1, 180 963 935 954 893 674 801 966 612 1, 0941, 565 572 425 525 438 164 20 In 1920 there were 2 certificates to commence business listed in the report. One was for an increase in capital and changir.g location and reorganization. The other was for change of title. Both necessitated new charters according to law. 21 In ludes 137 private banks which changed to State banks because of law which became effective May 15, 1903, prohibiting use of word "bank" in titles of institutions not chartered by State. Doctor WILLIS. Mr. Chairman, a great deal has been said about banks going out of the national system or into the national system, as if banks were hastily shifted from one system to another without very much thought of the subject. Here I have a table showing a number of State banks and trust companies which were converted from national banks in each State of the Union since 1890. The number that were converted-that is, the national banks that were converted into some form of State organization were in 1913, 3; 1914, 26; 1915, 13; 1916, 29; 1917, 20; 1918, 10; 1919, 34; 1920, 35; 1921, 18; 1922, 23; 1923, 29; 1924, 22; 1925, 23. That does not show a very rapid tendency of national banks to leave the system and to convert into these various forms of State organizations. Senator GLASS. It does not show any variation at all. Doctor WILLIS. I w.ll mark this Table No. 3 and ask that it be inserted in the record. The CHAIRMAN. Taat table will be incorporated in the record. TABLE 3.-Number of State banks, trust companies, and stock savings banks converted from national banks in each State of the Union yearly since 1890 (Compiled from data available at State banking departments) 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 Two national banks taken over by trust companies as branches. 4 One national bank taken over as a branch of a trust company. Others absorbed by trust companies. The figure given for national banks changing to State banks is included that showing the number of new banks authorized that same year. Absorbed savings bank at time of conversion. 7 Statistics for State banks and trust companies only. The North Dakota office has no record of the number of conversions from national banks. New York 7. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 North Carolina. 7 North Dakota 8. Ohio Oklahoma. 1 No data available. ? These statistics for trust companies only. TABLE 3.-Number of State banks, trust companies, and stock savings banks converted from national banks in each State of the Union yearly 8 since 1890-Continued 10 This figure for State bank only. 11 These figures for State banks and incorporated trust companies only. 12 These statistics only include national banks converted into or absorbed by trust companies. 13 These figures include only State banks and trust companies. There are no stock savings banks in South Dakota. 14 Includes figures for preceding year. 15 No data available for any other year until 1906. 16 A national bank and a savings bank combined to form a trust company. 17 A national bank was absorbed by a trust company. 19 No records in examiner's office. CONSOLIDATION OF NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATIONS. Doctor WILLIS. There is another fact concerning the banking situation that has not received very careful consideration, and which I will briefly state, and that is that the tendency to overorganize banks in relation to population. If you will look at foreign countries you will find that there is rather a singular uniformity in the number of people existing there in the banking offices, just as there is in the number of people adjacent to or surrounding a post office. That is a question of geographical location, and of course you will find in sparsely settled countries, there ought to be rather more banking business per thousand population than there is in densely settled countries. Nevertheless, there is a very interesting uniformity to it, and when you find that the number of banks that are being organized in a given state, per thousand or per million of population, is getting materially below that, it is time for careful consideration to be given to the question whether you are not bringing into existence a set of weak institutions that are bound to fail. I have here a table showing the number of persons per State bank, trust company and stock savings bank in each State of the Union since 1890, which was prepared from the best figures obtainable. I want to call attention in that connection to the fact that in North Dakota we had in 1920 one bank for every 916 persons, and at the same time we had in California one bank for every 8,287 persons, and in Wisconsin The CHAIRMAN. Are those the extremes that you are reading now? Doctor WILLIS. No, sir; I am just picking them out at random geographically. And in Wisconsin one bank for every 3,148 persons; in New York-and that is the extreme--we had one bank for every 31,000 persons, on account of the extraordinary congestion there. If you compare these figures you will come to the conclusion that we have invited bank failures by our catering to the existence of the small bank and provided for the average man to have free access to the banking business. Do not misunderstand me as objecting to the small banker. He has a recognized following and his institution has many merits. I simply suggest that when they state, as they do in some of the current publications, that there are some of these enaged in bank supervision in journalism, or teaching, who call attention to the situation; when they say that the number of banks organized there are necessary as a matter of recognition of the right of persons to go into banking, that it is an American institution, I can not believe that it is American to fail, that is, to say that a failed bank is an American institution. Now I will include this table, if I may, and will mark it No. 4. 84285-26- -5 |