The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
Minutes for January 28, 1960
To:
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
with respect to any of the entries in this set of
minutes 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.
If you were present at the meeting, your initials will
Indicate approval of the minutes. If you were not present,
Your initials will indicate only that you have seen the
minutes.
Chin. Martin
Gov. Szymczak
Gov. Mills
Gov. Robertson
Gov. Balderston
Gov. Shepardson
Gov. King
4
)
4
Minutes of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
on Thursday, January 28, 1960. The Board met in the Board Room at 10:00 a.m.
PRESENT: Mr. Martin, Chairman 1/
Mr. Balderston, Vice Chairman
Mr. Szymczak
Mr. Mills
Mr. Robertson
Mr. Shepardson
Mr. King
Mr. Sherman, Secretary
Mr. Thomas, Adviser to the Board
Mr. Young, Adviser to the Board
Mr. Shay, Legislative Counsel
Mr. Molony, Assistant to the Board
Mr. Fauver, Assistant to the Board
Mr. Hackley, General Counsel
Mr. Noyes, Director, Division of Research and
Statistics
Mr. Farrell, Director, Division of Bank Operations
Mr. Solomon, Director, Division of Examinations
Mr. Hexter, Assistant General Counsel
Mr. O'Connell, Assistant General Counsel
Mr. Robinson, Adviser, Division of Research and
Statistics
Mr. Dembitz, Associate Adviser, Division of
Research and Statistics
Mr. Nelson, Assistant Director, Division of
Examinations
Mr. Landry, Assistant to the Secretary
Items circulated to the Board.
been
The following items, which had
circulated to the members of the Board and copies of which are
attached to these
minutes under the respective item numbers indicated,
were approved unanimously:
Item No.
,etter to the Bank of Westbury Trust Company,
4estbury, New York, approving the establishment
°I* a branch in the Westbury Shopping Center.
T7--Withdrew from
meeting at point indicated in minutes.
1
k),
-2-
1/28/60
Item No.
Letter to the Fidelity-Philadelphia Trust Company,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, approving an extension
of time to establish a branch in the Cheltenham
Shopping Center.
2
Letter to the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco
continuing in effect permission previously granted
to Fidelity Bank, Los Angeles, California, to carry
reduced reserves.
3
Request of the Department of Justice for notification of receipt
of applications under Bank Holding Company Act (Item No.
meeting on January
4). At the
8, 1960, the Board considered a memorandum from Mr.
Hexter dated November 25, 1959, recommending that hereafter the Department
Of Justice be informed of the receipt of applications under section 3(a)
Of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 for approval of the acquisition
of bank shares or bank assets. At that meeting it was decided to consider further the request of the Department of Justice contained in its
letter of November 17, 1959, after Chairman Martin had had an opportunity
to discuss the subject with Comptroller of the Currency Gidney.
The Chairman reported that he had talked with Mr. Gidney about
this general question and had ascertained that the views of members of
the Comptroller's Office came out at about the same place as those
expressed in the memorandum of November 25 from Mr. Hexter.
In that
Memorandum, the Legal Division took the position that since the Board
had recognized the propriety and advisability of informing the Justice
bePartment of folding Company Act applications when they reached the
-3
1/28/60
Tentative Decision stage (see letter to Justice on February
271 1959),
it was difficult to see any justification for refusing the Department's
request that it be informed of each application upon receipt by the
Board. Chairman Martin noted that Governor Mills previously had
expressed strong views contrary to these, and the matter had been
Placed on the agenda for this meeting in order that the Board might
dispose of the request made by the Department of Justice in its letter
of November
17, 1959, one way or the other. He then called upon Governor
Mills for comments.
Governor Mills said that he would not take the Board's time to
restate in full the reasoning for his objections to acceding to the
request of the Department of Justice. In brief, his conception of the
Proper and special place occupied by the Board of Governors in the
structure of the Federal Government would be violated by compliance
with this request in the absence of a specific statutory requirement.
Re went on to say, in reply to a question from Governor Shepardson,
that he thought there was a close relationship between this request
from the Department of Justice and the position the latter took with
respect to S. 1062, the bank merger bill, which would provide that
every bank merger should have the prior approval of the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation, the Comptroller of the Currency, or the Board of
Governors.
