson stated that he would vote to disapprove, for
the reasons he had stated when the application was originally considered
bY the
Board.
Of
He agreed substantially with the approach of the Department
Justice.
Governor Shepardson said he could not agree fully with the view
that
A
-PPlications of this kind should be treated as isolated cases.
It
114 his view that when bank holding companies approached the degree of
dor "ni„
- ance that now prevailed in the Milwaukee area, the Board at some
PoilT would have to prevent further acquisitions by the holding companies,
eva,
-"where the application might involve the acquisition of a small bank.
'
el', this case had been looked into thoroughly by the Federal Reserve
tam-- Of Chicago, and then reviewed again by the Bank at the Board's request.
the opinion
of the Reserve Bank, there was potentially a serious
14411114gement problem at The Bank of Commerce if the present ownership should
-34. If it were not for that factor, he might be inclined to reverse
f
1/25/61
48
-5-
earlier position that the application should be approved.
However,
sirice this factor was present, he felt that the tentative decision was
il tified, and he would continue in the view that the application should
be
granted.
Governor King indicated that he would reaffirm his original
113eition favoring approval.
He might have sentiments similar to those
e4ressed by the Department of Justice except for the fact that the three
holding companies were already operating in the Milwaukee area and
°Ile of them was substantially larger than the applicant.
In his view,
there was merit from the standpoint of the public interest in an approach
that would allow holding companies to compete vigorously with each other.
Re
Irotad consider this preferable to a situation where one holding company
1448 dominant and a smaller holding company was prevented from growing.
14 the circumstances of this particular case, he did not feel that he
7c)111°I. want to withhold approval of the application.
Governor Szymczak, who had indicated originally that he thought
the ePPlication should be denied, stated that he would vote for denial.
G°11erriOr Balderston and Chairman Martin, who originally favored approval,
-" stated that their votes would be to approve the application.
Accordingly, it was agreed to issue an order granting the applie4t1°11, Governors Szymczak and Robertson voting "no".
It was understood
that the accompanying statement would be in substantially the same form
114 the
tentative statement, although the receipt of comments from the
"4
11 r.
1/25/61
-6-
DePartment of Justice would be recognized.
It was also understood that
dissenting statements of Governor Szymczak and Governor Robertson would
acc°111Pany the order and statement of the Board.
Copies of the order, the Board's statement, and the dissenting
statements of Governors Szymczak and Robertson, in the form in which they
sUbsequently issued, are attached as Items 4 through 7, inclusive.
Content of bank holding company orders.
At the meeting on
September 28, 1960, question was raised as to whether orders issued by
the Board under section 3(a) of the Bank Holding Company Act approving
toek acquisitions by bank holding companies should include a provision
raaking the approval subject to a condition that, for a specified period
titre, the location of the acquired bank should not be changed without
the Board's prior consent. At that time the Board decided to defer a
4eision on the matter.
Arguments in favor of the inclusion of such a condition were set
°I't11 in a memorandum from the Legal Division dated September 26, 1960.
The
arguments were summarized in a memorandum from Mr. Hackley dated
'
a84 18,17 24, 1961, which had been distributed to the Board, but the memo118411zal also set forth reasons that had led Mr. Hackley to conclude, after
l'121-ther study, that a condition of the kind described should not be
itlellided in the orders. In brief, Mr. Hackley was of the opinion that
the
aUthority of the Board to impose such a condition was open to serious
IlletiOn.
Moreover, apart from the question of legal authority, he
R5)f)
1/25/61
-7-
considered it doubtful whether such a condition would be warranted.
Accordingi
y
it was his recommendation that no condition of this kind
be included in orders approving bank holding company applications, with
the
understanding, however, that if evidences of abuse should later appear,
the matter could be reconsidered.
In the meantime, in order to deter
Possible evasions in this respect, he suggested amendment of the form of
sMication to include an appropriately worded question as to whether the
h°1ding company had any intent or plan to change the location of the
accillired bank or any of its offices.
After comments by Mr. Hackley based on the reasoning set forth
14 1116 memorandum, Miss Hart commented that when the problem was under
discussion previously, one of the points that had troubled the Legal
1)ivieion was the weakness of the Board's position in the event a holding
e°111P44Y should move the location of a subsidiary bank immediately after
41°131'ava1 of its acquisition by the Board, since the Board would not have
btained any statement affirming the holding company's intention to
(1)1rste the bank at the location where it was operating when the applie4ti°n was approved.
This problem, she felt, could be substantially
linilted by a change in the application form of the kind suggested.
Governor Balderston suggested that it would be embarrassing to
the Iloard to have a holding company move a subsidiary bank into a location
'411el'e it would endanger a newly-formed independent bank.
Typically, he
1)014ted out, the Board in considering an application had studied the impact
-8-
1/25/61
0f the proposal on one or more independent banks.
After referring to a
ease that illustrated this point, Governor Balderston indicated that he
not feel that an amendment of the application form of the kind
on.
slIggested would offer a completely satisfactory soluti
far the only clear
Mr. Hackley brought out at this point that thus
ease of a change of location that seemed to pose a substantial problem
ed the bank holding
az'c'se on an occasion when the Board had not approv
the approval of the
ec'PanY's application, but a subsidiary bank, with
on
allPropriate Federal supervisory agency, subsequently moved its locati
to the site involved in the holding company's application.
that the Board's
Mr. Hexter said the Legal Division recognized
location and that the
(lecisions were made on the basis of a particular
of
h°le basis of the decision might be affected if there was a change
be
ati°n•
ure of the statute,
That, however, involved a gap in the struct
Hackley's memorandum.
and' he found himself persuaded by the reasoning in Mr.
of the memorandum
After Chairman Martin had referred to the part
or Robertson
1411ch cited the lack of evidence of serious abuse, Govern
exh,„
problem from
4--essed the view that it would be much better to keep the
it arose.
41118111g than to have to deal with the problem after
He noted
consider, among other
that in passing upon applications the Board had to
acquired, the nature of the
factors, the location of the bank sought to be
ble in that
al'ea concerned, and the kinds of banking facilities availa
al'ea•
He felt that it would not be adequate to obtain a statement of
1/25/61
-9-
intent in advance, because at the time the applicant might not have any
intention to move the location of a subsidiary bank.
Further, he believed
that the Board would not be exceeding its authority if it based its
nt holding
e*PProval of an application on an understanding that the applica
be acquired
e°tapanY would not move the location of the bank sought to
Without the approval of the Board.
