The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
Minutes for September 20, 1965
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.
Chm. Martin
Gov. Robertson
Gov. Balderston
Gov. Shepardson
Gov. Mitchell
Gov. Daane
Gov. Maisel
30f;
Minutes of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System on Monday, September 20, 1965.
The Board met in the Board
Room at 10:00 a.m.
PRESENT:
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Martin, Chairman
Balderston, Vice Chairman
Robertson
Daane
Maisel
Mr. Sherman, Secretary
Mr. Kenyon, Assistant Secretary
Mr. Molony, Assistant to the Board
Mr. Fauver, Assistant to the Board
Mr. Hackley, General Counsel
Mr. Solomon, Director, Division of Examinations
Mr. Hexter, Assistant General Counsel
Mr. Shay, Assistant General Counsel
Miss Hart and Mrs. Heller, Senior Attorneys,
Legal Division
Attorney, Legal Division
Shuter,
Mr.
Supervisory Review Examiner,
Egertson,
Mr.
Examinations
of
Division
Ratification of actions.
Actions taken at a meeting of the
available members of the Board on September 17, 1965, as recorded in
the minutes of that meeting, were ratified by unanimous vote.
Circulated items.
The following items, copies of which are
a ttached to these minutes under the respective item numbers indicated,
were approved unanimously:
Item No.
Letter to Chemical Bank New York Trust Company,
New York, New York, approving the establishment of
a branch at 1350 Avenue of the Americas, Borough
of Manhattan.
1
Letter to Bankers Trust Company, New York, New York,
approving the establishment of a branch at 100 Broadway, Borough of Manhattan.
2
-2-
9/20/65
Item No.
Letter to Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company,
Buffalo, New York, approving the establishment of a
branch in Eggertsville, Town of Amherst.
3
Letter to The Bank of Salem, Salem, Virginia,
approving the establishment of a branch at U.S.
Route 220 (Franklin Road) and Townside Road,
Roanoke County.
4
Letter to The Blanchard State Bank, Blanchard,
Michigan, approving the establishment of a branch
ln Six Lakes.
5
Letter to Citizens Commercial & Savings Bank,
Flint, Michigan, approving the establishment of
a branch at 1105 Robert T. Longway Boulevard
and reiterating the need to augment the bank's
capital. 1/
6
Letter to Union Bank and Trust Company, Grand
Rapids, Michigan, approving the establishment of
a branch at East Beltline and 28th Street, S. E.,
and urging adoption of a program to augment the
bank's capital.
7
Letter to Bremen State Bank, Tinley Park, Illinois,
approving an investment in bank premises.
8
Regulation U matter.
At its meeting on September 3, 1965,
the Board was advised by its staff of circumstances indicating a
Probable violation of Regulation U, Loans by Banks for the Purpose
of Purchasing or Carrying Registered Stocks, by The First National
Bank of Boston, Boston, Massachusetts.
Briefly, the apparent violation
consisted of the bank's making a loan to Triangle Corporation of the
1/ By decision of the Board, the draft letter to the applicant bank
was amended to include a reiteration of the need to augment the bank's
capital, as indicated by the Board recently in connection with the
a pproval of certain other branch applications from this bank.
9/20/65
-3-
full purchase price (some $1.8 million) of controlling interest in
Precisionware Corporation, Inc., the stock of which was registered on
the American Stock Exchange, and taking the stock as collateral for the
loan.
The loan was described in a proxy statement of Precisionware
dated August 16, 1965, and an interested party had called the loan to
the attention of the Securities and Exchange Commission, which in turn
referred the matter to the Board.
At the September 3 meeting, the Board
authorized the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston to send to the national
bank a letter asking for an explanation and for proposals to correct the
situation.
In reply, counsel for the bank conceded, in essence, that
the alleged violation did occur.
The explanation was that the loan was
made in the "commodity and factoring" department of the bank, that the
lending officer in charge of the credit was not familiar with Regulation U, and that counsel for the bank failed to point out the applicability of the regulation.
