View original document

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

Minutes of actions taken by the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System on Friday, September 7, 1951.
PRESENT:

Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.

Martin, Chairman
Szymczak
Evans
Norton
Powell
Mr. Carpenter, Secretary
Mr. Sherman, Assistant Secretary
Mr. Kenyon, Assistant Secretary

Minutes of actions taken by the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System on September

6, 1951, were approved unanimously.

Telegrams to the Federal Reserve Banks of Boston, New York,
Philadelphia, Cleveland, Richmond, Atlanta, Chicago, St. Louis, Mm Kansas City, Dallas, and San Francisco stating that the
441 approves the establishment without change by the Federal Reserve
'd

Balik of San Francisco on September 4, by the Federal Reserve Banks of
Richmond, Atlanta, and St. Louis on September 5, by the Federal Reserve
114r111:8 of New York, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Chicago, Minneapolis, Kansas
Oity, and
Dallas on September 6, 1951, and by the Federal Reserve Bank
or

Boston today, of the rates of discount and purchase in their existing

schedule
s
.
Approved unanimously.
Memorandum dated September 4, 1951, from Mr. Bethea, Director,

1s.
41 lon of
Administrative Services, recommending increases in the
btLai
e annual salaries of the following employees in that Division,




9 /51
/7

-2-

effective September 16, 1951:
Salary Increase
i,
To
From
Name
Title
$37,7515
$3,577
',;41 E. Sanders
7
Secretary to Mr. Bethea
r..1s,e N. Carrick3,275
3,355
Stenographer
2,260
Alern D. Carroll
2,190
Charwoman
..............

Approved unanimously.
Memorandum dated September 6, 1951, from Mr. Sloan, Director,
1/141-eion of Examinations, recommending that the resignation of Miss
Zoe Gratsias, Stenographer in that Division, be accepted to be ef"'ilre, in accordance with her request, at the close of business
t
September 14,
1951.
Approved unanimously.
Memorandum dated September

'Di

4, 1951, from

Mr. Sloan, Director,

•

'vision of Examinations, recommending that, effective as of the date

111)°11 Which he enters upon the performance of his duties after having
Passed the usual physical examination, and subject to the completion

r a satisfactory employment investigation, Ralph A. Paulson be ap1)°I llted as an Assistant Federal Reserve Examiner, on a temporary in'

dsfinite

basis, with salary at the rate of 0,450 per annum, and with

Ofricial

headquarters at Minneapolis, Minnesota.
By unanimous vote, Mr. Ralph A. Paulson was
appointed an Examiner to examine federal reserve
banks, member banks of the Federal Reserve System,
and corporations operating under the provisions of
Sections 25 and 25 (a) of the Federal Reserve Act,
for all purposes of the Federal Reserve Act and of
all other Acts of Congress pertaining to examinations




9 7/51.
/

-3made by, for, or under the direction of the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, and was designated as an Assistant
Federal Reserve Examiner, on a temporary indefinite basis, with official headquarters
at Minneapolis, Minnesota, and with basic
salary at the rate of $3,450 per annum, all
effective as of the date upon which he enters
upon the performance of his duties after having
passed the usual physical examination and
subject to the completion of a satisfactory
employment investigation.
Letter to Mr. Hill, Vice President of the Federal Reserve

4111c of Philadelphia, reading as follows:
"Reference is made to your letter of August 27, 1951,
submitting the request of the Wilmington Trust Company,
Wilmington, Delaware, for approval of the establishment
of a branch at Milford Crossroads, approximately two miles
north of Newark, Delaware.
"It is noted that the establishment of the proposed
branch has been approved by the appropriate State authorities and in view of your recommendation, the Board of
Governors approves the establishment and operation of a
branch at Milford Crossroads, Delaware, by the Wilmington
Trust Company, Wilmington, Delaware, provided that such
branch is established within eighteen months of the date
of this letter and with the understanding that Counsel
for the Reserve Bank will review and satisfy himself as
to the legality of all steps taken to establish the branch."
Approved unanimously.
Letter to Mr. Osterhus, Manager, Bank Examinations Department
or

the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, reading as follows:
"Reference is made to your letter of September 4, 1951,
submitting a request by the Hempstead Bank, Hempstead, New
York, for a 90 day extension of time within which the establishment of a proposed branch at Bethpage, New York, may be
accomplished under the approval granted by the Board on
March 22, 1951.




