The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
1389 A meeting of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Atem with the Federal Advisory Council was held in the offices of the °ard of Governors in Washington on Monday, September 18, 1944, ":10 PRESENT: Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Eccles, Chairman Ransom, Vice Chairman McKee Draper Evans Mr. Morrill, Secretary Mr. Carpenter, Assistant Secretary Mr. Clayton, Assistant to the Chairman Mr. Thurston, Special Assistant to the Chairman Mr. Smead, Director of the Division of Bank Operations Mr. Paulger, Director of the Division of Examinations Mr. Parry, Director of the Division of Security Loans Mr. Dreibelbis, General Attorney Mr. Leonard, Director of the Division of Personnel Administration Mr. %raft, General Counsel Messrs. Charles E. Spencer, Jr., William F. Kurtz, B. G. Huntington, Robert V. Fleming, Keehn V. Berry, Edward E. Brown, Ralph C. Gifford, A. E. Bradshaw, Ed. H. Winton, and George M. Wallace, members of the Federal Advisory Council representing the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, Eleventh, and Twelfth Federal Reserve Districts, respectively Mr. Leon Fraser, President of The First National Bank of the City of New York, and Mr. Julian Baird, Vice President of the First National Bank of St. Paul, Minnesota, who had been designated by the Federal Reserve Banks of New York and Minneapolis, respectively, to attend this meeting in the absence of Messrs. 1390 9118/44 -2Traphagen and Wakefield who were unable to be present Mr. Walter Lichtenstein, Secretary of the Federal Advisory Council Brawn stated that, in a letter dated August 18, 1944, ad- Clren.48ecl to the Secretary of the Council, the Board asked for the Council's °131414' 4a with respect to a proposed amendment to the Board's Regulation 11, 41 4terlocking Bank Directorates Under the Clayton Act," so as to reIclire411.7 question of possible violation of the law and the Board's reg1114ti°11 in the plan proposed by the postwar Small Business Credit Com41"1°11 of the American Bankers Association under which banks in the eikr (It New York would become associated for the purpose of participatill4111 commercial and industrial loans originating at and made by other 15414 throughout the country, the plan contemplating that such loans 11°1114/De Passed upon by a committee, each member of which, in addition to alith°ritY to commit his own bank, would be given by a resolution cl°11tecl bY the board of directors of another participating bank authority to coMmit the second bank as well. Mr. Brown also said that it was hie ilnd erstanding that since the letter was written an agreement had been c144, 4 1113 by the New York banks in connection with the proposed plan under "'Lich n ° bank would be bound except by unanimous action of the members the committee, and that the request that the Board's regulation be kle "ed had been withdrawn. Speaking personally, he thought the question 'etched, that it was a common custom for banks to participate 1391 —3elvt.. dt arrangements which might well raise the question involved the proposed amendment, and that, while the Council felt that there 114-8 to Objection to the modification if there were any doubt from a ste,ndpoint, there might be considerable danger in incorporating IlkCh " exception in the Board's regulation which might raise a question With respect to other similar procedures. He also said that, if an 4111ET16,. —4er-it to Regulation L were drawn, the Council would like very much to 8„ ce the text of it before it was adopted by the Board. Chairman Eccles stated that the matter had not been discussed the Board since the date of its letter to the Council, that apparently w a8 no reason for a further consideration of it at this time, and the that 8 ° far as the Board was concerned the matter mould be laid on the table. 11r. McKee added that in the event the Board should decide to 4(lopt atich an amendment a copy thereof would be furnished to the Council beto_e it was put into effect. Mr. Brown then stated that the members of the Council would . to be Informed with respect to the present status of the Wagner— ellez1 b' 111 which would amend section 13b of the Federal Reserve Act i ver7ktt the Federal Reserve Banks to guarantee loans made by banking t414uti (xls to business and industrial concerns. Chairman Eccles stated that he would like to discuss this pro— at some length with the Council for the reason that he regarded 1392 9/18/44 —4— an important matter because of the apparent misunderstanding that 1, - "ad arisen with respect to the scope and purposes of the legislation. He added that, in order to clarify with members of the Council that his position in the matter was, he had prepared a statement, iti8 /thleh had not been seen or passed upon by the other members of the 13°8.1 ' cl, under the heading "Legislation to Finance Business in the Post1741' Periodn, and which contained the pertinent facts in connection with legislation. now pending for the financing of business during the recan'ellic`t1 and postwar period, especially the bill to authorize Federal lieeerve Banks to guarantee loans and the bill to