It was stated that the real purpose of the
loan was to merge Precisionware into Triangle, something that was to be
accomplished at a stockholders' meeting on September 17, that the assets
of Precisionware were the collateral on which the bank expected to rely,
and that the bank did not rely on the stock in making the loan and took
it merely to strengthen the collateral.
On September 10, counsel advised
the Board's staff that First National Bank had released the Precisionwere stock unconditionally.
In a distributed memorandum dated September 14, 1965, the
Legal Division presented for consideration alternative actions that
306!-4,
-4-
9/20/65
the Board might take in the circumstances.
One possibility (apparently
unprecedented in the history of Regulation U) would be to refer the
matter to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
If such referral
Were made, it appeared that the Commission might consider a variety of
alternative steps, including (1) informally calling representatives of
First National Bank to Washington to explain the violation and why the
bank's procedures were not adequate to prevent its occurrence, (2) issue
an order for a formal investigation before a hearing officer into the
bank's lending practices, (3) if indicated, apply for a court injunction
forbidding the bank from engaging in practices violating Regulation U,
and (4) refer the matter to the Department of Justice for possible prosecution.
The Commission's staff agreed with the Board's staff that
referral to the Department of Justice probably would not be warranted.
Further, while the violation might justify informal action of the kind
described in the first alternative, staff of the Commission felt that
the Commission would be able to assist the Board more effectively if
information could be developed on the loan practices of the bank concerned in the Regulation U area generally before any referral was made.
Accordingly, the Legal Division's memorandum suggested a review
of First National Bank's lending procedures to determine whether there
a ppeared to be a general climate of disregard for Regulation U and to
assure that procedures were instituted to prevent violations from
Occurring in the future.
Of the procedural alternatives that appeared
3()f
9/20/65
-5-
to be available for making such a review, it was recommended that the
bank be advised by letter of the Board's intention to inspect the bank's
business operations in regard to Regulation U, and asked to cooperate
in facilitating such an inspection.
Submitted with the memorandum was
a draft of letter that might be sent to the bank.
The Comptroller of
the Currency would be informed of the Board's intention and invited to
designate an examiner to cooperate in the review program.
Assistance
of an examiner experienced in Regulation U matters would be requested
from the New York Reserve Bank, and a group composed of this examiner,
a representative of the Boston Reserve Bank, a member of the Board's
Legal Division, and (if the Comptroller wished to cooperate) the examiner
designated by the Comptroller would formulate guidelines for an inquiry.
The memorandum also noted indications of what might be a growing climate of disregard for Regulation U among some banks.
For example,
an officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago had reported a number
of recent instances in the Chicago and Milwaukee areas in which national
banks apparently had taken an indirect security interest in stock in
connection with "purpose" loans, despite a published interpretation of
the Board holding such arrangements to be in violation of the regulation.
In commenting on the matter, Miss Hart reviewed the circumstances
surrounding the apparent Regulation U violation, the explanation offered
by
counsel for First National Bank of Boston, and reasons why members
Of the Board's staff regarded the explanation as somewhat less than fully
30
9/20/65
-6-
satisfactory.
She also noted that no violations of Regulation U on
the part of national banks had been reported to the Board's staff by
the Comptroller's Office in recent years, which might indicate a more
relaxed attitude on the part of national bank examiners toward Regulation U matters and some disparity of supervisory standards.
She pointed
°ut that the Board had authority under section 17(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 to inspect the records of any lender subject to its
regulations, including a bank such as First National Bank of Boston, if
in the judgment of the Board this was necessary in order to obtain information needed by the Board to enable it to perform the functions conferred upon it by the Act.
The Board had never used this authority,
having relied on the sufficiency of the examining process, but the time
may have come for the Board to exercise its authority.
Miss Hart brought out that the staff had no strong view on the
type of follow-up that might be most appropriate concerning the apparent
v iolation at First National Bank of Boston.