Admittedly, the inclusion of such a
condition would not have prevented the change of location in the case
Previously
Board should go as
cited by Mr. Hackley, but he felt that the
as it could.
contemplated by the
Governor King said he did not think it was
to be based on
Holding Company Act that decisions by the Board were
time.
intentions, which were likely to be altered with the passage of
lie raised the question whether the purpose of the Act was not to control
g
the expansion of holding companies more than to prevent them from changin
the location of subsidiary units, where such changes were approved by the
bant.
supervisory agency having jurisdiction.
In his view, it was not
to determine
e°ntemplated that the Board would go so far as to attempt
Ilhether a bank holding company might at some future time move one of its
b4nks.
should be more
Governor Mills commented that he felt the Board
ty
ll cautious about taking any action that would preempt the authori
'
the
°t other bank supervisory agencies.
In this connection, he mentioned that
III the matter of Continental Bank and Trust Company, Salt Lake City, the
-10-
1/25/61
Was having its authority tested in an area where such authority
Igas much more clearly defined by statute.
He thought the Board would
much criticism on the part of banking institutions falling under
its jurisdiction if it injected itself into a field where it might be
acting without authority.
The Association of Registered Bank Holding
C°111-Panies, he observed, had come out in opposition to the Board's recomtaenclation to the Congress that the Bank Holding CoRTany Act be amended
holding company subto give the Board authority to determine whether a
even though it
bank should be allowed to expand through merger
/148 not a State member bank.
In summary, he felt that the Board would be
to an area where that
°4 thin ice if it attempted to extend its authority
";hority was not clearly defined.
Chairman Martin
Governor Shepardson„ Governor Szymczak, and
exp
Hackley's memoressed agreement with the conclusion reached in Mr.
held the opposite
while Governor Balderston indicated that he
view.
was accepted,
Accordingly, the recommendation of Mr. Hackley
Governors Balderston and Robertson dissenting.
This decision contemplated
along the lines
tzleildizent of the bank holding company application form
that had been suggested.
Messrs. Young, Adviser
Miss Hart and Mr. Hostrup then withdrew and
the room.
to the Board, and Young, Assistant Counsel, entered
-11-
1/25/61
Report on bank mergers.
At the meeting on January 17, 1961, the
80ard requested the Division of Examinations to submit for consideration
a draft of the material to be included in the Board's Annual Report for
1960 concerning bank merger approvals in order that the Board might
determine whether to submit such material to the Senate and House Banking
arid Currency Committees in advance of submission of its Annual Report to
agencies followed a
the Congress if the other Federal bank supervisory
8111113-az procedure.
Board under
The draft material was distributed to the
date of January 19, 1961.
g reasons why, upon
Chairman Martin began the discussion by statin
mind as to the desirarilrther reflection, there was some question in his
various parties in
bilitY of submitting portions of the Annual Report to
advance of submission of the report proper.
It appeared to him that the
Preferable procedure would be to eliminate such questions, to the extent
Possible, by submitting the Annual Report each year as promptly as
P°ssible, perhaps through some revision of the customary procedures for
--vilation of the report.
a commitHe added, however, that if there was
with similar
illerit to submit the bank merger material this year in company
should not
inaterial of the other bank supervisory agencies, the Board
Isefrain from meeting that commitment.
no commitment had
Comments by Governor Robertson indicated that
been made to the other supervisory agencies.
On the other hand, it
be
413Peared that they might have proceeded to a point where there would
1/25/61
-12-
Some question if the Board now decided not to submit its material on
bank mergers at the same time that similar material was forwarded by the
Other agencies.
a
The comments of Chairman Martin and Governor Robertson led to
general discussion of the status of the Annual Report for 1960 and of
alternative procedures that might be considered with a view to expediting
the preparation and submission of Annual Reports of the Board in the future.
material on
The discussion then reverted to the content of the
bank mergers that had been submitted for the Board's consideration, and
some reference
qUestion was raised whether it might be desirable to include
to cases under the Bank Merger Act that had been disapproved by the Board,
evell though no such reference was required by statute.
It was suggested
give rise to specuthat any listing of specific cases disapproved might
denial, but
14tion and erroneous assumptions regarding the reasons for
°I1 the other hand it was noted that information on cases denied, as well
as those approved, had been made available in a weekly Board release for
several months.
us
At the conclusion of the discussion, it was the consens
that the information in the Annual Report would be more complete and that
contained at least a
cAlestions might be eliminated if the Annual Report
disapproved.
statement as to the number of applications that had been
Masters noted
With respect to the material on cases approved, Mr.
draft
that there were certain minor errors of a technical nature in the
Ilaterial that should be corrected, and no question was raised in that
1/25/61
-13-
connection.
Mr. Masters also brought out that the basis for approval, as
stated for the various cases, differed in some instances from the basis
t°1* approval contained in the memoranda from the Division of Examinations
on the respective applications, this being due to the inclusion of
additional factual material that seemed appropriate.
No objection was
14d 1cated by the Board in this respect.
Governor Robertson then raised the question whether the statement
()II each application approved by the Board should not show the votes of
the members of the Board or, at the least, whether a general statement
sholald not be included in the record to indicate that in some cases the
4ction was not by unanimous vote.
A statement of this kind would make
it clear that the recording of an action taken by the Board did not
the
lieeeesarily mean that all members concurred in the decision or in
Ilalidity of the reasons stated as a basis for approval.
out that no
This led to a discussion during which it was brought
record of votes was required to be included in the material specified for
illeorporation in the Annual Report by the provisions of the Bank Merger
ng
Act. It was also pointed out, however, that the Board had been followi
the Practice of showing votes in its orders on applications under the
1/ank Holding Company Act and that no legal requirement existed.
Mr.
be said to be some
--‘eY commented in this connection that there might
illstification for disclosing votes on bank holding company actions because
°r the
of such actions,
fact that the statute Provides for judicial review
-14-
1/25/61
if requested, within a specified number of days from the date of the
Board's order.
If the procedure of publishing votes in bank merger cases
'were followed, he felt that more pressure might develop for reconsideration
of denials.
Further, the institution of that practice might lead to
qUestions regarding the procedure to be followed on other matters in the
bank
supervisory area where there were dissenting votes.