expand the authority (It the -uLdiler War Plants Corporation. The statement, a copy of which h4t been Placed in the Board's files, was read by Chairman Eccles 4t"Ilillich he outlined briefly the history of the Wagner-Spence bill 44cl atated he thought there was little likelihood of any considerat4lbeing given to the bill until after the national election in ‘4111ber- He did think, however, that because of the additional re- 41)°11sibilities placed on the Smaller War Plants Corporation by the C°11tre-ct Settlement Act of 1944 the bill now before Congress provid- f°1 'a $200,000,000 increase in the capital of the Corporation tiltgle adopted. During a reference to the major emergency legislation now being (Illiciered by Congress and to the opposition to the Wagner-Spence bill 1393 9/18/44 —5— that haci been voiced by representatives of the American Bankers Assoeiatica, Mr. Fleming stated that representatives of the American Bankers lation were in nashington today in connection with Treasury financ14 discussions at the Treasury, and that it might be possible to dise114 t e h Proposed amendment to section 13b with them. He also stated that i t might be possible at the meeting of the American Bankers Assoeiatio a at Chicago next week to adopt a resolution which would be more tmror alple to the proposed amendment and that, since there was little cod of the bill coming up for active consideration until after national election in November, there would be a possibility of del'el°Ping support for the bill. Mr. Brown inquired whether the powers that would be granted to the conaici er War Plants Corporation by the Surplus Property Act now under "ation by Congress would permit the financing of the operation Plaz1 ts after they were acquired as well as the acquisition of the P1141t. Vest, Assistant General Attorney, was called into the meet- +II and in response to Mr. Brown's question read a portion of subsection (t) of the bill which would authorize the Corporation, for the pur- At%e 1441 Or earrYing out the objectives of the section, to make or guarantee tkve t° 8mall business enterprises in connection with the acquisition, and operation of plants and facilities, and, in cooperation to ue disposal agencies, to arrange for sales of surplus property k4all business concerns on credit or time bases. Subsection 14(e) 1394 9/18A4 —6— O t'lle bill Would give the Corporation power to purchase any surplus 131‘0 PertY for resale and other disposition to small business when in its i u1448nent such disposition was required to preserve and strengthen the e°111petitive position of small business or would assist the Corporatioh . " the discharge of the duties and responsibilities imposed upon It was suggested in the ensuing discussion that, while the Cor- N'ati °n would not be authorized under these provisions to make or ' el a.ratitee loans cortrer for any or all purposes, the authority that would be ' l ed would be very broad. At the end of the discussion, copies °I' the etatement read by Chairman Eccles earlier in the meeting were 444ded ' 4:1 the members of the Council and to Mr. Lichtenstein. There were also distributed copies of the memorandum prepared ard for presentation to the Council with respect to furnishing tc) th -e C°uncil drafts of bills being considered by the Board. lir* Brown stated that the Council still felt very strongly that, bef°re drafts of legislation prepared by the Board were intro"in Congress, copies thereof should be furnished to the members ()r the cotulcii and they should have an opportunity to express their '1'417"rith respect to the drafts. At Chairman Eccles' suggestion, the memorandum prepared by the was read, after which Mr. Brown stated that it had been the exDerlerice of the Council that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 1395 9444 —7— the `'umptroller of the Currency, and other agencies of the Government /ler. 'more willing to discuss drafts of legislation with the Council and to seek eic its comments and suggestions than the Board appeared to be, and that there had been no objection to drafts of holding company bills pre— Pare,4 'A at the Treasury being discussed with the Council. A discussion lie point brought out the fact that the Glass holding company bill, which 'lad been prepared in the Treasury and which included the so—called 'death sentence", had not been discussed with the members of the Council In connection with Mr. Brown's comments, Chairman Eccles said that there was Oj the Board a considerable difference between the responsibilities of Governors and the Comptroller of the Currency or the Podere.). Deposit Insurance Corporation in that their responsibilities Were lar gelY in the field of bank supervision, whereas such responsi— 14te 144 • that secondary with the Board, the primary function of which of influencing credit conditions. 