As passed by the Senate in May
1959 and currently under
e°nsideration by the House Banking and Currency Committee, the bill
1/28/6o
-4-
included provisions that would make it mandatory rather than permissive
for the Federal bank supervisory agencies to obtain a report from the
Attorney General and would require the banking agencies to submit semiannual reports to Congress regarding bank mergers, including a statement
in justification of their approval of any merger where a report had been
submitted by the Attorney General. Such legislation would give the
Department of Justice authority to pass on bank mergers—something it
does not now possess. Mr. Hackley had now reported to the Board on an
informal suggestion to members of the staff by Mr. Cardon, Clerk of the
House Banking and Currency Committee, regarding a possible amendment to
the merger bill as passed by the Senate, the principal effect of which
would be to require the appropriate banking agency to consider whether
the effect of a merger would be "substantially" to lessen competition
or to tend to create a monopoly, and to prohibit the banking agency from
approving a merger where there would be a "substantial" lessening of
competition unless it should find that the merger would nevertheless be
la the public interest" because the benefits to the public would outweigh the adverse effect upon competition. It was his view, said
G overnor Mills, that if the Board were to accede to the November 17
l'equest of Justice and give information regarding the receipt of
4PPlications under the Bank Holding Company Act, it would be admitting
that agency to almost equal status with the Board in this area and
giving it power to intervene in such cases prior to the Board's arriving
-5_
1/28/60
at a tentative decision on the applications. If that were done, he could
see no reason why the Board should not accept merger legislation that would
incorporate a provision such as Mr. Cardon had discussed. The voluntary
giving of this information would, in his judgment, abdicate the Board's
responsibilities in this field to the Department of Justice.
Governor Szymczak stated that his reaction to the request of
Justice was just the opposite of that expressed by Governor Mills: in
his view, if the Board informed Justice of the receipt of applications
aId permitted their inspection, that would eliminate any need for the
kind of merger legislation being sought by the Department of Justice.
Mr. Hackley commented that there was a difference between the
status of the Department of Justice under the proposed bank merger
legislation and under the Bank Holding Company Act, in terms of its
authority under the Clayton Act. The bank mercer bill merely provides
that in passing on mergers, the banking agencies shall request the
Iriews of the Attorney General on the merger, leaving the banking agency
free to consider the Attorney General's views along with the banking
factors. On the other hand, the Bank Holding Company Act provides
eXPlicitly that approval by the Board of a bank holding company application shall not in any way affect the jurisdiction of the Department
c't Justice under the Clayton Act to proceed against stock acquisition
of banks. He went on to say that in the light of the legislation and
Pazticularly in view of the Board's Rules of Organization, the Legal
1/28/60
-6-
Division could find no good reason for refusing the request of Justice
for advance notice of applications received under the Bank Holding
Company Act. Should the Board refuse this request, Justice could cite
such action as evidence of the Board's unwillingness to cooperate and
thus strengthen the case for merger legislation of the type being
sought by the Department.
Governor Robertson said that he agreed completely with the
Position and reasoning of the Legal Division on this matter. He felt,
in fact, that the Board had already crossed this bridge in its letter
of February 27, 1959, to Justice stating "that it would be desirable to
bring directly to your attention all applications filed with the Board
fOX approval of the acquisition by bank holding companies of bank
stocks
O] bank assets." He noted further that in a letter of the same date
RePresentative Celler, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, was
informed that "the Board will hereafter give the Department (of Justice)
direct notice of all applications filed with the Board under the Bank
Holding Company Act." Failure to respond favorably to the request of
Justice would subject the Board to the justifiable criticism that it
was not cooperating with the chief law enforcement agency of the Covernment
in carrying out a matter of law, he said, and he did not see how acceding
to the request from Justice would interfere with the position taken by
the Board supporting the bank merger bill in the form in which it was
irltroduced in February
1959.
For these reasons, he would respond
favorably to the November 17 request of the Department of Justice.
