« PreviousContinue »
THE NAME, LOCATION, AND TOTAL ASSETS OF Each NATIONAL BANK THAT HAS
BEEN MERGED INTO OR CONSOLIDATED WITH ANOTHER BANK SINCE JAN. 1, 1953–
Dec. 31, 1953
Total assets Columbia State Bank, Columbia, S. Dak.
$978, 215 Aberdeen National Bank, Aberdeen, S. Dak.'
11, 511, 000 Co-Ops' State Bank, Beech Grove, Ind..
1, 567, 123 The Merchants National Bank of Indianapolis, Ind."
160, 078, 000 Miners & Merchants Bank, Chelan, Wash -
5, 303, 430 Spokane Valley State Bank of Millwood, Wash
3, 281, 648 Seattle-First National Bank, Seattle, Wash.?
762, 347, 000 First Trust & Savings Bank, Moscow, Idaho..
9, 889, 631 First Security Bank of Idaho, National Association, Boise, Idaho'.- 176, 740, 000 Bear River State Bank, Tremonton, Utah -
4, 252, 981 First Security Bank of Utah, National Association, Ogden, Utah 182, 023, 000 The Nevada Deposit Bank, Nevada, Ohio---
623, 411 The First Citizen National Bank of Upper Sandusky, Ohio?.
7, 729, 000 Mayfield State Bank, Mayfield, Pa
1, 353, 479 The First National Bank of Carbondale, Pa.?
S, 156, 000 Citizens Bank of Locke, N. Y.
736, 458 The National Bank of Auburn, N. Y.'.
17, 551, 000 Cumberland Savings Bank Co., Cumberland, Ohio.
1, 343, 090 The Central National Bank at Cambridge, Ohio"
4,095, 100 Muncie Banking Co., Muncie, Ind_
5, 348, 218 The Merchants National Bank of Muncie, Ind.
45, 652, 000 The Equity Savings Association, Cleveland, Ohio.
18, 606, 707 The National City Bank of Cleveland, Ohio 1
691, 032, 000 First Security Bank, Beaverton, Oreg.
7,009, 074 T'he United States National Bank of Portlang, Oreg.:
688, 417, 000 Roaring Spring Bank, Roaring Spring, Pa.
2, 093, 834 The First National Bank of Altoona, Pa..
21, 566, 000 Citizens State Bank, Buckley, Wash..
1, 413, 599 National Bank of Washington, Tacoma, Wash.'
130, 175, 000 Buhl State Bank, Buhl, Minn..
614, 851 The First National Bank of Buhl, Minn."
1, 0.52, 000 1 Purchasing bank.
VOTE.--- Asset figures for purchasing banks shown to nearest thousand dollars as of Jan. 1, 1953.
National banks meryed or consolidated with and into State banks during the
year ended Dec. 31, 1953 Banks
Total assets The First National Bank of Aliquippa, Pa..
$3,065, 224 Woodlawn Trust Co., Aliquippa, Pa.'
16, 770,000 The Farmers National Bank of Amsterdam, N. Y.
9, 118, 353 State Bank of Albany, N. Y.'
175, 948, 000 The Bayside National Bank of New York, N. Y.
28, 188, 837 Bankers Trust Co., New York, N. Y.'.
2, 136, 753, 000 Oswego County National Bank, Oswego, N. Y.
22, 908, 889 The Syracuse Trust Co., Syracuse, N. Y.
108, 723, 000 The First National Bank & Trust Co. of Jassena, N. Y.
9, 402, 118 The Northern New York Trust Co., Watertown, N. Y.'.
30, 598, 000 The Windham County National Bank of Danielson, Conn.
8, 620, 118 The Hartford-Connecticut Trust Co., Hartford, Conn.'.
212, 062, 000 The First National Bank of Somerset, Pa-
4, 088, 147 Somerset Trust Co., Somerset, Pa.'.
8,000,000 Yardley National Bank, Yardley, Pa.
4, 380, 584 The Bristol Trust Co., Bristol, Pa.'
13, 486, 000 The First National Bank of Croton-on-Hudson, N. Y.
3, 202, 092 The County Trust Co., White Plains, N. Y.'--
225, 918,000 Tradesmen's National Bank & Trust Co., Philadelphia, Pa.--- 139, 801, 396 Land Title Bank & Trust Co., Philadelphia, Pa.'
96, 378,000 See footnote at end of table
THE NAME, LOCATION, AND TOTAL ASSETS OF EACH NATIONAL BANK THAT HAS
BEEN MERGED INTO OR CONSOLIDATED WITH ANOTHER BANK SINCE JAN. 1, 1953— Continued
National banks merged or consolidated with and into State banks during the
year ended Dec. 31, 1953—Continued Banks
Total assets The Myersown National Bank, Myerstown, Pa--
$3, 147, 925 Myerstown Trust Co., Myerstown, Pa.'.
