The Washington times., 1921-02-22

consideration for t.. General Ansell
.rsued. IL can be Withdrawn mo-
mentarily he stated, and the Secre-
tary In his answer has admitted that
II was within his power To Withdraw
any OF the credits whenever he sees
nj TO do so, and has admitted also
that hs is under no obligation TO ad-
vance the cash TO the extent OF the
credit.
CLiNCHEs HEAsI's RIGHTS.
1t is established law that a mu-
nicipsl ofhcial and state official
however high. can be entoined from
taking action beyond the scope OF
their statutory authority. General
Anseil said. The Supreme Court OF
the United States had never refused
TO entertain a suit by a taxpayer to
prevent a Federal ofncial from un-
lawful disposing Of the money or
property OF the United States, and he
believed that that court never would
He pointed out that upon reason
and principle Federal official Is as
much subject to the restraining
processes OF the Federal court as a
state official Is subject TO the juris-
diction OF State court, and that a
taxpayer has all the interest that is
required to restrain an executive ofh-
usurpation OF authority TO the injury
OF the public. and that there was no
authority for requiring him TO prove
any special injury. IL taxpayer
cannot sue to restrain a misappro-
priation of public funds and property,
Then nobody can, and an executive OF
fcer, even IL the facts OF his mis-
application OF public money were ad-
mitted, would be quite beyond the
law.
DEFINES CONDITIONS.
General Ansell in presenting the
contention that the Secretary OF the
Treasury is devoid of all power at the
present time to make any loans or
cash advances to any OF the foreign
governments that were at one time
engaged in war either with Germany
or Austria, analysed all the Liberty
ioa: acts and said that they showed
clearly that three things had TO exist
in order TO establish the Secretary's
authority:
G) That the country receiving the
loan must at the time OF receiving IL
be engaged in war with an enemy of
the United States;
(2) That the United States itself
must at that time be engaged in war
with Germany; and
(3) That the purpose OF the loan
was to assist in the prosecution of
actual war.
The facts as established show that
only one OF these three existed tech
nically. he said. and that is that we
are still at war with the German
empire: that every nation to which it
is proposed to make these loans has
long since entered into treaties of
peace with both Austria and Ger
many: and that any loan now made
was obviously not for the purpose OF
prosecuting the war nor securing our
national safety and defense, but, on
the other hand. such loans were ad-
mitted to be for the purpose of re-
storing and rehabilitating those ma
tions now at peace.
The legislative history OF the
statute, General Ansell said. showed
Just as explicitly as does the language
that these conditions had to be COM
piled with at the time Of making any
loan. The very clauses relied upon
by the Government as justifying
war loan at this time when the ma
tions receiving the loan are at peace
with our enemies were written into
the statute by amendment and ac-
cepted by the Committee on Ways and
Mans on the floor Of the House OF
Representatives for the express pur-
pose of prohibiting just what the Sec
retary of the Treasury now contends
he may do and will do.
NO COLLATERAL FOR CREDIT.
1t was pointed out that no obliga-
tion or security of any kind had been
received from any foreign govern
ment for the establishment of the
paper credit, and that any such credit
was a mere administrative matter and
did not become an obligation nor an
exercise of legal authority until the
money was advanced or the obligation
received therefor. General Ansell said
that the authority conferred by tho
statute was conjunctive, it being to
establish credits and to the extent
thereof to make cash advances. clearly
implying that both were a unit of au-
thority. and that the mere establish
ment of the paper credit implied 10
obligation until the cash was ad-
vanced or consideration was re-
ceived therefor.
He pointed out the absurdity of
contending that moneys that are ad-
vanced now and arc about to be ad-
vanced to nations which fired the last
gun against our enemy two and one
half years ago, and which entered
them more than year ago. could be
for the purpose of our national Sc
curity and defense by waging war
against one of our enemies.
In reply to Mr.. Laskey's statement
that Mr.. Hcarst's last injunction here
against a Government official occa
stoned loss to the Government of
Sc5,000. 900, the reference being to the
Injunction whereby the Shipping
Board was restrained from selling
the eN-German ships. General Ansell
retorted that Mr.. Laskey could not
intend that as a statement of fact.
because no such fact existed. and
then added, what Mr.. Hearst did ac-
complish was to prevent a large part
of our merchant fleet passing for an
utterly inadequate sum into tho hands
OF corporation that Is controlled by
Great Britain, our one great compcti-
tor on tho sea.
Kills Father and Brothers.