Evening star., 1915-05-17

der to perform thoroughly his protect
i've functions. his own power to call
for special reports must be as broad
as the powers of his own subordinate
EXAMINERS. whose statutory powers
tas stated above) are to make q thor
oush examination of all the AFFAIRS OF
the bank
The duty of the controller to submit
information to Congress: the right OF
banks to loan on real estate security
the matter of loans to officers and d.
rectors and dummy loans: of excessive
loans. the acceptance of mmlsSions
or moneys by bank officers from Dor
rowers: Investigations into past ac-
tons with a view to criminal prosecu
tion or other procedure and removal
of officers and directors for vioiatloh
of law, as these matters have lhFoiNeu
the administration of the office OF the
controller of the currency in the past
We're set forth in extracts from re-
ports made to Congress.
The argument in the brief for the
Secretary of the Treasury discusses
FIVE issues. AS to the matter or the
$1,000 penalty. the contention is that
the Secretary of the Treasury had no
power and could not and did not ex-
ercise power TO assess such penalts
against the defendant. that the court
has no jurisdiction. as the case is. IN
effect. suit against the United states
government. and because the plaintin
has an adequate remedy at law. ana
that the assessment was legal 'Ihe
Secretary of the Treasury also denled
authority to approve or disapprove me
defendant bank as 4 depository OF
United States moneys, or to apply othef
penalties to the defendant.
. Denial was given to the allegation
that the Secretary of the Treasury has
usurped the authority of the treasurer
legged threatened injuries. the brief re
fers to arguments in the other briefs
accompanying it.
An Action Against the U. S.
The brief for the treasure Of the
United States sets forth his duties as
prescribed by law and contends for the
view of the suit of plaintiff that 1t is
an action. in effect. against the United
States. and that. therefore. the court is
without Jurisdiction.
in the present case" says the argu-
ment. the case is simply this:
There Deine $4,000 interest accrued
on bonds of the United States which
the plaintiff owned and deposited to
secure circulation. and there being
moneys of the United States held by
the treasurer in his official capacity.
the bank. on the one hand. claims that
the Treasurer shall apply $1,000 of
these moneys in payment OF interest on
tntSe tHe government On tie
other hand. claims that the treasurer
should not pay the interest. but should
instead pay into the treasury that
amount in satisfaction of penalties as
sessed against the plaintiff under spe-
cific statutory authority. In effect. the
plaintiff bank claims debt due to it
from the United States. The United
States asserts right to set off against
such debt an Indebtedness Of the plain
tiff to 1t. II the bank contests the in
validity of the set-off. shall it be per
mitted to enjoin the treasurer from as
sertne the governments claim. ana
thereby suing the United States in this
court without its consent
Such a suit brought TO enjoin the
treasurer is obviously one in which
the United States is necessary party.
The decree Of this court against the
treasurer would rest upon an adJudi-
cation that the claim or set-ofr asserted
BY the United States is invalid; and the
payment sought by the plaintiff. il de-
creed. would deprive the United States
of its own money now in its possession
Authorities are cited to sustain this
contention. The brief then takes up
argument to indicate. il the suit is not
against the United States. the plaintiff
has an immediate remedy at law in a.
right to sue in the Court of Claims for
recovery OF tho $4,000 penalty If il
legally assessed and collected or for
the interest on its bonds II illegally
withheld