Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1824-07-09

n. IL.
Z. How came he to say any thing about Tia,
A. B. plot !?
a. called upon MIR. Edwards for the pur
! pose OF procuring recommendations to the diff
ferent Secretaries of the Departments with Z
view TO obtain far myself Il clcrlSstip. II,
stated that he was intimately acquainted witt
all OF them, and could give letters to all of them
except My. Crawford, and 4 letter to him ..ould
DO no good for, Ito use his own expressions that
he and Mr. Crawford g did not set horses togo
ther; )" that Mr.. Crawford was under a belief
That he was the author of the ID A. B. plot,
the authorship of which he disavowed; and he
concluded by saying that he considered Mr..
Crawford very clever and honorable man.
q. by Mr.. Cook. Are you certain that MIR.
Edwards, in speaking of an a. b. plot, did not
say that he knew nothing of any plot?
~. have correctly stated tue conversation
as it occurred.
c. II. w. WHARTON.
JOHN S. Barbour, oCMc House of Reoresenh,-
Tres s'co'7i, al The request Of -Ur. Ed,rards.
a. by 0lr. Cook. Have you had any CONVEX
sation with MIR. Noble ON the subject of a con-
Yersaiion held between him and Mr.. Edwards.
relative 10 the authorship of the a. b. publica
tons! If SO, please to state what that CONVERSE
ton was.
a. will relate the circumstances underwl,ic
such conversations were held. Shortly after Che
communication of the address ofGoy Edwards
read, with two members of the Kentucky de-
legation, 4 letter printed in the Richmond En-
quircr. in which Gov. Il. is said to have dcclar-
ed to Fir. Noble that he was not the author of
those publications signed a. Z. and. i'm consc
quence of such disayowal Mr.. Noble .ad voted
to confirm his appointment in the Senate / felt
anxious to know whether such disayowal had
been made for such purpose. Under the intlu.
cpce OF that anxiety met with General Noble
III this capitol, and heard him say that such was
not the fact; that Gov. E. had disivowe,l tho
authorship of those publications but it had no
connection with his vote, as he was his friend &.
should have voted for the confirmation OF his an
pointment in any event.
Q. Did Gen. Noble say, at that Time tb,t
he did not believe that disavowaI was intended
to have any effect upon the nomination of Gov.
Edwards /?
A. All that know Of it is embodied in my
answer to the first interrogatory.
Q. Have you had any conversation with Mr..
Eihrns Oh the same subject ifso, please state
WHIT 1T was, and whcns
"A. think at some period of time. shortly
after the Address of Gov. Edwards was present.
Ell to the House, and aflerthc publication IN the
Enquirer, to which have alluded, .ar Elkins
informed me In conversation, sought bv himself
that he had heard Gov. f. incidentally rcrnarl,
upon reading this article, in the Enquirer. in
which he is spoken of as &c Ninian Edwards of
II. u. plot memory" that he was no more tue
author o! that plot than the Editor of the f,nq
rer-l speak with moic prcciseness of the con-
versation with MIR. Ell1ins than of that with
Gen. Noble.
JNO. s. BARBOUR.
Thomas II. Bcatoa, Of tie Senate, sro,,,, on
tie part Of Mr.. Crawford.
Question by Mr.. Forsyth. Were you not
well acquainted with the connection of A1r. Ed
wards with the Edwardsville Bank
Il. From general report only. never did
any business with him liz that character.
Q. Do you know that he made efforts, from
the establishment of the institution till its failure
to keep up its credit with the public
II. What know personally is the puolica-
ton in the st. Louis Enquirer, of which was
an editor.
Do you know whettcr the statements in thai
publication are correct? 4
ITO this question Mr.. Cook objected. The
committee decided that ii might be putt
q. [ very well remember my opinion at the
time that the publication was made. 1t was
that the publication would give credit to the
bank, to which it was not entitled. In confor-
nifty with that opinion, and from no other mo-
tive than to corntervail the effect of that publ
cation, | wrote an tclc, which was published
either Ill the same paper, or in one next sue
cccding, but think the same in which gave
some OF the reasons which induced me to believe
that the Bank was not entitled to the credit
which Mfr. T.. gave to it in his publication i
have not seen that article since, but the facts &
circumstances rest upon my mind, and am
still of the opinion that / then was.
Q. What were the facts on which this opi-
Mon was formcde
"A. The first was one leading fact, which
had from general report, that majority of the
stock was held by two or three stockholders
who were persons of little or no property. The
stockholders to whom alluIe were .Mr. Eo-
bert Latham and Gen. Pawn, ths latter of whom
was reputed TO cover stock for the .Ucssrs.
johnson, OF Kentucky, Mr.. Latham was gene
rally reported to be the insolvent partner of
firm in Kentucky-I think either Latham 6,
Broadhcad, or Latham 81 .1forebcad and that
he was insoYent am certain, having been en-
ployd as lawyer to collect debts from him.
The .nessrs. Johnson were generally rcputed
to be in bad pecuniary circumstances. The
stockholders having majority of the stock,
coull change the Directors at any election
This circumstance deprived the bank of credit
in my eyes. .4nothcr circumstance which made
me believe that the publication of Mr.. Edwards
would give the Bank q credit which was not
due to il, was its silence upon points necessary
to te known, such the pecuDiary stability of
several of the Directors. Mr.. Smith, one ofthe
Directors, OF whom high character is given in
that publication, was generally reputed TO be
without property, or very recently insOlvcnt.
DIR. Joseph Bowers, of whom n high character
is also given, was a Spectator lately arrived in
the country, claiming and talking of much pro-
pcrty, but, as was believed, without solid foun-
dation. The other directors, with the except
on Of two orthrce, were generally rcputed town
biz. litfIc nroDertv & 10 hold q minority ofTfIe