1/28/60
-7Mr. Hackley said that the request was for notification of the
receipt of applications and that the proposed reply prepared by the
Legal Division would inform Justice that such applications would be
available for inspection on a confidential basis. After Governor hills
commented to the effect that this still would be making available to
Justice the applications of bank holding companies which look to the
Board for free and independent judgment in that regard, Mr. Hackley
said that the Legal Division understood that the Federal Trade Commission
assigned one person to spend his time on matters coming to the Commission
Which might be of interest to Justice and that the Department was kept
currently and fully informed on all such matters.
Governor Shepardson stated that, on principle, he agreed with
the recommendation of the Legal Division.
He did not see how the Board
could justify not furnishing the information requested by Justice.
Chairman Martin said that one aspect of the matter that struck
hilm was that the Board might be classed as noncooperative with another
agency of Government if it refused the request.
He felt that this
Should be avoided at all times if that possibly could be done. At the
same time, he felt it desirable to have before the Board the views that
had been expressed by Governor Mills.
Governor Mills then said that if the majority of the Board were
to approve the request of Justice, he would like to know what the Board
had in mind for giving adequate notice to other supervisory
authorities
-8-
1/28/60
and to the bank holding companies that an additional agency of Government
would be injected into the consideration of applications under the Bank
Holding Company Act before the Board had arrived at its tentative decision.
When Chairman Martin stated that he thought the other supervisory agencies
and the holding companies were already fully aware of the interest and
authority of the Department of Justice, Governor Mills cpiled attention
to the suggestion for an amendment to Regulation Y, Bank Holding Companies,
When the Board considered on October 8, 1959, a possible change in The
Procedure for issuing tentative decisions on applications under the Act,
With notice of such proposed amendment to be published in the Federal
Register for comment.
Mr. Hackley stated that shortly after the Bank Holding Company
Act was passed in 1956, Transamerica Corporation, San Francisco, raised
the specific (,uestion whether any publicity would be given to receipt of
aPplications under that Act, and the Board replied to the effect that such
applications would be treated as unpublished information in accordance
With the Board's Rules of Organization.
Purely as a technical matter,
the Rules provided a means for making unpublished information available
to other agencies of Government, and therefore the holding companies
could be said technically to be on notice that the Board might give
riotice to the Department of Justice of receipt of their applications.
the other hand, in all fairness to the holding companies, it might be
argued that Regulation Y should be amended to provide specifically for
this.
Mr. Hackley said he was not convinced of the desirability of an
On
1/28/60
-9-
amendment.
It could also be argued that giving advance notice to Justice
Of receipt of these applications would assist the holding companies in
avoiding situations where, as in the Firstamerica decision of January
1959, an approval by the Board was followed by litigation by Justice
to prevent the holding company from carrying out its plans.
Mr. Hexter expressed the opinion that it would be undesirable
to amend Regulation Y in this manner.
It was difficult for him to see
haw applicant holding companies could feel that they had the right to
secrecy from the Department of Justice, which had the responsibility
for enforcing the anti-trust laws.
If a proposal would not violate
the law, Justice would not have a basis to prosecute; if it would
violate the law, the holding company could hardly object to having
Justice know of the proposal.
Mr. O'Connell said that in his opinion an amendment to Regulation
y
would clarify the situation and, in his opinion, the advantages of such
an amendment would outweigh any disadvantages.
He also referred to
conversations that he had had with Mr. Gesell, Counsel for Firstamerica
Corporation, from which he had drawn the impression that this particular
holding company would have benefited from the knowledge that the Board
had informed Justice of its application as soon as it had been received.
Mr. Solomon said that he had no strong feeling about an amendment.
He thought the main purpose of an amendment could be served as well by a
letter to all holding companies registered under the Bank Holding Company
Act informing them that, pursuant to the Board's Rules of Procedure
-10-
1/28/60
regarding release of unpublished information to other Federal agencies,
the Department of Justice would be advised of the receipt of applications
under the Holding Company Act and that such applications would be made
available for inspection by that Department.
Mr. Hackley said that Mr. Solomon's suggestion appealed to him.
It would avoid giving the impression that the Board was amending Regulation
Y because of a change in procedure that was already covered by the Board's
Rules of Organization.
