Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1824-06-22

June 18.--The COMMITTEE OF INyEsrIaA-
TON nave been engaged during the three last
days IN hearing the testimony Of various i'm
divlduals, whose connection with pubc affairs.
with banks, with the Treasury Department.
with the Post Office or intercourse with the
prosecutor, Mr.. Edwards, was supposed to
enable them To disclose any fact relevant 10
the investigation. Mr. Edwards himself has
been, within that time, much before the Com
mittee, answering Undergraduates or question:
ing witnesses. Amongst several other gentle
men examined within the last three DAYS, were
the Hon Mr.. Benton, of Missouri, Hon. Mr..
Noble, of Indiana, Hoe. Mr.. Cook OF Illinois.
and Mr.. Alb. Bradley, Assistant Postmaster
General We observed also before the Com
m!tee yesterday, one or two ladies'. whose
attendance had been required at the instance
OF Mr.. Edwards, but we did not learn the pur
port oil their testimony. The Committee
completed the examination Of all the witness
es yesterday, unless they shall grant the APP
phcation OF Mr.. Edwards TO request the al
tendance of the Hon. Rufus King, which we
understand is not probable so that the Report
may he anticipated in few days.
Expecting that all the material evidence
VIII he officially presented tn the Public. by
the Committee, at the close of its most labori
Gus and fstiguing duties, we shall avoid any
attempt, by partial representations, TO forestal
public opinion upon the subject Such odions
manenvies we leave To those prints whose
cause, or whose natural propensities, lead ,o
such course. fW
THE RECEIVERS LETTER.
we nave already stated that Ninian Ed
wards has confessed, 10 the Committee of In
vesi'Sat'on that he wrote the letter TO the Sc
creiary of the Treasury signed Lucy Ste
phenson )" and that he also wrote the letter
which he says Col. Stephenson sent to MIR.
Crawford with Edwards's publication in the
81 Louis Enquirer. Both Letters relate TO the
same SUBJECT :Darntly the Withholding ofpub-
TIC deposItes from the Bank of Edwardsye
Now, as Edwards wrote both letters
The one for the wife and the other for the hus
hand, how conrs il that, in Mrs. Stephenson's
ieuer' ne assigned one reason for Withholding
me depostes, and that. in Col Stephenson's
letter, he assigned another reason for the same
thing?
In The letter signed Lucy Stephenson" the
retention OF the public moneys is accounted for
by the necessity of having funds in hand 10
meet certain Indian expenses. In Col. Ste
phenson's letter (now, for the first time. pro-
duced ny Edwards) the uncertain condition
the Bank is alleged az the cause of withhold
ing 'ne moneys and Edioards ,croie 6oih
statements o"'
Col. Stephenson's absence in Ken,,ckv
could make no difference for il was Edwards
ana not The Colonel and his wife. who wrote
tne ieuersto the Secretary, and who knew all
the facts at the time he wrote the letter for
the lady as well as he did when he wrote The
.etter Tor the Colonel Edwards's psbIicatiop
~ me 81 Louis Enquirer was dated on the
i3ih September, 1919, and tie letter which
ne wrote for Mrs. Lucy Stephenson bears
GATE me 18th ofSepiember, 1915. Ofcourse,
Ihen Edwards offciated as letter writer for
me WE, he knew of his own determination to
resign as director Of the bank Just as well
as he did ~ the October following, when he
says he wrote The letter for the husband, and
urged HIM 10 enclose copy Of Edwards
publication in the St. Louis Enquirer TO the
Secretary.
But why all this maneuuriur on The ma;
Of Edwards? fIe had induced Mr.. CravGrd
10 MAKE dcposites in the bank of Edwsrds. |
vile. Why did be not write, himself fo a.,
Crawford,g 81 he had thought the hank uss.e,. ,
Why get Mrs. Stephenson and the Co,'s.,
to subscribe his letters If no fraud ,y." 81
tended by Edwards, why not, as he ,vro,a ~, y"
letters, sign bis own name 10 them I, - ~,
possible for him or any body else satisfsc,or- |
y 10 explain away This chiean4ry And 81, |
poly method Of nationally accouniior for II Il
'h'' edwards bed fraudulent desir. from