Evening star., 1924-12-21
NY CHAs. p. sHAEFFER.


cording to a recent survey by the Fed
eral Reserve Board, is found in the fall
Cre of branch banking to develop in any
measure compar rable with the develop
fnent in other countries.
The relatively small number Of banks
operating branches. 6Sl out OF a total
of 28,4s8 National and State banks in
the country as whole, according 10
latest statistics available, is. of course.
accounted for in part by Federal and
state legislation prohibiting branch
banking. But even within the jurisdic-
ton OF States which have never i'm
posed restrictions upon banks In the
matter of establishing branches, the de-
velopment of branch banking has been
10 date generally inconsiderable.
Among the States which freely per-
init statewide branch banking are
Wyoming, none of whose 70 State banks
operate branches; Georgia, with only 10
banks operating branches out OF a total
of 562 State banks; Delaware, with
five branch banks out OF a total Of 27
state institutions; Arizona, with six out
of A; Maryland with 81 out OF 14s;
North Carolina, with 80 out OF All.
South Carolina. with seven out OF $50;
Tennessee, with 1s out OF 4S1. and Vir-
ginia with "a out of 341.
California In Lead.
Even in California, which, among all
the States, has experienced the most
considerable development of branch
banking, there were in June. 1924, 576
independent unit banks, the number Of
banks operating branches being SO, and
the proportion of unit to branch banks
nearly TO l. or the unit banks 326
were operating under State charters i'm
posing no restrictions upon the exer-
else OF branch banking privileges, and
250 were national banks. OF the 90
hanks operating branches, Is, operating
% brbanches, were National banks and
81, operating. 500 branches, were State
institutions.
The predominance OF California over
other States In the matter OF branch
banking is apparent in the summary
figures, 80 of the 6S1 banks operating
branches in the country as a whole,
and 53S of the 2,233 branches in opera
tion in June being in this State. One
member State bank in California was
operating IS branches, which was the
largest number OF branches found
organized in n single system in the
country, the largest branch system out
side California being that of a member
state bank in New York City. which
reported 81 branches, ali located within
the city limits. But more than half
of the California banks opera ting
branches, SO out of go, were operating
only one branch each, and only 13 Of
them were operating five or more
branches.
Foreign Branches Galore.
These figures are found tncon-
siderable in comparison with those for
foreign branch systems, which in in
dividual instances number hundreds
and even thousands OF branches.
While our banking system Is. outside
Of California, predominantly one of
independent unit banking. it Is far
from being a uniform system i'm
posed upon the States by Federal leg
islation. Rather II Is a composite of
As different systems. As regards
branch banking, the precise situation
IN any State Is one which has devel-
oped under a complex of Federal and
State legislation and administrative
practice, more or less restrictive of
branch banking, and is one which, in so
far as 1t is affected by State control,
Is in some respects different from that
obtaining IN any other State. In the
main, however, the experience of the
Federal Reserve Board with branch
banking has been In recent decades
an experience under State rather than
Federal control. That IL Is still
will be evident from the figures for
June OF the present year, when 573
OF the 68l banks operating branches
were operating under State charters,
and 1885 of the 2,233 branches re-
ported in operation were branches Of
state banks.
With reference to the legal status
OF branch banking, the States may be
classified into three groups according
branch banking, at least TO the ex-
tent of operating teller window
branches, as % prohibited (2) au-
thorizer, or CD not specifically COW
cred by provision in State laws. The
District of Columbia is governed by
the Millspaugh act, which places the
privilege solely upon the option of
the controller of the currency.
States In Various Groups.
The States comprising each of these
groups are listed below: () States
which by statue prohibit branch
banking: Alabama, Arkansas. Colora-
do, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Illt-
nols, Indiana, Minnesota, Missouri,
Nevada, New Mexico, oregon, Texas
Utah, Washington, Wisconsin. (2)
States which by statute authorize
branch banking: Arizona, California
Delaware, Georgia. Louisiana, Maine.
massachusetts,, Michigan, Mississippi,
New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Carolina. Virginia, Wyoming. (O
States which do not by statute spe-
cifcaily provide for branch banking:
. Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland,
! Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire,
New Jersey North Dakota, Oklahoma,
south Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont,
West Virginia.
Seventeen States bar Branches.
In II States establishment of
branches Is expressly by statute pro-
hibited and it happens that pre-
Gisely equal number OF States have
expressly by statutes or by implt-
cation Of statutory provision author
ized branch banking. The free ex-
tension of branch systems on a State
wide basis is authorized in States
Arizona, California, Delaware, Geor-
zia, North Carolina, Rhode Island,
' Virginia and by implication of statu-
tory provisions In South Carolina and
wyoming Maryland and Tennessee
in administrative practice permit
Statewide branch banking but with
out express statutory authority
aouisiana, Maine and Ohio restrict
branch banking to the county or
territory contiguous TO tho city or
county In which the parent bank is
located, and Massachusetts, and New
York restrict branch systems to the
corporate lllTiLS Oh tIit NihJ 80
the parent bank Is located. Add
tional offices or agencies, but not
rull-power branches, are permitted
in Kentucky, under judicial decision
Michigan, under judicial opinion, and
mississippi and Pennsylvania by
statutory provision.
Status I'm Some States.
Banking policies in the severa
States have been built up from yea'