As first presented, the bill was taken in hand by the House Committee on Banking and Currency, which, however, had not been named until a few days previous to the introduction of the measure. The committee held its first meeting June 6th, then began the active work of considering the bill on July 7th, and continued regular sessions several hours each day until the beginning of September. The bill was then reported to a Democratic caucus and after a period of detailed discussion behind closed doors was ratified, and was thereupon formally reported, on September 9th, to the House of Representatives, where it was taken under debate on September 10th and ultimately forced to a passage in the House on September 18th. It was then sent to the Upper Chamber and was taken under advisement in the Senate Banking Committee, where extensive hearings were promptly begun, and were continued until October 25th. Thereafter, a month of consideration in committee ensued, and subsequently three days of caucus consideration in the Senate, a final report to the Senate as such being rendered on December 1st. Debate then began and was continued, first in the intervals of business already scheduled, then at practically continuous sessions until December 19th, when a final vote was secured and the measure within twenty-four hours sent to conference, from which it emerged on December 22d, receiving the President's signature on the following day.

When reported by the Senatol Banking Committee, after its own consideration and trat of the caucus, the banking bill contained no impore's changes in theory, as compared with the House oh we save only in the section which related to the met for to of retiring existing national-bank circulation and tions abviding for the refunding of United States 2-per cent bonds. The bill, however, differed essentially from the House measure in many details, some of them of great importance, others of minor signicane. The frame-work of the bill had been change no fundamental particular, but remained as it had been originally constructed. The detailed changes, taken in the aggregate, would, however, have altered in a considerable degree its scope and effect. A sketch of these changes must, therefore, be presented at this point.

As reported by the Senate committee, the bill, instead of providing for a series of Reserve banks not less than twelve in number, whose stock was to be owned exclusively by existing national and state banks, provided for not less than eight nor more than twelve of such banks, and permitted the stock, if not taken up by existing banks through subscription, to be sold to the public, or, if not subscribed for by the public, to be allotted to the United States government. It slightly altered the method of voting for directors of Reserve banks from the plan prescribed in the House bill. It relieved the national banks entering the system of the necessity of rechartering. The Federal Reserve Board was somewhat changed in composition through the elimination of the ex-officio member drawn from the administration, and was given broader and less restricted powers than had been conferred by the House bill, although none of a new or fundamental nature was added. The Senate committee, moreover, instead of making the deposit of public funds in Reserve banks mandatory, left it to the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury to deposit such funds or not, as he might see fit, although the tenor of the provision on this subject was such as to indicate that the declared policy of the United States would in the future be that of making the deposits with the Reserve banks rather than with national banks, as in the past.

As a method of retiring United States bonds and national-bank circulation, the Senate bill provided that these securities might be annually assigned to Federal Reserve banks in a sum not to exceed $25,000,000, the banks to be required to purchase the bonds at par from their existing owners and to issue upon them, as security, notes exactly similar to existing national-bank notes and subject to the same requirements, limitations, and obligations.

In dealing with the reserve question, it was provided that Federal Reserve banks should maintain 35 to 40 per cent, instead of 33 1/3 per cent, as in the House bill, and that national banks should maintain in central reserve cities 18 per cent, in reserve cities 15 per cent, and in the country 12 per cent, of demand deposits, with 5 per cent against time deposits, both the proportion to be kept in the Reserve banks and the rate of transfer being altered, as compared with the House bill, in such a way as to make the process of transfer easier for the contributing banks. By way of still further lightening the burden which, it was supposed, would be imposed upon the banks in this process of transfer, it was provided that one-half of the credits to be established with the Reserve banks created under the bill might be paper eligible for rediscount,while the notes issued by the Reserve banks were also allowed to be counted in the reserves of these member banks. The Senate bill, moreover, extended the provisions of the so-called Aldrich-Vreeland law of 1908, and inserted in the measure a provision authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to sell bonds for gold, should such a measure be necessary at any time to maintain the re-deemableness of Federal Reserve notes. Lastly, the Senate bill largely altered the provision which had been made in the House for the collection of checks and drafts at par throughout the country. While under debate in the Senate, the bill underwent some further alterations, none of which, however, materially changed its more important aspects, as already described. Such clauses as were inserted were intended mainly to clarify the language or to add further safeguards which had been found or thought to be necessary here and there as the work proceeded.

Little needs to be said of the debate in the Senate. It is doubtful whether any important provision was altered on the floor as the result of discussion, although a few points at which the measure was weak were subsequently rectified, probably as a result of the repeated attacks to which they had been subjected during the weeks before the measure was finally adopted. As the bill ultimately passed the Senate it differed from the plan of the House in no respect that was of theoretical importance. It retained the provision for sales of stock to private holders and for the voting of the stock by trustees representing these holders, as well as for the purchase of stock by the United States itself, in case of necessity for so doing. It, moreover, introduced a change in the method of distributing the earnings of Federal Reserve banks whereby a portion of those earnings was to be employed for establishing a fund for guaranteeing the deposits of member banks which had taken stock in the Federal Reserve banks of their district. It altered the number of banks by cutting it to no less than eight and not more than twelve, in place of the "at least twelve" of the House bill. While many minor changes and alterations of wording were made throughout, they did not alter the essential structure of the plan, but in some cases carried it farther than the framers of the House measure had been able to do, embodying ideas that had been urged by them while the measure was under discussion, but for which they had not succeeded in obtaining indorsement. Perhaps the most injurious features which were added during the Senate stage of the measure were the provision cutting reserves of member banks, and that permitting the introduction of bank notes into reserves as a constituent element therein.