However, the course of
action recommended in the memorandum was thought to have some merit.
If the bank developed to have been scrupulous in its affairs, such a
review should do it no harm.
If the bank had been engaging in ques-
tionable
1 practices, the Board would be in better position to judge how
to
proceed further.
If the review by any chance disclosed clear dis-
regard for Regulation U in the bank's lending practices, the Securities
and Exchange Commission would be in a better position to proceed should
the Board determine to refer the matter to the Commission.
9/20/65
-7In reply to a question, Miss Hart described how the apparent
violation at First National Bank of Boston had happened to come to
the attention of the Board's staff.
In reply to another question, Mr.
Shuter said the possible violations by national banks in the ChicagoMilwaukee area had come to the attention of the Chicago Reserve Bank
When a Milwaukee State member bank inquired whether a certain loan
Procedure would involve a violation of the regulation and indicated
that some national banks were following such a procedure.
Governor Robertson then suggested an alternative course of
action, as follows.
He would send a letter to the Comptroller of the
Currency requesting him to instruct his examiner, at the time of the
next examination of First National Bank of Boston, to check carefully
and see whether or not there had been violations of Regulation U.
Fur-
ther, if there was sufficient basis, the letter might indicate that the
Board had received information concerning possible violations at certain
national banks in the Chicago-Milwaukee area and ask the Comptroller
to have his examiners check for compliance by these banks with Regulation U.
Governor Robertson, in explaining his suggestion, said he
would exhaust all possibilities for obtaining compliance with Regulation U through the examining process before cutting across that process
and sending a team of investigators into a national bank.
If it were
known that there had been many Regulation U violations at First National
Bank of Boston, there might be some justification for making a special
9/ 20/65
-8-
investigation.
However, counsel for the bank had stated that the
apparent violation was an isolated case.
Governor Robertson added,
in conclusion, that he felt the Board should continue to be alert for
any indications of a deterioration in adherence to the provisions of
Regulation U by banks generally.
Governor Maisel suggested that the letter to the Comptroller
Point out that there was the basic question whether the matter involving First National Bank of Boston should be referred to the Securities
and Exchange Commission.
The Comptroller could be requested to have
his examiner determine whether there was sufficient evidence of disregard for Regulation U to warrant a referral to the Commission.
This
would put the matter before the Comptroller in the form of a specific
question requiring an answer.
There was general agreement with the suggested approach of
Governor Robertson and with the use of language along the lines proposed
by
Governor Maisel.
On the question whether reference should be made
to the possibility of violations of Regulation U by certain banks in the
Chicago-Milwaukee area, Chairman Martin suggested that the letter to the
Comptroller might say that some hearsay information had been brought to
the Board's attention regarding banks in this area and that it was hoped
the Comptroller would have his examiners look at these situations also
to see whether violations had occurred.
in this suggestion.
Other Board members concurred
e
9/20/65
-9Given the new approach to the problem referred to in the staff
memorandum, question was raised about the letter that would be sent to
First National Bank of Boston.
It was generally agreed that the first
part of the draft letter submitted for the Board's consideration, stating the facts of the matter, continued to be appropriate.
Mr. Hexter
suggested concluding the letter with a statement that this occurrence
indicated possible absence of attention to, and awareness of, Regulation U on the part of the bank's lending officers, that the Board
expected the bank to review the situation internally and take steps
to have Regulation U better observed, and that the Board desired information from the bank on what steps had been taken along these lines.
Members of the Board concurred in the appropriateness of language such
as Mr. Hexter had mentioned.
Mr. Molony stated reasons why he considered it important that
the Board's record on the matter be ample, and Governor Robertson
indicated that he felt this would be accomplished by the sending of
the letter to First National Bank of Boston, the sending of the letter
to the Comptroller, and the sending of copies to all Federal Reserve
Banks.
Chairman Martin added that copies should be sent also to the
Securities and Exchange Commission.
