¹ Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1931–35 (thereafter FRUS), Vol. 1 (Washington DC: State Department, 1933), 673–4.Google ScholarThe original document was given by the President to FDR jnr; see memorandum by Roosevelt, 3 July 1933, FDR OF: 17, Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library, Hyde Park, New York.Google Scholar

² Sayers, R. S., The Bank of England, 1891–1944 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986 ed.), 455.Google Scholar

³ The American figures, in particular, are a matter of some dispute. See Fearon, P., War, Prosperity and Depression: the U.S. Economy, 1917–1945 (Oxford: Philip Allan, 1987), 207.Google Scholar

⁴ Clarke, S. V. O., ‘The Reconstruction of the International Monetary System: the Attempts of 1922 and 1933’, Princeton Studies in International Finance, No. 33 (Princeton: International Finance Section, 1973)Google Scholar, 41. Kunz interprets the British authorities as ‘increasingly angry with former allies who they increasingly seemed to blame for the gold standard’s demise'.See Kunz, D., The Battle for Britain's Gold Standard in 1931 (London: Croom Helm, 1987), 160.Google Scholar

⁵ Sayers, , Bank, 455.Google Scholar

⁶ Little has been written on central bank co-operation for the Economic Conference; the best account is in Sayers, Bank, 453–9. Most scholarship has concentrated on governmental monetary policy; for the best published examples see Drummond, I., The Floating Pound and the Sterling Area, 1931–9 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mouré, K., Managing the Franc Poincaré: Economic Understanding and Political Constraint in French Monetary Policy, 1928–36 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nicols, J., ‘Roosevelt's Monetary Diplomacy in 1933’, American Historical Review, No. 56 (Jan. 1951), 295–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the most recent account of the ambitions and limitations of central banks in this period, see James, H., Lindgren, H. and Teichova, A. (eds), The Role of Banks in the Interwar Economy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press/Paris: Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l'Home, 1991).Google Scholar

⁷ MacDonald to Simon, 21 Nov. 1932, PRO 30'69'678, Ramsay MacDonald Diary and Papers, Public Record Office, London.Google Scholar

⁸ Leith-Ross, to Cadogan, 19 July 1932, T 188'43, Leith-Ross Papers, PRO.Google Scholar

⁹ Per Jacobsson to Niemeyer, 30 Nov. 1932, OV 4'72, Records of the Bank of England (hereafter BOE), London.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Meyer, R. H., Banker's Diplomacy: Monetary Stabilization in the Twenties (New York: Columbia University Press, 1970), 8.Google Scholar

¹¹ The Governor fell sick at the beginning of Aug. and left to convalesce in Maine on 15 Aug. He did not return to the bank until 28 Sept. See Sayers, , Bank, 394.Google Scholar

¹² Ibid., 417–18.

¹³ The Bank also sought Treasury approval for a scheme to repay central bank and government credits to Morgans in New York. Kunz, Battle, 159.

¹⁴ Leith-Ross to Warren Fisher, 14 July 1932, T 188'43, Leith-Ross Papers. Leith-Ross even favoured appointing Niemeyer as Britain's representative (not simply adviser) on monetary policy, but this choice was vetoed by the Chancellor. Of delegates appointed to represent their governments, only two were employees of central banks: J. A. Trip, President of the Preparatory Commission, who was President of the Bank of the Netherlands; and H. W. Vocke, the German representative on monetary issues, who was a member of the board of directors at the Reichsbank.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Third Annual Report, 8 May 1933, Bank of International Settlements, Basle.Google Scholar

¹⁶ ‘Note on Conversation between Crane and Kershaw’, 1 Nov. 1932, Crane European Trip, Records of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (hereafter FRBNY).Google Scholar

¹⁷ The question of a restabilised pound was the main issue of interest in the conference for the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; see Sproul to Harrison, 8 July 1932, C261, FRBNY.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Crane to Harrison, 3 Nov. 1932, Crane Trip, FRBNY.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Britain had nominated Sir Frederick Phillips, Under-Secretary at the Treasury and Sir Frederick Leith-Ross, the government's Chief Economic Adviser; the United States, Edmund Day, Director of Social Science at the Rockefeller Foundation, and John Williams, Professor of Economics at Harvard; and France, Charles Rist, former Deputy Governor at the Bank of France and Jean Parmentier, Director General at the Ministry of Finance. Each of these representatives was assisted by central bank advisers who often doubled as representatives of the BIS.

