The Washington times., 1915-05-17
Woman Denies Claim
That AS Clerk of Bank
Treasury Expelled Her

The affidavit Of Miss Taylor is de-
NAL Of the claim that as clerk en-
ployed by the National City Bank. Of
New York. she was expelled from the
Treasury Building. She swears that
she has been employed for more than
ten years in the office OF the Comp
troller Of the Currency and that her
duties have been to count and examine
the worn and mutilated notes Of ra-
tional banks which are sent to the
Treasury for redemption.
In affidavits which she filed with her
statement, Miss Taylor declares untrue
statements made by James Trimble con-
Cerning her presence in the United
States Treasury as National City Bank
clerk" and states that "she was never
called upon to. and never did. furnish
the National City Bank with any Inn
Treasury Department" She character
ICES the affidavit Of Secretary McAdoo
dealing with her work in the Treasury,
as "misleading." denying that she was
advance information from statistical
reports. She also brands as untrue the
statement Of John Skelton Williams
that che was expelled from the Treas
ury Department"
One OF the affidavits Of Mr. Evans re-
fers to checks for the payment Of IN
terest on Government bonds. He AYERS
The checks issued for the quarter year.
ly interest due on the United States
ed by Secretary McAdoo. and counter
signed by c. r. Schoeneman. an en-
ploye in the office of the Secretary.
Certain exhibits of Comptroller Will
liams are characterized by Mr.. Evans as
misleading In some instances. and in
other instances false. His second affi-
davit says in part:
.rndnne mdnne oona 30 1910. the bank had an
money reserve with reserve agents, and
an amount below its required lawful re-
serve In han ITS own vaults its total actual
aSd no, ,ss 9 20 that dsX being
defendant Williams in Part of his ex-
hibit d. To make the statement Of al
legged reserve shortage on that date the
said defendant Improperly computed re-
ment funds then deposited with the
plaintiff. against which the law does not
require the keeping Of a money reserve:
the actual total reserve shortage June
as the defendant Williams. in his false
eXh-~lt. shows the same at more than
| 6 per cent
"on the dates in the above table
Williams. erropeously states the re-
serve figures by reason Of his i'm
proper inclusion OF Panama Canal de-
pOsits. which, in virtue of the act Of
Congress. approved August "a. 1912,
We're not thereafter to be properly
! included in deposits on which reserve
should be compared: on September 4.
| 1912, PLAINTIFF bank had an excess OF
S%7,s59 over it's required reserve;
February 4. 1913. it had an excess Of
Sl4O.441 over its required reserve; on
April 4. 1913. it had an excess OF
$5l6,2S1 over its required reserve: in
three OF the remaining four dates
thus marked O. it was temporarily
short its required reserve. as follows:
June 4, 1918. short $74,s76: August 9.
1918. short s47,a3G; October 81. 1918.
snort ,$4S.42o; While on on N1yember s,
required reserve sl41.33o."
The Evans afftdavits also contain
statements declaring to show that the
ST thn c0nanfa IN the first
the Riggs Bank was short In Its reserve
with the Federal Reserve Bank on
December 81. 1914. s16,437. and on March
- 1915, sl5.092. does not accord with the
facts. On the first date mentioned the
| bank declares its deficiency was only
81 .sl5. and on the second date. although
required % have only s242, 7a5 with the
Federal Reserve Bank, 1t had 2+3s
| The answer continues 70 discuss In
detail the question Of the reserve funds
Of the Riggs Bank, and then taken ur
the charges made by John skeltor
Williams that deal with real estate
lo"Ts: the affdav't t,a says G.,sr,an. WIZ
liams' affidavit is false and errone
GUS in that 1T purports to set fortt
real estate loans alleged to have bee.
made by the Riggs National Bank
whereas In truthfulness and in fact
as well known to the said defendant
no loans have been made by the Rigg
Bank on real estate. and the loan,
referred to by him were such as wer,
incidentally and collaterally secure,
by notes which in turn were secured
upon real estate. which loans are no
forbidden by the National bank act
as held by the United States Suprem
Court. this affant Is advised and be
Iievcs. in Bank VS.. Matthews. 9s U. g
s2I, the loans so listed having beer
expressly declared to be lawful an
not subject to criticism by the Comm
troller of the Currency to nationn
bank examiners In a formal ruling O
the Comptroller OF the Currency T.
national bank examiners dated and Is
sued January II, 1910. a copy of whicl
the defendant Williams himself ha
included In a printed volume entitle
miscellaneous Letters Relating I
Correspondence between the Treasur
Denartment and Riggs Nationa
Bank" Volume III. on pages II to I
thereof"