9
/7/51
"In view of your recommendation, the Board extends
to December 221 19511 the time within which establishment of the branch may be effected."
Approved unanimously.
Letter to the Honorable Ernest Greenwood, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C., reading as follows:
"The current scarcity of pennies has forced the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York to ration them in the
attempt to distribute the available supplies equitably.
The case of the Peoples National Bank of Patchogue,
New York, referred to in your letter of August 270 is
therefore not an exception. We are, however, sending
a copy of your letter and of this reply to the Federal
Reserve Bank of New York.
"We have been in touch with the Mint and understand
that the current shortage of pennies is due in part to
the greatly increased demand for coins since the outbreak of the conflict in Korea, in part to appropriation
Problems, and primarily at the present time to difficulties in connection with the inability of the Mint to
Obtain the necessary supplies of copper. We understand
that the Mint has ample facilities to supply all the
coins the country can use if it can obtain the necessary
metals and that it is prepared to undertake the heavy
operations which would promptly and substantially ease
the coin shortage when adequate supplies of metals are
made available.
"In order to help meet the situation, the Director
Of the Mint has recently issued a statement urging that
all small coins now held in children's banks and other
household depositories be returned to circulation."
Approved unanimously.
Letter to the Honorable Herbert H. Lehman, United States Senate,
\Vaahirigton, D. C., reading as follows:
"The current scarcity of nickels has forced the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York to ration them in the




9
/7/51

-5-

"attempt to distribute the available supplies equitably.
The case of the Hanover Bank, New York, reported in the
telegram from The Horn and Hardart Company which you referred to the Board on August 30, is therefore not an
exception. We are, however, sending a copy of your letter
and of this reply to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
'PiVe have been in touch with the Mint and understand
that the current shortage of nickels is due in part to the
greatly increased demand for coins since the outbreak of
the conflict in Korea) in part to appropriation problems,
and primarily at the present time to difficulties in connection with the inability of the Mint to obtain the necessary supplies of copper and nickel. We understand that
the Mint has ample facilitLes to supply all the coins the
coUntry can use if it can obtain the necessary metals and
that it is prepared to undertake the heavy operations which
would promptly and substantially ease the coin shortage
When adequate supplies of metals are made available.
"In order to help meet the situation, the Director
of the Mint has recently issued a statement urging that
alt small coins now held in children's banks and other
household depositories be returned to circulation."
Approved unanimously.
Letter to Mr. Young, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of
Chleago, reading as follows:
"This refers to your letter of August 23, 1951,
regarding the classification of member banks for election
Purposes.
"It is noted that your directors, at a meeting
on the same date, voted after full discussion that no
Change be made in the present classification for the
year 1951. It is noted also that the directors voted
further that consideration be given before the end of
the year to a change in the classification for the
Year 1952.
"In view of the action of your directors, the
Board will make no change in the classification at
this time, with the understanding that consideration
'
4111 be given before the end of the year to a change
in the classification so that it will conform more




;

9
/7/51

-6-

"Closely to the formula suggested by the Board in its
letter of September 19, 1934 (x-8012)."
Approved unanimously.
Letter to Mr. Phelan, Vice President of the Federal Reserve
Bank of
New York, reading as follows:
"This refers to your letter of August 30, 1951,
enclosing a draft of a proposed Supplement No. 2 to
the Fiscal Agency Agreement dated as of February 6,
1950, between the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and
the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which would amend Schedule A of the Fiscal AgencyAgreement so that it will be applicable to a proposed
issue of bonds by the International Bank, together with
copies of related documents.
"The Board of Governors approves the execution by
Your Bank of an agreement with the International Bank
in the form or substantially in the form of the proposed
Supplement No. 2 enclosed with your letter."
Approved unanimously.
Letter to Mr. J. L. Robertson, Acting Comptroller of the Curl'erIQY's Washington, D. C., reading as follows:
"This is in response to your letter of August 21,
1951, with its enclosures, regarding the question whether
Practice being followed by a particular national bank
Involves an indirect payment of interest on demand dePosits in violation of section 19 of the Federal Reserve
Act and the Board's Regulation Q. It is understood that
the national bank in question has offered to collect
Checks drawn on nonpar banks by sending them for collection to a certain nonmember insured bank in the South
which would absorb the exchange charges made by the drawee
banks, thus enabling the depositors of the checks to obtain payment at par.
"As you know, for many years the Board has consistently
followed the general policy of not ruling on questions