²⁰ Record of the 5th meeting of the First Preparatory Commission on Monetary issues, 2 Nov. 1900 32, OV 4'76, BOE.Google Scholar

²¹ ibid. Fraser's points were: the essential nature of progress on political difficulties; the level of Anglo–French political indebtedness to the United States; the need to ease restrictions to international trade; the need to address problems in short-term capital movements; and long-term international indebtedness.

²² Record of conversation between Crane and Fraser, 17 Oct. 1932, Crane trips, FRBNY.Google Scholar

²³ Memorandum by Crane, 12 Sept. 1932, C.747.41, FRBNY; telephone conversation between Mills and Harrison, 27 Sept. 1932, 2012.2, FRBNY. Ogden Mills, Secretary of the United States Treasury appointed by President Hoover, continued to attempt to persuade Harrison to appoint a Federal Reserve representative to the Preparatory Commission but without success; see record of conversations between Mills and Harrison, 27 Aug., 28 Sept. and 11 Nov. 1932, 2012.2, FRBNY.Google Scholar

²⁴ A case argued extensively elsewhere. See Clavin, Patricia M., ‘The World Economic Conference: the Economic Diplomacy of Britain, the United States, Germany and France in the Great Depression’, PhD thesis (University of London, 1990).Google Scholar

²⁵ Report on the Work of the Preparatory Commission for the World Economic Conference, by Leith-Ross and Phillips,10 Nov. 1932,T 188/68.Google Scholar

²⁶ Published draft note on the Work of the Financial Sub-committee of the Preparatory Commission,4 Nov. 1932,LN CP/Con/ME/F2Google Scholar. The Bank of England accepted the Report of the Gold Delegation as ‘a sufficiently good working basis for the future functioning of the gold standard’; see Siepmann note of conversation with Rodd,2 Nov. 1932,OV 4/72,Google Scholar BOE. For the Treasury view, see Drummond, Floating Pound, 130–3.

²⁷ Report on the First Preparatory Commission, 10 Nov. 1932, T 188/68.Google Scholar

²⁸ Ibid.; memorandum by Siepmann, 23 Nov. 1932, OV4/72, BOE. Sayers, Bank, 455, and Note by Clay, 23 Nov. 1932, OV 4/72, BOE.

²⁹ Report by Crane, 1 Oct.-10 Nov. 1932, Crane European Trip, FRBNY.Google Scholar

³⁰ Memorandum by Siepmann, 23 Nov. 1932, OV 4/72, BOE.Google Scholar

³¹ Minute by Siepmann, 26 Nov. 1932 OV 4/72, BOE.Google Scholar

³² Boyle, A., Montagu Norman: A Biography (London: Cassell, 1967)Google Scholar, 206.

³³ Kershaw comments on Siepmann's memorandum, 26 Nov. 1932, OV 4/72, BOE.Google Scholar

³⁴ Leith-Ross to Phillips, 2 Dec. 1932, T188/56.Google Scholar

³⁵ Rodd to Norman, 28 Nov. 1932, OV 4/72, BOE.Google Scholar

³⁶ Memorandum on the First Preparatory Commission, 29 Nov. 1932, No. 143, Documents Diplomatique Français 1932–36 (hereafter DDF), (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale), 2nd series, Vol. 2.Google Scholar

³⁷ Mouré, Franc Poincaré, 91.Google Scholar

³⁸ Memorandum by Siepmann, 15 Dec. 1932, T177/12Google Scholar, Private Papers of Frederick Phillips, PRO; Wolff to Palache, 10 Nov. 1932, T188/56Google Scholar; Chamberlain to his sister Ida, 19 Nov. 1932, NC 18/1/1806Google Scholar, Private Papers of Neville Chamberlain, University Library, Birmingham; Rodd to Norman, 28 Nov. 1932, OV 4/72, BOE.Google Scholar