Governor Szymczak expressed the view that from the standpoint of
the Public interest the important consideration was the recording of the
°*etions on bank merger applications that had been taken by the Board as
such.
Deviations from that procedure might only lead to further questions
that 'would involve recording of additional details and would create
Potential problems.
The nature of several possible problems that might arise was
eveloped in further discussion, including the possibility of questions
being raised concerning the reasons for dissenting votes.
One member of
the Board (Governor King) indicated that although he would not vote against
PraCtiCe
of full disclosure, if that should be the Board's decision, he
felt Personally that such a decision would be unwise.
reArn-r
Also, he would not
a practice of partial disclosure because of the questions that
Illight arise from following such a procedure.
It was the consensus that the recording of dissents in the material
barlk merger approvals required to be submitted in the Board's Annual
RePort raised enough questions to suggest that such a procedure should at
-15-
1/25/61
least be the subject of further study before a decision was made to
Proceed in such manner.
On the other hand, no comparable problem was
seen in the inclusion of a general statement to the effect that the
Board's approval was not given by unanimous vote in all cases.
With regard to the question of submitting the material on bank
merger actions to the Banking and Currency Committees, the understanding
Iras stated that compilation of similar material by the Comptroller of
the Currency and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation had not yet
been completed.
In view of the progress that had been made in the
PreParation of the Board's Annual Report, it appeared, therefore, that
the question of an advance submission by the Board might not have to be
resolved.
of
It was understood, however, that if necessary the question
advance submission would be considered further by the Board.
Leavitt, and
Messrs. Young (Adviser to the Board), Nelson,
McClelland then withdrew.
8).
Reserve Bank branch building programs (Item No.
tO
In response
the Board's letter of December 20, 1960, the Federal Reserve Banks had
811bmitted rough estimates of "building proper" costs of branch building
construction needed in the next 10 to 15 years.
The total estimate was
' 2.0 million, or about .',;10.3 million in excess of the amount available
Ilnder the existing 4;30 million authorization for "building proper" costs.
ed
In a memorandum dated January 13, 1961, which had been distribut
to the Board, the Division of Bank Operations recommended that an effort
1/25/61
-16-
made to obtain repeal of the present e;)30 million limitation by striking
13aragraph 9 of section 10 of the Federal Reserve Act and adding at the
end of section 3, pertaining to Reserve Bank branches, a paragraph reading
as follows:
"No Federal Reserve Bank shall have authority hereafter
to enter into any contract or contracts for the erection of
any branch bank building of any kind or character or to
authorize the erection of any such building, except with the
approval of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System."
SlIbmitted with the memorandum were drafts of letters to the Chairmen of
the Senate and House Banking and Currency Committees that would transmit
the proposed bill and a statement of the reasons for the proposed legislation,
No objection being indicated to the approach suggested in the
rIleltOraDAIMI, discussion centered on the question of including in the stateMerit of reasons for the legislation a sentence which would state that
ellactment of the proposed legislation would result in the Board's
e°11sideration of branch building projects in the same manner as that used,
tlhaer exercise of the Board's power of general supervision, for proposed
4aaitions to head office buildings.
After certain reasons were advanced for and against inclusion of
that
sentence, Chairman Martin stated reasons why he would like authorization
the Board to exercise his discretion with respect to the timing of
8147mission of the proposed legislation to the Banking and Currency
CoMmittees.
1/25/61
The Chairman was given such authorization and also was authorized
to make such changes as he might consider appropriate in the wording of
the letters to the Chairmen of the Banking and Currency Committees or in
the statement of reasons for the legislation.
Secretary's Note: Attached as Item No. 8 is a
copy of the letter sent by Chairman Martin to
the Chairman of the House Banking and Currency
Committee on January 30, 1961, pursuant to the
foregoing action. A similar letter was sent
to the Chairman of the Senate Banking and
Currency Committee.
then withMessrs. Molony, Farrell, Hexter, Daniels, and Potter
d-rew from the meeting.
Outside activity of Reserve Bank employee
(Item No. 9).
In a
letter dated January 13, 1961, the President of the Federal Reserve Bank
Of Dallas presented the question whether any objection would be seen if
•
nt, stood for
H. Buntin, Supervisor of the Bank's Transit Departme
l'e-election for a two-year term as Secretary of the City of Fruitdale,
Teas, and, if elected, held the office for such term.
In 1959, question
1448 raised whether Mr. Buntin, who had been elected to a two-year term,
e°1"a continue to serve in the capacity mentioned.
In a letter dated
object if Mr.
Sel3tember 29, 1959, the Board advised that it would not
33114tin served out his then current term of office.
However, the Board's
letter also stated that in any future case where an officer or employee
411-ght be interested in an office that could be considered to be a public
Or
the Board's
Possibly a political office of the kind referred to in
-18-
1/25/61
1915 resolution, the matter should be brought to the attention of
aPPropriate officers of the Reserve Bank and, if necessary, to the
attention of the Board of Governors.
According to the current letter
fr°74 Mr. Irons, the directors of the Dallas Bank had, subject to the
)
al
Proval of the Board of Governors, authorized Mr. Buntin to stand for
1e-e1ection and, if elected, to hold the office of Secretary of the City
'
Of Fruitdale for the new two-year term.
In a memorandum dated January 23, 1961, which had been distributed
to the Board, the Legal Division pointed out that there was no provision
law relating to the subject, and that the question therefore was one
or P°1icy
in the light of the Board's 1915 resolution.
After reviewing
the facts of this case and certain somewhat similar cases, the Legal
.
14vision recommended that the Board interpose no objection
A draft of
letter to such effect was submitted for the Board's consideration.
about the
Governor Mills indicated that he had some question
raatter, which involved a situation where the individual concerned would
be
ion if elected.
candidate for election and would receive compensat
14 the light of Governor Mills' comment, there followed a discussion
(141.1-1g which reference was made to the location and size of the Fruitdale
by
e°17tillinity, the nature of the secretarial duties apparently performed
1111* Buntin, and Mr. Buntin's status within the Reserve Bank.
Upon con-
oration of these circumstances, it was the consensus that no objection
h°111d be interposed by the Board, on the assumption, however, that the
1/25/61
-19-
of Directors of the Dallas Bank had concluded that no undue
Political involvement would result from the situation that might embarrass
the Reserve Bank or the Board of Governors.
A change in the proposed
letter to make clear that this assumption was involved was suggested.