11r- Brown said that everyone realized that, when the Board was qieNe ei proposed legislation or was considering it with other agencies c)f the 'civernment or with Congress, it could not be fully discussed with to but after it had put its views in draft form and was ready '1-11.e the bill to a member of Congress as representing the views of the toa to in 99 cases out of 100 there could be no possible objection , 88111g it with the Council before it was introduced, and that *ere of the Council, who in most cases had had more banking 1396 —8— elq3"ierice than members of the Board, could make suggestions which Isic)/11c1 make the legislation more workable and would prevent injustices being done. He added that, if the holding company bill prepared by the Bc>ard which contained a reference to banking as interstate commerce hacl been introduced in Congress, the Board would have found it very dif— riellit to get it removed even though it might be found to have no rela— ttonship to the important provisions of the bill. Chairman Eccles stated that it appeared that the question /fhether, ueliking was interstate commerce had been settled by the courts. M. Brown responded that "that was neither here nor there" 411(1 acided that the Board's attitude would make it much more difficult 41' the C°1111ci1 to act, except in opposition, if it were to have no .1°1513°1"bilrlitY to comment on legislation prepared by the Board until after ''tllas i ntroduced in Congress. MI% Ransom repeated an opinion which he had expressed previously the question involved was not one of legal prerogatives, that he ,ilat t 44(1 Council with the e. lled the relationships and the history of the Cocil :: to41 ng the last nine years, that these relationships had been con- l'Ittect th 8uocessfully and amicably without reference to legal rights, at on such matters as the holding company bill he thought the should co have all the counsel and advice that the Federal Advisory /111q1 was willing to give without the necessity of discussing specific 'age in any particular bill. 1397 —9— Brown stated that he did not think there were any members q the Council who wanted to put the discussion on the basis of legal Ilghts) that the question of legal rights had been raised by Chairman Eccles / and that, if in practice the Council could have an opportunity to '49Dre33 its views on matters which were not secret but which were 11413Q1‘tant to the banking system, that was highly desirable as a means q 417°14aing major controversies that otherwise would result. He made the ttirther statement that he had been asked to come to Washington on 1111111els°11s occasions with other representatives of banks to consider legi81e-tion which was vital to the banking field, that it was a question q 4131)ttech, that the Council wanted to work in harmony with the Board, 4" that the essential question was whether it would be possible to avoid eitilations Where the Board would have legislation introduced without 4:7111g the Council or its executive committee an opportunity to discuss szcloress views with respect to it. 111% Ransom felt that it was a question of the Board getting the kivie : 1414 °f the Council on a problem rather than the discussion of the --ELge of a specific bill, that the Council, in relation to the Board, Noo. 8°mewhat in the position of amicus curiae or "a friend of the (314stll —.0 would not expect to ask for advance information as to the ;411 ent of the court. He did not think it was possible for the six Of the Board and the 12 members of the Council to debate the 1398 9/1%4 —10— ePeeitic language of a bill. He then said that the Board's Annual RePe'rt or 1943 stated what the problem with respect to bank holding " e0 4-es was, and that if the Council mould advise the Board as to what to do in the situation there set forth it could be immensely helpful. Mr. Fleming stated that, when the Banking Act of 1935 was coasideration, he talked to the President who felt it was highly clesitiable that the banks be consulted, that copies of the proposed le€1814tion were sent to him and considered by representatives of the b4k8 'and that those discussions were productive in making the legis— i4t1()11 workable. He also said that, while the Board was charged with the res ponsibility of policy formation, the members of the Council were 14"41ch closer in touch with bank operating problems in the various e.nd that a full and frank discussion with the Council would be °1)" tc be productive of great good, and if any man on the Council ell°11141 rail to treat in confidence any of the matters discussed he wkl(laot be fit to sit on the Council. He added that, as a member ° the Business Council of the Department of Commerce, he had 'tic& --c1Pated in many discussions of proposed legislation with representa— %,ea of the Department, and that, with one possible exception, there 11,4(1 been . no violation of confidence. Chairman Eccles reviewed briefly the history of the Banking kt or 1935 including efforts of representatives of the banks to have 1399 —114tie two of the bill, which made major changes in the banking system, 8ePal ' ated from the other two sections of the bill, and said that, if slIch efforts had been successful, title two of the bill never would halie Passed. He did not agree that the matter under consideration not a legal matter, as the Board and the Council and their respec— , ghts and obligations existed only because of legislation passed 5'ess, that the obligations of each and the relationship to each other were fixed by