Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1824-05-18

tenor vi Inc Secfetary's letter OF the oo,t
April, 1890, which was produced bv h;i
rene wed remissnrss; This letter begins Tins
" On the first Of November last. Von '
instructed To pay into bank the whole NJ ere IRE
money in your hands on the S0th of ,h me
month, and not Ia retain the public mo n'at
IN your hands at the end Of each month ny
referring {" your monthly returns far ~
months at December, January, and Fehr,."e
It appears that The instruction has mn, h.!'
complied with, sum exceeding s1o oon
upon AN average, having been retained nv ~ vo
durins those months. As the bank in wL;"t
your depositrs hav" been directed to be mad
rs established in the place IN which your OFF,
is kept, the retention of the money. mr. a
part Of IT,, one day beyond the exSra;;o"
the month, is without any apparent excns.n
| After again repeating the directions for h;..
To deposiie, and remarkng upon some irr.a"
larity IN his returns, the Secretary coDcluda.
thus =" II is expected that all regulations sd
dressed TO public officers will be rromn,I,
complied with; and that, when. from any r;,
cumstance, this should be found impractic,
BILE, the cause Of Noncompliance shall no
communicated without delay"
III any instruction in relation TO his demo
sites had been given To the Receiver, since n.
order of the LIST of No, ember, that order wo", s
scarcely have been referred to alone. Ana r.
pt
by the Secretary, subsequent to the Isl Of
November, such as would have been afforded
by Nlr. Edwards's publication and ad,ic. IN.
order of the LIST of November would no, haya
been repeated and renewed as an order nm
satisfied aud unanswered. The style and
manner of this letter Of April 90 indicat. mn,
only that neglect had occurred, but tina, No
explanation had been offered for the nerlec,
Inc htcriyers answer confirms this Gun.
cius'on. The Receiver had found, by the
lttter OF the lsi of November. thai ."
lar Tue excuse offered by Mrs Stephen
son of retaining money To meet the In
dian payments, had been admitted. Rm,
when, la the month of April following, he w,s
called upon TO account for his subsrouer,
omissions of duty, omissions for which that
excuse would no longer avail, would he no,
IN justification of himself, havs naturally r.Cor
red 10 any and every letter that he had written
on the subject and, if 10 any such letter he
bad made om,runicaion of the kind alleged
ny Mr. Edwards, would he not, on this o.
CASTOR, have made some allusion TO il?
All these circumstances, cUrroboratipg earb
other SO fully, are not only lrreconciIahle with
the inference which Mr.. Edward draws from
Inc withholding of the deposites BY the Re.
criser, but they lead inevitably tn the concu-
SION, mat the alleged communication of bis
pnbiica'ion and advice, as a reason for with
h"'oing the drposites, was never made TO- or
received 10y the Secretary, and that no such
letter, as he alleges Ia have been written bv
the Secretary, WAS ever written in CONSEQUENCES
OF any such communication,
ihere Is. however, other testimony furnish.
eu ny thr Receiver and Mr.. Edwards them.
selves, which confira,s this conclusion,
Mr.. Edwards has stated. on oath that be
made The publication and had il speciallv com.
munlcaied tn the Secretary by The Receiver.
Tor The purpose OF aprrizing The Secretary Of
ms intention 10 withdraw from the Bank. and
ms determination 10 relieve himself from all
responsibility in regard to il, leaving the Sc
cretary 10 judge for himself, from the returns
which he required it TO MAKE. ofihe propriety
oi continuing II a depository of the public mo.
n'y = that, " according to the pledge which
b had given in his publication he resigned his
seat as director. And, though he was once
"'rcted to The same station since that time he
refused =" accept II, nor has he had any thing
I" do with the management of the Bank, since
the fall oi the year 1914"
lei, ~ the following winter, Mr.. Edwards
IL f"undipres-ntlng himsefto the Secretary. not
on'y In the character ola director of the Bank.
nut OF director, specially delegated and all.
th"fiZed by the Bank, To conclude an impor-
tani arrangement with the Secretary. in res.
pect 10 The terms on which the Bank W as to
continue depository of public money. By
HE rrinfrd papers accompanying the Spcre-
ta'ys report to the House, of the 9Th of
Apr'i, 1922, it appears that, on the 10th Of
february, 1890, MIR. Edwards being then in
washington, transmitted To the Secretary a
le'ier from the Bank 10 the Secretary, signed
ny this very Receiver as President Of the
Bank, containing list of the directors, for the
year 1920, In which Mr.. Edwards's name is
included that al the same time, he also trans-
nt'ed 10 the Secretary a letter from the
BANK, signed by the same Mr.. Stephenson,
informing The Secretary, that Mr. Edwards
one of the directors OF he instiin,iopns au-
thorlzed TO suggest certain notifications Of
ine contract between The Secretary and the
Bank, and 10 conclude such arrangements as
he may deem acceptable, e" IS hich " III be con-
s'defrd obligatory - and, he likewise trans
mltied, ut the same lime, letter from the
Bank addressed to himsrIf signed also by Mr.
Stephenson, staiiug tn him at large the changes
desired by the Bank, aud The REASONS therefor.
| Is this compatible with the impressions
which The statement contained in his tesii-
nony,is calculated To produce: Ifhc had ceased
10 he Il director, and publicly Withdrawn from
a'i concern IN The management of the bank, in
tie idlI 0i 1919" how was il that DR. Stephen
son, the Receiver, the President ofihe Bank
VINO, as well from his ogiciai situation as from
The Known friendship and Intimacy" Address,
page l4) which MIR. Edwards bias stated to
nave subsisted between them, may be- sup
posed to have known something of his con-
dnct and views in regard to the Bank should
so soon after Mr. Edwards public Withdrawal,
nave written To him, and constituted him in bis
character of director, the Representative of the
Bank, IN Hne gOilatiOD with the Secre,arV that