SOME MEMOIRS

OF

A COUNTRY BANKER

By H J Dorweiler In 1906 Anna and I were married and we started a family in Iowa. About that time my right foot gave me periods of trouble. Swelling and exceedingly painful during that year, this kept getting worse and the spells lasted longer. In 1912 I had it operated on by Dr. Murphy of Chicago after examination at Rochester and Iowa City Hospital without results. It was diagnosed as osteomyelitis. This resulted in a period of about five years without any spells during which time we bought a dairy farm in Wisconsin. However, in 1917 it flared up again and again. I had an operation in Chicago. The results were not so good for after that I never walked a step without pain, and in 1919 it became so acute that I decided on amputation which was consummated in October of 1919. About that time brother L.C. had started a bank in Hamel, Minnesota, and wrote me that he was not satisfied with the man he had in charge and asked whether I would consider taking the post. After some serious consideration I decided that it would probably be best for myself and my family. I discontinued farming and took up L.C.’s proposition. However, I had not realized what I was getting myself in for, as the bank replaced one that had failed and destroyed the confidence of the public. Hence it is memories of this experience of which I write.

The only banking experience I had was handling my own checking account and that of a cheese factory of which I was Secretary-Treasurer. I had no idea of the task ahead when the entire community had been adversely affected by the failure of the earlier bank. I was checked in on April 1, 1920 and was alone with one girl who also had only a few months experience. We were with strangers here and did not know anyone. So if we asked someone in confidence about a customer chances were that we were asking about a relative of his. Therefore, I had to be extremely cautious and exercise my own best judgment and intuition. There were many tragic times as well as amusing incidents. It was a daily occurrence to hear someone tell how much they lost in the old bank and had no confidence anymore. In most instances the amounts were greatly exaggerated and facts distorted although there also were many fair and conscientious people among them. It was amusing to have some fellow tell of the large sums he lost in the bank and then see a ten percent dividend check in the amount of $25 or $35. In face of this destroyed confidence and the fact that all were strangers, we naturally had to do a lot of missionary work and solicitations. One incident was especially amusing as I had solicited a man for his business, and he assured me that as soon as he got over the severe blow the bank failure had dealt him he would open an account with us. For months after that he came into the bank and would tell me the same thing and at the same time we handled a number of his checks on a neighboring bank and my assistant used to tell me how he was making a fool of me and asked 1 why I did not call him on it. I assured her that I was abiding my time for the right opportunity. I had not long to wait for soon after that I had cashed one of his checks and put it in the drawer. When he came in with his cream check and gave me the usual story I asked him whether there was another man in the area by the same name, and he assured me that there was not. Then I took out his check and said if I were you I would look into this. Some so and so has been forging your checks. He turned several colors and left, but within a month he opened an account which we had until he died.

The former Vice President of the bank that had failed was one of the principal business men in the community. He used to make a practice of coming in when the assistant was posting (in those days by hand) and on pretense of looking at his own account he would turn to the account of some one who owed him on account, and as we later found out would tell them they could pay up as they had so much in the bank. This we had to stop so I instructed the assistant that when he came in she should fold her arms over the depositor’s ledger and ask him whether he wanted to see his own account or all the others. We could not divulge any more information than on his own account as all accounts were confidential. After a few weeks he knew that we would not give out any information on anyone’s business and this became quite well known to all our customers. Nearly all the new residents of the community accepted us. It was the old residents that remained suspicious the longest. So the complaints about the old bank failure gradually faded out. Although, even to this day, 46 years later, we hear someone tell about how much he lost. An amusing incident about the bank failure was that about a simple couple who had heard that the bank ‘busted’. They came to town and walked all around the old building and then asked where the bank had busted as they could not see it.

In many instances intuition came to our aid. On one occasion a middle-aged man came in just before closing time and informed me that he just came from the employment agency to take up a job on one of the larger farms and named the farmer, one I knew quite well. He advised me that he had a $50.00 deposit in a bank in the state of Washington and would like to transfer it to this bank as he might be in need of a few dollars before his first pay day. So I wrote out a check (made over from our counter check) and as I was preparing the deposit slip I suddenly wondered whether this was all on the up and up. So I decided it better to play safe. I told him that at present I could give him a duplicate deposit ticket and issue his passbook and a checkbook when we received confirmation of his deposit. I so noted the deposit ticket and in due time received notice that there was no bank in the town he named. Several weeks later I saw 2 an item in the newspaper where the same procedure was taken further West of here and after the bank issued a passbook the depositor went to the local store and said he needed some cash and as the bank was closed he would have to pay by check showing the merchant his passbook.

After a few years these incidents became fewer and fewer and everybody accepted us with the exception of a very few who became less and less skeptical. One customer who occasionally drank quite heavily came in half loaded and proceeded to bawl us out. He wanted his passbook balanced. I had the assistant balance his book, and he had a balance of $1.82. As his conduct became more intolerable, I asked him to draw this out and close his account. He replied, “I want to look over this book first you Dutch So and So.” I waited a few days and as I did not hear from him I sent him a cashier’s check for the $1.82 and told him we closed his account. Within a year after that I ran out of gas with my car twice and each time within fifty yards of his place and had to get gas from him. After about another year he came in and asked me whether he could open an account here again. I assured him he could and was welcome, provided he would be civil in his talk when he came in. He still has his account here even though he has moved out of our immediate territory.

Many of our present friends told me that when I came here they figured I would not last more than three years at the most, but I have outlived a great majority of them and am still here after 46 years and their offspring are, in many instances, some of our most valued customers.

One of the problems confronting me was to form a loaning policy. As I said before I was a total stranger here and the community population was inter-related so I did not know whom I could confer with as to the integrity of anyone. Fortunately, at that time it was strictly a farming community largely engaged in dairying. As I was just off a dairy farm I was at least dealing with people engaged in an endeavor with which I was quite familiar. In talking with anyone as to their policies, I could form a fairly accurate opinion as to whether they were likely to succeed or not. However, I was very cautious in loans and it paid off well as I was not hurt in the early 1920’s.

In making loans many amusing incidents would come up. For instance, I was approached for a loan of $300.00 which I was ready to grant but I asked the customer “How long do you want this?”, and he replied “Oh, from now on”, which was just about right with many of the loans. I used to visit a lot with Al Hectman of Osseo as I had a lot of confidence in him, and he 3 knew a lot of the older French settlers here. He warned me to look out for a prospective borrower who came from another community where there was a bank. He told about a farmer near Champlin who came for a loan of $500.00, and he talked with him and asked why he didn’t go to Paul Heard at Champlin, and he said “Why that blankity-blank so and so.” About that time Al’s brother spoke up “How much do you owe him?”, and it was just $500.00 and that was about the facts with outside loans.