statute, and that this relationship could not be ehaav„.., "CI without regard to the statute. He felt that it was not a per— al matter or a question of confidence in the members of the Council or the, zioard, but a question of the kind of constructive relationship that — flould be maintained in the public interest in the light of the c4)14gat' 1°n3 imposed by the law. He made the further statement that the 0011 , —4e1l had a responsibility as representatives of the banking in— t e t that the obligations of the Board were entirely different, and th4t, if he were to return to the banking business, he would not expect Boa bklta rd or any other public body to advise with representatives of °11 all basic matters that might be regarded as essential but ch Illlght affect the banks adversely. With respect to holding company legislation, he stated that °ard and the Reserve Banks had had responsibility for holding com— tiPervision for a period of years, that the System had acquired c41113et n, e--7 in dealing with the problem from a supervisory standpoint, 1400 9/18/44 —12— that it was a question of meeting practical problems relating to bank 41(1ing companies, and that he regarded the System as more competent to ‘kv that than any other public body. He felt that it was important that ,he Council should be informed on problems that were developing that the Board could have the advice of the Council with respect to them,that the Council had a right to make any recommendations or suggest i°r1s that it might wish and that it could ask for any information that he Board might have with respect to these problems, but that he -- think that the form of the legislation being considered by the was factual information of the kind the Council might expect to receive, Mr. Ransom expressed the opinion that the Council did not have tht le gal right to copies of legislative proposals or regulations being O icI el*ed by the Board, but that, in his opinion, if the Council were e- With respect to the matter before the draft of bill or regulaticm -.4 we re prepared, it would be very helpful to the Board. 14.1% Fleming said that that was all the Council would ask. lAr. Kurtz stated that, as he understood the position of the there was no intention on its part to pry into the administrati,lre re ePonsibilities of the Board, that he did not know what the legal Nht,Of the Council or the Board were, but that all the Council asked 11'6' that if the Board proposed legislation or other action which would 1401 9/18/44 -13- ilac°nsiderable significance to member banks, such as the holding c.°14)allY bill, the Council be fully advised and given an opportunity t0 di scues it with the Board. He also voiced the opinion that, if the t 443ard was to have the cooperation of the Council, it in turn must 114e 4.1.. 'us Board's cooperation to that extent, and that the members of the 0 431111cil did not know what was being considered in the way of legis°- and had to look to the Board to keep it advised. Mr. Ransom inquired whether, so far as the holding company bill Ifa.8 ncerned, the statement made in the Board's last annual report 17°11.141 not serve that purpose. Mr. Kurtz' response was in the negative, and he stated that 110141111g company legislation vitally affected the First, Ninth, and Neltth Federal Reserve Districts, and that, in his opinion, the Board 41011341 discuss any proposed legislation with at least the representatives °lIthe Council from those three districts, as those three men were ch4x'eed with the responsibility of knowing everything about the matter; oth se they would not be true representatives. In response to a further comment by Mr. Kurtz that the defendant 1.4).4141 have his day in court, Chairman Eccles said that there was ample (13c)i-Iti'lnitY during the consideration of the legislation by Congress for 41\Y interested person to be heard. Mr. Kurtz said that the Council 11°1111-cl not be placed in a position of appearing to object to the legisit.t3 -4)113 and Chairman Eccles replied that the Council was under no 1402 9444 —14— °Illigation to agree with the Board. Mr. Kurtz felt that it would lanfortunate if it appeared that the Council was in opposition to the 13",, ""41icly and that the question involved was whether the Board felt that 44. ' 46 was under obligation to consult with the Council with respect -4'Y legislation that the Board might propose that would have a ThateM-al effect on member banks. 11r. McKee expressed the opinion that the question was not that brom that legislation was difficult to get enacted in any event, that thehol ding company bill was necessary if the Board was to do an effec4Ve 4 'Job of supervision, and that there were things in the bill which NPle on the outside wanted to know about, and, if the Board discussed Propos ed legislation with the Council, its members would be under obliga— ti°11 t ° Say nothing about the proposal until the bill had been introduced. 