The Washington times., 1915-05-15
Profit Credited.

This profit vas credited to the ac-
count of Glover & Flather. an account
carried in the Riegs National Sank, ac-
cording to the Government allegation
to represent various transactions OF the
officers of the bank in stocks, bonds
loans etc.
The question. the petition says. ulti-
mately was brought up by bank ex-
aminer as to who owned the account; :;
whether in fact 1t represented profits
ultimately aCcruing to the bank and its
stocknolders, or whether 1t actually be-
longed to Messrs, Glover and Flather,
president and vice president OF the bank.
The real question. according to the
statement, appears so have been whether
credit and resources of the Riggs Ma
tional. or by the individual responsible
ties Of those officials of the bank who
handled the negotiations. The Govern
ments contention is that the correspond
enCe in tho matter was signed by officials
of the Riggs National as such, that
the account was carried by the National
city as joint account between II and
the Riggs, National; that the RESPONSE
bility. of the Riggs National was actual
~ behind the transactions: that If there
had been losses instead of profits these
losses would have had to be carried by
the Riggs National and that finally. the
profits should have been credited to the
profit and loss of the Riggs National as
bank rather than to the firm Of Glover
& Flather.
Treasury officials became interested
in this question of the ultimate dispo-
sition Of TIE Glover & Flather account.
and a bank examiner opened the sub
tect with them. Mr. Allies, on examina- =
tor before the bank examiner. insisted
that the bank had never been liable in
any way on account of the transaction
tio also insisted that the money legally
and moraily belonged to Messrs. Glover
and flather. but observed that he re-
gnrded them as just little too high
| classcd to take it," The examiner how
ever Pressed INQUIRY as to whether It
| belonged TO them or to the bank.
thai of Flather & Flather, concerning
Which Comptroller Williams says. he
madH efforts 10 ascertain the true own
ership of these funds and on July 80
T. rerort to whom the funds belonged
and this question the officers OF the
Eank declined to answer on the ground
that 1t was a question Of law to which
they could hardly be expected to give
an opinion under oath.
Again, on August Is, 1914 I asked
whether the said money belonged 10
the Riggs National Bank or to some
other person than to the Riggs Ma =
| tional Bank. and the plaintiff bank
| by its officers again replied that these
were questions of law about which
differences of opinion might be enter
| tained. and which could therefore only
| be determined judiCiallY.
1T seemed to me a remarkable state
of affairs as bearing on the condition
of the bank when 4 had in its pos
session property of so great a value
and was unable to state as a matter
of fact whether that fund belongs
to the bank Itself or to its officers as
| individuals. Until that fact was deA
termined II was impossible to know
| the condition OF the bank as affected
| by that transaction.
Upon all the information availa BILE
II believe and now aver that the said
fund is and always has been the prop