He would favor sending such a letter to all
registered bank holding companies because of their interest in the
subject, stating that this was being done under the Board's Rules and
Pursuant to a request of the Department of Justice.
Mr. Hexter stated that this procedure would De less objectionable,
in his opinion, than an amendment to Regulation I, and Mr. O'Connell said
that he could see no objection to the procedure suggested.
Governor Mills suggested that similar advice of the action also
Should be sent to the bank supervisory agencies, and there was general
agreement with this suggestion. Governor Mills added that he would
dissent from an action of the Board to make available to the Department
°2 Justice information regarding receipt of applications under the Bank
Holding Company Act but, if a majority of the Board took such action, he
would approve the procedure described for giving notice of that action.
Thereupon, approval was given to a letter to Mr. Robert A. Bicks,
Acting Attorney General, Department of Justice, (Governor Mills dissenting),
-11-
1/28/60
informing him that the Board would, in response to the request in his
letter of November 17, 1959, hereafter notify the Department of the
receipt of applications filed under the Bank Holding Company Act and
that such applications would be made available for the inspection of
the Department on a confidential basis.
A copy of the letter sent to
Mr. Bicks under date of January 29 is attached to these minutes as
Item No.
4.
Bank merpr legislation. There had been distributed memoranda
dated January 26 and 27, 1960, respectively, from Mr. Hackley relating
to meetings held January 25 and 27 regarding pending bank merger legislation as embodied in S. 1062, passed by the Senate in May
before the House Banking and Currency Committee.
1959 and now
The first of these
meetings had been attended by staff representatives from the Office of
the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,
the American Bankers Association, and Mr. Hackley. The second meeting
had been similarly attended except that no representatives from the
American Bankers Association were present. The earlier memorandum
indicated that the subject considered during the January 25 meeting
Ilas the draft of a possible amendment to the bank merger bill on which
hearings were to be held on February 16 before the House Banking and
Currency Committee. The second memorandum supplemented the first by
recording the view of Mr. Gidney, Comptroller of the Currency that,
although he preferred the bank merger bill as originally introduced
in the Senate, he would support it as passed by the Senate in May 1959
-12-
1/28/60
and that he would oppose an amendment such as that suggested informally
by Mr. Cardon, Clerk of the House Banking and Currency Committee, the
principal effect of which would be, as indicated earlier in this meeting,
to require the appropriate banking agency to consider whether the effect
of a merger would be "substantially" to lessen competition or tend to
create a monopoly, and to prohibit the banking agency from approving a
merger
where there would be a substantial lessening of competition unless
it should find that the merger would nevertheless be "in the public
interest" because the benefits to the public would outweigh the adverse
effect upon competition.
This memorandum also indicated that Chairman
Wolcott of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation had similar views.
It was recalled that the Board as well as the Comptroller and the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation supported the merger bill, S. 1062, in its
have the prior
earlier form providing that every bank merger should
approval of the three supervisory agencies; that banking agencies should
consider the so-called "banking factors" stated in section
6
of the Federal
the merger would be
Deposit Insurance Act and also whether the effect of
to create a monopoly;
to lessen competition "unduly" or to tend "unduly"
and that the banking agency be required to obtain the views of the other
two banking agencies on the question of competition and be authorized
with respect to this
to request the opinion of the Attorney General
question.
however, included provisions
The bill as passed by the Senate,
a report from the
making it mandatory for the banking agencies to obtain
Attorney General.
-13-
1/28/60
In commenting on the meetings of the staff of the three Federal
Bank supervisory agencies and representatives of the American Bankers
Association, Mr. Hackley stated that the amendment proposed by Mr. Cardon
was strongly opposed by the Comptroller's Office because (1) it would
use the word "substantially" instead of "unduly"; (2) it would make it
necessary for the banking agency to justify its approval of any merger
Where it found that there would be a substantial lessening of competition;
(3) any agreement by the banking agencies to the proposed amendment would
Probably open the door to further amendments that would be unacceptable.
On the other hand, the representatives from the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation and the American Bankers Association appeared to see no real
objection to the Proposed amendment.