Many of the old French Canadian residents were well known to Mr. Hectman and would go to him for advice and small personal loans. We had one old fellow here who could barely read and his writing was about limited to signing his name. At one time I was told he had some property and as his nearest relatives were nieces and nephews. He made regular trips to Al Hectman and had him draw up his will. Al told me once that he was becoming a regular nuisance. One day he told me confidentially that one of his favorite nephews had traded his old car for a newer one and he did not want to have his property dissipated in this manner. So he went to Al to have another will drawn. Within a week I saw him again and he said, “I have to go to Osseo to see Al Hectman.” I asked him what about and he said, “I had him draw up a new will for me and I’m afraid I gave away more than I got.” At the time of his death his belongings had dwindled to a scant half acre of land and a few clothes.

We were lucky in that we had few chattel mortgage foreclosures even though times were not too good immediately after the First World War and during part of the post war years. We banked on character about as much as on chattel collateral, and it seldom was that a first impression of a customer was radically changed. However, the depression in the 1930’s was to have brought to light the true character of many. Some men we had thought to be of top caliber were willing to let the bank hold the bag when the collateral value was below the amount of the loan and some men we thought to be just passable proved to be true blue and since they realized the situation said we will not forget it and pay one hundred percent.

During these trying times the government created numerous agencies designed to supplement the extension of credit. These were ok for what they were meant to do. However, in many instances the men appointed to head them were either out to feather their own nest or highly incompetent.

4 In a number of instances where an applicant for an emergency feed loan gave his financial status, it was evident that they owed more on their chattel than the livestock was worth on the market and their reply was “Why don’t you let the bank have the cattle?” This was the reply given to one of our customers who was then nearly 65 years of age. His reply was as follows as it was told to me by a deputy sheriff who overheard the conversation. “Listen, the bank loaned me this money in good faith and at that time the stock was worth three times as much. If I stick the bank with it now I would be on relief as there are no jobs for one of my age. You fellows can go to Hades. I am going out to my bank and get some sound advice and help and we will both come out whole.” Well, he came and my Vice President (a good farmer) and myself went out to appraise the situation. We decided that out of the thirty cows he had he should sacrifice ten of the poorest producers and ship them, and we would match the proceeds from their sale for the purpose of buying feed for the rest of the herd. It worked out fine for four years later he retired and had an auction sale, the proceeds of which paid up our entire loan, and he had $6,000 left over with which he bought a home.

Had he abandoned the cattle to the bank as the agency had advised the bank would have suffered a substantial loss and the owner would have been on public relief the rest of his life. This was in 1934 when due to drought we had about the only crop failure the oldest resident here could ever remember and a time I will never forget as nearly every farmer was appealing for loans for them to buy hay and food. It was extremely difficult for the bank as we tried to allocate the available funds so as to help all our customers as practically all needed help and some wanted to get loans in order to buy hay and feed for resale at a profit. This we could not tolerate.

At this time the bank held title to eighty acres as other real estate and it come in real handy. One cocky borrower came in one day and said “Say, you will have to buy me 15 tons of alfalfa, 4 tons of bran, and 500 pounds of oil meal.” I said, “How come, for what?”, and he said “To feed your cows.” I asked him if we bought this supply of feed who would feed and milk the cows and market the milk, and he said, “Oh, I will.” I said, “No you will not. If we have to do this we will take them over and milk them ourselves.” “Come and get them”, he said. This we did and took them on our farm and milked them and when spring grass came we sold them without a penny loss to the bank which would not have been the case had we done it his way.

My experience has proved to me that about ninety-seven percent (97%) of the people are willing to be fair if they sufficiently understand the situation. I recall one man who came to 5 borrow $500. He was probably as well fixed financially as anyone in the community, and he asked me to make a cut in the interest rate. I asked him just why I should do this, and he said, “Well you know that I can repay this almost any time.” I explained to him that all borrowers are expected to do is to repay the principal and interest, and if we thought he could not do this we would not grant the loan. Neither they nor you will borrow $500 unless it is needed. So we treated everyone alike and the same rate of interest applied, and I further asked him whether it would not be more Christian like to allow a poorer man a cut in interest if we could do so. He remained my friend until the day he died.

We had one fellow who was employed by a public utility in the area who was a real rounder and heavy drinker. Regularly he came for a loan of $5 or $10 for a few days which usually turned out to be a few months. His excuses were as numerous as the number of times he borrowed. We finally concluded that the little loans were more a detriment to him than possible good and would turn him down. The most amusing incident was when he came strutting in and said, “Say, Harry, I need five bucks real bad.” I said, “That is a coincidence as I also need five bucks badly.” He was quick on the trigger. He said, “Tell you what, you loan me ten bucks and I’ll let you have five.” One couldn’t get sore at him. Later I often wondered how often I loaned him fifteen or twenty dollars to attend his mother-in-law’s funeral before I realized that his mother-in-law must have been a bottle.

We had an account from a man who lived in Osseo and he was quite a practical joker. He was a very close friend of the butcher there and when he paid his account at the shop he was certain that his friend would not scrutinize the check too closely except as to the amount so he signed U.R. Stuck. The butcher evidently did not look very closely at the check for he did not notice it until it was returned to him with the notation. ‘No such account. Signature irregular’.

I often said every bank in a farming community that loaned daily on chattel mortgages should have at least forty acres with a barn on it so there would be some place to go with the stock when a loan went sour and had to be foreclosed. I know that in our case we saved ourselves from sizeable losses by our being able to put the stock on the farm and sell out at more favorable times and, besides, I believe it averted a number of foreclosures because they knew we had some place to put the stock.

