Evening star., 1915-05-22

which is the real question in the case.
No. Is a prayer that the defendant
and permanently from calling. or at
tempting to enforce his call. for any
special report or reports from the
plaintiff when the same are not BONA
f1de and reasonably necessary in order
to full and complete knowledge OF
the plaintiffs condition and are not
such as he Is expressly authorized by
said section 5211 to call for.
II take IT that refers to the future,
and shall deny that relief pendente
lite
"As to enjoining the defendant Nc
Adoo from aiding, assisting or abet-
ting. there is absolutely nothing in the
case. as 1t is made here, to show that
he has They are sued as of11cials. and
IL Mr. McAdoo had a duty to perform
he would perform 1t; If Mr.. Williams
had a duty to perform he would per-
form 1t; and whether Mr.. McAdoo would
be glad to see Mr.. Williams do cer-
tain thing. or urge him to do certain
thing. does not seem to me TO make
any difference.
NO. 10 is a part of the flve-thousand-
dollar transaction, and about that l
will not say anything further"
Several of the other prayers In the
banks bill were denied. and the In.
junction, with regard to them. set
aside. These related to some of the
allegations of alleged threats that
counsel for the government declared
the officials had no intention Of exc
cutting.
Holds Bank Responsible.
At yesterday afteroon's session OF
court Samuel Untermyer, chief counsel
for the Treasury officials. argued points
of law covering the prayers set forth
by the bank officials in their petition
for injunction and mandamus Mr..
Untermyer also reverted to the alleged
transactions shown on the yeliow
sheets purporting to be transcripts OF
the stock ledgers of the defunct firm
Of Lewis johnson & Co. and the afh-
tdavit filed yesterday morning by
counsel for the Treasury officials and
sworn to by W. Morris hammond. de-
falling more than 5000 transactions
said to have been made between the
bank and the defunct stock brokerage
concern. In regard to these alleged
transactions Justice Mccoy interrupted
with the interrogation:
rs there anything that you can dis
cover in the examination of the Lewis
Johnson account which would show
that If the market went the wrong way
on either short sales or purchases. and
there was a serious loss, while the
bank, perhaps, may not in the end have
been the person really interested, the
bank would not have been responsible
to Lewis Johnson & Co.. leaving the
bank to collect what 1t could from
some other person for whom it was
conducting the transaction?'
"On the contrary" replied Mr.. Unter-
myer, Lewis Johnson & Co. knew no
other person; If there had been loss in
nobody but the Riggs bank. Its state
ments of account were rendered to the
Riggs bank: settlements were made by
the Riggs bank. both for purchases and
for sales; and IL these short transac-
tions or the long transactions had gone
the wrong way Lewis Johnson & Co.
would have been entitled to recover
against the Riggs bank"
Then, if it was not actually the
banks transaction. the reimbursement
the solvency of the person for whom
the operation was being carried on?'
said the court.
Certainly; but as between the broker
and the purchaser the principal was the
Riggs National Bank all the time; and,
therefore, upon the record, as 1t sands
here today. we are not only justified. but
we are impe1led to say that these vast
stock brokerage transactions were for
the account of the Riggs National
Bank. whatever may have been their
relations with the people with whom
they were dealing"
Power of Controller to Assess.
Mr.. Brandeis followed Mr.. Untermyer
with further brief elucidation of the
view taken by counsel for the Treasury
officials of certain phases of the laws
applying to national banking associa-
tions. paying special attention to that
portion affecting the power of the con-
troller to assess penalties for failure
to comply with demands as to the
preparation and submission of reports
IN ,i1 Nt,,
obviously the position is this, that
before a penalty is assessed it is mat
ter of the controller, who can be con-
trol1ed by the court, or whose action is
controllable by the court. If the court
has any power to act at all. But when
penalty has been assessed, then the
right to that money, whether 1t exists
or not. is a right in the United States.
1t Is not question then Of the con-
troller: it is a question in which the
United States is interested.
1T is very difficult to conceive Of a
case in which a government claim can
ever be said to be in controversy II this
is not case in which ii is in contro-
versy. because where the treasurer is
directed by specific statute to assert
claim the validity of that claim or
the invalidity of it would have to be
adjudicated.
In the first place. the invalidity of
the claim would have to be adjudicated
would have to be taken out of the
Treasury of the United States in or
der that the plaintiff might have re-
lief Is not that the practical situa-
tion?
1T seems to us. therefore, that
whether We are discussing this ques-
tion on the application for a prelim-
mary injunction, or whether we are
discussing it on the motion to dismiss
there appears in either case a lack of
equity on that branch of the case also
and when we come to the third prob
lem. that of the approval of the de-
positaries, a s l pointed out before, al
though that has been rather minimized
by Senator Bailey as being of slight
Importance.
so l submit that on each of those
branches of the case the bill fails to
afford basis for relief, and ] think.
perhaps, nothing more need be said
about that fourth ground, those
vague apprehensions, perfectly vague
and indefinite, as to which a court of
equity would under no circumstances
undertake to control the future action
of a public official"
Discusses Power of Officials.
Mr.. Hogan closed the argument Of