³⁹ Mouré, Franc Poincaré, 87.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Memorandum by Sproul, 8 May 1933, C.797.4, FRBNY.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Memorandum on the First Preparatory Commission, 29 Nov. 1932, no. 143, DDF, 2nd series, vol. 2.Google Scholar

⁴² Memorandum by Niemeyer, 30 Nov. 1932, and memorandum by Siepmann, 1 Nov. 1932, OV 4/72, BOE.Google Scholar

⁴³ Minute by J. E. James, 30 Nov. 1932, OV 4/72, BOE: for the Bank there was no doubt that ‘this country could take part far more effectively in the rise of prices once the pound has been stabilised’.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Mills to Owen Young, 16 Dec. 1932, Mills, 9, Private Papers of Ogden Mills, Library of Congress, Washington DC (thereafter LC)Google Scholar. American frustration on this question was often channelled into hostility directed at Neville Chamberlain, rather than at the Government as a whole. For an example see Leffingwell to Lamont, 31 Jan. 1933, Lamont: 112–13, Private Papers of Thomas Lamont, Baker Library, Harvard University.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Harrison to Crane, 25 Feb. 1933, 2320.221, FRBNY; Harrison to Norman, 22 Mar. 1933, 3115.4, FRBNY.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Record of conversation between Harrison and Mills, 24 Feb. 1933, 2012.2, FRBNY.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Record of conversation between Harrison and Mills, 24 Feb. 1933, 2012.2, FRBNY; Norman to Harrison, 14 Apr. 1933, OV 732/8, BOE.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Auboin, R., ‘The Bank for International Settlements, 1930–1933’, Princeton Studies in International Finance, No. 22 (Princeton: International Finance Section, 1955), 7–8.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ For an example of this see correspondence between Siepmann and Fraser, 20–7 Feb. 1933, in OV 4/PN 73 and OV 4/28, BOE.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Draft of the Central Bank Convention, 15 Feb. 1933, OV 4/PN 73, BOE.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Ibid.

⁵² Memorandum by Phillips, 23 Feb. 1933, OV 4/PN 73, BOE.Google Scholar

⁵³ Ibid.

⁵⁴ Memorandum by Allan Sproul, 12 Jan. 1933, C797.41, FRBNY. Randolph Burgess, on the other hand, considered that such academic discussion was the way forward to closer banking co-operation; see memorandum by Randolph Burgess, 18 Jan. 1933, C797.4, FRBNY.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ McGarrah to Harrison, 20 Feb. 1933, C797.41, FRBNY.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Stimson Diary reel 5, 30 Nov. 1932, Diaries and Private Papers of Henry Stimson, Sterling Memorial Memorial Library, Yale University (Hereafter SML), also held on microfilm at the University Library, Cambridge. Frankfurter to Lippmann, 19 Jan. 1933, Frankfurter 326, box 72, Private Papers of Felix Frankfurter, LC.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Memorandum by Randolph Burgess, 24 May 1932, OV 31/14, BOE. The issue was again considered by the US Treasury in Jan. 1933; see Burgess to Mills, 30 Jan. 1933, 11, Mills Papers, LC.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Record of conversation between Harrison and Norman, 22 May 1933, 3115.4, FRBNY.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Ibid.