6 In running a dairy farm like any other phase of farming up to a certain size of your herd is only enough to muster a living and there is no chance of laying anything by for expansion. I had a certain customer who was a good operator but never had enough cows to produce more than a living. So we extended enough credit to him to enlarge his herd. This was just prior to the depression and before the effect of the enlarged herd was felt we were hit by the depression which was a difficult time to make ends meet under the best of conditions. The borrower like all others hit by the depression became disgusted and on one occasion he imbibed too heavily and was in the tavern when I came by and he called to me and said, “I want to talk to you.” So I went in and he proceeded to cuss and swear how he was obliged to work for me or the bank in order to pay the interest, etc. He was evidently more or less drunk and I did not argue with him even though it did not set well with me. The next day I took a tablet and pencil and drove out to his place and he came out and said “Hello.” I said hello and told him I came out to list his belongings for an auction sale and asked when he wanted it. He said “Me, I don’t want a sale. I don’t want to sell out.” I told him that we understood that he was tired of working for us and thought it best that he started to work for himself or somebody else. He said, “Oh, I was drunk yesterday and I didn’t mean what I said.” I said, “This may all be but did all those people who heard you yesterday realize that?” I told him we were not keen to build up a reputation like that and that if our loan to him did him no good, we certainly didn’t want to do him any harm and therefore, better liquidate the loan for the best interest of him as well as ourselves. Well, he begged me not to sell him out of which I really had no intention but simply to set him straight and this it did for he never complained again and as I said he was a good operator and now is retired living in his own home and often tells that he never would have gotten a start had it not been for the bank granting the loan for his start.

During the late part of the depression the post-depression years a number of government agencies were started to supplement the banks loaning powers. The actual use of these agencies was fine but the abuse was not. They were meant to make loans only to those who had been refused further credit by the banks, and therefore, those who came to them were not those with the best credit rating in the community. However, as their interest rate was one percent lower than the banks, many thought it best to go with them. Those who did were usually very glad to come back to the bank and pay the higher rate of interest and ironically were better customers than they were before. Red tape was the main reason they were glad to come back. For instance, a farmer shipped a calf in late October and wanted it brought to pay his taxes. When the check came it was made out to the shipper and the agency and they had to take it or send it to 7 the agency for their endorsement and mostly always by the time it came back it was too late to use for tax payment and an eight percent penalty had already been assessed for delinquency unless he came to us for a loan to pay on time. Almost all the bankers I talked to on this matter agreed that those who had gone to the agencies were easier to handle than before.

One of the purposes of a certain agency was to start some unemployed in farming and thus get them off the relief roles. Not very many of these succeeded but at the same time it did not cost the government much more and in some instances less than to have had their families on direct relief. Like in everything else some of the men in charge of these agencies were fine men with a lot of ability and would do a really good job but some were headed by men whose private well being caused them to take advantage of an opportunity for grafts. I remember one instance when I clerked a sale for a widow and a fellow starting with one of these agencies came with a letter of commitment stating that the agency had certified him for the purchase of three cows. I advised the lady that it would probably be some time before the actual payment would come through but that it no doubt would help the auction to have another bidder. Well he bought three cows and I sent in the description of the cows for them to draw the mortgage and a few days later I received a bill of sale from me to the purchaser for the three cows described. I immediately returned it and told them that by no stretch of my imagination could I visualize myself as the seller of the cows but if they would make the bill of sale from the lady who had the sale to the purchaser I would be glad to take it out there for her signature and I would notarize it. I did not hear from them for several weeks, when I got the check for the cows. I found out later that they had procured a bill of sale from an uncle of the lady who had the sale. I never could understand why this was done in this manner until a year later when I heard that these same men came to a farmer West of here to have him sign a bill of sale for a horse and when he refused they told him that they were being investigated by some government agency and that they had to have a bill of sale and insofar as he had previously signed a bill of sale when he was not the seller that he also had his neck out as well as they. He still refused. I know that these men were prosecuted. In the investigation it was divulged that they had been making a little on the side in most of the deals, and therefore, got the bills of sale from others rather then the seller.

There was another public sponsored credit association located at Buffalo, Minnesota, which did some good but fell far short of adequate assistance in many instances. One of the farmers was located near Robbinsdale. He farmed about 100 acres and had ten very fine Holstein cows. He felt that this was just enough for current family expenses and left no margin 8 for saving or paying off his chattel which was about normal, a little over half of the value of the cows. He had adequate facilities for a herd double his present herd and had lined up ten fine cows which he could buy at a right price. He went to them and asked for financing for the ten cows. They took the application and after about ten days informed him that they could only finance three cows. He felt that this would not materially better his position so he came to the bank with his proposition. I knew of the ten cows he proposed to buy and considered them well worth the price asked. So my son and I went to inspect his premises and herd. His barn was not the best, but it was evident that he was putting it to its best use and care. We took up the chattel he owed at Buffalo and increased it enough to buy the ten cows. He assigned forty percent (40%) of the proceeds from milk sold and the payments came directly from the milk association. As I said he was a good operator and in sixteen months he paid off the entire loan, whereas he had the loan on his former cows for over five years.

About 1940 a revolutionary trend in farming began to be more and more evident. With the larger and improved machinery and the high cost of same it became evident that the overhead on the smaller farm became too great to allow anything like a profit for the operator. So more and more farms combined and many farm buildings became vacant and the dwellings occupied by some working in the city or those in retirement. This, of course, brought about a new trend in farm loans. They became fewer but larger and many discontinued dairying and sold out, renting their farm land to a neighbor. About this time many family tracts began to be bought by developers and became housing developments which called for home loans. In this we had to develop a loaning policy. We decided that if a home owner could not make monthly payments equal to the normal rental value of the dwelling that he could not afford to own it and this became a policy in home loans.

An example of the revolution in farming methods comes to mind. It is the harvesting of small grains. In the earlier years when the small grain was ripe it would be cut and bound into bundles by the grain binder. When it was shocked by hand and later some was stacked and left to go through “the sweat” in the stack and threshed later in the fall while some was “threshed out of the shock”. Several teams and wagons were employed to load and haul the grain to the threshing machine. This usually called for a crew of 10 to 15 men according to the size of the operation and the usual big feeds for the “threshers” and usually entailed a lot of banter and fun along with the hard work. The labor was largely supplied by exchange of help among the farms. At the present time when the grain is ripe it is either cut and put into swaths by a swather and 9 then combined out of the swath or by “straight” combining when the grain is cut and combined in one operation. In either method one man handles the entire operation. Also, in the earlier days in this locality corn was cut and shocked sometimes being cut by hand and sometimes by the corn binder and later husked by hand or the corn shredder. Now most of it is “picked” by a corn husking machine and the stocks plowed under.

