Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1916-04-06
U. S. Attorney Laskey Expects
to Satisfy Justice Siddons
at Hearing Tomorrow.
NO DELAY OF TRIAL,
PROSECUTOR DECLARES
On Contrary. It Has Been Preferred
to Others Equally Important
He Says.

pairing today his answer to the motion
of counsel for Charles c. Glover. Will
liam J. Father and Henry II. Flather
for a speedy trial OF the perjury charge
against them growing out of an affida-
Wit filed at hearing of the equity
proceedings Instituted by the Riggs
National Bank last April against Sec
rotary McAdoo of the Treasury and
John Shelton Williams. controller of
the currency. Mr.. Laskey expects to
satisfy Justice Siddons at the hearing
scheduled for tomorrow that he has NOT
only not delayed the trial of this case,
but that he has preferred it before 9TH
ers equally important, in which coun-
sci and accused are clamoring for trial.
He will urge on the court that May s
is the earliest possible date for calling
the Glover Flather case for trial.
Mr.. Laskey last night decided to
make a statement in answer to certain
allegations of counsel for the Riggs
Bank officials. He said:
Statement by Mr.. Laskey.
Il had intended to make no state
ment concerning the application made
today by Charles c. Glover. William ].
Flather and Henry H. Flather for an
advance of the trial of the pending in
dictment against them, until my an
swer to the application is filed in court,
but in view of the statement of coun-
sci for the defendants published in the
afternoon papers of today l feel that
l should say:
Il have steadfastly pursued the pol
icy. ethical among lawyers. of refusing
TO air the case in the newspapers. This
has been no easy task in view of state
ments heretofore published, and it is
not my purpose now to depart from my
custom of trying my cases only in
court, but ] feel my neighborS are en-
titled to know that i have done MOTH
ing to prevent indicted citizens from
obtaining a trial early as the rights
of others will permit.
1T Will be necessary for me to lay
before the court portions of my corre-
spondence with the defendants coun-
sci. which they have seen fit to with
hold and which. / am confident. will
satisfy the court that no injustice has
been done the defendants. The CORE
spondence is lengthy and detailed, but
that there are two sides to the discus
sion is sufficiently shown by two para
graphs of my letter to one of the
counsel for the defendants dated March
80, 1916, in which l said:
Effort to Expedite Case.
81 regret that 1 am unable to view
the representations of Messrs. Glover,
Flather and Flather, expressed in the
correspondence. as an ingenious effort
to expedite the cause. The correspon-
dence unaccountahly seems to be di-
rected at some object beyond the sub
ject of immediate consideration.
Your letter refers to the assignment
of the case for trial on May s, as a
'postponement.' whereas, in fact, it is
an advancement out of the usual
course. In order to accommodate the
defendants in this regard it was neces-
sary to displace very urgent business,
including indictments growing out of
the failure of a financial institution
whereby enormous sums of money were
lost to a large number of our citizens
of all classes. Other business thus
necessarily deferred involves indict-
ments, the tendency of which, untried,
is said to hamper the business of the
defendants to the utmost extent. The
preparation and trial of important Jail
ca ses long pending cannot be deferred.
Early Trial Desired.
Il remind you that the indictments
against your clients were returned Oc-
tober ]. 1915, and during the three
months ensuing to January 6, 1915, no
suggestion was ever made by or on
their behalf that an early trial was de-
sired And when it was suggested to
me on January &, 1916, that the de-
PENDANTS desired the earliest possible
trial. the suggestion was only Incl
dental to very unusual request on the
part of the defendants, the carrying out
of which prevented, until February 4.
even an approximation of the time of
trial
Since February there has been alb.
solutely nothing to deter YOU from in
terposing preliminary motions, yet the
indictments have not been brought to
issue to this date. February you
requested bill of particulars. which l
caused to be prepared. only to be in
formed on the day of it's completion
that you wished another and different
character of bill of particulars to les
sen the labors of counsel for the de-
Tense, and which is now in course of
preparation.
MY only instructions from the At
torney General concerning the case
were to deal with it as with any other
case and to give the defendants as
early a trial as would be consistent
with the other business of my office, |
and, carrying out those instructions,
have noted the case for trial at the
earliest possible date, and advanced the
hearing OF the cal use dl the expense OF
delay in the trial of other cases quite |
as important to the community as the
so-called Riggs case"
Never Denied Solvent Bank. |
The records of the office of the con-
troller of the currency. SO far as is |
known, do not show an instance where |
any controller has denied renewal of |
charter to any solvent bank. However, |
the fact lacks significance in view of |
the powers of the controller, exercised |
in many cases where an original char
ter has been applied for, to scrutinize
the character of the directors and hold
back approval until conditions objec-
to him are adjusted to his
sa tisfaction.
In the case of a renewal of charter
there are other considerations natural |
~ involved, such as the equity of put
ting an existing organization out of
business. Nevertheless, it is said the
power appears to be vested in the office
Of the controller, and theoretically he
mas the same rights of ScriIfipy and H.. |