4, 207, 000 National Bank of Germantown & Trust Co., Philedalphia, Pa.--- 39, 833, 432 Girard Trust Corn Exchange Bank, Philadelphia, Pa.'.
579,978, 000 The Peoples National Bank & Trust Co. of White Plains, N. Y--- 28, 534, 919 New Rochelle Trust Co., New Rochelle, N. Y.'-.
36, 172, 000 1 Acquiring bank.
NOTE.—Asset figures for acquiring bank shown to nearest thousand dollars as of Jan. 1, 1953.
Jergers of National banks, or National and State banks, during the year ended
Dec. 31, 1953
Consolidations of National banks, or National and State banks during the year
ended Dec. 31, 1954
479, 891, 129
4, 300, 505 216, 465, 336
13, 298, 685
1, 277, 443
2, 883, 818
135, 461, 695
12, 703, 442
The Piedmont State Bank, Piedmont, Ohio.
Valley National B of Oneida, N. Y.1
See footnote at end of table
360, 994 312, 095, 441 168, 092, 700
1, 154, 553 3, 145, 942 16, 171, 861 200, 293, 474
2, 305, 981 10, 992, 704
684, 388 1, 658, 871 1. 224, 947
8, 316, 962 127, 729, 261
1,532, 383 11, 171, 059 5, 434, 712 3,726, 704 6, 420, 506 14,918, 388
9, 638, 924 30,053, 848
1, 116, 359 4, 262, 110 29, 271, 764 16. 910, 633 4, 804, 191 3,003, 665
9, 891, 124 123, 946, 829 133, 517, 125
94, 409, 433 548 093, 159
2, 931, 528 14, 103, 596
9, 161, 416 21, 338, 603
39, 692, 773
46, 182, 397
257, 411, 110 641, 723, 644
won't have the different agencies coming out with differing interpretations.
Mr. MalETz. Mr. Attorney General, has it been called to your attention that the Comptroller of the Currency has testified before several congressional committees that in the exercise of his discretion he would not approve any national bank merger, where the effect may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any section of the country?
Mr. BROWNELL. I think that he was qualifying that to say that if that was the standard setup by the Congress, he would follow it.
Mr. KEATING. In other words, that was the standard at that time? Mr. BROWNELL. Yes.
Mr. KEATING. As to other corporations and he said he would follow it as to banks.
But if they put the “unduly” in there, in the Senate bill and we set up the standard of “undue," he would not then require
Mr. BROW NELL. That is right.
Mr. KEATING (continuing). The compliance with this word “substantial"?
Mr. BROWNELL. I agree with Congressman Keating.
Mr. MALETZ. Mr. Chairman, testifying before the Senate Antitrust Subcommitte, Mr. Jennings, who is Deputy Comptroller of the Currency, stated as follows:
It is the opinion of our counsel that under section 7 of the Clayton Act, if there. is a substantial or if there may be a substantial lessening of competition, it is required that the application to merge be denied. That is the opinion of our counsel. The decision is based wholly on competitive factors.
Testifying before this committee, Mr. Gidney stated as follows at pages 452 and 453 of volume I, Hearings on Current Antitrust Problems:
Question: In other words, the Celler Act serves as a guide for your office in determining whether you approve or disapprove a merger involving national banks; is that correct?
Mr. GIDNEY. We would not feel that we could approve what we consider to be a. violation of that principle, that is true. I do not believe we are charged with theadministration of the act. That is a technical point. I do not want to labor it because I am not very well qualified.
At page 483, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Gidney wrote a letter to you dated March 14, 1955, which stated in part:
There may be a technical question as to the specific application of section 7 of the Clayton Act to these mergers. However, it has been the practice of the. Comptroller before giving his approval to determine whether the effect of a merger in any section of the country may be to substantially lessen competition or to tend to create a monopoly.
Mr. BROW NELL. I think that bears out, Mr. Chairman, what I said and what Congressman Keating also said, that he was talking about the present situation, and that that would not be binding on him at all if the new statute were passed and the new standard were created.
The CHAIRMAN. Wasn't he indicating what his policy was?
Mr. BROWNELL. As at present, but not if the new act were passed which established a different standard,
The CHAIRMAN. Let's see how he has carried out the policy. The Comptroller of the Currency has approved 376 national bank mergers
involving total resources of $5,224,000,000. That is found in volume I, Current Antitrust Problems, page 451, 1955.
Are you aware of the fact, Mr. Attorney General, that in this same period Mr. Gidney testified the Comptroller of the Currency has not formally disapproved a single merger for competitive reasons?