In more recent years and mostly after my semiretirement more and more loans were being made on the strength of the borrowers own financial statement. These have never been very appealing to me. I am always reminded of one of the first loans I made on the merits of a financial statement. It was quite a sizeable loan and after a time it became delinquent and quite sour. Upon further investigation we learned that the amount of property and values thereof were greatly magnified and some of it out and out fiction. When we confronted the man with these discrepancies he said “Well I needed the money and so I thought I’d make the statement look as good as I could.” Needless to say that all of those giving financial statements do not have the same attitude but insofar as it was the first I dealt with I always am reminded of it even though we did not sustain a loss on the loan only a sizeable headache. I have since come to the conclusion that when one makes a loan and the borrower has gone out with the money and you have placed in the pouch, if you then feel as content with the note as if you had the money you very likely have made a good loan.

Optimism and pessimism sometimes seem to be seasonable. Many years ago we had a young man who following the footsteps of his father was engaged in truck farming (market gardening). Every spring just after planting he came in very optimistic and asked for a loan to pay for his seeds to tide him over until marketing time. He would never neglect to tell you that he had a $5,000.00 crop in the making. However, in later fall when the notes became due it was another day. How the hail hurt the crop and this or that bug took this or that crop and the rains were either excessive or not enough. It was either too hot or too cold. This was an annual turn over. However, market gardening was a great game during these early days and while most of the year we would have to get one dollar bills from our correspondent bank, during the marketing season, late July until late fall, we would get an accumulation of one dollar bills. Sometimes we had five or six thousand on hand even though we sent some back to our correspondent bank and the stories about the market were many and amusing. One fellow told about having a crate of geese and a Hebrew lady asked the price. The fellow said $1.50 each. About that time one goose got up and went to the other end of the crate and he said “Except that 10 one, that is a blue ribbon goose and the price is $3.00.” The lady bought the “blue ribbon” goose.

I know of at least two in this area who had purchased a pair of fox for $2,000.00 and after paying for their care and keep for about two more years finally realized how they were took and wrote off all of it as a loss. A very odd thing about this was that no one ever heard a peep out of them while they still howled and moaned about three or four hundred dollars tied up by the old bank failure and of which they were later repaid about 60% in dividends from the liquidation. A local breeder of fox carried on for quite a few years when he finally liquidated and I don’t believe he made any more money on the venture than I did with Shetland ponies. Apparently it is much more refined to be trimmed by a stranger than to be slightly inconvenienced by someone at home.

As one goes through a modern day supermarket and marvels at the packaging of food, one wonders how much it adds to be appealing to the public. However, they are probably only carrying on from a practice of some of the early days hay men. Many of these farmers could take 200 pounds of timothy hay and make a two ton load of wild hay look like the finest mixed hay which would bring several dollars more per ton than the wild hay.

While speaking of marketing and prices, some years ago I overheard two ladies talking in the lobby about prices on food. One of them seemed to be referring to the Atlantic and Pacific stores. The other lady had a loaf of bread that she had bought at the local store. The other lady asked what she had paid for the bread and she replied 13 cents and the other lady said she could have bought it at the Atlantic and Pacific for 12 cents. The lady with the bread said “Huh”, do you think I could go to the A & P for a penny?” It sounded different than it was meant.

During our entire history, time deposits far exceeded demand deposits and to a much greater extent than with most country banks. So we could at all times carry a larger percentage of our loans in real estate mortgages than if the deposits had been reversed. During the first twenty years about eighty percent of our loans were to farmers and now I would judge about thirty percent are farm loans.

So there has been a reversal of the type of banking we do. We were lucky that the change came about quite gradual so we could grow with the changes. This probably was not as apparent 11 to the present management as it was to me as it started about the time when they started here and younger people adjust to changes much more readily than older ones and since my loss of sight and now retirement, I could well be lost if suddenly full management responsibility were dumped on me.

In the late twenties there was another fancy craze, the raising of silver fox. The brochures and sales talk all indicated that a fortune could be made in a comparatively short time. One of our customers came in to talk it over and gave me the name of the solicitor and the name and address given him to write for references. He asked me to write to them. This I did and when the reply came the man’s honesty, reliability and integrity were given in very glowing terms. However, I noticed one peculiarity. The man signing had the same name as the solicitor about whom we inquired. I then noticed the names of the officers of the bank on their stationery which disclosed that the President, Vice President and the Cashier and the solicitor about whom we inquired all had the same surname. Our customer did not buy. The proposition made was that you purchase a pair of their breeding stock and they would guarantee a 100% increase the first year but later in the conversation the solicitor would always refer to 100% profit. I assured our customer that he could buy a pair from the local breeder for $800.00 and if their purchase did not reproduce the first year he could buy another pair and still have only $1,600.00 invested instead of the $2,000.00 the solicitor was asking.

Bank Examiners A review of my experiences in banking 46 years would not be complete without some mention of the bank examiners. In this there always was a complete selection. During the early 1920’s an examiner by the name of Rodert came out on the Dinky (9 o’clock train). He would run the demand and time deposits and compare it with the general ledger and then run the note pouch and compare it with the general ledger. This done, he would chat for a time on conditions in general and take the Dinky back to town at 4:30 p.m., examination complete.

It is entirely different now when on Monday morning five examiners are waiting at the door and stay the entire week. Everything is gone over with a fine tooth comb and every deviation from the rule book is cited on the slightest technicality. As Al Hectman used to say, “Might as well take a picture of the book”. As a whole they are a fine lot of fellows with a few exceptions and even they have some human qualities about them. One of the F.D.I.C. men that used to come around seemed like a typical grouch when you first met him. But after one got 12 used to his sarcasms he wasn’t so bad. In fact, I always rather liked him. We had a note in our pouch for $300.00 by a man who was a customer of his when he was in banking and apparently he got stuck by him. At any rate, he would always have a long conversation about this note which nearly always was a little past due or late with interest payments. At one time the borrower was in a day before the examiner came and he paid the interest and $50.00 on the principal. So the next day when the examiner came in I shook hands with him and said “Well, anyhow A. L. was in yesterday and paid the interest and some on the principal so you won’t have to cite that note.” He replied, “Well, I don’t care, I still don’t like the S.O.B.” He was a pipe smoker and would hit his pipe on the ashtray to empty it. One noon the girls knocked the tray off the desk and it broke diagonally across in two pieces. They set it together and put in the ashes and let it stand. When he came back from lunch he pulled out his pipe and hit it on the ashtray and it fell apart. He apologized for breaking the ashtray and a few months later when he drove through Hamel he stopped in and sat down a new ashtray. Then I told him how the old one got broken and he said, “No wonder you make both ends meet when you stick the examiner for your broken ashtrays.” I always got along with him from then on but I would have hated to have him find anything drastically wrong and have him give me a going over.