Accordingly, approval was given to a letter to the Federal Reserve
Bank of Dallas in the form attached as Item No. 9.
Messrs. Masters and Young then withdrew from the meeting.
Appointments of Presidents and First Vice Presidents (Items 10
thl"°11gh 14).
Letters had been received from five Federal Reserve Banks
edirising of the appointment of the following persons as Presidents and
First Vice Presidents of the respective Banks, each for a five-year term
Board of Governors,
beginning March 1, 1961, subject to the approval of the
and the fixing of salaries for the appointees at the annual rates indicated
for the period March 1 through December 31, 1961, also subject to the
Board's approval:
Reserve Bank
PhilLadelphia
Cleveland
St,
,
Louis
411as
'
President
Karl R. Bopp (35,000)
Wilbur D. Fulton (35,000)
Carl E. Allen (;50,000)
Delos C. Johns (35,000)
Watrous H. Irons (35,000)
First Vice President
Robert N. Hilkert (25,000)
Donald S. Thompson (25,000)
Charles J. Scanlon (25,000)
Darryl R. Francis (22,000)
Harry A. Shuford (25,000)
There had been circulated to the Board drafts of replies to the respective
13anks indicating the Board's approval.
In discussion, the suggestion was made that there should be
4131111"opriate notations in the records of the Board and the Federal Reserve
136411k of Cleveland concerning the understanding that Mt. Fulton planned to
1/25/61
-20-
retire upon reaching age 65, which would be within the five-year period
01' his appointment.
It was recognized that such an understanding would
not be legally binding, and the view was expressed that no reference need
be made to it in the letter to the Cleveland Bank.
Accordingly, it was
Utderstood that Governor Balderston would mention the matter by telephone
to Chairman Van Buskirk of the Cleveland Reserve Bank.
Secretary's Note: Governor Balderston reported
on his subsequent conversation with Chairman
Van Buskirk at the meeting on January 26, 1961.
Thereupon, unanimous approval was given to letters to the
Philadelphia, Cleveland, Chicago, St. Louis, and Dallas Banks approving
the appointments made and salaries fixed by the directors of the respective
T3anks.
Copies of the letters are attached as Items 10 through 14, inclusive.
Service of Chairman of Pittsburgh Branch.
Governor Balderston
l‘eloorted that he had received a telephone call this morning from Mr.
744 Buskirk, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, who
advised that Mr. John T. Ryan, Jr., Chairman of the Pittsburgh Branch, had
beer) invited to become a director of the Mellon National Bank and Trust
e°111PanY, Pittsburgh.
Mr. Ryan had begun his service as Chairman of the
Pit
tsburgh Branch only at the beginning of the current calendar year.
Ilan Buskirk had expressed to Mr. Ryan the personal judgment that the
16tter should not accept the Mellon invitation at this time and that he
hcAlld continue to serve as Chairman of the Pittsburgh Branch through
he remainder of this year, at which time he might resign, if he so
)
1/25/61
-21-
desired, and become a director of Mellon.
Mr. Ryan was reportedly
agreeable to whatever course of action was considered most appropriate.
After discussion of the circumstances involved, it was the Board's
that Mr. Ryan should not continue to serve as Chairman and a director
If the Pittsburgh Branch if he should elect to become a director of the
(
Mellon Bank.
As to the choice to be made, it was thought appropriate
to advise Chairman Van Buskirk that the decision should be made by Mr.
%real in his own best judgment, although the Board would hope that Mr.
RYall's decision might be to continue as Chairman of the Pittsburgh Branch
though the remainder of the year.
It was understood that Governor
11414erston would inform Chairman Van Buskirk of the Board's views on the
Zatter,
Secretary's Note: Governor Balderston reported
on his subsequent conversation with Chairman
Van Buskirk at the meeting on January 26, 1961.
The meeting then adjourned.
Secretary's Note: Governor Shepardson today
approved on behalf of the Board a letter to the
Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (attached
Item No. 15) approving the appointment of John E.
Wiggins as assistant examiner.
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
OF THE
a
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
Item No. 1
1/25/51
WASHINGTON 25. D. C.
OFFICIAL CONRCIIPONOCNCC
TO THC •OARD
KO:"
t4440
January 25, 1961
Mr. Hugh J. Helmer, Vice President,
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago,
Chicago 90, Illinois.
Dear Mr. Helmer:
r 30,
Reference is made to your letter of Decembe
19(1) submitting the request of State Bank and Trust Company,
in
Afth Arbor, Michigan, for permission to establish a branch
the vicinity of Broadway, Plymouth Road and Maiden Lane.
been
It appears that preliminary approval has
obtained from the office of the Comptroller of the Currency
and
to convert the bank into a national banking association
that such conversion will be effected within the near
national
future. It will be necessary for the bank as a
,,esociation to obtain approval of the Comptroller of the
matter
`41rrency to operate the branch and, therefore, the
tances,
should be taken up with his office. In the circums
in
served
the Board feels that no useful purpose would be
you
that
acting upon the application and it is suggested
advise the bank accordingly.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) Elizabeth L. Carmichael
Elizabeth L. Carmichael,
Assistant Secretary.
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
OF THE
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
WASHINGTON 25. D. C.
Item No. 2
1/25/61
ADDRESS OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE
TO THE BOARD
January 25, 1961
B0
of
.411ce CityDirectors,
Bank,
%taw, Indiana.
Ge
ntlemen:
48ervpOn November 7, 1958, the Board of Governors of the Federal
Pecie,,L; System approved, under the provisions of Section 24A of the
'
41- Reserve Act, an investment by Lake City Bank of not to exteed
0„ $400,000 in a new bank building to be constructed by a whollyt2Oecl affiliate. The plan provided that the bank would furnish
q te00 capital for the affiliate and that the balance of the cost
a mow? building, not exceeding $200,0001 would be obtained through
gage to outside sources. The Board now amends its previous
;ate "val so that $250,000 may be invested in capital of the
4141 $150,000 will be obtained through a mortgage to outside
Very truly yours,
(Signed) Elizabeth L. Carmichael
Elizabeth L. Carmichael,
Assistant Secretary.
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
OF THE
Item No. 3
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
1/25/61
WASHINGTON 25, 0. C.
ADDRESS OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE
TO THE BOARD
it*
January 25, 1961.
