The Washington times., 1916-05-10

F1ather. A letter was received from
MT. Williams replying that certain
statements OF Mr., clover we're false
.Mr. Glover. in answer to the state.
nent OF the Comptroller. wrote to Mr.
Williams saying that he believed this
latters judgment was not normal. that
his attitude toward him tGlover) or the
bank was malignant"
Commissions Account.
MIR. stanchneld then began reading
more excerpts OF letters showing how
money earned by the banks ofticers
individually was turned over to the
bank. lie explained how the bank used
the money In the commissions ac-
count saying that when the bank
made contributions to the Red Cross,
similar things. the contribution was
taken from the commission account.
The first clash occurred at this juno
ture when District Attorney Laskey
arose and declared that Mr.. Stanchfield
practice In this Jurisdiction In that he
was not limiting his address TO what
he intended to prove.
He declared that the attorney for the
defense had been engaged in reading
and that he was not entitled to make
an argument othe jury as II In a
closing argument
The District attorney asked the court
statements OF fact which tho defense
intended TO prove.
II have n knowledge OF what nm
opcnlng statement should he, declared
Mr.. stanchhcid. ~ am reading what I
est desire to Violate any f practice de- in tSis
jurisdiction, and wouldn't read these
excerpts u had not the right"
Justice siddons at this tuncture re-
marked that Of course u was not
ing statement.
Second.Clash Occurs.
District Attorney Laskey continued
to protest against the reading OF GER
tain letters by counsel for the defense
and Mr.. stanchfeId' replied that Mr.
Laskey had made statements yester-
day In his opening statement. (which
II hope you will be able to complete
your opening statement in moderate
time" said Justice Siddons, where
upon Mr.. Stanchheld continued.
when Assistaat District Attorney
Archer interrupted and obje,ted to
statements being made by counsel.
Mr.: Stanchfeld later read the offidayit
which forms the basis of the trial. point
strued as the basis for the perjury
III the bank never did any stock
business with Lewis johnson a, Co.
then any records on the books Of that
company are necessarily erroneous" de-
clared Mr.. Stanchheid.
IT will appear that no officer Of the
bank ever intended to make those tran
snctions as bank Transaction. There
is no account on the bnoks Of the Rig Is
Lewis. johnson & &c. II the draft OF
this AFFIDAVIT had bcen that the bank
for itself had never bought or sold any
stocks. through Lewis, Johnson z Co.,
this itigatioa wafsld never have oc-
Quotes Untermeyer.
Mr. stanchfeld quoted Samuel Inter.
myer as saying during the trial Of the
civil suit instituted by the bank arsJps.
the Treasury officials that the bank
had never been speculating.
He quoted former Senator Bailey. who
appeared as counsel for the bank dur.
eehcess Of the bank never authorized
the bank"
Mrs. Stanchfieid declared that the af.
ndavit drafted by Frank Hogan was
meant to meet the charge In the civil
No' .he oanh az Dank pOuQht
and sold stocks through kewis johnson
Co. Mr.. Stanchfcid directed en-.
phasls throughout his staternlrts or
TIC, fact that there defendants as In.
divlduals do not deny that they Actes
as agents for patrons OF the be nix In
stock transactions. hut that they dc
deny that the bank ever engaged In !
stock brokerage business.
ne GoTernment viii spend the re-
mainder or the afternoon and a larg,
part or tomorrow's session in readins
lengthy pleadings and answers filed n
the equity suit cut OF which the per
jury charges are an outgrowth.