The Federal Reserve Banks are to exercise wide powers, and would seem likely to have ample resources. The country is to be divided into not less than eight, nor more than twelve districts, in each of which a federal reserve bank is to be established.[288] All national banks are required, and qualified state banking institutions are invited, to subscribe to the capital of the reserve bank in their district. Subscribing banks, to be known as member banks, are required to keep a part of their reserve with their Federal Reserve Bank. These banks will presumably receive most if not all of the general funds of the United States Government. They will provide an elastic currency, issuing notes secured by their commercial assets. They are also empowered to undertake the business of collecting, and clearing checks throughout the entire country, thus providing an organization for making settlements between banks in different places, the lack of which has been one of the most serious defects in our banking system.
Each Federal Reserve Bank will be a central bank for the section of the country which it is to serve. It will have all the responsibilities and most of the powers of central banks in the various European countries; but largely because the system is to be superimposed upon a fully developed banking system, some important provisions of the Federal Reserve Act are unlike anything to be found in European legislation. The Federal Reserve Banks are to receive deposits from the Government and from member banks only. Ordinarily they will lend to member banks only. All European central banks, though the bulk of their business is with banks and bankers, may deal with the general public and do so. The most striking divergence from European example, however, is the really novel plan of a system of regional banks in place of a single central bank. But the extent of this divergence is generally exaggerated. Political boundaries are indeed in large measure economic and financial boundaries as well; but central banks in the European countries do act and react upon each other, often working in harmony, and yet at times very much at cross purposes. If all Europe were brought under a single government, very likely the various existing central banks would be merged into a single institution. In some respects this would be advantageous, but it would not be absolutely necessary. Certainly European arrangements are not so fundamentally unlike those of a system of regional banks in a single country of great size, as to afford ground for the opinion that in setting up this system foreign experience has been altogether disregarded.
The various considerations which led to the adoption of the plan for regional banks, rather than a single central institution, deserve careful attention, since they indicate the spirit and purpose of the Federal Reserve Act. A single central bank was the solution of the banking problem reached without a dissenting voice by the members of the National Monetary Commission. The bill which the commission prepared was a notable achievement. Pioneer work though much of it necessarily was, very few defects on the technical banking side were disclosed in the discussion which followed the statement of the proposed measure. Its provisions regarding banking operations, including relations with other banks, are embodied with few changes of an essential character in the Federal Reserve Act. Most of the important differences between the bill and the Federal Reserve Act reflect differences in spirit and purpose rather than in methods. A central bank and also the system of regional banks necessarily involve placing somewhere very extensive power to influence and control credit. In the present temper of public opinion, the possession of great economic power is not tolerated in the absence of a large measure of government supervision and control. But unfortunately, in framing its measure the monetary commission failed to realize the fundamental importance of this consideration as a factor in securing general public approval. In devising a form of organization, competent management and approval in banking circles were evidently the controlling factors. An organization was proposed under which out of forty-five directors, but three were to represent the Government, the remainder being selected in various ways by bankers. Support from some who were the most bitter opponents of the measure might have been secured if the bill had provided for a larger measure of government control; but an equal or even greater number of adherents would probably have been lost. Under the plan of the commission and indeed under any central bank plan, government supervision and control cannot be made effective without at the same time placing the details of operation in charge of government officials. Few of the most ardent advocates of a central bank were prepared to take this extreme step.
Under the plan of organization of regional banks, the difficulty of combining government control and private management vanished. Purely banking matters, such as the granting of loans, could be placed with boards entirely or mainly composed of persons selected by the bankers whose funds were to provide most of the necessary resources. On the other hand, supervision and whatever measure of control might be deemed advisable, could be placed with a board mainly or entirely appointed by the President of the United States. Differences of opinion may be entertained regarding the particular arrangements in the Federal Reserve Act for selecting the various administrative bodies, and regarding the division of power between the directorates of the federal reserve banks and the Federal Reserve Board. If experience should disclose defects in this form of organization, it is flexible enough to permit at any time an extension of government or of banking influence.
Another important advantage of the regional system is to be noted. The operation of a central bank would be far more likely to give rise to sectional antagonism. This danger was apparently fully realized by the members of the National Monetary Commission, and elaborate arrangements for selecting the management were devised in order to make certain that each section of the country should be properly represented. But obviously regional banks, managed by local people, are very much more certain to meet this requirement. Apparently it was an endeavor to remove still further the danger of sectional dissatisfaction that led the Monetary Commission to make its one serious departure from sound banking principle in framing its bill. A provision was inserted requiring rediscounts to be made at a uniform rate throughout the entire country, regardless of the wide differences in the demand and supply of capital, which occasion the existing wide differences in lending rates. Under the regional plan no such indefensible provision was found necessary. This important feature of the Federal Reserve Act outweighs such advantages in economy of resources and effectiveness in management as were sacrificed in substituting for a central bank the regional banks.