⁶⁰ Bewley to Waley, 18 Apr. 1933, OV 31/22, BOE.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Diary, Warburg, Vol. 2, 15 Mar. 1933, Private Papers and Diaries of James Warburg, Butler Library, Columbia University.Google Scholar

⁶² Clay urged that the nations from which the United States drew its chief imports – Japan, Brazil, the Malay States and so on – were seen as likely to benefit from increased purchases and higher prices. American exports were also unlikely to depress world prices in fields where they were important – cotton, machinery, petroleum and automobiles. Dollar depreciation appeared set to improve the position of raw material-exporting countries and subsequently to increase their demand for British export manufacturers. See memorandum by Clay, 12 May 1933, OV 31/22, BOE.Google Scholar

⁶³ Claudel to Paul-Boncour, 9 Mar. 1933, No. 386, DDF, 2nd series, ii.767.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Mouré, Franc Poincaré, 93.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ For a summary of French monetary policy for the conference, see Paul-Boncour to Claudel, 27 Feb. 1933, No. 348, DDF, 2nd series, ii. 700–1; Laboulaye to Paul-Boncour, 12 May 1933, No. 267, DDF, 2nd series, iii. 472.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Leffingwell to Carter, 9 May 1933, Leffingwell: 1, file 17, Private Papers of Russell Leffingwell, SML.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Rueff to Paul-Boncour, 16 May 1933, FFM Z/Grande-Bretagne/324, General Records of the French Foreign Ministry, Quai D'Orsay; Rueff to Paul-Boncour, 26 Jul. 1933, FFM Z'Grande-Bretagne'324.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Moore, James, ‘A History of the World Economic Conference 1932–3’, PhD thesis (Stoney-brooke College, New York, 1972), 143–4;Google ScholarDrummond, , Floating Pound, 147–9.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ The British favoured an exchange rate of $3.50 to the pound. Drummond, Floating Pound, 148–9.

⁷⁰ Mouré, Franc Poincaré, 95.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Paul-Boncour to de Laboulaye, 14 May 1933, No. 274, and Paul-Boncour to Cambon, 14 May 1933, No. 275, DDF, 1st series, iii. 482–4; memorandum by Crane of conversation with Lacour-Gayet, 18 Mar. 1933, 3125–3, FRBNY.Google Scholar

⁷² Memorandum by Crane of conversation with Lacour-Gayet, 18 May 1933, 3125.4, FRBNY.Google Scholar

⁷³ Record of conversation between Norman and Harrison, 26 May 1933, 3115.4, FRBNY.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Crane to Harrison, 9 May 1933, 252.4, FRBNY. Officials in the Federal Reserve also drafted detailed memoranda on the possibility of open market operations between the principal central banks, although little of this material was used during the conference; see memorandum by Allan Sproul, 8 May 1933, 797.41, FRBNY.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Record of conversation between Crane and Hambro, 17 May 1933, C261, FRBNY. Sir Charles Hambro was a director of the Bank of England.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Record of conversation between Harrison and Fraser, 27 May 1933, 3013.2, FRBNY.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Tyrell to Simon, 10 June 1933, W6858/5/50, FO 371/17306, General Correspondence of the Foreign Office, PRO.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Diary, Warburg, 8 May 1933, iv. 677.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Ibid., 8 May 1933, vi. 865

⁸⁰ British Treasury representatives Sir Frederick Phillips and S. D. Waley assisted Norman, Charles Hambro and Henry Clay for the Bank of England, and J.J. Bizot and Jacques Rueff represented French Finance Ministry interests alongside Clément Moret, Lacour-Gayet and Charles Farnier of the Bank of France. Note of meeting held at Treasury, 10 June 1933, G 1/53, BOE.

⁸¹ Diary, Bingham, 13 June 1933, Papers and Diaries of Robert Worth Bingham, LC.Google Scholar

⁸² Harrison's report to Governor Black, 8 July 1933, Goldweiser: 4, Private Papers of Emanual A. Goldweiser, LC.Google Scholar

⁸³ Crane to Harrison, 9 May 1933, 252.4, FRBNY; memorandum by Goldweiser, 16 June 1933, Goldweiser Papers.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Diary of Harrison's Trip to London, 2–9 June 1933, 3010.2, FRBNY.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Ibid., 10 June, 1933; Hull to Roosevelt, 13 June 1933, SD 550. S//936 1/2 and 3/4, General Records of the United States State Department, National Archives, Washington DC.

⁸⁶ Ibid., 10; record of telephone conversation between Crane and Knock, 12 June 1933, 261.3, FRBNY.