11.1% Kurtz questioned whether the members of the Council would Dalder that obligation, and Mr. McKee responded that for that reason theome stion was one of judgment on the part of the Board in each case thether a Proposed bill was one that should not be discussed with the oo rci 'and that the holding company bill was in that category. Chairman Eccles said it seemed to him that, if the Board made 4atts f legislation which it was considering available to the members the co uncil, they would be in a position, if they were opposed to it, too,, lize forces to defeat its passage, and that, if the Council wanted : to Cil8 such matters before the bills were discussed and be obligated 1403 9/18/44 —15— 11"° saY anything in opposition to them before they were formally itItt.°duced, the problem would be a different one from the one under c4scUseion. Mr. Winton said he did not think that if the Board talked to then in confidence the members of the Council would betray that eclIfidence and undertake to go to Congress or work against legislation ed by the Board before it was introduced, although if they did rlot -gree With the bill they would be at liberty to oppose it after it 114c1 beea introduced. Chairman Eccles responded that that would change the whole mat- ter. their *. Winton went on to say that the members of the Council in discussions on this matter had been actuated by a strong desire to I, 1111 and helpful cooperation with the Board, that they could not he, -r-u-t. Without fullinformation, and that there was no intention tI31, q8111 , r, any of the authority of the Board. However, he felt that the Ntet„ j- and the Board had a job to do, and that in the interest of ef- - cooperation it would be helpful if the Board would discuss with t4n ' 411nci1 legislation which it had put in final draft form to see if the C°11ncil would have any suggestions that might be useful. He added tha 3 4 the 1711i1e the Council had confidence in the Board and its staff, no grouP "knew all the answers" and by close and sincere cooperation 11°'41'd and the Council would do a better job. He made the further 1404 9/18/44 -16- st4tezent that the memorandum which had been read was not a fair StateMent of the position of the Council as it did not have in mind that the Board would be expected to discuss everything that it might have b ' elore it in the way of legislation or regulations, but rather that When a bill was ready to be introduced the Council or its executi.'7 e c°mmittee might be helpful if it had an opportunity to discuss it "hat if possible an agreement could be reached before the bill was offered. He thought greater support could have been obtained for the Ihtener-Spence bill to amend section 13b of the Federal Reserve Act if the members of the Council had known in advance that it was going to be ii*t4duced, and that the bill would not have encountered the diffiellItY that it did. He also said he thought the Council was still in a Dosition to get support for the bill from the American Bankers Associat411. Ile concluded with a repetition of the statement that, if the took the Council into their confidence on these matters and gave It411 °PPortunity to make suggestions, he would feel obligated not to anY proposed legislation on the outside until after the bill Ntd a bee• TI introduced. Such a solution of the problem, he said, would be ical one without the Board or the Council surrendering any of Ite egal rights. 011, of Mr. Ransom commented that the problem could not be other than • Judgment on the part of the Board, and in that connection pointed 1405 911V44 -17- (Illt that) if an officer of a holding company to which the draft of hoica ng company bill was prineipaDy directed were a member of the e01.41-%4 41 ', it would not be desirable or practicable to discuss the hold- c °InPanY bill with the Council. Whenever it was possible, he said, to two 'e a matter up with the Council there was every advantage to the 1140aa,d 4 44. following that course. 14r. Winton said he realized that there were unusual situations that v'c'uld have to be handled as Mr. Ransom had outlined. Ifir. McKee expressed the feeling that the Board and the Council nOt, far apart in their approach to this whole matter. He also stated that it was his personal belief that the Board should discuss eire"Ling With the Council that properly could be discussed for the 44°r1 that the Council was in a position to be helpful, but that the g Company bill involved matters that could not be taken up with the collricil without disclosing information that was confidential to thetoard. Vinton acknowledged that the holding company bill might be ki exe_ 'Iption to the matters that could be discussed with the Council un46a th ere were members who were not personally interested in holding $11, allies With whom the matter might be discussed in confidence. 