For his part, Mr. Hackley said,
he had pointed out that in testifying before the Senate Committee last
March Governor Robertson stated that the Board's position in this matter
Ilas based on the premise that competition should be one but not the only
ractor to be considered in passing on bank mergers.
He concluded by
noting that Mr. Cardon did not expect an official expression of opinion
On his amendment from the Board.
able to avoid
Mr. Shay commented that the Board might not be
expressing its views on such an amendment at the hearings on February 16,
and the Chairman indicated that he had agreed to testify on this subject
at that time.
-14-
1/28/60
There followed a long discussion of the merger legislation during
which particular attention was given to the interpretations that might be
Placed on the meaning of the words "substantially', and "unduly" as applied
to lessening of competition.
At the conclusion of the discussion, it was
understood that the Legal Division would prepare a draft of testimony for
use by Chairman Martin when he appeared before the House Banking and
Currency Committee on February 16 and that the draft testimony would be
considered by the Board at an early date.
Messrs. Hexter, O'Connell, and Nelson then withdrew from the
meeting.
Topics for meeting with Federal Advisory Council (Item No.
5).
Before this meeting there had been distributed a draft letter to the
Federal Advisory Council suggesting topics for discussion at the joint
meeting of the Board and the Council to be held on February 16, 1960.
Governor Robertson noted that the Board customarily placed on
the agenda a question asking the Federal Advisory Council for its views
as to appropriate credit policy between this meeting and the next one.
lie stated reasons why he considered it undesirable to include such a
question among those asked the Council, and there was agreement with
his proposal that this question be deleted, at least for the February
The letter was then
oproved with other minor editorial changes
the form attached as Item No.
5.
1/28/60
-15Messrs. Conkling and Collier, Assistant Director and Chief,
Current Series Section, Division of Bank Operations, respectively,
entered the room at this point.
Report for Congressman Spence.
There had been distributed under
date of January 271 19601 a draft of report from the Board requested by
the House Committee on Banking and Currency in its report on the reserve
requirement bill S. 11201 approved July 28, 19591 which would (1) make
a comparison of the relative efficiency of the reserve requirement
instrument with open market operations and (2) consider possible
improvements in its use as an anti-inflationary monetary tool.
During the discussion of this report, Governor Robertson
advanced several suggestions for substantive changes in the text.
Following this discussion it was understood that a revised draft would
be distributed to the Board for further consideration tomorrow.
Chairman Martin withdrew from the meeting during theciscussion
of this item, and Mr. Shay withdrew at its conclusion.
Statement by Chairman Martin before the Joint Economic Committee.
There had been distributed a draft of statement to be made by Chairman
Martin before the Joint Economic Committee on February 21 1960, in
connection with the annual review of the President's economic report.
In the ensuing discussion, it was indicated that this statement should
be in the hands of the Committee on Monday, Februaryl, and question was
raised as to the best procedure to be adopted for expediting the Board's
-16-
1/28/60
approval. In this connection, Governor Robertson said that if the
statement were to go to the Committee as representing the views of the
Board, he was not prepared to approve the statement in advance of
editorial changes discussed at this meeting.
Following discussion of the procedural question, it was agreed
that the staff be instructed to put the statement in final form with
the understanding that such draft would be distributed to the members
Of the Board in time for their approval prior to transmittal to Senator
Douglas and that there would be opportunity for any Board member to
record his views regarding the statement at the meeting of the Board
tomorrow.
Date for 1960 Chairmen's Conference. Governor Shepardson said
that the executive committee of the Conference of Chairmen of the Federal
Reserve Banks would like to set the date for this year's meeting and
had suggested Thursday and Friday, December 1 and 2, if that was agreeable
to the Board.
No objection to this date was indicated, and it
Was
understood that the members of the Conference would be informed that
-----------it was satisfactory to the Board.
The meeting then adjourned.
Secretary's Note: Governor Shepardson today
approved on behalf of the Board letters to the
following persons attached as Items 6 and 7),
respectively:
1/28/6o
-17-
To Dr. Frederic D. Chapman, Washington, D. C., regarding
the annual physical examination for each employee in the Board's
cafeteria for the year 1960.
To Professor Edwin L. Stevens, Washington, D. C., confirming
verbal arrangements with him to conduct a course for members of
the Board's staff as an activity of the Employee Training and
Development Program.