⁸⁷ Record of meeting held 12 June 1933, G 1/53, BOE.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Diary, Harrison, 13 June 1933, 3010.2, 13, FRBNY; record of meetings, 10 and 13 June 1933, G 1/53, BOE.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Mouré, , Franc Poincaré, 99.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Ibid., 13.

⁹¹ Ibid., 14–16 June 1933, 14–17; Harrison to Knock, 15 and 16 June 1933, C 797.41, FRBNY; Stabilisation Declaration, 17 June 1933, CT 118.01, BOE.

⁹² The Bank of France was ready to deliver on demand to the other two banks any amount of gold corresponding to the deliveries of their purchases of francs. The workings of the agreement were to remain secret and confined to the duration of the conference.Google Scholar

⁹³ Stabilisation Declaration, 17 June 1933, CT 118.01, BOE; Drummond, , The Floating Pound, 164–5; Kindleberger, Charles P., The World in Depression (Harmondsworth: Penguin), 214.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Record of conversation between Burgess and Harrison, 16 June 1933, 3010.2, FRBNY; Burgess to Kenzel, 13 June 1933, and record of conversation between Knock and Crane, 15 June 1933, Crane European Trip, FRBNY.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Harrison to Burgess, 16 June 1933, 3010.2, FRBNY; telephone message from Harrison, 15 June 1933, 4, Goldweiser Papers.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Memoranda by Goldweiser, 16 and 27 June 1933, 4, Goldweiser Papers.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ The Thomas amendment gave Roosevelt powers to inflate the US dollar by, among other measures, issuing greenback currency up to S3 billion.

⁹⁸ Drummond, , Floating Pound, 166.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Memorandum by Swope, 20 June 1933, in E. B. Nixon, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Foreign Affairs, Vol. 1 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1969), 248–50.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Roosevelt to Hull, 20 June 1933, SD 550. S1/Monetary stabil./25.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Dallek, R., D., FranklinRoosevelt and American Foreign Policy, 1932–1945. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981), 47–57;Google ScholarDrummond, , Floating Pound, 156–7.Google Scholar

¹⁰² 21 June 1933, vi. 986, Warburg Diary.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Coulondre to Paul-Boncour, 22 June 1933, No. 417, DDF, 2nd series, iii. 757–8; telephone conversation between Crane and Fraser, 28 June 1933, BIS files, FRBNY.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ James Moore's assertion that this drain on the guilder caught the international community unawares is mistaken. The Federal Reserve and the British Treasury had suspected in May and early June that the guilder, more than the franc or Reichsmark – both rumoured possible victims of American speculation at various points during the conference – was the most likely to experience strain. See Moore, , ‘World Economic Conference’,211;Fraser to Crane,28 June 1933, BIS 1 Jan.–30 June 1933Google Scholar, FRBNY, 7th meeting of the British delegation,22 June 1933,Cab 29/142,Records of Cabinet Office, International Conferences, PRO.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Meeting between French and British delegates,22 June 1933,Cab 29/142.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ British and Empire delegation meeting,30 June 1933,Cab 29/142.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Phillips to Hull, 22 June 1933, SD 550. S1/Press/22.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Meeting between British and French,2 July 1933,Cab 29/142;Google Scholarmeeting between British and Americans,21 June 1933,Cab 29/142.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ Roosevelt to Hull, 24 June 1933, SD 550. S1/Monetary stab./47.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Roosevelt to Phillips, 28 June 1933, SD 550. S1/Monetary stab./56; Drummond, Floating Pound, 168.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ French press comments on the World Economic Conference,29 June 1933,W 7746/5/50, FO 371/17307;Google Scholar Laboulaye (Washington) to Paul-Boncour, 12 July 1933, No. 477, DDF, 2nd series, iii. 804–5.

¹¹² Meeting of gold bloc, British and American representatives,28 June 1933,Cab 29/142Google Scholar. Moley, R., After Seven Years (New York: Harper, 1943)Google Scholar, Appendix F, 417–18; Bonnet to Paul-Boncour, No. 436, DDF, 2nd series, iii. 795–6.