1888

/
9 7/51

-7-

"whether particular practices involve a payment of interest
in violation of Regulation Q except after consideration of
all the facts and circumstances of the particular case as
developed in the course of examinations of the member banks
involved. That policy has proved to be the most feasible
basis for dealing with cases of this kind.
"However, in a similar case involving the practice
described in your letter the Board has heretofore expressed
the opinion that, since the member bank does not itself
absorb exchange charges, it would not appear that there
is a payment of interest by the member bank in violation
of the law or the Board's Regulation Q. The Board feels,
of course, that such a practice is an undesirable one,
since it lends support to the making of exchange charges
by nonmember banks and encourages the circuitous routing
of checks. The practice obviously grows out of the fact
that regulations applicable to nonmember insured banks
do not preclude such banks from absorbing exchange charges
in connection with the routine collection for their depositors of checks drawn on other banks.
"In this connection, as you know, the amount of the
deposit balance which a member bank may maintain with a
nonmember bank is limited by law to 10 per cent of the
member bank's capital and surplus. While it is recognized
that in the case of many banks this provision will not
constitute an effective restriction, it is possible that
in some instances it will have a deterrent effect upon
this practice. It is hoped that the practice will not
grow and that it will not be followed generally by other
institutions."
Approved unanimously.
Telegram to the Presidents of all Federal Reserve Banks and
Presidents in charge of Detroit and Los Angeles branches:
"Demand has arisen for V-loan statistics under Defense Production Act classified by number of employees of
borrower, and consensus of interested groups is to obtain
data requested herein. Accordingly, please report number
of employees of borrowers approximately as of time of apPlication for V loan, as follows:
A. Reports on Form F. R. 577 submitted for months
subsequent to August 1951 should show--




-8-

/7/51
9

"Line 4(a) - Approximate number of employees of
borrower,
and, if borrower is affiliated with other concerns under
common ownership or control-Line 4(b) - Approximate number of employees of
borrower and affiliated concerns
under common ownership or control.
B. Similar information for all cases covered by Forms
577 heretofore submitted including forms for August 1951
Should be supplied at your early convenience in lists by
guaranteeing agency showing name of borrower and application number."
Approved unanimously.
Telegram to the Presidents of all Federal Reserve Banks and
/allaging Officers of Federal Reserve Bank Branches, prepared in accordance with the action taken at the meeting of the Board on September 4,
/'eading as follows:
'de are mailing to you today copies of an interpretation of Regulation id on the subject of trade-ins which will
be W-165 S-1390. The interpretation, together with a brief
press statement, is being given to the press at 3 p.m.,
September 7, 1951, for release in the morning papers of
September 10, 1951.
"he are also air mailing you today an explanatory letter 1 -166 S-1391 with respect to this interpretation. The
letter is for the use of Reserve Bank personnel only.
"In order to get this information to you as promptly
as possible the press release and interpretation are set
out below. This telegram is also being sent to all Reserve
Bank Branches.
Statement for the Press
"The Board of Governors has today issued a statement
concerning the provisions of the Defense Production Act
Amendments and of Regulation WI Consumer Credit, which permit trade-ins to be counted for all or part of the minimum
down payment required under the regulation. The statement,
which is in the form of an interpretation of the regulation,
emphasizes that the new provisions of the statute and the
regulation do not repeal the requirement that a down payment
must be obtained. It stresses, also, that a trade-in allowance cannot be counted against the down payment required
under the regulation except to the extent it reflects a




