New-York tribune., 1908-03-18
CALLS JACKSON TOO HASTY.

Referring TO the hasty action Of Attorney Gen
eral Jackson in asking for the appointment OF
receivers, the court continues:
The Attorney General should have given the
defendant notice of his application for the ap-
r,airrrr7eI1- Of receivers. Unless there be som"
e-7a-cen,-x recurring immediate action, the law
conternplates the giving OF notice OF an app!Ic1-
lion for the appointment of receivers The court
having been led into improperly dispensing WIN
notice Of appointment Of the temporary recelV-
crs i WAS very proper for the judge VINO
granted the original order TO grant an order
10 show cause. and thus give the delenoahl al
or5r;orrunftx be heard TO set aside the orueI
which he had inprovidentlY granted Wilhout
rotice The effect OF this order 20 sno" cau9S
Ms not to review the former order, but rather
u grant hearing on the pToprietN OF appoint
i-E receivers At all Treating the procedure in
This manner. as II is proper We should II -
manifest that the hearing the defendant "aS
sh,,yn 10 be perfectly solvent. and that receivers
ought not 10 have been appointed. and that the
crdor yacatirg their appointment was pioPs'-
The report OF the bank examiners showed sur
l1us over debts % nearly 4 million and quar-
Ter ~ dollars and that of the public accountants
nearly million and hall
Referring TO the liability Of the bank to It's
.tockholders the court says that the Attorney
General is not the guardian" Of investors, and
fas the following 20 say on the question of pa
ternaI gcvernment in this state:
PaternaI government in this state has not Yet
gone 10 the extent Of regulating in what its clti-
zens shall invest their money. 1t is primarily
the creditors of an insolvent corporation with
which the state is concerned 1t is hardly prob
able that the assets of the defendant. down
as they have been will further shrink sufficient
~ 70 wipe out the large surplus shown. so that
the creditors OF the defendant will not obtain
their money in full
INDUCES IN SKEPTICISM.
Referring to the allegation of Attorney Cen
eral Jackson that he believed from the report
Of the Superintendent of Banks that the Orien-
tai would not be able pay its depositors in
full, the decision says that the Attorney Cen
eral if he had any such report. ought to have
included it in his complaint. which he did not
do The court also says that it considers it
quite irlproba BILE, that the Attorney General
has anv report from the Superintendent OF
Banks rs 10 the Orientals insolvency The re-
port, however. even of the superintendent ol
Banks" says the decision. lis not conclusive as
u insolvency any more than the conclusion Oh
thar subject Of the Attorney General himself
in reference 70 the soivency of the Oriental
Bank The court has the following 10 say
Examiners found and reported that. exclusive
q the liability Of its capital stock OF s'2v.gVV;
NE hank had si.233, ,s36 "a in surplus; teruleG
.uoi4c accountants were also elhploseu - -
meg found the surplus 10 be, after making saS" 20
ceclclons as they considered proper, F.,4so'
% Il Since these reports were mace, II dP
Iears, the liability OF defendant upon Clearing
nonse certificates has been reduced By nearly
seo6.60e
IN regard the allegation that the contract
WIZ the trust company is not binding upon IL
to ADVANCE the money. that its terms are eA-
HaFsGsnt ard that IL cannot lend assistance
hecaEse the amount called for IS in excess OF
what il Is permitted by law TO lend, Justice
He1ghton says:
We must assume from the record that the
proposition If the trust company Is made in
GOO Faith and that il will carry out its agree
,1 There X nothing la the record TO srp"
ifai n has NOT the power to do hat il has
agreed DO: and IL II more than probable that
u call III view of the quick assets which are
immediately dVaiia bic for purchase or sale If
we Creditors are Ddid. however. fnat is all that
.oiceTnS the plaintiff at the present time The
Husf company Eas made plain business propo-
aiisfn To- adN4nce the necessary money to 40
fh@. nron what appears 10 l'e ample security
justice Isughlin, ia his separate opinion,
ha51, i ccHcur III the opinion with respect uo
he tsylvcnos- IF the bank AMI thu impropriety
Continued o fourth page.