Ilea'r Sir:
(lest? . This refers to the redemption, verification, and
pecle lactlon of unfit United States paper currency by the
ilimrIrlal Reserve Banks under revised regulations of the Treas—
t4rPartment, effective July 1, 19600 and particularly to
be:oardts letter of June 28, 1960 stating that comments would
qt;equested on the experience under the revised procedures
-r they had been in effect for about six months.
The Board will appreciate receiving any comments that
Yo14,
to, th
'
-'ank may now care to make in this regard, particularly as
prew
!effect, if any, of the discontinuance of procedures
the
followed, the effectiveness of the observation of
spej
ar
,Iceling operation, and the frequency of the need to employ
measures not provided for in the regulations.
Very truly tour,
I
Merritt herma
Secretar
SIDENTS OF ALL FEDERAL RESERVE BJKS
Item No.
1/25/61
UNITED STATES OF AlIERICA
BEFORE THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
WASHINGTON, D. C.
-------------Illthe
Matter of the Application of
STOCK CORPORATION OF MILWAUKEE
tori„4
17.3ti
"-Lor approval of acquisition
mia shares
of The Bank of Commerce,'1
-Aee, Wisconsin.
ORDER APPROVING APPLICATION UNDER
BANK HOLDING COMPANY ACT
There having come before the Board of Governors pursuant
t4) a
(1 -eeti°11 3(a)(2) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956
, 2 USC 1842) and section 4(a)(2) of the Boardts Regulation Y
OFR 0„
'
. .4(a)(2)), application on behalf of Bank Stock Corporation
'111.11,1aukee,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for the Board's prior approval
ot
the
cquisition of 80 per cent or more of the authorized and
Ilding common stock of The Bank of Commerce, Milwaukee, Wisconsin;
N ti
ee of Tentative Decision referring to a Tentative Statement
4DPlication having been published in the Federal Register on
1961 (26 Federal Register 56); the said Notice having
4
-2interested persons an opportunity, before issuance of
the IlDard l s final order, to file objections or comments upon
the
facts stated and the reasons indicated in the Tentative
State/lent; and the time for filing such objections and comments
1111g expired and one such Objection having been filed by the
Nted
States Department of Justice and considered by the Board;
IT IS HERhBY ORDERhD, for the reasons set forth in the
kardt S
Statement of this date, that the said application be and
herela
Y is granted, and the acquisition by Bank Stock Corporation
Militraukee of 80 per cent or more of the authorized and outstanding
11 stock of The Bank of Commerce, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, is
'
hereb
Y sPProved, provided that such acquisition is completed within
thre,
'
months from the date hereof.
Dated at Washington, D. C., this 25th day of January, 1961.
By order of the Board of Governors.
Voting for this action: Chairman Martin, and Governors
Balderston, Mills, Shepardson, and King.
Voting against this action:
Robertson.
Governors Szymczak and
(Signed) Merritt Sherman
Merritt Sherman,
Secretary.
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
OF THE
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
Item No. 5
1/25/61
APPLICATION BY BANK STOCK CORPORATION OF MILWAUKEE,
MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN, FOR PRIOR APPROVAL OF ACQUISITION OF
SHARES OF THE BANK OF COMMERCE, MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN
(7117-1E,1%7 •
Bank Stock Corporation of Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
".PPlicant"), a registered bank holding company, has applied
Pursuant to section 3(a)(2) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956
("the Act"), for the Board's prior approval of the acquisition of
80 Per cent or more of the authorized and outstanding common stock
f The Bank of Commerce, Milwaukee, Wisconsin ("Bank").
Viewn and recommendations of the Deputy and Acting
C°1111ssioner of Banks for the State of Wisconsin. - As required
0
8ecti n 3(h) of the Act, the Board forwarded notice of the
813Plication to the Deputy and Acting Commissioner of Banks for the
State of Wisconsin, who recommended that the application be granted.
Statutory factors. - Section 3(c) of the Act requires the
80ard to
take into consideration the following five factors: (1) the
•
tin
anclal history and condition of the holding company and bank
concerned; (2) their prospects; (3) the character of their management;
aPplication was filed prior to July 1, 1960, the effective
of the Board's Regulation Y
k'cri!r the amendment to section 4(e)
Diar "ing for the publication of notice of receipt of applications
deelliant to section 3 of the Act in lieu of the issuance of tentative
el°rIs and tentative statements by the Board.
(4) the convenience, needs, and welfare of the communities and area
concerned; and (5) whether or not the effect of the acquisition would
1'0 t0 expand the size or extent of the bank holding company system
involved beyond limits consistent with adequate and sound banking,
the
Of
Public interest, and the preservation of competition in the field
banking.
Discussion, - Applicant became a bank holding company on
4cember 21 19591 pursuant to approval given by the Board, through
the acquisition of stock of Marshall and Ilsley Bank ("M&I Bank")
and of
Northern Bank, both located in the city of Milwaukeec
Bank has its main office and The Bank of Commerce has its only
°ffice in the downtown area of the city.
The principal subsidiary
bank
8 of two other bank holding companies, together with ten additional
independent banks, are also located in Milwaukee's downtown
area. Northern Bank is located somewhat to the northwest of that
area.
The financial history and condition, the prospects, ,and
the management of Applicant are satisfactory.
iprelqous to
For some years
1959, Bank's rate of deposit growth lagged behind that
of other banks in the area.
It appears that Bank was not adequately
131'°1/isling certain necessary banking services; for example, the
ot
allment loan department was closed, In Ap711 19592 Mr. A. S.
Plato .
vlicher, President of Applicant, and Chairman of the Board
c)f APPlicant's two pre.sent subsidiary banks, acquired 78.2.8.
lel% cent of the authorized and outstanding common stock of
-3r* and instituted a program designed to remedy the numerous
cr-leiencies in operation.
The installment loan department was
re-°Pened, other changes and reforms were made, and as a result, the
te
Qf
deposit growth in 1959 surpassed that of other banks in the
seinC
general area.
Accordingly, the management and prospects of
4tik are not such, at this time
as to indicate a need for the
Planagement services which Applicant is prepared to furnish.
On
is denied,
the Other hand, Applicant states that if the application
Puelicher will dispose of his stock in Bank.
There is no assurance
to
that the improvement in Bank's management, prospects and service
the conmunity will continue under new ownership, and this uncertainty,
in
the light of the past history of Bank, is a circumstance which
terlds to some extent to support approval of the application.
the effects
The Board is also required to consider whether
Of the proposed acquisition would be to expand the size or extent of
4PPlicant's bank holding company system beyond limits consistent
and the preserIlith adequate and sound banking, the public interest,
l ation of banking competition.
