The Federal Reserve Act divided Mississippi between the 6th (Atlanta) and 8th (St. Louis) Districts. During the Great Depression, these districts’ policies differed. Atlanta championed monetary activism and the extension of aid to ailing banks. St. Louis eschewed expansionary initiatives. During a banking crisis in 1930, Atlanta expedited lending to banks in need. St. Louis did not. Outcomes differed across districts. In Atlanta, banks survived at higher rates, lending continued at higher levels, commerce contracted less, and recovery began earlier. These patterns indicate that central bank intervention influenced bank health, credit availability, and business activity.

Interbank networks amplified the contraction in lending during the Great Depression. Panics induced banks in the hinterland to withdraw interbank deposits from Federal Reserve member banks located in reserve and central reserve cities. These correspondent banks responded by curtailing lending to businesses. Between the peak in the summer of 1929 and the banking holiday in the winter of 1933, interbank amplification reduced aggregate commercial bank lending by an estimated 15 percent.

Scholars differ on whether central bank intervention mitigates banking panics. In April 1929, a fruit fly infestation in Florida forced the U.S. government to quarantine fruit shipments from the state and destroy infested groves. In July, depositors panicked in Tampa and surrounding cities. The Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta rushed currency to member banks beset by runs. We show that this intervention arrested the panic and estimate that bank failures would have been twice as high without the Federal Reserve’s intervention. Our results suggest that similar interventions may have reduced bank failures during the Great Depression.