Financial History Issue 115 (Fall 2015) | Page 30

may not always have Pierpont Morgan with us to meet a banking crisis.” As a first step towards reform, Aldrich pushed the passage of the Aldrich-Vreeland Act through Congress in May 1908, with one of its key provisions being the establishment of the National Monetary Commission to study central banking practices in other countries. He also made it a point to meet with Warburg and, after hearing his views on central banking issues, Aldrich invited him to address his commission at a meeting at New York’s Metropolitan Club. Although Warburg was a proponent of European-style currency management that allowed for sensible adjustments of the money supply to safeguard the financial system and promote the economy, he did not argue that a US central bank, like those in Europe, needed to operate independently from the federal government. And with the geographic expanse of the country, he suggested setting up a network of central banks rather than a single bank in New York or some other money market city. Aldrich embraced Warburg’s ideas and brought him and a group of leading American financiers to a secret, several day meeting in November of 1910 at the stately Jekyll Island Club off the barrier reefs of Georgia. The purpose of the meeting, where Warburg was a “first among equals,” was to structure an American style central bank, and by the time the conferees boarded Aldrich’s private railroad car for the return trip from Georgia, the first version of the so-called Aldrich Plan had been created. The plan envisioned a National Reserve Association that would conduct its business through a string of 15 interconnected banks throughout the United States. Under the Aldrich Plan the governance of the National Reserve would be controlled by a mix of private bankers and government policy makers. The association would, in accordance with Warburg’s conception, rediscount commercial paper offered to it by member banks to provide enhanced liquidity and increase the elasticity of the money supply. And it would serve as a fiscal agent for the US Treasury in gathering reserves held at the association’s banks in the event a lender of last resort was needed. In early 1912, a little over a year following the Jekyll Island meeting, Aldrich presented the National Monetary Commission’s final report, with the Warburg-inspired Aldrich Plan as its spine. The Aldrich Plan became the Aldrich Bill, but, with none of the three presidential candidates endorsing it, the bill went nowhere in Congress during the 1912 election year. Teddy Roosevelt, who ran under the Bull Moose Party, had earlier expressed support for a central bank and suggested that Warburg would be the ideal person to run it: “Why not give Mr. Warburg the job? He would be the financial boss, and I would be the political boss, and we could run the country together.” But not long after, Roosevelt pulled his support, citing a belated concern that the Aldrich Plan would place the country’s currency and credit system in private hands, not subject to effective public control. Even the Republican candidate, Howard Taft, in his unsuccessful run as the incumbent, failed to endorse the plan. But the most vehement opposition to the Aldrich Bill came from the Democrats. Bryan was a powerful force at the party’s stormy 1912 convention, and he viewed central banking as an activity that benefited only the interests of the Eastern banking elite. As a condition for releasing his delegates to Woodrow Wilson, he promoted a plank in the party’s platform that stated, “The Democratic Party is opposed to the Aldrich Plan or a central bank.” After Wilson trounced Taft and Roosevelt, with his fellow Democrats gaining firm control of both houses of Congress, it appeared to Warburg that the efforts for bank reform had been for naught. He was certain that the Democrats — belonging to a party, in Warburg’s opinion, that was controlled by “a powerful wing wedded to the wildest monetary and banking doctrines” — would let the Unites States operate for the indefinite future without a central bank. But Warburg was wrong. Glass understood the financial perils the country would face without a central bank and emerged as a champion of a banking reform. He identified the “Siamese twins of disorder” — an inelastic currency and a fractionated reserve system — and believed that, without a central bank, it was just a matter of time until the next financial panic surfaced. (Glass knew the country needed a central bank, but, given his party’s well-known position on central banking, he avoided calling it that. Even much later, when writing about the creation of the Federal Reserve, Glass clarified that “wherever the term ‘central bank’ occurs in this narrative it means a 28    FINANCIAL HISTORY  |  Fall 2015  | www.MoAF.org ‘central bank of banks’ dealing only with the member bank of a system and not a central bank in the European sense, transacting business with the public.”) Glass didn’t wait long after the 1912 elections to move on bank reform. He traveled through snow on the day after Christmas, from Lynchburg, Virginia to Wilson’s home in Princeton, New Jersey, to present the president-elect with an alternative to the Aldrich Plan. After Wilson gave his approval in principle, Glass went to work in earnest. He received assistance from able committee members and staff, but any tracing of the bill’s progress shows Glass pulling the laboring oar. The passage of the Federal Reserve Act (initially the Glass-Owen Bank and Currency Act) was in large part a Glass production with a fairly quick — if sometimes heated — reconciliation achieved between the House and Senate versions. Wilson signed the Act into law in December 1913, almost one year to the day that Glass raised the central bank topic with him. Glass’s legislative accomplishment was remarkable not just for its speed, but for the re-evaluation of the central bank issue he prompted among his fellow Democrats. Perhaps only Glass, with his populist bona