Evening star., 1915-05-21
SUBMITS EXHIBITS
IN STOCK DEALS

| MSIUCk DEALS
Continued from First Page)
sample copy of which I hereto attach
marked a. as part of this affidavit, as
| an illustrate of the way in which
| these orders were always taken for
| sales.
Explains Marks on Originals.
| THE handwriting on the original slip
is that of Mr.. Cooke. The figures I1.20
| a. on the right-hand side, represent
the time of the execution of the order.
These figures were placed there by
the telegraph operator. The stamp on
the original (Which Is written in hand
writing on exhibit A. hereto attach
ed), Jan. 9. 1919 represents the date
of the execution of the order, and was
put there in the ordinary course or
business by the telegraph operator.
"All the slips representing these or
ders taken down by Mr.. Cooke are on
file with the trustees in bankruptcy
Immediately upon the execution of
this order and as to each order of pur-
chase or sale for or on account of the
Riggs National Bank a memorandum
would be sent to the Riggs National
Bank either by bearer or by mail. Ac-
companying, marked b and made a
part of this affidavit. is a copy of the
printed form in which the notice of the
execution of the order was sent on the
day on which 1t was executed.
I'VE have in the office of Lewis john
son & Co. a letter press copy book con-
tanning copies of all the notices thus
sent to the Riggs National Bank ad
dressed to the Riggs National Bank as
the purchaser or seller of the particu
lar securities in question.
Sales Made for Riggs Account.
Mr. hammond declares in his affida-
Wit that short sales" were made for
the account appearing on the COM
pany's books as with the Riggs Ma
tional Bank. He directs attention by
way of illustration to the first trans
action of short selling referred to in
the affidavit of Wesley NJ. Bennett, filed
with Controller williams return to the
bill of complaint.
Mr.. Untermyer proceeded to point out
other alleged short" sales indicated in
the affidavit of the bookkeeper.
Mr.. Bailey Resumes.
| Resuming his twice interrupted
speech, former Senator Bailey con-
tinued his review of the series of acts
| oficials of the Riggs Bank complain
and because of which they are asking
for an injunction to prevent continu-
| ance of such acts and mandamus to
| compel the payment to them of the
| Ave thousand dollar fine. which they
allege has been illegally withheld from
the bank.
He asserted that a proper construction
Of the laws governing the duties of the
controller Of the currency as regards
calling for regular and special reports
| from national banks could not fail to
| show that Controller Williams had vio-
lated the law. He declared further that
| Congress never intended, in enacting the
national banking laws. to clothe any gov
| ernment official with the wide discretion
airy powers which. he asserted. have been
claimed by Controller Williams. and in
| vehement terms he declared that If such
were the purpose Of Congress the sections
Of the law under which Controller Will
| liams claimed to exercise the discretion
ary power complained Of. then the law
was plainly unconstitutional.
| Mr.. Bailey asserted. however, that he
did not take that view of the law, and
| he added that he was convinced the
| court would not so construe 1t. What
he maintained, he said, was that the
| controller of the currency had greatly
exceeded the authority conferred upon
him by statute.
Denies Refutation of Banks Claims
Senator Bailey denied that the state
ments in the hammond affidavit re-
futed the claim Of the bank officials
that the bank ever made the stock
transactions in controversy He said:
| Your honor will recall. it is stated,
that one of those telephone lines ran
from the desk of Henry H. Flather to
Lewis johnson & Co. If Mr. Henry Fl
l
Flather and Flather business and tele-
phoned Mr.. Cook to buy or sell 100
Union Pacific. and If Mr.. Cook made
out one of these quick memorandum
make it purchase Of that stock by the
Riggs National Bank as such for its
account?
| IF you look at the Lewis johnson &
Co. Riggs National Bank account with
out more. you or 1 might say that that
was the inference. And it was in or
der to avoid that inference and to
prevent the carrying of that inference.
which was not correct inference
| which was not true inference, that
the affidavit was filed yesterday"
Debate Over differences"
An extended argument was precipi-
tated here, in which the court partici
| pated, concerning the inferences to be
drawn from the two affidavits. Resum-
ing his argument, Mr.. Bailey said:
when the court adjourned yester-
day afternoon 1 was analyzing section
52l1. and, OF course, ] must resume the
argument at that point. Before l do
30. however. l desire to advert for one
moment to colloquy that occurred
between Mr.. Untermyer and myself
while 1 was arguing the facts. Indeed,
1t was a colloQuy in which Mr.. INTER
| al
participated. do it because. though
I was interrupted more than twenty
times by Mr. Untermyer. as the record
shows. my statement of the facts was
never challenged except In that one in
stance. 1t was said more than once
that / was outside of the record. but
there was no contradiction or attempt
to contradict my statement of the facts
except in that particular instance, and
as / take some satisfaction to myself
in believing that / never misstate a
fact, / make 1t worth my while to take
time enough to demonstrate that q,