Free America's Bank: The Epic Struggle to Create the Federal Reserve by Roger Lowenstein

occurred on November 10, 1913.
    a flood of correspondence: The Warburg Papers are rife with correspondence (in English, German, and French) from October to December with bankers from Great Britain and numerous countries on the Continent. Many sources attest to Warburg’s lobbying: for instance, see Paul Warburg to House, November 14, 1913, and November 28, 1913, House Papers, Box 114a; Warburg to Robert Owen, October 30, 1913, Warburg Papers, Folder 7; Warburg to Owen, November 10 (including a schematic diagram by Warburg illustrating a preferred arrangement of reserve banks); most especially, Warburg to Robert Owen, November 24, 1913 (seeking final copies of the two bills referred by the committee to the Senate), Warburg Papers, Folder 106; Warburg to William McAdoo,November 6, 1913, cited in Warburg,
The Federal Reserve System,
1:114; and Warburg to William McAdoo, November 20, 1913, cited in ibid., 124. Warburg and Jacob Schiff also paid a visit to Colonel House on November 17—see Charles Seymour,
The Intimate Papers of Colonel House, Arranged as a Narrative by Charles Seymour
(Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1928), 165.
    cut the number of Reserve Banks: Willis,
The Federal Reserve System,
471; and “Senate to Tackle Three Money Bills,”
The New York Times,
November 21, 1913. The headline’s reference to “three” bills was misleading if technically accurate: the count included the Glass-Owen bill as passed by the House, which had no support in the Senate and was referred as a formality; only the version of Glass-Owen as modified in the Senate committee and the Hitchcock bill were referred with any hope of consideration.
    changes in the discounting section: Warburg,
The Federal Reserve System,
1:113–14.
    a separate bill: Vanderlip to J. P. Morgan Jr., November 18, 1913, Vanderlip Papers, Box 1-5. See also “Senate to Tackle Three Money Bills.”
    Although unwilling to vote for Owen’s bill: Ryley,
Gilbert Hitchcock of Nebraska,
64; see also “Brighter Outlook for Currency Bill,”
The New York Times,
November 14, 1913. On the legislative maneuver see Link,
The New Freedom,
233–34; Willis,
The Federal Reserve System,
468; and James L. Laughlin,
The Federal Reserve Act: Its Origin and Problems
(New York: Macmillan, 1933), 167–68.
    Then, Wilson ordered: Laughlin,
The Federal Reserve Act,
167–68; and “Party Conference to Push Money Bill,”
The New York Times,
November 26, 1913.
    While Hitchcock insisted: “Caucus Vote to Be Binding,”
The New York Times,
November 29, 1913; and Coletta,
William Jennings Bryan
,
2:137.
    in his annual message: “Wilson Triumphs with Message,”
The New York Times,
December 3, 1913; see also “An Annual Message to Congress,” December 2, 1913, in
The Papers of Woodrow Wilson,
29:5.
    Adding to the pressure: Press conference of December 1, 1913, in
The Papers of Woodrow Wilson,
28:600; “To Push Money Bill at Night Sessions,”
The New York Times,
November 27, 1913; and “Adopt Long Hours to Pass Money Bill,”
The New York Times,
December 7, 1913.
    “I have never seen so much power”: Vanderlip to. J. P. Morgan Jr., November 18, 1913.
    Owen held a slim lead: “Money Bill Faces Close Senate Vote,”
The New York Times,
November 24, 1913.
    But the Senate became embroiled: Timberlake,
The
Origins of Central Banking in the United States,
201–2, notes that the inflation debate surfaced only in December. For contemporaneous discussion on whether reserves should be legal tender, see, for example, the
New York Times
’s outraged editorial of November 16, 1913, “Bryanizing the Money Bill,” as well as Vanderlip’s second appearance before the Senate,
Banking and Currency: Hearings,
vol. 3. See also Willis,
The
Federal Reserve System,
456–57, 467–68.
    the Senate cut reserve requirements: Glass,
An Adventure in Constructive Finance,
210.
    “at home or abroad”: Willis,
The Federal Reserve System,
1654; the House language (ibid., 1626) was less explicit. However, the House