Once when there were only two of us in the bank and the work got too heavy for such a meager crew, we were delayed in the afternoon when just at a busy time one of our customers came in to renew a past due note. He paid the interest and I drew up a renewal note, shoved it over to him to sign and proceeded to book off the old note and book up the interest. I marked the old note renewed and give it to him and started to look up. When I picked up the new note I noticed that he did not sign the renewal note, but I locked up for the night and went home anyway. The note was $1,800.00, a sizeable sum for those days. The next morning the examiner came in just as I opened up so I immediately told him about the note incident and the way he looked me over you would have thought that I was guilty of high treason or worse. He had me call up the borrower and he talked to him. He was sure that it was an oversight and that he would come right in and sign the note. Well he seemed somewhat pacified. However, he had to give another dig. He said to me, “Do you know what I could have done if I was that fellow?” I said, “No, what would you have done?” He replied, “Well, when I got out of that door you wouldn’t have seen me again.” I said, “Oh, but this is different. I was dealing with an honest man.” Needless to say I got plenty citations in that examiner’s report.

13 The early 1930’s was a critical time and played havoc with the most conservative loaning policy and made it difficult for both the banker and examiner. This was especially true with farm chattel loans, as the prices on dairy cows shrank as much as 150%. Cows that normally had sold in a range from $125.00 to $175.00 per head would hardly command a price of from $35.00 to $50.00 per head. Consequently, a loan of $750.00 on twelve good cows valued at $1,800.00 looked like a fine loan when made but in the depth of the depression it looked mighty sour. Practically all the banks in the surrounding communities had quite a few such loans and some even more sour. When an examiner during that time called my attention to such a loan I agreed that it was sour, and he asked whether I didn’t think something should be done about it. I asked him just what he would suggest we should do, and he said, “I asked you that.” “Well,” I said, “I do not believe that this is the only bank in Minnesota with such loans at this time,” to which he agreed. I asked that if the department insisted that we do something about it whether by the same token they should not also ask all the rest of the rural banks to do something, to which he agreed. Then I proceeded to tell him that we classified our chattel loans as Class A – B – C. In the case of C note we probably went as high on the loan as 65% of the value of the chattels offered, in Class B probably 50% of value, and Class A probably 40%, and when we were asked to do something about the Class C loans we would do it. However, there apparently was nothing to do but to foreclose the chattel mortgage and force the stock into an already depressed market and consequently depress the prices still further, in fact, to the extent that the Class B loans were equally sour and would demand foreclosure and then also the Class A loans, and when we got done doing something about it, we would lose our shirts and have no customers and no bank. I considered him a man of good sense as he agreed that this would be a possibility and agreed that we just baby them along and await a turn in economic event which ultimately came about, and we survived as did our borrowers. Of course, there were a few who left us holding the bag, but I never noticed that they gained by it as they never did amount to anything, as in everything they attempted they were looking for the easy way out, usually relief.

I’ll never forget one examiner and I don’t believe he ever forgot me. He was a very young fellow just out of college and as his uncle was Banking Commissioner at the time, he was put in as Chief Examiner over some of the former ones. The first time he came around was on a bitterly cold stormy Monday and on the way he had had several flat tires and did not get here until about 10:30 a.m. and consequently was in a terrible mood. I happened to be out in the country on a call for a sick cow at the time they arrived and when I came back in about 11:30 a.m. and they were here I was quite surprised. Immediately he started with “Don’t you ever stay 14 in the bank?” I replied that I wanted him to know I had nothing to chain me to my desk and with such a start that was about the way it continued for the first two days. After that he became more civil and I, in turn, became more cooperative. Then on the final day when they were about to leave he said “Well, Dorweiler, we didn’t get along so badly after all.” My reply was, “Yes, Charlie, there is only one thing wrong with you”, and of course, he asked what that was. I replied, “Your hat is too small.” That remark cost me many criticisms on the slightest technicality as he later became Commissioner of Banks and held the whip hand. My bluntness in many cases backfired on me as I always maintained that if the examiners were in error on a citation that citation should be called to their attention as it seems they came with the determination to find and cite any criticism, however technical it may be. In talking with other bankers in the area covered by this examiner, I mentioned this incident and everyone said that they felt like telling him the same thing but somehow did not quite have the courage.

I remember another deputy examiner quite well. He was a peculiar fellow and would always come up with something about the procedure and find fault with about everything. I clashed with him on several occasions. This was during the depression when many banks, in fact, nearly every bank had loans that were causing them a “headache.” Later when Harry Montgomery came here I asked about this fellow, and he said, “Did he borrow anything from you?” I said certainly not. Well he told me that this fellow made a practice of being critical and if the banker seemed intimidated he would invariably borrow from $25.00 to $50.00. Later the department head canned him.

Robberies In jotting down some memories of my experiences in 46 years of banking it would hardly be complete without some mention of the unpleasant subject of bank robberies of which we had more than our share – four daylight holdups and two night burglaries. I was in two of the daylight jobs.

The first holdup occurred in 1926. I was not in at the time. My assistant was alone at the moment. There was a take of $1,100.00 on this occasion.

The next robbery occurred in 1930, at the time when a bank robbery in the state was a weekly occurrence. In fact, there were so many that John Wall who was the sheriff at the time had put a deputy on duty in all the country banks in the county every day. However, insofar as 15 he was running for reelection that year this policy was so severely criticized that he took them off about the tenth of May. I jokingly predicted that no doubt the yegs would know of this and would knock off a bank in the county within ten days. Well, on May 16 just six days later we got it. It was my first experience and a harrowing one at that. There was only one man and before it was all over and he had the money in his pocket, he ordered us into the vault and for some reason he opened the door again and I shot and killed him. I assure you it was an extremely unpleasant task. However, he was a young man twenty-one years of age and had a job at the Ford plant which paid him $6.00 per day so there was no reason for his trying to rob a bank. A rather puzzling thing happened that night. After I had gone to bed the doorbell rang and Anna went to answer the door and a young man who was acting very nervous said he was out of gas and stalled on the road and asked for some gasoline. Ma told him that the filling station attendant lived next door and suggested he go there. He said, “I don’t know what to do. I must have gas.” Ma told him we had no gas and shut the door. He stood there for a while and then went to the car and started the motor and drove off out of town with a roar. So he undoubtedly was not out of gas. The reactions of the people of the community were of extreme interest to all and fortunately they were almost one hundred percent favorable. One party asked whether we were insured and when told we were he said, “He had a right to let him go.” This remark did not entirely please me. Several years later I was talking with him and he asked me to tell him about the incident, I said, “Well, there wasn’t so much to it. He came in, pulled a gun and told us to put up our hands which we did. Then he told us to lie on the floor and we did. He took our money and we did not resist. He told us to go into the vault which we did. Then he made the big mistake.” By this time my customer was all excited and he asked what that was. “Well,” I said, “He told me he was a democrat and so I shot him.” My customer was a rock-ribbed democrat. He never mentioned the robbery to me again.

