Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1824-07-23
[Vor. L. No. So.

ms point, also eq,ivolsi. Thc-papcr ~ lo,,J
~ tne uePencnt on the flies of o.lci.I le;te, $
arPertain ns to, and noe an, the Re. civ, RS Of
nee al Eawardsvi'e aud cndo, scd on Sled IN the
'.., n"ii'hS OF the Receiver of Public Mon. y.
Is ioiiows: Copy 10 In, Treasury De,,"rt,,,e,.t
Cct. 1919" No punsh,nr nj con a be ;nt,;c,.d
ior this statement IS !alsa iftlc D. peri. no; an
dolscd; provided the alternative I att i. fi.d 10
true II IS filed if tie paper was eac.oscs +,
a.. separate envelope with the worls supor, il IL,
'nI necci'ers hand writing, but, /: the Rec ely
err baild WrItingIs not or the paper itser ti,n
ony presumption in its favor arises f,o,n lis b,;ur
the Office '" "''
itS nor necessary 10 pursue this inquiry fur
,her. The Secretary OF The Treasury ,,ouii
nave no knowiedge of the conN ersa,ion or the
ac.s oil Mr.. Edwards and Mr.. Stephenson II,
Edwaidsvlile III 1919, nor has l,e expressed OIL;
'"er oe'iei or opinion respecting them. What
was onciaily known to him he las communities
tea. For the correctness OF that know le,l,-e on
~, Is he solicitOus. Nor would this scrutiny in
10 inc circumstances of the paper dated l2ii of
October, 1919, he made if MIR. Edwards hal
coh,chted himself with the production of il in
explanation OF his oath Of 1923, and his iustif
cation OF that part of il which dcpeudcd upon
ms own knowledge. II is, however, now pro-
uuccd as prcsumptive evidence that the copy nf
1t was received by the Secretary; and Mr.. Ed
wards sought for the answer in the Office of the
:, ilu mas now sworn that he believes
inc letter OF the Secretary. of the ST of No.
Vember, 1879 is the letter written after the re-
ception OF that of the 18th Of October, to di-
rect inc Recciver 10 continue the dcposites in
the Bank of Edwar,lsvillc. The letter of the
LIST OF November makes no ahision TO such let
ter; 1t is not n DIRECTION TO continue depnsites
IL Is the determination of the Secretary that the
course allcdgcd in the letter of Lucy Stan,,en-
son OF the 18th Of September, W f.h letter it
now appears was also the work of Mr.. Edwards,
for the detention Of the public moneys in the
hands OF the Receivers, did net aut!.o :izc that
detention.
Since Mr.. Edwards has produced the paper
PurportinS 10 be dated the 18th October
1919, 1t has been shown that it was irrpossibIa
That the letter of the LIST of November should
have been the answer to it or written IL cor
sequence OF IT. BY the mail arrangements OF
1919, prevailing until the 10th Of Nuvcnber of
that year as shewn by the testimony of Mr.
Beadley before the committee, 1t required tycn-
" days to transmit a letter from Washington 10
lIdwardsville, and longer time to transmit A
letter from Edwardsvllc tn " ashirpton Tho
original accounts Of the Postmaster of Edwards
vIlie taken from The Comptrolcr's Office and
of which an extract is before the committee
shew that no man left Edwardsvilie for Wash
ington, from the gthof October until the .6,h
OF that month. More than twenty DAYS from
the 10th of October reaches beyond Tie III, O,
November. The letter of the ST of November
was, therefore, written before il was nossib,e
!or the letter OF tile 9th October 1919 If such
! had been written at EdwarlsvilIc, 70 reach
| W Washington. Admitting the i,nposslbi, that
this should be otherwise, Mr.. Edwards seeks
to AVOID the effect Of this admission BY dec!ar-
ing on oath, his belief that the letter OF the Isl
| November was not written before chat OF the
i2th OF October was received. Either there
fore, the letter was fra5l;iulcntiy antcdafeJ or
retained until the arrival of that document
10 lind colourabie pretcxt for TINS belief, My
Edwards, as The Committee wit rccoIIart
turned TO the original letter of thc Secretary -
the Treasury of the lst Of November, 10 Inc
Cashier of the Bank Of Edwarlsvisla, byorol.t
by Mr.. Edwards from that place, which en-
closed copy Of the lut,cr Of the same date In
the Receiver, in order to ascertain the most
mark upon it; and succeeded in parsuadino
himself thai there the figure g in ne post
mark a Clerk of the Post Office, Nj. Sqe6,
ny, was sent by one of the committee, NJ
Taylor, but Dir. Edwards declined examining
iilrn' MIR. Swceny, however, was examined;
and the post-inark was ascertaineJ 10 be The
Sd OF a month which could not be distineuisi,cd
THIS post mark, If of November, was on the
original letter before the letter of the Ell. ..f
October could have reached Washington On
the 9th OF June, after dciberation OF tirce
days. Mr.. Edwards amended his own tcsnn.
ny, and then declared that il was possible tl,
letter of the 18th of October might i,aye ar
riVcu mere III time TO De answered. by one OF tie
Ist Of November, because it might have been
carried by private convayancc 10 Louisville,
from whence il could have been brought hy
mail within the required time. In making tbs
amendment TO his former answer, Mr. Edwards
appears to have forgotten how nue., he had prc,
vIousy said of the safety Of the mail! AMI the
improbabty that any thing committed 10 if
should have niscarrtcI; and tliat Mr.. Stcpfen-
son could not have felt 50 much anxiety 10 dis,
patch paper, which il had required MIR. FL
wards influence to- prevail on him 10 write. as
to seek unusual means Of hurrSjug il on bv a
mode Of conveyance never before or fer us.i
by hi;r for the conveyance %? ms official letters
to the Department.
Mr.. Edwards. has asserted that Mr.. Cray.
iprd's letter of the 2ON OF April, 1890 was pos
Sibiy the answer to the one Of the I2fh Of Dct,.
Der, 1919. In InaiSing ibis assertion ON oath
Mr.. Edwards has IOt rccoi.cctci tho Stress he
Hays Upon the circumstance Of the dcpositcs
having been withheld I'll fir s;lsi Of Decctr,ber
! 1919: proof that nc advised the Receiver 10
/ withhold tue depO7tc-; evidence that the
| Receiver did write % ir. Crawford the letter
! 0f tie 2th Of October, aud that letter was
answerc,; that, jn consequences u a.st ..,, =
/ Use large sun OF G1J,i9f, wa la.@ iuto Tho
/ Bank. IN laying tjs stress upuu 0l7 'iuholJ.
| ing %. the icIypeitcs, rs cyidencc That Gi- .5ie,
I Phcuson was acting by tiis advice. BE had for
! gotten that he knew (iavn@ wilton Lucy ste
| that thc dcposiies had been withheld for months
that withholding i nftsrvarls considered as sat
isfactofy proof F'itho'h weighing tie inee.
NOUS suppoJitoas made Under oath. founded
tr,