The Washington times., 1916-05-31

------- =---------s----
charges OF conspiracy the opinion says
that the bill does not state sufiic ent
facts to constitute q cause of action
against the, Secretary for anything done
or threatened by him.
The power of the Controller to call for
special reports from the bank Is then
referred to. The law reads the Comp
troller could order reports whenever
the same In his Judgment is necessary
In order TO gain full and complete
knowledge of its condition"
The bank contendod that the section
meant the Comptroller might exercise
his Judgment as to the time when re-
ports sho.,ld be called for, but that the
law fixes the nature of the report. NThe
plaintiffs held that the report must be
only of the condition of the bank ana
not deal with the banks management"
The opinion upholds the Comptroller In
demanding reports as provided for in the
law.
The court then examined the specific
charges made against the Comptroller
and holds that the information called
for by him in each instance was such as
the statute permitted him to demand.
May Make Demand.
The contention of the plaintiff that
the bank is not required to furnish a
special report because the statute does
not say so In specific terms, is not up
held by the court. which ruled that
as the Comptroller was authorized to
make a demand a bank is obliged TO
comply with II.
Touching on the question OF imposing
q penalty for failure to so report, the
court finds that this action by the
Comptroller was sustained by the STU
preme Court of the United States in a
previous case.
The neNt point decided is that the
court refuses to undertake to enjoin the
Comptroller from refusing in the future
TO approve any obligation to have the
bank made n depository for the funds
of another bank.
TO grant any such relief" the opin-
ion says. would be nothing less than
to require the Comptroller to approve,
and there being no specific instance OF
an application pending, the request
amounts TO asking the court to compel
the Comptroller to approve any apni-
cation"
In passing on the assertion that the
Secretary of the Treasury is not the
proper person to pay interest on bonds.
but that the Treasurer Is. the court
holds that II Is for the Secretary to
construe the laws applicable to hts de-
pnrtment, and refuses to interfere with
the construction put upon the bank act
by the Secretary.
Comptroller be enJoined from future
violations of the law so far as his acts
might affect the plaintitt. the court
holds that no such Injunction can be
granted for the reason that court
will not stop an officer invested with
power to be exercised within his dis
erection.
"a general Injunction OF the kind
asked would be practically Incapable
OF enforcement because OF Its vague
ness" the court declared.
Hogan Is Gratified.
There is much in the decision graft
flying to naton,l banks" Attorney
Frank ]. Hogan said today after a
cursory examination OF the lengthy
opinion.
Mr.. Hogan with former Senator
Joseph Bailey represented the bank in
the civil suit.
THE action Of the bank in seeking re-
lief is upheld by the opinion" Mr..
Hogan continued. THE failure of the
Comptroller to comply with the law re-
lating to his own powers is pointed out.
The courts opinion denies the legality
Of the Comptrollers RICH. to assess pen
alties, provides for ar injunction against
him doing so and requires the payment
to the bank of the 5000 retained by
him.
We do not agree, of course, to Jus.
tee McCoy's construction OF the statut,
respecting special reports and should
~ become necessary we confidently ex.
pect the court of appeals to reverse thai
p;ruon OF the decision. 90
AT this time the future OF the case
corhot be prophesied. The hank is not
now being harassed AS at the lime Then
the bill was filed. II the 5000 be pH'd
AMI no efforts is made to assess other
penalties. II may be said that ne ltign-
ton VIII terminate speedily.