There being general agreement on proceeding in the manner
described during the foregoing discussion, unanimous approval was given
to the sending of letters to First National Bank of Boston and to the
Comptroller of the Currency in the form indicated.
9/20/65
-10Whitney Holding Corporation (Item No. 9).
As stated in a
memorandum dated September 17, 1965, from the Legal Division, copies
Of which had been distributed, counsel for Whitney Holding Corporation,
New Orleans, Louisiana, had requested, in view of the disruption of
facilities in the New Orleans area resulting from a recent hurricane,
a 10-day extension, to October 4, 1965, of the time prescribed for
the filing of a reply brief in the matter of the Board's reconsideration
of its application to become a bank holding company.
It was understood
that counsel for the opposing banks had no objection.
The request was granted, and unanimous approval was given to
the issuance of an order in the form attached as Item No. 9.
All members of the staff except Mr. Sherman then withdrew from
the meeting.
Emergency preparedness program.
Chairman Martin pointed out
that for a number of years Governor Robertson had been assigned special
responsibility, at Board level, for development of the Board's emergency
Preparedness program.
R
He said that after discussion with Governor
obertson, and at the latter's suggestion, he would propose that Governor
Ro bertson be relieved of this responsibility, and he also suggested that
Governor Maisel be designated in lieu of Governor Robertson.
There was unanimous agreement with this suggestion.
The meeting then adjourned.
-11-
9/20/65
Secretary's Note: Acting in the absence
of Governor Shepardson, Governor Robertson
today approved on behalf of the Board memoranda recommending the following actions
relating to the Board's staff:
-4122121ELEL
Johnnie D. Jones, Jr., as Laborer, Division of Administrative
Services, with basic annual salary at the rate of $3,385, effective
the date of entrance upon duty.
Transfers
Julie Heard, from the position of Stenographer in the Division
of Personnel Administration to the position of Stenographer in the
Legal Division, with no change in basic annual salary at the rate
of $4,005, effective September 20, 1965.
Patricia A. Schoen, from the position of Stenographer in the
Legal Division to the position of Stenographer in the Division of
Research and Statistics, with no change in basic annual salary at
the rate of $4,630, effective September 20, 1965.
ASS,..t2 tance
of resignation
Corwin D. Vencill, Summer Research Assistant, Division of Research
and Statistics, effective at the close of business September 17, 1965.
Secretary)
307C
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
Item No. 1
9/20/65
OF THE
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
WASHINGTON, 0. C. 20551
ADORERS
arreciAt. CORRESPONOCNCC
TO THIE *CARO
September 20, 1965.
Board of Directors,
Chemical Bank New York
Trust Company,
New York, New York.
Gentlemen:
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System approves the establishment by Chemical Bank New
York Trust Company, New York, New York, of a branch at
1350 Avenue of the Americas, Borough of Manhattan, New
York, New York, provided the branch is established within
one year from the date of this letter.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) Elizabeth L. Carmichael
Elizabeth L. Carmichael,
Assistant Secretary.
(The letter to the Reserve Bank stated that the
Board also had approved a six-month extension
of the period allowed to establish the branch;
and that if an extension should be requested,
the procedure prescribed in the Board's letter
of November 9, 1962 (S-1846), should be followed.)
"
$
Item No. 2
9/20/65
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
OF THE
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
WASHINGTON, 0, C. 20551
AOORiall
arrtetAL commas
TO THIC BOARD
September 20, 1965.
Board of Directors,
Bankers Trust Company,
New York, New York.
Gentlemen:
The Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System approves the establishment by Bankers
Trust Company, New York, New York, of a branch at
100 Broadway, Borough of Manhattan, New York, New
York, for the limited purpose of conducting the
operations of its Corporate Trust Division, provided
the branch is established within six months from the
date of this letter.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) Elizabeth L. Carmichael
Elizabeth L. Carmichael,
Assistant Secretary.
