New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1915-06-14
Asserts Past History Not
Necessary to Determine
Present Condition.
SEEKS RETURN
OF $4,000 FINE
Answers Governments Conten'
ton That It Cannot
Be Sued.

Washington. June 10 AttaeklhE inc
tpecial reports which attempt to Dig
into its history as far back as 1895 DE-
nanded By Controller Of the Currency
Williams. the Riggs National Bank has
fled supplemental brief In its injunc-
tion suit against the Treasury ofheials'
The bank contends that the law only
authorizes the demanding Of reports
for the purpose Of ascertainins banks
rrosent condition. It's attorneys, eN-
Senator Bailey and Frank J. Hogan
declare that past incidents have no'n-
ING 70 do with the banks present con-
diUon
1--WE have every day published in the
newspapers a report Of the condition
of the United States Treasury at the
close OF business yesterday says the
brief. as that condition ascertained
bv reference 10 what took place in the
DAVIS Of Hamilton. Gallatin or Gage?
How would the history Of the Treas
ur,.'s condition on any day or al the
DAYS OF the Secretaries here named en-
able one 70 ascertain the condition, the
existing state or predioament OF the
finances OF the United States now
Past Is Irrelevant
How would a knowledge of the state
Of the English fleet IN the days Of Nell
son assist one in ascertaining its pres
ent condition or enable one TO have
knowledge thereof? Or in what way
does the state Of Englsnd's army under
Wellington enable one 70 have knowl-
edge Of the army that England is mass
ing in France and Belgium now?
ITO decide whether or not he shall
exercise any Of the various supervisory
functions delegated 70 him II Is neces-
Eary that the Controller have a knowl-
edge Of a banks condition-its present
state: but il cannot be necessary for
him TO have a history Of some act done
eighteen years ago, no part OF which
remains unperformed, for the purpose
Of aiding him in taking action to-day
or of giving him a knowledge Of the
banks condition to-day
The banks brief diSmisses Attorney
General Warren's contention that mo
one can be certain of the law without
an examination Of all previous statutes
upon the same subject" with the COM
ment that the Supreme Court has set
tied this question.
In opposing the contention made in
the supplemental brief Of the govern
ment that the $4,000 penalties had al
ready been covered" into the Treas
ury, and therefore a suit 10 procure
possession Of this money was a suit
against the United States and could
only be made in the Court Of Claims,
the banks brief quotes the answer of
Treasurer Burke in the Injunction suit
and also the plaintiffs bill to show
that this money had not been covered
into the Treasury, and could not legally
be so.
Five illegally Held.
The brief says, in part:
There is no additional phase 10
that which the court must determine.
II the penalty was lawfully imposed
and assessed, the bank has no rem
edy; If the penalty was not imposed
by law and assessed in strict com
piiance with law. then the illegal &C
tion of the Controller amounts to
naught and is impotent TO change the
legal status Of the interest money in
volved as part Of this controversy or
10 affect the banks title therein and
right thereto.
IAN Illegal and void action OF the
Controller cannot be the basis for any
claim by the United States TO title to
the interest moneys withheld. This
being so, IL is utterly immaterial how
the fund is held in the Treasury; no
matter where It physically is, II be
longs 70 the bank, and neither the
Treasurer, nor the Controller, nor the
Secretary, can lawfully retain il from
the bank, and each and every one Of
them can be, and we submit must be,
restrained by this court from so do
ing and compelled by this court 10
deliver over the moneys, possession
OF which has thus far been wrongfully
withheld"