The Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1822-1829, 1824-06-01
Erom khc Hichmond WAir.

from the HtchmOHd ~ Ing.
Mr. CRAWFORD AND MR.. EDN ARDS
Mr. Livingston from the select commit
tee on Edwards memorial, reported on
Tuesday. The annexed resolutions repor-
'ed by the c"mmittee, explain the conciu-
SONS to which they had come on the
charges. 1t Is said that the committee
WAS unanimous in their adoption. The
report was printed. Mr.. Forsyth mo%ed
to send ii copy To tie Presideut-and III.
Livingston that the committee have leave
to prosecute the investigation during the
recess. Both resolutions were for that day
laid 0n the table.
We believe that every liberal man IS pre-
parcd to congratulate Mr.. Crawford, on
tins honorable result of cong essonaI en-
curry into his official conduct: If Mr.. Ran.
doIphs' conjecture, that the charges Of
Edwards, We're lnstigatIgated by con
s1iracy, be- true, tins c6ngratulation ought
10 be the warmer and heartler. If VT do
not desire To STE Mr.. Crawford President,
wrshouId he still more unwilling to see
him the victim Of base and mid night con
yplratOrs.
The import of Mr. Forsyth's resolution,
+ to send copy ofthe Report to the Press
/ DENT is obvious. Whilst the course would
seem to rs as irregular, in indirectly IN
forcing the President to do that, which
tne Constitution has left entirely dscre
uonary with him, we hope and believe
Il That he Will 80 far respect public opinion,
Il as to revoke the appointment OF Anlan
Edwards
Referring to what has been said in the
introduction to his report, and repeating
That Mr. EdHadrs has not had an oiportu
my of supporting his charges 10y his pre-
stuce aud testimony, the result Of tn" facts
which have appeared to the committee,
TINS far in this investigation, and of Their
dpdlctious from thrm, when applied To
T." reraptulatlon Of eh'rgcs, as stated at
tc cad Of address, is
First, That the e. dence referred to, and
examined, does not support the charge Of
ha,us rismauased the public funds.
/ Second, That the nncurent notes, men
tpIri III the second charge, appear, by
| Evidence satisfactory 10 the committee, to
n'r hcrn received aud deposited by the
Public Receivers, at Time when they
/ ere rectipable under the resolution Of
Congress Ut 1919 that, in the principal
Csc, that OF the Bank OF Missouri, the
LoE did not NIKE itself responsible fer
ria notes rs cash, and, therefore, the
4 Secretary was bound 70 receive them from
We Bank; that. although the Banks OF
-0mbcckbee and EdWards,liIe Were
hh to account for such dopoolte5, as
csh, if the construction which the com
4 Hliee gives L. Their contracts be cufrect,
4 !t th,t both the secretary and the Banks
/ pressed a different opinion a5 10 the
u' aiming Of those contracts; and that the
Secretary, IL recel'Hg $4,000 from thr
o9p, and $4,000 lto0u the other OF those
Banks, appears IL cave acted according 10
what he supposed 10 b. the rights of the
parties, aud With Il proper regard to the
n.ncst Of the United States, under the
circumstances which thrn existed,
Ihrd, That uo Intentional misstate
hrHt has been made u the House Of the
amount OF uncuuent bills received from
TIE Banks, although Il sum of $40 OF
Ngn ddIS Wis omitted through mistake.
Fourth, That, although the Secretary
"ay have mlsconstrued In" effect OF some
"' The contracts with the Banks tn the eX
4 ii beiprc mentioned, the committee find
grounds for the charge that he has mis-
II represented them, inasn uCh AS the con
acts themselves were submitted with his
4 port u the House.
rum, That the Secretary did omit to
'Nnuulcale to Congress the reasons
4 'D'"h led him To direct the drposlte Of
''Nc moneys IN the ,hree local Backs ct