(The letter to the Reserve Bank stated that the
Board also had approved a six-month extension
of the period allowed to establish the branch;
and that if an extension should be requested,
the procedure prescribed in the Board's letter
of November 9, 1962 (S-1846), should be followed.)
NOIENCC
flr?
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
OF THE
Item No. 3
9/20/65
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20551
ADDRESS
arriciAL
CORREMPONDENCIC
TO THE BOARD
September 20, 1965.
Board of Directors,
Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company,
Buffalo, New York.
Gentlemen:
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System approves the establishment by Manufacturers and
Traders Trust Company, Buffalo, New York, of a branch
in University Plaza (about 775 feet from your existing
branch at 46 University Plaza), 3500 Main Street, Eggertsville (unincorporated area), Town of Amherst, Erie
County, New York, provided the branch is established
Within one year from the date of this letter.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) Elizabeth L. Carmichael
Elizabeth L. Carmichael,
Assistant Secretary.
(The letter to the Reserve Bank stated that the
Board also had approved a six-month extension
of the period allowed to establish the branch;
and that if an extension should be requested,
the procedure prescribed in the Board's letter
of November 9, 1962 (S-1846), should be followed-)
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
Item No. 4
9/20/65
OF THE
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
WASHINGTON, O. C. 20551
AOORESS orriciakt. CORRESPONDENCE
TO THE BOARD
September 20, 1965.
Board of Directors,
The Bank of Salem,
Salem, Virginia.
Gentlemen:
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System approves the establishment by The Bank of Salem,
of
Salem, Virginia, of a branch on the northwest corner
and
Road)
in
(Frankl
the intersection of U. S. Route 220
Townside Road, Roanoke,County, Virginia, provided the
of
branch is established within one year from the date
this letter.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) Elizabeth L. Carmichael
Elizabeth L. Carmichael,
Assistant Secretary.
(The letter to the Reserve Bank stated that the
Board also had approved a six-month extension
of the period allowed to establish the branch;
and that if an extension should be requested,
the procedure prescribed in the Board's letter
of November 9, 1962 (S-1846), should be followed.)
3()S'
Item No. 5
9/20/65
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
OF THE
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20551
ADDRESS OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE
TO THE BOARD
September 20, 1965.
Board ot Directors,
The Blanchard State Bank,
Blanchard, Michigan.
Gentlemen:
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System approves the establishment by The Blanchard State
Bank, Blanchard, Michigan, of a branch at 233 West Bridge
Montcalm
Street in the unincorporated village of Six Lakes,
withhed
establis
is
branch
County, Michigan, provided the
prior
that,
and
letter,
this
of
in one year from the date
to the establishment of the branch, the bank's capital stock
is increased to the amount required by paragraph 3 of
.
Section 9 of the Federal Reserve Act and related statutes
to
stock
capital
its
increase
to
The bank's proposal
$100,000 would satisfy statutory requirements.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) Elizabeth L. Carmichael
Elizabeth L. Carmichael,
Assistant Secretary.
(The letter to the Reserve Bank stated that the
Board also had approved a six-month extension
of the period allowed to establish the branch;
and that if an extension should be requested,
the procedure prescribed in the Board's letter
of November 9, 1962 (S -l846), should be followed.)
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
Item No. 6
9/20/65
OF THE
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20551
AkooREss orricIAL
CORRESPONDENCE
TO THE BOARD
September 20, 1965.
Board of Directors,
Citizens Commercial & Savings Bank,
Flint, Michigan.
Gentlemen:
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
cial
System approves the establishment by Citizens Commer
1105
at
branch
a
of
& Savings Bank, Flint, Michigan,
provided
Robert T. Longway Boulevard, Flint, Michigan,
the date
from
year
the branch is established within one
of this letter.
expressed
The Board wishes to reiterate the views
which
in
1965,
16,
in its letter to your bank dated July
on was
positi
l
capita
the Board then noted that your bank's
s
seriou
that
urged
and
somewhat less than satisfactory
the
g
thenin
streng
of
means
consideration be given to all
bank's capital structure.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) Elizabeth L. Carmichael
Elizabeth L. Carmichael,
Assistant Secretary.