Governor Shepardson also approved today on
behalf of the Board a letter to the President's
Committee on Government Employment Policy
advising of the designation of Elizabeth L.
Carmichael as the Board's Deputy Employment
Policy Officer, replacing Clarke L. Fauver.
Secretary
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
OF THE
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
WASHINGTON 25. D. C.
Item No. 1
1/28/60
ADDRESS OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE
TO THE BOARD
January 28, 1960.
Board of Directors,
Bank of Westbury Trust Company,
Westbury, New York.
Gentlemen:
Pursuant to your request submitted through
the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the Board of
the
Governors of the Federal Reserve System approves
ng
Shoppi
ry
Westbu
establishment of a branch in the
Center, on the north side of Jericho Turnpike, approx
Oyster
of
Town
Road,
imately 300 feet east of Aintree
Company,
134Y, New York, by Bank of Westbury Trust
established
is
branch
Westbury, New York, provided the
and the
letter
this
of
within six months from the date
as of
effect
in
is
approval of the State authorities
.
the
branch
the date of the establishment of
Very truly yours,
(Signed) Kenneth A. Kenyon
Kenneth A. Kenyon,
Assistant Secretary.
*)4
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
OF THE
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
WASHINGTON 25, D. C.
Item No. 2
1/28/60
AODRESS OrPICIAL CORRESPONDENCE
TO THE °CARO
January 28, 1960.
Board of Directors,
Fidelity-Philadelphia Trust Company,
Philadelphia 9, Pennsylvania.
Gentlemen:
Pursuant to your request submitted through the
Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, the Board of Governors
has approved an extension of time until March 25, 1961,
in which Fidelity-Philadelphia Trust Company nay establish
a branch in the Cheltenham Shopping Center at the northwest
corner of Cheltenham Avenue and Washington Lane, Montgomery
County, Pennsylvania. The establishment of this branch was
authorized in a letter dated March 25, 1959.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) Kenneth A. Kenyon
Kenneth A. Kenyon,
Assistant Secretary.
:1
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
OF THE
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
WASHINGTON 25, D. C.
Item No. 3
1/28/60
ADDRESS OFFICIAL CORRESPONOENCE
TO THE HOARD
January 28, 1960.
Mr, E. H. Galvin, Assistant Vice President,
Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco,
San Francisco 20, California.
Dear Mr. Galvin:
This refers to your letter of January 11 inquiring
vhether it will be necessary for the Fidelity Bank again to make
aPPlication to the Board, when it moves its head office from Los
Angeles (Mar Vista) to Beverly Hills and opens a branch at its
'13rmer head office location, for permission to continue to carry
tlie same reserves against deposits as are required to be maintained
bY banks located outside of central reserve and reserve cities.
It is the Board's understanding that no change in the
general character of the business transacted by the bank is
?xpected as a result of the establishment of the new branch and
.11e, moving of the head office mentioned in your letter. In
theSG circumstances, there does not appear to have been any change
!hich might warrant revocation of the permission to carry reduced
'eserves previously grq.nted to this bank.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) Kenneth A. Kenyon
Kenneth A. Kenyon,
Assistant Secretary.
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
OF THE
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
WASHINGTON 25. O. C.
Item No.
4
1/28/60
A00/11(155 OFFICIAL CORMIESPONOIENCIt
TO THIC SOAR°
January 29, 1960
Mr. Robert A. Bicks,
Acting Assistant Attorney General,
Antitrust Division,
P,partment of Justice,
Washington 25, D. C.
Dear Mr. Bioko:
In accordance with the request in your letter of November
41, 1959, the Board will hereafter inform the Department of Justice
ot the receipt of applications, under section 3(a) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, for approval of the acquisition of bank
shares or bank assets.
The applications themselves will also be available for
4_
4-u5peotion by representatives of your Department. However, since
such applications are not made available for public inspection
unless the Board has ordered a hearing, such inspection will be on
4 confidential basis.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) Merritt Sherman
Merritt Sherman,
Secretary.
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
OF THE
coq
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
0
%
.0.0
kt
`,1kr
9
*
WASHINGTON 25. D. C.
