Evening star., 1915-05-18

go, and IL he does not intend TO 90
he was not telling tie truth when he
wrote that letter, then the injunction
will not do him bit Of harm. But
says Mr.. Warren, having stripped this
thing down merely to this matter of
standing in this court You are rele-
gated back to the Court Of Claims.
Denies Premise Is Correct.
why? Because he says-and the
premise is not correct one-'the United
States government is holding in its
treasury this $4,000. You claim that
you are entitled to that $4,000 as in
terest on your bonds. The United
States government sets up a counter
claim think that is the word you
use-and says: Yes, the interest of
$4,000 was due you on April 1.1915, but
we have a counter-claim against you for
$4,000 penalties which had accrued up
to April l, 1915, on account of your fail
lure to comply with the law as that law
IS laid down in Section 5211 of the Re
vised Statutes of the United States. and
he says that the Court Of Claims Is the
appropriate judicial tribunal to try, on
the one hand, the claim OF tho bank
against the United States. and on the
other the claim of offset of the United
States against the bank, because other
Treasury through this court. which has
no Jurisdiction, and taking out this
$4,000
Claim in Another Case.
Precisely the same claim was made
in the Virginia coupon case. That was
the very argument. and the entire
argument of the state Of Virginia in
those cases There the state had
claim against Poindexter. which is the
case in which the long opinion Is rem
dered. The state had a claim against
Poindexter for taxes The tax col.
lector acting in virtue of the state OF
direction Of statute Of the state of
Viresnia, seized a desk belonging to
Poindexter in order to satisfy the
states claim for taxes. The state said:
If you had paid your taxes you coulo
have paid the amount under protest:
and sued in virtue of the provisions OF
the statute to recover it.
"'In thi. case" said the state. Green
how, as an officer of the state, IN MS
capacity as such officer. took this desk.
nd 1t is now in the possession OF the
state. It is property that the state
claims to have right to hold. Against
the claim that you make that you own
that desk. we make the claim that you
owe us taxes; and therefore. If you
take by mandamus out of our posses
sion that desk. you take out of the
state that amount of money which 1t
claims to have a legal right to. Your
mandamus; your remedy Is In the
courts in connection with this suit to
recover property which you say the
state is holding against you.
Held Same Proposition.
you cannot escape 1t. That is tho
proposition here. and that was the
proposition there. But the United
states Supreme Court said: No. When
YOU read that case, 1t almost seems
strange that on $40 that case came all
the way to the United States Supreme
Court; but understand the Poindexter
case was made the test case for large
number of other cases involving the
right Of the taxpayer in Virginia to
pay, by these state coupons. the taxes
there.
the first time the District Supreme
Court has been asked to direct the
actions OF cabinet officers, Mr.. Hogan
stated:
! my friends make some point of the
fact that In the bill Of complaint in
fendant. the bill says that the defend
ant John Shelton Williams is sued as
controller of the currency, the defend
ant William G. McAdoo is sued as the
Secretary Of the Treasury. the defendant
John Burke is sued as the treasurer Of
the United States.
! Cabinet Officers Enjoined.
| "It may surprise some oficials Of the
Treasury Department to know that this
court has issued its writ of Injunction
against cabinet officers before. and the
United States Supreme Court has upheld
that action; that this court has refused
its writ Of Injunction and it's writ Of
mandamus against cabinet officers in
cases before. even 30 high cabinet Of