¹¹³ Moley, , After Seven Years, 247; 30 June 1933, Bingham Diaries.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ FRUS, Vol. 1, 1933, 673–4.Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ Clavin, , ‘World Economic Conference’, 232–5.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ Copy of the telegram from Phillips to the President, 29 June 1933, Baruch, Vol. 33, Private Papers of Bernard M. Baruch, Seeley G. Mudd Library, Princeton University.Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ Warburg's oral testimony in diary, 24 Apr. 1933, iv. 560.Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ Stimson Diary of Trip to London, 14 July 1933.Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ 19th meeting of the British delegation, 3 July 1933, and 20th meeting 4 July 1933, Cab 29/142.Google Scholar

¹²⁰ Ibid.

¹²¹ Schacht to Dreyse, 6 July 1933, GFM 33: 1231, 3177/D684361, General Records of the German Foreign Ministry, PRO.Google Scholar

¹²² Meeting between the British delegation and gold bloc,3 July 1933,Cab 29/142Google Scholar. There was also speculation that the gold bloc nations had attempted, in the final days of June, to propose a full agreement on stabilisation with an express ratio, as suggested by Stimson, in Diary, 14 July 1933, to make ‘Roosevelt’s mind more suspicious', 176.

¹²³ Strauss to Phillips, 4 July 1933, SD 550. S1/1094.Google Scholar

¹²⁴ Tyrell to Simon, 4 July 1933, W 7889/5/50, FO 371/17307.Google Scholar

¹²⁵ Graham (Rome) to Simon, 1 July 1933, W 8049/5/50, FO 371/17307; Long (Rome) to Phillips, 5 July 1933, SD 550. S1/1096.Google Scholar

¹²⁶ Phillip (Oslo) to Phillips, 6 July 1933, SD 550. S1/1167; Charles (Stockholm) to Simon, 3 Aug. 1933, W 9251/5/50, FO 371/17308.Google Scholar

¹²⁷ Bonnet to Paul-Boncour, 9 July 1933, No. 470, DDF, 2nd series, iii; meeting between British and French representatives, 20 June 1933, Cab 29/142; German comments on the Chamberlain resolutions, 26 June 1933, R2/24659, Records of the Reichsfinanzministerium, Bundesarchiv, Koblenz. The German Government was far from disappointed when Chamberlain's efforts to remove exchange restrictions were halted amid acrimony at the beginning of July. Germany dismissed ‘the English thesis’ on central bank co-operation, increased credit circulation and limitations imposed on export restrictions because it provided benefits solely for Anglo–Saxon countries. See unsigned despatch from the German delegation to the German Economics Ministry, 26 June 1933, R2/24659.Google Scholar

¹²⁸ Norman's proposal was based on a memorandum first drafted by the Federal Reserve in New York some ten months earlier and the work of the Gold Delegation. Hull to Roosevelt, 4 July 1933, SD 550. S1/1092; Thomas to Burgess, 3 July 1933, 797.3, BIS, FRBNY.Google Scholar

¹²⁹ Telephone conversation between Harrison and Burgess,7 July 1933,C797.a42, FRBNY.Google Scholar

¹³⁰ The United States representative at the BIS, Leon Fraser, made it known that the Federal Reserve and the Roosevelt Administration would consider discussing the ‘rules of the gold standard’ at a more propitious date. Record of conversation between Crand and Fraser, 25 July 1933, 797.3, FRBNY.Google Scholar

¹³¹ Black to Acheson, 11 July 1933, 4, Goldweiser, Kent to Roosevelt, 17 July 1933, PPF, 744, FDR.Google Scholar

¹³² Memorandum by Leffingwell, 29 June 1933, file 174, 8, Leffingwell Papers.Google Scholar

¹³³ Memorandum by the Treasury Monetary Committee, Aug. 1933, Box 1A, Records of the United States Treasury, National Archives, Washington DC.Google Scholar

¹³⁴ Strange, Susan, Sterling and British Policy (London: Oxford University Press, 1971), 53.Google Scholar