'
HEI Bank
As of December 31, 1959, the to offfces of
l'ePresented 8.7 per cent of the banking offices and held about 18 per
cent of the total deposits of individuals, partnershLps, and corpora
,
's l"IPC deposits") of all commercial banks in the area from
75 per cent in Nflount of the total IPC de2osit
c1
°11-1r°d (the uprImary service area" of Bank).
of Bank were
In the city of
Miaw
aukee, the percentages attributablo to Applicant's two subsidiary
bark_is
Were 9.4
Per cent of the offioes and 21 per cent of the 'pc
cleP°81t8 of
tilese
all commercial banks. Acquisition of Bank would increase
Percentages respectively to 13 and about 20 per cent in the
prim
'
m- 17 service area of Bank; and to 12.5 and 22.6 per cent in the city
Iiiiimaukee.
If all banks are taken into considration; Applicant
'
i °11141 have 11,4 per cent of the offices and 225 of the IPC deposits
ill the
City of Milwaukee after the acquisition of Bank.
Since the primary service area of Bank completely overlaps
t'lLat of M&I Bank, and slightly overlaps that of Northern Bank; competit1.0,,
"would clearly be reduced to some extent by the proposed acquisition.
However, it appears from the facts before the Board that the
41)8014te reduction in competition which might result from the proposed
ecillts'it:1-on would be slight.
Even if it were assumed that either M&T
or
North
'
..e=n is now actively competing for every deposit account of Bank,
lecla
than two per cent of the total IPC deposits in the primary service
4sea
(31
' bank would be transferred to the control of Applicant. Such a
'wuile small, might assume considerable significance under certain
ofq,,etzln
stances; but in the present case, an adequate number of actively
N1Peti
ng commercial banking organizations would remain in the primary
area of Dank and in the city, after the acquisition was con4/411lateo,,
Further, First Wisconsin National Bank; the largest bank in
theci.y,
't has about $530,7 million in IPC deposits, as against $270.3
It11111°11 for all three of Applicant's banks taken together; if the
4114eation is
approved.
-5Moreover, any appraisal of the degree of present competition
between Bank and Applicant's existing subsidiaries should take into
4ecoUnt differences of emphasis in the nature of the facilities prothan duplicate
7ided by the three banks, which tend to complement rather
each other within the boundaries of the geographical areas that are
8el'Iled in common.
rTo illustrate, Bank specializes in local neighbo
primary service
hood services, whereas Northern's activities within the
altea of
estate finance
Bank tend to focus on the construction and real
ies of
ihlas. In turn, the very much larger size and lending facilit
and the investment, trust, and foreign services which it provides,
allcil'hich Bank does not, suggest that after allowance for the differences
ely little
1'4 emphasis placed on these functions there would be relativ
tion.
tedilletion in competition as a result of the proposed acquisi
that
The Board has particularly considered the fact
of
°*mately 80 per cent of commercial bank deposits in the city
'
441
allkee are controlled by three bank holding companies, of which
the ,
tances in which
'PPllcant is the second in size. There are circums
this
fact would weigh heavily against approval of the acquisition of
411 nA .
-A413.tional bank within the city by any of these holding companies.
the
consideraPresent case, however, the adverse nature of this
t4n .
ls diminished to a substantial degree by the relatively small
qze
Of Dank, and the relatively small size of Applicant as compared
the largest of the three holding companies; by the fact that the
Prop°
present competition;
acquisition would not significantly lessen
.0
-6by the continued existence of adequate alternative sources of
barlk ng service in the area immediately involved.
There is no evidence that the acquisition would be inconsistent
'Alth adequate or sound banking; and, in the circumstances, it does not
aPPear to the Board that the acquisition would be inconsistent with
the
Preservation of competition in the field of banking.
Conclusion. - As noted in the Boardts Tentative Statement in
4./
this
•
I
•
matter, issued in connection with the Notice of Tentative Decision
Ngished in the Federal Register on January 5, 1961 (26 Federal
Regi t
8-er 56), careful consideration was given to statements filed by
the Department of Justice urging denial of this application on the
gl'(311rld that a reasonable probability exists that the proposed acquisition
'lay substantially lessen competition in violation of section 7
Ofthe Clayton Act. Subsequent to the publication of the Board's
- of Tentative
Decision, the Department of Justice filed a
fIll"ther statement urging the Board to reconsider its tentative decia14)11$ and to deny the application for the reasons set forth in the
'clue statements submitted by that Department. The Board, having
131'ell
c4retullY reconsidered its decision in the light of the objections
.littilitted by the Department of Justice, as well as all relevant facts
or 1,
ecord, continues in its judgment that, in the light of the general
kIrn,
"ses of the Act and the factors enumerated in section 3(c) thereof,
the
Proposed acquisition would be consistent with the statutory objectives
44c1 t.
public interest and that the application should be approved.
1
Item No.
1/25/61
Dissentirw, Statemen:. of Governor M. S. Szymczak
After carefully considering all the evidence in the
record
before the Board, and after weighing the arguments which have
4e1
advanced, I cannot concur in the Board's decision approving the
4WlicA+.
--lon of Bank Stock Corporation of VilT:aukee. Three powerful
bayo_
h°1ding companies already dominate the banking scene in
4
aukce, with about 80 per cent of the total deposits of individuals,
krtriert,t,.:
Qu4s,and corporations of all commercial banks in the city.
--4crease,
however small it may be, in the size of any of these
1411 make it more difficult for the remaining independent
bkit
to
continue to compete.
Nor do I belie7.e that any doubt
aY exist as to the future of The Bank of Commerce, in the
that Mr. Puelicher found himself obliged to sell his shares,
kttricient to outweigh the public interest in opposing the trend
t4141,4
concentration of bankirw facilities in the city. For this
"3
dissent from the Board's decision.
6
f
Item No. 7 '
1/25/61
Dissenting Statement of Governor J. L. Robertson
1/
I have explained elsewhere- my views on the Board's
responsibilities under the Bank Holding Company Act. It is not
necessary to repeat that analysis here.
I agree with the majority that the management and prospects
Of the Bank Stock Corporation appear to be satisfactory, and the
1
ent and prospects of The Bank of Commerce "are not such, at
;Vagem
es which
this time, as to indicate a need for the management servic
e APPlicant is prepared to furnish".