111r. Brown said that from what he knew of the draft of holding c41ParkY -il prepared by the Board it would cover situations which he 4 not 1, -elieve the Board knew existed and which the Board did not 1406 9118/44 tritend -18- to cover in the bill. Chairman Eccles replied that the Board was informed of such *tam . tlons and had intended that the bill should cover them. He also 414 that so many of the matters that require legislation were so inv°"Ired and affected so many different interests that the Board would have to be the judge when they should be discussed with the Council. /4-1-rited out that many of the opinions expressed by the Board on 4:8 , • -Lation drafted elsewhere were much more important from the stand11)111t of the effect on the banking system than legislation proposed th e first instance by the Board, and that for that reason the statetterit In the memorandum to which Mr. Winton had referred had been into show how far the position that had been taken by the Council Ivolaci go if it were carried to its logical conclusion. Mr. Brown said that the Board had discussed drafts of regulat4t,v With the Council but had not followed that course in connection Ivith legislation, and he asked wily, if other agencies of the Government ng to discuss proposed legislation with the Council, the Board W4 11 °t willing to do so. Chairman Eccles' reply was that if some other agency discussed 1114 t ol% -e Council a bill prepared by the Board that was a different matbe cause it would not then be known whether a bill was a preliminary fInal draft, but that, if it were discussed by the Board with the 2.1) and the background information given in connection with it, 1409 9/18/44 the -19- members of the Council woad be in a position to go to Congress 411duse that information in opposing the bill before it was introduced, as %would be under no commitment to do otherwise. Mr. McKee expressed the opinion that the Board had no right to ksc, 8 matters arising in connection with bank examination and holding " colthn_ supervision with anyone in the System other than the officers cif the ,ederal Reserve Banks having responsibility in connection with thea e matters, and that the holding company bill was in that field and had bee discussed with other agencies of Government because of their Ile8PQnsibilities in the same field. Chairman Eccles pointed out that the Board had assisted in the Pl'eParation of executive orders which were signed by the President and etated that certainly the Board would have no right to discuss the 44rt8 of such orders with the Council. Chairman Eccles added that, if the members were interested in the Plnion submitted by the Board's Legal Division with respect to the ktte r under discussion it would be made available. During the meeting °I),ies were handed to Mr. Kurtz and Mr. Fleming at their request. Mr. Berry felt that it was inconceivable that a condition would 411" "ere a bill prepared by the Board that was ready to be introduced ell/dbe effectively opposed by the Council before it was introduced if "Ilesion between the Board and the Council did not bring out points 1408 9118144 -20— would justify its being defeated, and that if there were such disci, • "sslon the Council could call attention to the objectionable phases "he bill and could go a long way in support of the resulting bill. There was a discussion of the meaning of the question whether tile 'ase "reserve conditions in the various districts" in section 12 Of the Federal Reserve Act covered proposed reserve requirements, and ellairalan Eccles pointed out that there was a clear distinction between "I'e8erve conditions" and proposed reserve requirements which might af— fect the reserve position of member banks. He also said that tight reConditions could not exist in any one district under the present (lerlItarket policies of the System, and that, while changes in reserve l'egilil'ements were a matter within the general affairs of the Federal Re%Ire &istem, so were open market operations and other credit actions he system, and it could not be claimed that these were matters that 11°113.4- be discussed with the Council in advance of the actions. the The discussion concluded with a statement by Mr. Kurtz that be Zle i stion was a practical and not a legal one, and that there should e meeting of the minds of the Board and the Council regarding Reference was made to the dates for the next meetings of the • Advisory Council and of its executive committee and it was Ike IDY the Council that the executive committee should meet in gt°11 on Wednesday, October 25, that no meeting of the executive 1409 9/1s/44 -21- e(ftlittee would be held in November, and that the next meeting of the f1111 Council should be held in Washington on December 3 and 4, 1944. Chairman Eccles said he did not know whether the Council had ssed the new Regulation V program providing for war contract terrairlati°n financing but that he thought the Banks should get behind the 13:Na'?" n -L" and make commitments to contractors to finance the termination qthei, 'lax production contracts as there probably would be thousands ot Co1Lractors who would need financial assistance pending the settlement Of h -eir claims. He also said that it would not be possible for the 8e3MA -''ces expeditiously to make partial payments to all contractors, that the V Loan procedure presented the most effective way to handle the s. and that, if properly handled, it would be the means of renting undesirable attempts to meet it. The brief discussion which t°11.°11ecl indicated that the banks were aware of the situation and were to go to work on it. Mr. Fleming said that so far as the Re- 4117e City bankers were concerned, it would be effectively handled. Thereupon the meeting adjourned. Chairman.
@FedFRASER