Mr. BROWNELL. Yes.
The CHAIRMAX. Do you recall testifying, you yourself, before the Senate Banking and Currency Committee on February 18, 1957, as follows, page 1027:
Senator DOUGLAS. In other words, up to date the Comptroller of Currency had tended to give little or no weight to the question as to whether or not competition would be substantially less?
Mr. BROW NELL. I believe that is a fact, and I think his own testimony indicates that.
You remember that, do you, that testimony?
The CHAIRMAN. In other words, even though the Comptroller testifies that he will not approve a merger where the effect may be to sub stantially lessen competition, from 1950 to May 1955 he did not formally disapprove any bank merger whatsoever for competitive reasons;
is that correct? Mr. BROWNELL. Yes. I think that illustrates what I have been trying to say here, that when you have two different agencies issuing interpretations of the same thing, you are bound to get differing results.
Mr. KEATING. Let me ask a question.
The CHAIRMAN. You ask a question later. Let me develop this, please.
Mr. KEATING. I think it is important to this point.
The CHAIRMAN. Make a note so you won't forget. In how many instances has Mr. Gidney sought advice from your office as to whether the effect of a given merger may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly?
How many times has he consulted with you! ?
The CHAIRMAN. Would you supply that to the committee the number of times?
Mr. BROW NELL. Surely.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, March 20, 1957. Hon. EMANUEL CELLER, Chairman, Antitrust Subcommittee, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN CELLER: In Attorney General Herbert Brownell's appearance before your subcommittee on March 6, 1957, it was requested that the Department furnish you with instances in which Comptroller of the Currency Ray M. Gidney sought advice from the Antitrust Division as to whether the effect of a given merger may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly. We have reviewed our records and find that in only one instance was the Department's advice sought on a competitive effect of a particular bank merger problem. In that instance, members of the Comptroller's staff conferred informally with the Division around the end of September 1956 on the proposed acquisition of the Peoples Saving Bank of Port Huron (Mich.) by the Michigan National Bank. This proposed acquisition has been subject to a rather thorough investigation because of Sherman Act as well as Clayton Act problems.
In two other instances, the Comptroller's office has forwarded information to the Division on bank mergers. On August 8, 1956, the proposed merger of Farmers & Merchants National Bank of Los Angeles and Security First National Bank of Los Angeles was brought to the Division's attention before the Comptroller had given his approval. It was with respect to this merger that I personally talked to Mr. Gidney on the telephone. Lack of section 7 jurisdiction because this transaction was consummated by an acquisition of assets precluded the Department from considering this matter under section 7. On August 17, 1956, the Comptroller called the Division's attention to his approval of the merger of the Delaware Valley Bank & Trust Company of Bristol (Pa.) and the Philadelphia National Bank of Philadelphia.
In three other instances, our records show that the Comptroller's office was notified of our interest in certain bank merger problems. Notice was given on January 5, 1955, on the Chase-Manhattan Bank merger, March 7, 1955, on the National City-First National Bank merger, and around the 1st of December 1956 on the pending New York bank holding company formation which is now before the Federal Reserve Board for approval. In the Chase-Manhattan and National City-First National Bank mergers, this Department specifically requested from the Comptroller's office information or data relating to competitive aspects of these mergers. In the pending holding company problems, our requests for information have been mainly channeled through the Federal Reserve Board, the agency with primary jurisdiction over this matter under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956. However, a recent information request has been made directly to the Comptroller's office. Sincerely yours,
VICTOR R. HANSEN,
Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division. The CHAIRMAN. Can Judge Hansen testify to that?
Mr. BROWNELL. No; he is not prepared. We were just asking each other if we had any records with us which would show the answer to that, and we do not have them here.
The CHAIRMAN. Would you say, Judge, from the time you became head of the Antitrust Division it was a limited number of occasions that the Comptroller of Currency conferred with you on these matters?
Mr. HANSEN. I would rather get the facts. I know that I have talked to Mr. Gidney with reference to mergers.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you remember now, have you any present recollection of any particular occasion when the Comptroller of Currency asked your advice about a bank merger?
Mr. Hansen. I remember specifically that he called me with reference to the merger of the Security First National Bank and the Farmers and Merchants National Bank in Los Angeles, but I would want to look at the record to find out exactly any others ?
The CHAIRMAN. Do you have in mind any other occasions when he called you?
Mr. HANSEN. That is the one I recall now. There may have been others.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Gidney testified, I believe, as follows before the Senate Banking Committee: "I have not any competency in that, the antitrust field. I do not know what the courts have done."
You are aware of that statement; aren't you?
Mr. BROWXELL. Yes. As a matter of fact I quoted that to you a moment ago.