As to the management factor, we must take matters as we
flcl them today. There is no question that the President of Applicant,
ment durPuelicher, has provided excellent and progressive manage
' the twenty months or so since he acquired control of Bank. I
cannot agree, however, that uncertainties as to the future condition,
Prosp53
to
pects, End management of Bank of Commerce are sufficient
fifth
the
under
rations
conside
rable
.g.'!eigh the very real unfavo
It seems likely that an efficient institution of this kind
is denied.
It"d be easily salable in the event that the application
c,is not probable that the convenience, needs, and welfare of the
suIrinunities and the area concerned would be adversely affected by
'
in
t ch a sale. There is no foundation for the argument implicit
by
he majority
sold
were
e
Commerc
of
Bank
statement that, if
r
Puelicher, its previous shortcomings would reappear.
The fifth factor relates, in large measure, to the
y
Presc.
erribr rvation of banking competition. Applicant's system alread
kee
Milwau
the
in
g
bankin
aces about one-eighth of commercial
1,71, . This is not negligible. Set in the framework of a situation
controlled
1;;fe four-fifths of all banking in the area is already
, in the
slight
r
howeve
se,
st three holding companies, any increa
cant.
signifi
more
far
'ength of any of the three becomes
As I said in my dissenting statement in the Firstamerica
case
all, 3 when most of the bank deposits and offices within an area are
very large
adY concentrated in the hands of a small number of
!
ban
of conce '\'8, any proposal that would further increase the degree
easier,
ion will not make the lot of the smaller banks any
ity and
Y reduce their ability to grow within their commun
Provide the kind of banking service expected of them. Therefore,
` 93Plication of Firstamerica Corporation, 45 Federal Reserve
letin 1_34, 141 (1959).
-2proposal should not be approved in the absence of a showing that
'he public interest and welfare will be served, Horeover, it is
clear that competition will not be preserved by approval of the
Pl'esent application, since a $19 million bank now competing with
°ther banks, including those controlled by the Applicant, will
"ace to be an independent competitor.
Since I conclude that the application of Bank Stock
Corporation should be denied under the standards set forth in the
!)!rik Holding Company Act, it is unnecessary for me to inquire
;Iether the proposal will involve a violation of section 7 of the
tYton Act, which forbids any corporation to acquire the stock
of the
another "where in any line of commerce in any section
ntially
be
substa
may
.
;'.°11rit17, the effect of such acquisition .
view
the
with
agree
I
ilessen competition . • • •" However,
eh the Department of Justice has expressed in this case, that
ft •
1,If the existence of a much larger holding company, Wisconsin
roare
48hares, is to serve as a ladder for the climb to greater strength
be triopoly
!! the two new holding companies", the result may well
of
merger
a
down
g
strikin
the sort foreseen by the Court in
y
Compan
Tube
and
Sheet
town
iethlehem Steel Corporation and Youngs
618
at
576
Supp.
F.
168
U.S. V. Bethlehem Steel Corporation,
N.Y. 137),
S"D•
'
g
the evidence,
Accordingly, after carefully weighing all
ntially reduce
substa
will
conclude that the proposed acquisition
be_
i
t any ,
withou
ial,
potent
14111g competition, both present and
:
0c
or welfare,
ience,
conven
need,
_Ynterbalancing benefit to the public
on.
decisi
s
Boardf
'ftd therefore I must dissent from the
,
31,D(r)ty
vf..P 4
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
OF THE
Item No.
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
1/25/61
WASHINGTON
OFFICE
OF THE CHAIRMAN
January 30, 1961.
The Honorable Brent Spence,
Chairman,
Committee on Banking and Currency,
House of Representatives,
Washington 25, D. C.
My dear Mr. Chairman:
I am enclosing herewith legislation which would make
Possible some additional branch buildings which are needed
in the Federal Reserve System. I hope ycu will be able to
introduce it for consideration at this session of the Congress.
This, as I indicated to you, is the only legislative proposal
we have this year and it is our hope that we can get authorization to go ahead before the end of the year.
A memorandum which describes the need for this legisla'
tion, together with a draft of a Bill for the purpose, are
enclosed.
With all good wishes,
Sincerely yours,
(Signed) Wm. McC. Martin
Jr.
Wm. McC, Martin, Jr.
Enclosures 2.
P.S. I am forwarding a similar request to Chairman Robertson
of the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency.
8
STATUTORY LIAITATION ON COSTS OF
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK BRANCH BUILDINGS
The Federal Reserve Banks use their own funds in the
construction or improvement of their physical facilities, including their branch buildings and equipment. No appropriation of
Government funds is involved. Federal Reserve Bank buildings and
branch buildings are capitalized -- that is, carried as assets of
the Bank. Since a limitation on the expenditures for Federal
Reserve Bank branch buildings was first placed in the law in 1922,
provision for further branch construction and improvement essential
to increased activity of the branches necessitated amendment of
the statutory limitation in 1947 and 1953.
The current need for an amendment to the limitation on
costs of branch buildings arises from the fact that the increase
in authorization for such costs obtained in 1953 is insufficien:6
to take care of construction urgently needed and other expansion
contemplated in the near future. The recommended amendment, while
repealing the limitation, would require approval of the Board of
Governors for any branch building e1'4pansion, as in the past. The
Board would continue to consider the proposed construction or
imProvement in the light of the needs of the branch, the type of
proposed construction, the reasonableness of the costs, and whether
the construction was generally in keeping with the prevailing
economic situation.
A BILL
To amend section 10 and section 3 of the Federal Reserve
Act, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives
ttin
,
I
......L12ited States in Congress assembled_, That section 10 of the
Pedaral Reserve Act, as amended, is hereby further amended by striking
Paragraph nine thereof (u.S.C., title 12, sec. 522).
SEC. 2. Section 3 of the Federal Reserve Act, as ameneed,
(U.8.C• title 12, sec. 521) is hereby further amended by adding
at the
end thereof the following paragraph:
"No Federal Reserve bank shall have authority
hereafter to enter into any contract or contracts
for the erection of any branch bank building of any
kind or character or to authorize the erection of
any such building, except with the approval of the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System."
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
OF THE
Item No.
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
WASHINGTON 25. D. C.