(The letter to the Reserve Bank stated that the
Board also had approved a six-month extension
of the period allowed to establish the branch;
and that if an extension should be requested,
the procedure prescribed in the Board's letter
of November 9, 1962 (S-1846), should be followed.)
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
Item No. 7
9/20/65
OF THE
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20351
A001111C11/
arricem. COMICIPONOCNOC
TO TMIC BOARD
September 20, 1965.
Board of Directors,
Union Bank and Trust Company,
Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Gentlemen:
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System approves the establishment by Union Bank and Trust
Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, of a branch at the northeast corner of East Beltline, S. E., and 28th Street, S. E.,
d
Grand Rapids, Michigan, provided the branch is establishe
within one year from the date of this letter.
The Board wishes to reiterate its views originally expressed in a letter to your bank dated August 17,
1965. The Board then stated that capital funds are considered to be substantially less than the desirable minimum amount. It is urged that the meeting between your
group and President Scanlon and Vice President Ross of the
mentioned
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, which has been
mutuearliest
the
at
held
be
ence,
in previous correspond
to
developed
be
program
a
that
and
time
ally convenient
bank.
the
of
funds
capital
increase the
Very truly yours,
(Signed)
Elizabeth L. Carmichael
Elizabeth L. Carmichael,
Assistant Secretary.
(The letter to the Reserve Bank stated that the
Board also had approved a six-month extension
of the period allowed to establish the branch;
and that if an extension should be requested,
the procedure prescribed in the Board's letter
of November 9, 1962 (S-1846), should be followed.)
096?
BOARD OF GOVERNORS
Item No. 8
9/20/65
OF THE
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20551
CE
CORRESPONDEN
ACIOReell OFFICIAL
TO THE BOARD
September 20, 1965.
Board of Directors,
Bremen State Bank,
Tinley Park, Illinois.
Gentlemen:
of the
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 24A
al
Feder
the
of
nors
Gover
of
Board
Federal Reserve Act, the
d
excee
to
not
of
tment
Reserve System approves an inves
Bank, Tinley Park,
$375,000 in bank premises by Bremen State
a new banking
ng
ructi
const
Illinois, for the purpose of
house.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) Elizabeth L. Carmichael
Elizabeth L. Carmichael,
Assistant Secretary.
30S1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Item No. 9
9/20/65
BEFORE THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
WASHINGTON, D. C.
In the Matter of the Application of
1
WHITNEY HOLDING CORPORATION
1
1
approval of its becoming a bank holding
rq'any by acquiring the stock of Crescent
tY National Bank, New Orleans, Louisiana,
end Whitney National Bank in Jefferscn Parish,'
Jefferson Parish, Louisiana.
'EOr
2
ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR
SUBMISSION OF FURTHER BRIEF
By Orders dated July 23 and July 30, 1965, the Board of
GCN
ernors provided an opportunity for the submission of briefs in
cennection with the Board's reconsideration of the application of
IlhitneY Holding Corporation ("Applicant") and further provided, in
the Order of July 23, that "Applicant may submit a further brief not
late
than 10 days after its receipt of said answering briefs."
By letter to the Board dated September 15, 1965, Applicant
has
equested a ten-day extension of time within which its further
brief may
be submitted.
It appears to the Board that good cause has
been shown for granting the requested extension and that such extenten would not be inconsistent with the public interest.
-2-
3085
It is therefore ordered that the Board's Order of July 23,
1965, be and it hereby is
mended so that the provision quoted above
shall read "not later than twenty days after its receipt of said
answering briefs."
Dated at Washington, D. C., this 20th day of September, 1965.
By order of the Board of Governors.
(Signed) Merritt Sherman
Merritt Sherman,
Secretary.
(SEAL)
@FedFRASER