7/9/51

-9-

fide trade-in or exchange of property having a value
that bears a reasonable relationship to the amount credited."
Interpretation of Regulation W
"Since the amendment to Regulation W which was made
following the amendment of the Defense Production Act, and
Which became effective July 31, 1951, questions have been
received concerning trade-ins in connection with the instalment sale of listed articles, particularly articles listed
in Groups B2 C2 and D of the Supplement to the regulation.
"It should be noted that the new provisions of the
statute and the regulation do not repeal the requirement
that a down payment must be obtained. Two provisions of
the regulation are of special importance here. One is section 6(c)(3) which requires that a trade-in be described in
the Registrant's records and that the Registrant set out
'the monetary value assigned thereto in good faith'. The
Other is section 8(j)(7) which requires that 'any rebate
or sales discount' be deducted in calculating the 'cash
Price' of the listed article, and that the required down
Payment be determined on the basis of the 'cash price
net of any rebate or sales discount'.
"The provisions of the statute and regulation, especially
those quoted above, prohibit certain practices which would
attempt to use fictitious trade-in allowances to evade the
down payment requirements. This is true even though the
regulation does not necessarily require that trade-in allowances counted against down payments be limited to the actual
market value of the trade-in or to the amount for which the
Registrant expects to be able to sell it. Some of the
More important principles forbidding fictitious trade-in
allowances are indicated below.
"1. It is evident that a transaction would involve
a rebate or sales discount rather than a trade-in where the
Registrant in fact did not receive delivery and possession
of the property for which a so-called trade-in allowance
was granted. In such a case an actual trade-in has not occurred, and labelling the transaction as a 'trade-in' will
not change its essential characteristic as a mere rebate or
discount. The Registrant has received nothing in part payment
by virtue of the so-called trade-in and has merely reduced
the price of the article sold. Accordingly, the required
uown payment would have to be obtained on the basis of the
Cash prices of the article net of such reduction.




1 S9-1

9/7/51

-10-

"2. A transaction would similarly conflict with the
requirements of the regulation where there was applied
against the required down payment a so-called trade-in
allowance in substantial amount for property having a value
that was nominal or negligible, or that bore no reasonable
relationship to the so-called allowance. Among transactions
that would thus conflict would be many made on the basis of
a substantial uniform allowance for all so-called trade-ins
irrespective of their make, model, or condition.
"3. A trade-in could not be counted as a down payment
to the extent that there had been any offsetting increase in
the price of the article being sold. The price to be used as
a standard here would be the actual value at which the Registrant at the time is selling the same or like articles with
an all-cash down payment or on a comparable basis; that price
might, of course, be lower than the 'list' price.
"4. From the foregoing it may be noted that a trade-ind
allowance cannot be counted against the down payment require
under the regulation except to the extent that it reflects
a bona fide trade-in or exchange of property. The regulation does not prevent a Registrant from giving rebates or
discounts, or from calling them anything he may like; but
no matter what he may choose to call them for his own purposes, they obviously cannot take the place of the down payment required by the regulation and cannot excuse the Registrant from the requirement that he actually obtain the rey
quired down payment. In other words, a Registrant is entirel
discounts
free to give any trade-in allowances, rebates, or
that he desires; but such allowances, rebates, or discounts
cannot be used as a cloak to conceal evasions of the down
Payment requirements of the regulation contrary to the principles here set out.
5. Under section 8(a) of the regulation the Registrant
is required in any given case to keep such records as are
ce
relevant to establishing that his treatment of an allowan
the
as a trade-in or exchange in payment or part payment of
required down payment is in conformity with the foregoing
and with the requirements of the regulation."
Approved unanimously, together
with the following letter to the Presidents of all Federal Reserve Banks.
'The replies of the Reserve Banks to our letter of
August 10, 19519 submitting a tentative draft of an interpretation regarding trade-ins under RegulationliVwere of




I 92

9/7/51

-11-

"great assistance in our consideration of the problem.
In order to assist in the desirable exchange of information on this subject among those who work on the problem,
we are discussing it rather fully below and we are not
marking this letter as confidential. However, it will
be apparent that, although the material headed 'Analysis
and Examples' (other than the discussion of W-96 and of
the work of investigators) might be used to some extent
in answering inquiries, most of the letter should be
treated as confidential and for use only within the
Reserve Bank.
"As might be expected in view of the novelty of
some phases of the problem, there was a considerable
range of opinion among the Reserve Banks. Some suggested
that the interpretation be tightened by reversing W-112
and forbidding all allowances to be counted against the
required down payment to the extent that they exceed the
reasonable market value of the trade-in. Some suggested
that the interpretation be issued about as submitted
for comments. Some suggested that the interpretation
as it relates to over-allowances be made less restrictive
than in the tentative draft. Some suggested that the
interpretation be issued only for the use of Reserve Bank
personnel, or that no interpretation be issued at all.
"After carefully considering the various aspects of
the problem, the Board has decided to issue an interpretation in the form set out in W-165, S-1390, of this date,
a copy of which is enclosed. The arrangement and wording
of the interpretation has been changed from the tentative
draft, but the substance is not greatly altered. SOMB of
the considerations that led to these conclusions are outlined belog.
"First of all, it is fully recognized that the problem
With respect to trade-ins that is posed by the Defense Production Act Amendments is extremely difficult at best, and
one for which it is unlikely that any completely satisfactory
solution can be found.
"Much can be said for the suggestion that allowances
counted against down payments be limited to fair market
value. Three reasons seemed persuasive against that position. First, the Board had taken a contrary position in
W-112 with respect to automobiles. It might be claimed
that Congress, in extending the automobile rule to other




