State Corporation Commission's Lax Enforcement of Banking Laws, Sept. 16, 1923

State Corporation Commission Flayed by Hanover Jurists. . . Grand Jury Report Refers to Cooper and Ruork Bank Indictments. . . Extremely Lax. . . Commission Laid Itself Liable to Criticism for Lax Banking Rules . . . First Report Denied. . . Was at First Reported That New Hanover Jury Had Returned Presentment Against Commission—Kellum Has Set Raleigh Officials Straight

By the Associated Press

Wilmington, N.C., Sept. 15—Severe criticism of the state corporation commission formed a part of the report of the New Hanover county grand jury returned here yesterday afternoon. The grand jury took occasion to censure the commission of alleged laxness in enforcing the banking laws of the state.

The report, referring to the indictments which had been brought against Thomas E. Cooper and J.C. Ruork, president and cashier respectively of the defunct Liberty bank, said that it was apparent that the commission had “been extremely lax in the performance of the duties imposed upon them under the banking laws of the 1921 session of the general assembly of North Carolina.”

The report further states that the commission members “have made themselves liable to severe criticism at least for condoning the irregular acts of the officers of the above mentioned banks and by permitting conditions to continue which they had power to correct.”

Judge Grady, after receiving the report, stated that he would see that a certified copy of it was sent to the commissioners at Raleigh.

-=-

Early Report Corrected

Raleigh, N.C., Sept. 15—New Hanover’s grand jury has not made presentment against the corporation commission, according to Solicitor Woodus Kellum of Wilmington, and the supplementary statement of the commission will not be made.

The members were on the point of making additional comment of Friday’s critixism of both Judge Grady and the grand jury when the telephone communication with Solicitor Kellum set the Raleigh officials straight. Mr. Kellum declared there had been no “presentment of the state officials, a legal terfm having very different meaning from that carried in the story of yesterday.

The commission is certain that it could have had nothing worse to answer than questions of discretion in the administration of banking laws. What the superior court could do with allegations of “laxness” the Raleigh men could not imagine, but they did not care to be written up as defendants in criminal court. The Kellum message seems to dispose of any such likelihood.

. . . .

From the front page of the Durham Morning Herald, Sunday, Sept. 16, 1923