ADDRESS
orriciAL
CORRtSRONDENCE
TO THE BOARD
January 25, 1961
Watrous H. Irons, President,
4'ederal Reserve Bank of Dallas,
411as 2, Texas.
near Mr.
Irons:
This is in response to your letter of January 13, 1961,
ch you state that Mr. W. H. Buntin, Supervisor of your Bank's
ret Department, wishes to stand for re-election to a new twoterm as Secretary of the City of Fruitdale, Texas, and that
'o": Board of Directors, subject to the approval of the Board of
uvernors, has authorized Mr. Buntin to do so.
The Board has noted your statement that Mr. Buntin's
inv
les as Secretary are in the nature of public service not
tIving party politics in the usual meaning of the term, and
thev°
bia they would not interfere with performance of his responsitn i ies at the Reserve Bank. On the assumption that, in considerpolZtr, Buntints request, your Directors found that no undue
al involvement would result which might embarrass either
‘.
'
to Reserve Bank or the Board, the Board interp6ses no objection
Y°11r granting the request.
Very trulj\yours,
Merritt Sherman,
Secretary.
9
1/25/61
oostt,f,trrtoc.
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
OF THE
Item No. 10
1/25/61
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN
January 25, 1961
CONFIDENTIAL (FR)
Mr. Henderson Supplee, Jr.,
Chairman of the Board,
Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia,
Philadelphia 1, Pennsylvania.
Dear Mr. Supplee:
The Board of Governors has approved the appointment of
Mr. Karl R. Bopp as President and Mr. Robert N. Hilkert as First
Vice President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, each
ic3r a term of five years beginning March 1, 1961, in accordance
With the action taken by the Board of Directors as reported in
Your letter of October 12, 1960.
The Board of Governors also approves the payment of
salaries to Messrs. Bopp and Hilkert at the rates of $35,000 and
$25,000 per annum, respectively, for the period March 1, 1961)
through December 31, 1961, if so fixed by your Board of Directors.
Sincerely yours,
(Signed) Wm. McC. Martin, Jr.
Wm. McC. Martin, Jr.
rottl**Oc.
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
OF THE
r•
21:
1
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
.1*
1 •
4
Item No. 11
1/25/61
WASHINGTON
H
s ,4 ,1 jfk
‘
,
:
**I,41U361
OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN
January 25, 1961
CONFIDENTIAL (FR)
Mr• Arthur B. Van Buskirk,
Chairman of the Board,
Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland,
Cleveland 1, Ohio.
Dear Mr. Van Buskirk:
The Board of Governors has approved the appointment of
!!r. Wilbur D. Fulton as President and Mr. Donald S. Thompson as
'qrst Vice President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland,
each for a term of five years beginning March 1, 1961, in accord!rice with the action taken by the Board of Directors as reported
411 Your letter of January 16, 1961.
The Board of Governors has also approved the payment of
salaries to Messrs. Fulton and Thompson at the rates of $35,000
and 425,000 per annum, respectively, for the period March 1, 1961,
through December 31, 1961.
Sincerely yours,
(Signed) Wm
Mee. Martin, Jr.
McC. Martin
Jr.
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
OF THE
Item No. 12
1/25/61
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN
January 25, 1961
.92LTEIPNTIAL (FR)
Mr. Robert P. Briggs,
Chairman of the Board,
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago,
Chicago 90, Illinois.
Dear Mr. Briggs:
The Board of Governors has approved the appointment of
Mr. Carl E. Allen as President and Mr. Charles J. Scanlon as First
Vice President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, each for a
term of five years beginning March 1, 1961, in accordance with the
action taken by the Board of Directors as reported in your letter
of January 5 1961.
The Board of Governors has also approved the payment of
:al.aries to Messrs. Allen and Scanlon at the rates of ;150,000 and
025,000 per annum, respectively, for the period March 1, 1961,
through December 31, 1961.
Sincerely yours,
(Signed) Wm. McC. Martin,
Wm. McC. Martin, Jr.
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
OF THE
Item No. 13
1/25/61
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN
January 25, 1961
CONFIDENTIAL (FR) '
Mr. Pierre B. McBride,
Chairman of the Board,
P
f.ederal Reserve Bank of St. Louis,
4* Louis 66, Missouri.
Dear Mr. McBride:
The Board of Governors has approved the appointment of
!!1". Delos C. Johns as President and Mr. Darryl R. Francis as First
vice President of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, each for
!term of five years beginning March 1, 1961, in accordance with
he action taken by the Board of Directors as reported in your
letter of January 12, 196l.
The Board of Governors has also approved the payment
of salaries to Messrs. Johns and Francis at the rates of $35,000
nd 422,000 per annum, respectively, for the period March 1, 1961,
4nrough December 31, 1961*
Sincerely yours,
(Signed) Wm. McC
ft. Mee,. Martin
Martin, Jr.
Jr.
.
21
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
OF THE
Item No. 14
1/25/61
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN
January 25, 191
C°1\IF113
AL (Fa
Mr. Robert 0. Anderson,
Chairman of the Board,
I'ederal Reserve Bank of Dallas,
Dallas 2$ Texas.
Dear Mr. Anderson:
The Board of Governors has approved the appointment of
Mr. Watrous H. Irons as President and Mr. Harry A. Shuford as First
iee President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, each for a
411darm of five years beginning March 13 1961, in accordance with the
ion taken by the Board of Directors as reported in Mr. Murffis
-Letter of December 9, 1960.
Y
The Board of Governors has also approved the payment of
ries to Messrs. Irons and Shuford at the rates of $35,000 and
, 5,000 per annum, respectively, for the period March 1) 1961,
Lhrough December 31)
1961.
V
Sincerely yours,
(Signed) 141n. McC. Martin, Jr.
Wm, McC. Martin, Jr.
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
OF THE
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
WASHINGTON 25. D. C.
Item No. 15
1/25/61
ADDRESS OFFICIAL CORRESPONDICNCIE
TO THE BOARD
January 25, 1961
• AIR MAIL
L. F. Mills, Vice President,
Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City,
Kansas City 6, Missouri,
Dear Mr. Minas
In accordance with the request contained in your
letter of January 18, 1961, the Board approves the appointment of John E. Wiggins as an assistant examiner for the
Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. Please advise us of
the salary rate and the effective date of the appointment,
Very truly yours,
(2i2111'.(1) Elizabeth L. Curuichael
Elizabeth L. Carmichael,
Assistant Secretary.
@FedFRASER