Another rather peculiar result on how people looked at the matter. I had several letters of commendation and two offers of a job. Several months after the incident a well dressed man walked in and asked if I was Mr. Dorweiler. I told him I was and he replied that he wanted to shake my hand because I was a hero. I asked him just what made him think I was a hero. He said you shot that bandit, didn’t you. My reply was there was only a split second difference between a hero and a damn fool. If he had shot first you would have classified me as a damn fool. And that tells the whole story in a nutshell.

16 The next daylight holdup occurred in 1932. There were two men. They acted in a manner which would indicate that it was an unusual thing for them. This was my second experience, and I was not as scared as at the first one. They also ordered me into the vault and as one was swinging the door shut I took a quick shot but succeeded only in shooting out the glass in the vault door. However, it did startle them enough to run out and by the time we got out they shot once through the window. The flying glass scratched my nose and the lenses of my glasses. I rushed out and shot several times at the fleeing car. When the car was found I had hit it three times. The robbers were never caught in connection with this job. However, a few days later the bank at Plymouth and Washington was held up and several robbers convicted. Among them was one named Hankinson. From his pictures I was certain he was one of the men who held us up but insofar as he was sentenced to Stillwater I did not say anything. Later, however, he was released from prison having proved his innocence in the courts. As he had served a number of years I felt it foolish to say anything of my believing he was one of the robbers who held us up. However, I never did relish the fact that the legislature voted him a monthly income for life to compensate him for false imprisonment.

At the time of this robbery I had a black German Sheppard dog. He was a kindly dog and not sharp. When the robbers had my assistant and myself lying on the floor, would go to Mabel and lick her face and run towards the door. He did this several times as if to say this is no place for us, let’s get out of here.

In making the settlement for this loss by the Surety Co. brings to memory an incident which started some time in 1931. After the robbery of 1930 a Mr. Guyer was the adjuster and a very fine man. Shortly after this he suffered a slight stroke which partially lamed his left side and in 1931 he came to Hamel with a young man by the name of Anderson who was being groomed to take his place. They came to settle another bond loss in Hamel and when they had finished Mr. Guyer suggested to come in and visit with me at the bank. After he introduced this Anderson he asked me to tell him about the robbery in 1930 when I killed the robber. So I told him about the incident as swiftly as I could and when I had concluded this Mr. Anderson asked if it wasn’t rather foolish to undertake the shooting if we were insured. I replied that maybe it was but let’s let it go at that. We visited for quite some time about various things and finally came back to bank robberies and Mr. Anderson remarked that in ninety percent of robbery cases they got there was inside help. This aroused me and I said I wasn’t such a damn fool after all when I

17 shot that robber then. He asked me what has that got to do with it. I said that if I hadn’t shot him you S.O.B. would be sitting there wondering how much I got out of it.

Well, after the robbery of 1932 who did I draw as an adjuster but this Mr. Anderson and I remembered what he had said when I saw him. He proceeded to inquire how much cash we had on certain days of the week. It was very evident that he was making rather thinly veiled insinuations as though there might be some doubt about the validity of the robbery. He came about nine o’clock and I had told him emphatically that the cutoff showed that we were out $2,200.00 and if he did not believe it to get a certified accountant to certify this. He still kept on heehawing with insinuations. When it got to be twelve o’clock I said now listen you can rave all you want, that is the amount of the loss and I’m going home to lunch and if you make another one of your accusations I’ll knock you into the middle of next week and I went home. He left and that afternoon I called Mr. Adams who was the head of the Surety Co. I told him what occurred and that if he ever sent that Mr. Anderson out again and he persisted in his line of sarcasm I would not be responsible for his continued good health. Well, Mr. Guyer came out with another man the next day and settlement was made amicably and immediately. Within six weeks I was informed that Mr. Anderson had been replaced and was no longer with the company. He was replaced by Mr. Lamphier, another fine man.

With these robbery incidents behind us we became more or less alert to any unusual actions of any strangers. On one occasion a well dressed man came briskly up to the door and I became alert. I was at the cash drawer. He opened the door with his left hand and had his right hand in his hip pocket so I put my hand on the gun we had under the cash window slab. When he came up with his right hand he had his handkerchief in it. I said say mister don’t ever do that again when you go into a strange bank. What with all the robberies if you came up with something like a cigarette case you might have gotten shot and I showed him my gun. A strange action might have been misconstrued and even fatal.

After the holdup of 1932 we had a sixteen year lull as far as robberies were concerned, during which time we went through the depression, bank holiday and the 1934 drought, all of which were trying times. We came out very good on the bank holiday as we were permitted to reopen one hundred percent and the first day any of the banks were permitted to open. We did not have to charge back any accounts and create a trust fund nor did we have to have a stock assessment like many of the banks were required to do. This resulted in a gratifying growth 18 through the ensuing years. So in 1947 we were too cramped for room and built a new bank building. While it was not mandatory we decided to go to the Commissioner of Banks and tell them of our plans. So C.O.D. went down and he did not get any encouragement as the Commissioner of Banks was the man that I had told “his hat was too small.” He said they couldn’t stop us but they were not in favor of it. They contended that a town like Hamel had no business to have a bank in the first place. Now I wonder where that line of thinking has gone to as they are granting charters out in the country.

It was not quite a year before this new building got initiated by another bank robbery which occurred in May of 1948. This was our fourth daylight holdup and a strange coincidence that all occurred on a Friday. This would bring some to wonder how it was that we were the victims so often but when one considers our location, as one party put it, at a wide spot on the Rockford road with no intersections or other cross streets, it is not surprising. There are two short side streets (about a block long) and a road leading North just opposite the bank which makes the bank stick out like a sore thumb and the prospective getaway comparatively easy as there is no cross traffic and a little less than a mile in either direction a chance of several places to turn off to throw off pursuit. These factors made our bank very vulnerable. This no doubt was a factor in all the robberies and especially in 1948 as one of the holdup men was a former bus driver who had a run through Hamel.