The Monetary Commission in framing its bill seems to have been guided by two principles generally wise in legislation—the scope of the measure was limited to the single purpose of removing purely banking defects in our banking system, and no greater departure from existing arrangements was proposed than was essential for the purpose in hand. The Federal Reserve Act certainly runs counter to the first of these principles. Its primary purpose is similar to that of the bill of the monetary commission; but a secondary purpose evidently exercised a potent influence. This purpose was to decentralize credits by lessening the concentration of banking funds in a few large banks in the chief financial centers, and especially in New York. The regional system itself gained much support because it was believed by many that it would lessen the financial predominance of New York City. No comprehensive scheme of legislation with this object in view was inserted in the bill; but wherever two or more means of accomplishing the primary purpose of the bill were open, that one was evidently selected which it was believed might tend toward decentralization. In general the desire to decentralize credits explains why the act makes very much greater changes in existing arrangements than were proposed in the bill of the Monetary Commission. In the latter, the practice of depositing a part of the required reserves of the banks with reserve agents was left undisturbed. Under the terms of the Federal Reserve Act, such deposits are to be reduced by successive installments, and discontinued entirely three years after the passage of the act. From a purely banking point of view, much can be said for this great change; but it was certainly not absolutely necessary in order to secure the desired improvements in the working of our banking system.
The new banking institutions for which the Federal Reserve Act makes provision cannot be put in successful operation (and in this it resembles the bill of the Monetary Commission) unless a considerable number of the existing banks enter into relations with them. An institution might have been established with large capital, and a monopoly of the right of note issue, authorized to act as government fiscal agent, and to deal with the general public. Such an institution would presumably in the course of time have become a central bank, the main reliance of other banks in emergencies. In order to avoid competition with existing banks, the act provides that the receipt of deposits by the Federal Reserve Banks, and their normal lending operations shall be confined to those banks which subscribe to the capital and maintain balances with them. Obviously, then, if banks in large numbers do not accept the arrangement, subscribing to the capital and relying upon the new banks for accommodation, the system cannot be put into effective operation. Moreover, it is necessary that many banks shall enter the system at the outset. An attitude of hesitation would change to one of positive distrust, if the initial response were inadequate.
In the case of the bill of the Monetary Commission, reliance was placed simply upon the attractiveness of the measure. No bank would have suffered positive loss from failure to enter the system, though certain slight inducements were held out to those banks which accepted the arrangement at the outset. Whether a sufficient number of banks would have entered that system, if it had been established, may be thought probable but is not certain. Bankers are naturally and properly a conservative class and the inclination of many would have been to wait until the system was in successful operation. The attitude of bankers toward the Federal Reserve Act while it was passing through Congress was distinctly unfavorable. Most of its provisions already referred to, as well as others in which it differed from the Monetary Commission bill, were disliked. It was evident that in the absence of positive pressure, the number of banks which would accept its terms would be too small to make successful operation possible. No attempt was made, however, to insert provisions which would bring pressure upon state banking institutions. Perhaps it would be possible, either under the inter-state commerce or the postal clause in the Constitution; but it would have been contrary to the constitutional traditions of the party in power, and it was not necessary. If the national banks very generally enter the system, the resources of the Federal Reserve Banks will be sufficient to test the effectiveness of the measure. Accordingly the Federal Reserve Act contains a number of provisions designed to bring pressure to bear upon these to enter the system immediately. Failure to accept the terms of the act within one year after its passage involves forfeiture of the national charter. This alone would be no great business sacrifice, since banking in most States is quite as profitable under a state as under a national charter. Loss of the national charter, however, involves a loss of the right to issue bank notes and calls for the deposit of lawful money in Washington equivalent to the amount of outstanding circulation. Most national bank notes are secured by 2 per cent. government bonds, the price of which, in the absence of the circulation privilege, would be perhaps about two-thirds of the price (somewhat above par) at which they were purchased by the banks. No considerable number of national banks could refuse to enter the system without involving themselves in a heavy immediate loss. A further provision in the act puts more immediate pressure upon the national banks in reserve cities. If within sixty days after the passage of the act, a reserve agent bank fails to signify acceptance of its terms, it must cease to exercise the reserve-holding right upon thirty days' notice from the Federal Reserve Board.
Many bankers bitterly condemned the compulsory features in the act while it was on its passage through Congress. This feeling was perfectly natural, but it was not very generally shared outside banking circles. Impartially considered, the act imposes no unreasonable burden upon those who have invested capital in national banks. No one fears the loss of the funds which may be subscribed to the capital stock of the federal reserve banks or placed on deposit with them. If loss should be incurred, it would be primarily due to unsound banking on the part of the boards of directors of the Reserve Banks, a majority of the membership of which is to be chosen by the banks themselves. Some bankers have doubted whether the act would prove an effective measure of banking reform; but few if any have felt that results under its operation could possibly be more unsatisfactory than those under the present system; and all agree that it is a long step toward a perfected system.