Item No. 5
1/28/60
•
ADDRESS OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE
TO THE BOARD
0
:{i‘
Att,411.0033.tt
January 28 1960
MAIL
lir. Herbert V. Prochnow,
S
ecretary,
Pederal Advisory Council,
Vo The First National Bank of Chicago,
.r.O. Box A,
Chicago 90, Illinois.
rJear Mr. Prochnaw:
The Board suj,gests the following topics for inclusion on the agenda
la the meeting of the Federal Advisory Council to be held on February 15,
l and the Board
14$ and for discussion at the joint meeting of the Counci
°II February 16:
1. What are the views of the Council regarding the current busity
ness situation and the prospects for business activi
approximately the next six months?
during
2. How does current demand for bank credit compare with demands
demand
at this season in recent years of high activity? Is
the
during
rise
to
for bank loans and other credit likely
ment
er
instal
consum
for
k
spring of 1960? What is the outloo
any
in
ments
commit
their
credit? Are banks tending to limit
areas of demand? If so, in what areas?
3. Have the members of the Council noted any recent change in
of businessmen in
the attitude of the public in general and
Specifically,
ion?
inflat
particular toward the question of
of payments
e
balanc
e
advers
has the publicity given to the
steel industry,
the
in
ment
settle
of the United States, the wage
1960fiscal
for
ct
prospe
and the Federal Government's budget
ionary
inflat
r
whethe
(1)
61 appeared to affect views as to
1960 and (2) what actions
pressures will continue strong during
to help prevent
taken
be
by banks and by Government should
cy?
curren
depreciation of the value of the
ations of the
The Board would appreciate having the observ
level of
the
in
s
change
members of the Council regarding
icance
the
signif
and
months
farm land prices during recent
of such changes.
Sincerely yours,
Merritt, Sherman,
Secretary.
348
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
OF THE
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
WASHINGTON 25. D. C.
Item No.
6
1/28/60
4 4,
;
ADDRESS OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE
TO THE BOARD
. elttP
t744
4titt**6*
January 28, 1960.
Dr, Freaeric D. Chapman,
1150 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C.
Dear Dr. Chapman:
The annual physical examination for each employee in the
cafeteria of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
14111 be continued during 1960 on the same basis as set forth in our
letter to you of December 22, 1953.
The Division of Personnel Administration indicates that
these arrangements have worked out satisfactorily, and it is
understood that the fee of $100 for the calendar year 1960 is agreeable
with You. The number of examinations to be conducted will be
labstantially the same as in previous years. It is understood
ctt the examinations will begin on March 2, 1960, and will be con—
Pcted in the Board's Health Service Unit each Wednesday morning from
°
7 te 10 until all cafeteria employees are examined.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) Merritt Sherman
Merritt Sherman,
Suc;retary.
4 'w
• '76‘
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
oitott**4
te_tofig
42i."
:4F*11
OF THE
Item No. 7
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
1/28/60
WASHINGTON 25. D. C.
ADDRESS
orriciAL
CORRESPONDENCE
TO THE •OAR0
January 28, 1960.
Professor Edwin L. Stevens,
2711 Terrace Road, S. E.,
Washington, D. C.
Dear Professor Stevens:
This letter will confirm verbal arrangements which the Division
Of Personnel Administration made with you to conduct a 20-hour Discussion
and Conference Leadership Course for members of the Board's staff as an
aettVtty of our Employee Training and Development Program.
The course will be comprised of ten 2-hour sessions which will
13e held in the Board's building each Wednesday from 2:30 to 4:30 p.m.,
ueginning on March 30, 1960, and extending through June 1, 1960, or
until the ten sessions are completed. It is understood that you will
11"cvide your own materials and references for this course, and that any
materials required by participants will be provided by the Board. The
!,?ard of Governors agrees to pay You ,$500 for your services in connection
Illth this course, payable at its completion.
If the above is satisfactory, please indicate your acceptance
on the attached copy and return it to the Board.
Yours very truly,
(Signed) Merritt Sherman
Merritt Sherman,
Secretary.
accept:
Zal'irii17-blevens
@FedFRASER