I happened to be out in the country when this holdup occurred. I returned a few minutes after the guys had left. There were five employees present during the robbery and the take was larger than all the others combined by several times. Besides the employees present there was one customer. He was of French and Indian blood. He crawled under Cornelius’ desk and in trying to get under further made the desk dance, so I was told. He told me about it some time later. One of his comments was this. “Me, I was afraid. Me. So I wanted to pray, me, but all I could get out was Hail Mary, Hail Mary.” He continued to be a customer with us until his health gave out and he suffered a stroke. However, he never came into the bank during regular hours. He would wait until the doors were locked and the curtains drawn when he would come and rap on the door and was let in. He certainly did not want to take any more chances. These fellows got away but through the Federal Deposit Insurance Co. it became a federal case and the FBI took over and with the help of a Minneapolis detective and Desen’s descriptions they were finally apprehended some place in Arizona, I believe. These were the first robbers to be

19 apprehended by the authorities and received only a short sentence in prison as it was a federal case.

The night jobs were not so serious as there was more actual damage to building and equipment than the loot taken. One was more like vandalism, as all they got were a few postage stamps and some pennies out of the stamp box. While the last wasn’t much larger than the other, the damage was much greater. This was in the old bank and the vault was of poured concrete without any steel reinforcement and they punched a hole through the side of the vault large enough to crawl in. However, the safe was under time lock and they didn’t get in although they took off the combination lock. This occurred on a Sunday night and when I came to the bank the next morning immediately after I unlocked the door I sensed that there was something wrong, as everything seemed full of whitish dust and when I got into the back room there was the gaping hole in the vault. It seemed amusing that it reminded me of a ground hog hole. The burglars were later apprehended in a filling station holdup at Cambridge and admitted the Hamel job. At Isanti, Minnesota they handcuffed the attendant to a steel lamp post and shot him in the leg and when asked why, their reply was that they just wanted to see him squirm. So we could be glad we did not meet up with them.

From these notes you will notice that all robberies are unpredictable and one often hears someone say that if they had been there they would have done this or that. From my experience I’d venture a guess that no one can actually tell what he would do or would have done. One often thinks of what we would do but when actually looking into a gun barrel, which never is as large as it looks at the time, no one can predict what he would do. I think that most of the actions are from reflexes or by intuition. I believe that the first moments a gun is pointed at you are the most critical both to the robber and the victim and a wrong move at that time would likely be fatal. However, later in the procedure there can be some latitude.

We are constantly told how important it is to get good description of the robbers and their clothes. This also can be confusing. In our first robbery one of the ladies in Hamel asked Mabel about his clothes and on each object mentioned she would remark that this was what a man she saw was wearing. Finally, she asked what kind of hat he was wearing. I cautioned Mabel not to answer that and I asked the lady whether the man she saw was wearing a hat and if so, what kind and she didn’t have the faintest idea so descriptions can be confusing. Remarks made by outsiders and later distorted by reporters very often are absurd and erroneous. For instance, after 20 the St. Michael bank was robbed Mr. Truax of Rockford said that he chased the robbers through Hamel going 60 mph and was only ten minutes behind them. Some chase, 10 minutes at 60 mps amounts to only sixteen miles.

A few years after the 1932 robbery a puzzling thing occurred. I was looking out of the window from the front of the cash drawer when a green Chevrolet coupe pulled up to the side across the street. A tall man got out of the car on the offside. He had his hat well back on his head. As he came around the car he pulled his hat down well over his eyes and entered the bank. I immediately became suspicious. I had my right hand under the counter. He put down ten one dollar bills and asked for a ten dollar bill. I counted the ones with my left hand and gave him the ten dollar bill keeping my right hand under the counter. He took the bill and when he got to the door he tipped his hat back on his head and left. I often wondered whether this was a planned holdup or a case up for one already committed.

As I often said holdups are highly unpredictable. Even though they seem to be abnormal at some places one of the factors which may cause more holdups at one bank than another is the publicity given each location in the press when a holdup occurs which usually points out facts making each location seem more vulnerable. Recently the head man at Loretto said one morning that during that time they had never had a daylight holdup. On the next day this would no longer have been true for at about noon they had the first stickup in their history.

About the worst streak of bank holdups occurred during the depression in the early thirties. Since 1940 people have been used to a high dollar economy and wages higher than any former fondest dreams and they have been steadily increasing. As I see it most of the men under thirty years of age have only known times of plenty of money and should there be any sizeable recession to say nothing of a depression, I would fear a series of holdups which would make that of the 1930’s appear like a penny ante game.

Changes Before closing these memorandums I must mention some of the terrific changes made during the forty-six years just passed.

In 1920 this area had many farms. The so-called family farm consisted of from 20 acres to 80 acres and a very few farms of 150 acres which were considered large farms. The people 21 made a good living by having some dairy cows and some raised a lot of fruits and vegetables for the city market and the large farms supplied hay for the many stables in the cities.

As the truck was just beginning to make inroads on the horse, about this time a number of smaller (5 to 10 acres) so called chicken farms came into being. Realtors considered that there was a turnover in this about every three to five years. I remember one instance when one of these was advertised for sale and a “retired” man from the city came out to look it over with intentions of buying it. His experience with chickens was very limited. He proceeded very cautiously and asked a lot of questions. Finally he asked the owner whether there really was any money in chickens. He replied, “Oh my, yes, I have $800.00 in them and I don’t know how I’ll get it out again.” This sale was never consummated.

At this time the automobile had become quite common. In fact, the harness horse had already been put into retirement. But the faithful old work horse was still quite popular. Now this has also changed and about the only use of “Old Dobbin” seems to be to provide food for the animals at the fox farms and the zoo. Along with the horse went the entire use of horse-drawn machinery. On the farms, in the shops and in business the machine was fast replacing man power and revolutionizing the entire process of operations. Along with this the “shopping centers” began to creep in. More and more farms were combined into larger units or gobbled up for developments. Expansion was more and more a problem. It was not long before the locally owned creamery, the little one-room schools, and many other institutions were no longer in existence. This expansion has found its way into banking as well as almost every other line of endeavor. The larger banks clamored for the privilege of opening up branches and where the privilege was not permitted they formed holding companies and gobbled up small banks as affiliates. The handwriting is on the wall, and it may not be long before the small town merchant and the home-owned bank will be relegated to obsoleteness.