9N51

-12-

"articles, had in mind the principle of that ruling. Even
if the System might be sustained legally in reversing the
ruling in these circumstances -- a point on which there
might be some question -- it would raise a real possibility
of Congressional sponsors of the amendment feeling that
the System was trying to thwart the Congressional intenly
tion. Secondly, a change in the rule would almost certain
have to be applied not only to appliances, televisions,
etc., but also to automobiles. In the latter field it
ished
would cause especially great disruption in well-establ
trade practices. Thirdly, it seemed likely that the test
ly
would still remain so indefinite that it would be extreme
e and might place conscientious
hard to apply in practic
Registrants under an especially heavy burden as compared
With less conscientious competitors. In view of these
e
considerations, the Board reluctantly decided to continu
ng over-allowances as stated
the general principle regardi
in W-112.
"However, it was felt that there is still room for an
interpretation that will prevent the more flagrant abuses,
Will be reasonably susceptible of enforcement, and will
help to preserve respect for the regulation and the System.
It is hoped that the rationale of the published interpretation will be reasonably evident from the interpretation
itself, but for your further background information we are
giving below an item-by-item analysis of the interpretation and a few examples illustrating the various degrees
of difficulty involved in the various aspects of the problem.
Analysis and Examples
para"Three unnumbered paragraphs - The first three
which are unnumbered, attempt
graphs of the interpretation,
to emto give some general background of the problem and
are still in effect.
phasize that down payment requirements
y the
"Paragraph Numbered 1 deals with what is probabl
.
probably agree, for exsimplest case. Most people would
ample, that there has not really been any trade-in if a
$50 allowance
Registrant purports to give the customer a
but never obtains possession
for the customer's wrist watch
of the watch.
ing
"Paragraph 2 deals with several cases of increas
for example, that the
degrees of difficulty. Suppose,
ce
Registrant purports to give the customer a $50 allowan




9/7/51

-13-

"for an empty cigarette package. Most people probably
would agree that such a valueless or nominal trade-in
is essentially the same as the preceding case of no real
trade-in at all.
"Paracraph 2 - 'Value .. .negligible' - What if
the trade-in is not completely worthless or nominal but
its value is negligible? For example, the cigarette
Package might be full instead of empty. It probably
would be agreed that this also is similar to the case
of no real trade-in.
"Paragraph 2 - 'No reasonable relationship' - vihat
if the value of the trade-in is more than negligible, but
still is so completely out of proportion to the purported
allogance that on even the most generous valutaions the
trade-in would bear no reasonable relationship to the alleged allowance? To be more specific, suppose the Registrant purports to allow $50 for a new necktie that definitely
has value but could be readily purchased for not more than
$5. This case is admittedly more difficult. Some might
attempt to argue that to hold it a violation of the regulation would conflict with W-112 or even with the statute.
However, it is believed that the forbidding of such a
Practice is authorized by the statute and distinguishable
from W-112. The difference from the ordinary over-allowances covered in W-1l2 is admittedly one of degree.
But the difference is so great as to become virtually a
difference of kind. It is hard to describe a hard and
fast line between the two, but in actual practice most
cases probably will tend to be fairly far over to one
Side or the other and not along the border. The situation might be said to be roughly comparable in some respects to those in which some courts have considered it
desirable to distinguish between 'negligence' and 'gross
negligence'. For example: Massaletti v. Fitzroy (1917,
Mass.) 118 NE 168. Notes I. ALR 1197 et seq., 96 ALR 910
et seq; 65 CJS 1270 et seq.
"We recognize that if investigators tried to check
each transaction to apply the 'no reasonable relationship'
Principle it would impose a great burden. It seems like1Y, however, that the principle will help to stop the most
flagrant abuses, and that it need not be unduly burdensome to Registrants or investigators. In this respect
there is some similarity to the interpretation on sets and




