The Bottineau courant. (Bottineau, Bottineau County, N.D.) 1895-1929, 1920-06-10

i, qualified to examine banks. They ar,
I not selected for that purpose and hav'
10 knowledge. Of the banking business
; and are not trained in the business O
bank examinations. The persons VIII,
came to the Bank on October 9Th ad
mitted to employees Of the Bank tina
they knew nothing Of the banking
business and that they did not know
how to begin their work. The, manage
ment of the Bank had no knowledge
as to who these persons were Of
! whether or not they we're under bond.
| that would justify permitting thu
examination and, if they were under
bonds as employees Of the State Audi
tors office (Which office is not charg'
ed with the duty of examining banks
whether their bondsmen would have
been reliable in cas- they assumed
duties that were not within theil
scope of employment. The manage.
! ment of The Bank Of North Dakota
would have been liable for any short.
age that might have occurred in con
sequence of such intermeddling with
the affairs of the Bank by persons
having no authority so to do, Or fol
any defamatory statements injurious
to the customers Of the Bank that
might have been made public upon
said unauthorized examination. The
Bank of North Dakota is subject tc
full liability where it divulges conf
Dental relations Of it's customers.
The State Auditor never showed
any disposition to audit the Bank, and
as a matter of fact, never intended to
examine The Bank but to wreck it,
The State Auditor had no reason for
believing there was anything wrong
with The Bank of North Dakota. Fur
thermore, he vas not concerned as to
whether or not there was anything
wrong. His only concern was to wreck
the bank, if possible, and thus discred-
it the administration and the only
manner in which he could do so was
to go through a semblance of an ex-
animation as a basis for such false
statements as he might make, we'll
knowing that he had no right, under
the law, to make such an examination.
Hc we'll knew that he would not be
permitted to bring a crew of ire
sponsible persons to muss up the af-
fairs of the Bank, therefore he chose
a time to much such an attempt when
he knew that none Of the management
of the Bank were present, well know
ing that as soon as they were apprised
of the fact, he would be elected from
the premises forthwith. He was not
looking for ver%ifcation of accounts
but was trying to discover if he could
find something for political propa-
ganda. Upon his half days examina-
ton of the Bank, The Bismarck Tri-
bune published a report that he had
found in the Bank, a note made by j.
I. Cahill. There vas no such note.
The fact that a bank at Leith had re-
discounted with The Bank Of North
Dakota and that the Bank was car
rying the Farmers Elevators note
supported by warehouse receipts, I'M
der the law, on which ]. l. Cahilps
name appeared as an officer Of the
corporation, was to him a sufficient
excuse to circulate the statement that
J. 1. Cahill's note was in the bank,
thereby trying to create the erroneous
impression that only League adherents
could borrow from the Bank. How
eve we know of no good reason why
we should refuse to take Mr.. CahilPs
note coming to US in the due course of
business under the law. But, as a
matter Of fact, the State Auditor did
not find this note in the Bank for the
very simple reason that it was not
there. This proves conclusively that
the purpose of the so-called examina-
ton was not to check the assets but
to discredit the Bank, through mis-
of fact.
On being elected from the Bank, the
State Auditor appealed to the Attor-
ney General for assistance and man.
damus proceedings were brought in
district court before his Honor, Judge
Nu0SSlo, w COllpCl Vic cAAo6SAAS
the Bank to submit to an examina-
ton. By an order to show cause,
Judge Nuessle held that the law gave
the State Auditor no authority to
examine The Bank of North Dakota
which decision was later sustained by
the State Supreme Court. Mr.. Lang
err now contends that, if he is elected
Governor and a State Supreme Court.
is elected that will do his bidding,
these decisions will be reversed. AS
a matter of fact, neither Judge Nues-
sic nor Judge Christianson can, by
INV stretch of imagination, be called
Nonpartisans, yet both of them main
tanned that the State Auditor had no
right to examine The Bank of North
Dakota.
Had the State Auditor showed any
disposition to be honest in his check
ing of the assets of the Bank, he pos
sibly might have been permitted to
continue his examination, not that ne
had any legal right to examine the
Bank, but simply for the reason that