How many small towns can one cite that are really growing or forming? Most of them no longer have a doctor and have less than half as many stores as they used to have and many are without a bank. As one storekeeper said, we no longer have a general store. It is now only an accommodation store. They buy here only when it is inconvenient to go to the shopping center.

Along with all these changes the local township government is being constantly restricted and more and more authority is being delegated to the county and by the county to the state and 22 by the states to the federal government. The farther away each authority is delegated the less close personal supervision it receives and thus opens the door wider and wider to the coming in of abuse and graft.

Politicians will invariably state how they stand on this record and usually remind us about one or more federal grants procured for our area whether for schools, roads or welfare purposes. They never call our attention to the fact that all grants are nothing more or less than a relatively small amount of what was extracted from us in taxes and that with each and every such grant accepted there is a string attached which takes another slice of authority over the matter concerned and also adds more or less red tape to the location of the project. It further seems that in each instance the cost of administration is increased. For example, even though quite absurd, we tell of a man of the middle class who had been fairly successful and was considered quite well bred, who, when strolling up the street, was confronted by a moocher who asked for a dime for a cup of coffee. The man took one of his cards from his pocket and wrote on it the name of a local government subsidized charity and said, “I just came from this place where I donated a dollar. Go there and show my card and tell them I sent you and they will take care of you.” Several hours later when he returned the same moocher met him again. The man asked whether he wasn’t the same man he had met earlier and was informed that he was. “Well,” he asked, “didn’t they give you anything.” The moocher said, “Yes, they gave me a nickel.” The man asked what about the other ninety-five cents. The moocher said, “They told me that went for overhead and salaries of the administrator and case workers.”

Another odd and rather ironical situation in connection with governmental supervision is brought out by the fact that insofar as banks carried by F.D.I.C. insurance and regularly examined by F.D.I.C. examiners and this is not meant to be critical of these examiners, but as they are appointed by the F.D.I.C. a governmental institution, we can assume that indirectly they are supported by the federal government or at least by one of its agencies. It is their duty to give a thorough examination to see that we abide by the law and operate in the black which is ok. What seems ironical about it is that the federal government is from year to year and decade to decade operated with bigger and bigger deficits and constantly increasing the public debt, and in order to remain solvent has resorted to the simple expediency of laws and Congress votes a raise in the legal limit of the public debt.

23 A lot of this undoubtedly sounds like coming from a “chronic kicker” or as sometimes said as “a ginner.” It is not that I am “agin” many of these laws and agencies. I can see a lot of merit in old age assistance, A.D.C. and welfare in general and really all of the laws in connection thereto are ok if carried out as was the intention of the lawmakers. In short, like the case of the bankruptcy law, the use of the law is ok. It is the abuse of the law that presents criticism. In citing some of the abuses, it is well to remember that the criticism is only for those who abuse the law and very often flagrantly before the very eyes of the case workers. Of course, it is easy to see that many decisions and oversights are made in self interest. For instance, if a case worker were to reduce the case load his job would no longer be justified. I firmly believe that we had a better society when relief was not quite so easy or popular and when more people prided themselves on being self-reliant. In so many cases a “reliefer” is somewhat of a refined “moocher”, what with our ever increasing public debt, more and more governmental restriction, and more of a welfare state.

I find myself wondering whether our great-grandchildren and their children to come will be very fond of the heritage we leave them if by then they will not already be reduced to mere pawns on the state chessboard and knights in protection of the so-called “Royalty.”

A lot of these ills of our society and life, strikes, inflation, governmental subsidation and what have you are all at the door of the ever increasing cost of living. However, I believe that if we all took the time to honestly appraise and analyze the situation we would all have to agree that we can’t hurt from “the high cost of living” nearly as much as from the cost of high living.

Having outlived the “allotted” three score and ten years ago and now well over the four score mark, I cannot hope to see the final ending. However, I honestly hope and pray that somewhere, sometime, somehow good common horse sense may prevail.

Conclusion By reading the foregoing pages some may draw the conclusion that I considered banking a one-man venture. This is not the case. It is because I jotted down my own memories and I had the help of highly valued friends, and that of my wife, children, and a lot of loyal employees. For the first twenty years most of the decisions on policy were made by myself, Mr. Hughard and Eugene Morin, and it would be a misstatement not to mention the advice and consultations of my friend and attorney, L. R. Allison. 24

Shortly after 1940 my sons came into the bank and as I felt my eyesight was failing rapidly, I pushed most of the administration onto them so they would have their feet under them if my sight should suddenly fail altogether. I must say that in my estimation they did a good job of it and in this connection I must mention the fact that we always had a good and loyal bunch of employees. I am very grateful to them and consider them all as personal friends. I also received help from my brothers, but the assistance I received when I bought enough shares to give our family controlling interest was the greatest boost I ever received for it was from that time on that our institution made its greatest growth. The party giving me this help wished to remain anonymous and I will respect his wishes. However, if he should ever read this I would like to have him know that for that assistance I will be forever grateful.

Before I conclude, however, it would be appropriate to give a comparison statement of the condition of the bank as of April 1, 1920 and December 31, 1968. On April 1, 1920 when I was checked in as Cashier of the Farmers State Bank of Hamel, the footings were slightly in excess of $50,000.00, the capital stock was $10,000.00, this surplus was $2,000.00 and the amount paid for expenses in excess of earnings was a trifle over $2,000.00. Thus the capital was slightly impaired. As of the statement of December 31, 1968, the total footings were $4,245,434.52, the capital stock was $100,000.00 and the total capital structure was $336,043.14. All of the increases were a result of internal operations. How I ever had the intestinal fortitude to take on this venture and see it through to its present status, sometimes make me wonder. However, in looking back now, I believe that I enjoyed every minute of it.

One other thing I would like to mention in concluding this narrative is a favor granted to me in 1931. Until 1931 I had never had a vacation unless time spent in the hospital as a patient can be construed to be a vacation. However, in 1931 we celebrated our 25th wedding anniversary and my nephew, L. C. Dorweiler, Jr., who was employed by the First National Bank at that time, had two weeks of vacation, and he said, “Uncle Harry, I will give you one week of my vacation and run the bank while you and Aunt Anna take a vacation.” This favor I will never forget.

As I conclude, I sincerely hope that all of our present and former employees, the friends I have made and the Board of Directors and customers will have kindly thoughts of me as I’ve had and always will have of them.

Retyped – September, 2009

25