Edwardsville spectator. [volume] (Edwardsville, Ill.) 1819-1826, 1822-08-03

flCn sDeClialot from Eldpin5 Al w W
yond his reach"
II, in speaking Of the Edwardsville Ia
mily, he intended to comprehend me, he
asserts malicious falsehood, and II he
intended to comprehend any ofmy con-
nexions living there, believe it equally
false and malicious. But | demand OF
Brutus to say, under his o7yn Eroher
name, who gave him this information
Who brought him this news from Wash
ington? This is matter not "already OF
public no,oriety" But Brutus is the
first of my calumniators who has made
the statement-and if the last spark OF
honor be not utterly extinguished in him,
he will redeem his own character by
stating who brought him this intorma-
ton, and how he got it from Washing
ton. Has Brutus seen a member oil
Congress who has thus stored him with
talus of aie,,a., .s,A malicious ieleehooA
If he has, demand his name--It is due
to met is due to Brutus-is is due to
the people Of the State, 10 drag from his
concealnent every such calumnlator and
deiamer, and expose him TO the Jnst re-
proaches OF an honest community.
Should Drutus refuse to give his name,
trust he will be viewed by The public
as | shall view hing midaigat asSas-
sin Of character.
|, In the fourth number of these essays,
he attacks ne for calling for Information
relative TO what are termed the RndUaiL-
able funds. In speaking of this subject
the writer too plainly shows the "rotten
speck in Denmark He shows that
" honesty" though he pirates so loudly
about it, encumbers neither his actions
nor sentiments. This subject was one
which Congress thought proper to inves-
tigate. EIGHT HUNDRED THOU
SAND Dollars of the money Of The
people, il was shown, was rendered use
less to the Treasury--as we were bor-
rowing money to support the govern
ment, 1 thought, (and SO did Congress
think, we should know something about
the cause Of so great loss--that we
should know something of what had be-
come of the money, already paid BY The
PEOPLE, into the Treasury. This money
when paid into the land Offices, by the
people, was good-it would have COM
nanded the specie-but arrangements
had been made between the banks, in
which the receivers were ordered to de-
posite it, and the Secretary of the Trea-
sury, (Mr. Crawiord) which enabled
them, in many instances, TO swindlc the
government, out Of it.--Hoqo thiS had
hahhened zVas the object Of my inquiry
but this honest, this patriotic, this moral
Brutus thinks that if there were fraud IN
this business, that it must have been
beneficial faud TO the people Of this sec
non Of the country, aud should not, there
fore, have been whispered by any mem
Der from this state. And is this the
morality of this noble Roman? Never
expose stealing if you can obtain share
of the stolen goods, would also, upon the
same principle, be the doctrine of Bru-
tus--'' shame where is thy blush !" But
ask how the people, of this country
were benefited by permitting the banks
to swindle the United States out of this
amount OF money--the sum OF eight hun
dyed thousand dollars which they had
already paid into the Treasury? Did ii
lessen their taxes No. Did ii not in
crease them Yes: for if that money
had been properly managed they would
have had 10 pay that much less in the
shape of taxes towards the support OF
government. This, then, is the manner
in which the people were " beneft'ed."
But Brutus has stated that tired Con-
gress on this subject, and that all OF the
members who expressed their opinions
censured me-" Is this true ? Let facts
speak for themselves. l offered one re-
solution calling for information on this
subject-the house adopted it, and the
secretary communicated his answer-but
it did not satisfy the house--l offered
second resolution-it was adopted, and
was also answered by the secretary--,his
did not give full satisfaction,-I then Of
fered third resolution, at the close of
the session, calling upon the secretary TO
lay full history of this matter before
Congress at the opening OF the next ses-
sion-this resolution was also unani-
mously adopted. III had been censured
for Offering the first, would the house
have passed three resolutions on the
same subject! No--they believed it
their duty to see what was done with the
money Of their constituents-and they,
therefore, thought these both necessary
and proper resolutions. But upon this
subject will not PREJUDICE the Secretary
of the Treasury. He is allowed till the
ne&t session Of Congress, to make his
report, and although | am assailed, thus
foully, by his friend, will not pronounce