S95
-14-

9/7/51

"groups contained in W-981 Regulation W Loose-leaf #640.
For example, in theory it might be extremely difficult
for an investigator to determine after the fact whether
or not certain articles were 'merchandised as a single
unit.' In practice, however, the rule seems to have
stopped certain rather flagrant practices that tended
to weaken respect for the regulation. Investigators
are fully justified if they do not always make the elaborate inquiries that would be necessary to discover some
Possible violations of the sets and groups interpretation, and it would seem that the net effect of the interpretation is salutary.
"Paragraph 2 - 'Uniform allowances' - The last sentence of paragraph 2 is a specific application of the principles stated in the earlier part of the paragraph. It does
not say that all transactions made on the basis of a substantial uniform allowance would violate the regulation. It
says that 'many' would -- which seems to be the case. Therefore, advertisements flatly offering such allowances to be
applied against the required down payment would seem to be
objectionable. If the advertiser does what he purports to
do he will violate the regulation. If he does not do what
he purports to do, the advertisement would probably be misleading and of interest to Better Business Bureaus, etc.
"Paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 - Paragraph 3 simply restates
the principle of W-112 forbidding so-called trade-in allowances that are offset by price increases. The second sentence of the paragraph adds a little concreteness that probably will have less application for automobiles than for other
listed articles. Paragraph 4 summarizes the good faith princiPie that underlies the whole interpretation. Paragraph 5 calls
attention to the record-keeping requirements.
**
"We have discussed the general trade-in problem informally
with members of the Joint Congressional Committee on Defense
Production established by the Defense Production Act. We did
hot ask them to approve or disapprove the position stated in
the interpretation and this letter. However, the general outlines of the position were made known to them, and for your
confidential information we can say that the position impressed
them as reasonable."
Telegram to the Presidents of all Federal Reserve Banks, reading
4"°11ows.




—15—

/7/51
9

"The agenda for the System conference on Regulation X
to be held September 14 is as follows:
I. Introductory comments
II. Recent legislative developments
a. Modification of terms of regulation
b. Critical defense housing areas
c. Nonresidential construction for defense purposes
III. Proposed amendments
a. Leasing arrangements
b. Exceptions to cover delayed settlement payments
c. Others
IV. Administration and interpretation
a. Determination of value
b. When is construction completed?
c. Financing resales
d. Subterfuges and evasions
e. Other administrative and interpretative problems
V. Registration
a. Status of registration
b. Analysis of registration
c. Ascertainment and registration of persons
unaware of the regulation
d. Other problems
VI. Effects of general and regulatory credit policies on
real estate finance
a. Availability of mortgage funds
b. Sales of completed houses blocked by regulation
VII. General
a. Educational activities
b. Advisory committees
c. Research and surveys
d. Coordination with Voluntary Credit Restraint Program
e. Enforcement reports
"In addition to the above topicss matters connected with
enforcement of Regulation X will be discussed at time RegulationW enforcement is covered."
Approved unanimously.
Letter for the signature of the Chairman to Mr. Stefano Sig-

lie

nti, Presidents Italian Bankers Associations 49 Piazza del Gesus
Italy, reading as follows:




:11

9/7/51

-16-

"Several months ago you were kind enough to invite
the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to
send a delegate to the International Credit Conference to
be held in Rome from October 18th to 24th under the sponsorship of your Association.
"At that time we were compelled to reply that much as
we would like to accept your invitation it did not appear
that we would be able to be represented. We stated, however, that, if circumstances should change in any respect,
we would communicate with you again.
"1 am pleased to advise you that arrangements have now
been completed for Governor R. M. Evans, a member of the
Board of Governors, to travel to Europe this fall to attend
the meeting of the United Nations' World Food and Agriculture Organization, which he helped organize, and to consult
With officials of several European central banks. Governor
Evans has indicated that he will endeavor to arrange his
itinerary so as to be present for at least a portion of the
International Credit Conference, and we are desirous that
he do so, feeling that much benefit will be derived from
his attendance. In the circumstances, we should like at
this time to designate Governor Evans as representative of
the Board at the Conference. It is noted from your letter
of invitation that additional information relating to the
Program would be available from the Secretariat of the Conference, and we should appreciate being furnished with any
materials which you feel might be of interest to Governor
Evans."




Approved unanimously.

'\*