Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1824-07-16
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA, FRIDAY, JULY 16, 1924


could this "iist" have been intended And what
else could have induced him to send il to the
Rcccivera at Edwardsvillcl
Further confederation of his having received
| the letter IN question, is furnished By the cir
cumstances OF his having, ON the same day that
ne wrote to the Receiver at Edwardsyille, writ
ten on the same subject to both the Receiver Mt
haskasikia, and the Cashier of the Bank of Ed
wardsvilie, giving to the former particular ia
strucc - about making his deposites; and en-
closing 20 the latter copy of letter .bat be
represen s himselfto have written to both these
receivers from which it appears that he ordered
them to deposite all the public moneys which
they should receive, after the last day of the
month IN which he wrote-not an the Banh Of
Ed,oa'dsriHe, but in the Bank of Missouri, ,n-
I'll otherwise directed. (See No. 6.)
considering the circumstances disclosed by
nir. Crawford, in regard to the Withholding OF
the dePosites by those two Receivers; it is not
to be presumed that either of them would have
been guilty Of any unnecessary delay in ma.
king the deposites after the receipt of is letters
to them of the LIST November, 1919; and, ifthese
letters, which purport TO have been written at
that time, were promptly transmitted by mail,
according to their respective destinations, it is
| inexpilcable that the Receiver at Edwarlsyilie,
| who resided within about two hundred Yards of
the bank, of which he was also the President,
should not have deposited ssthe whole of the mo-
ney IN his possession on the 3Oth November >,
before the 31st December; and, that the Re.
ceiyer at Kaskaskia should not have made his
dePoslte till Sd January following. Mr.. Craw-
ford admits that the former did not receive his
| letter till sometime in the month of December.
but at what time in that month, is not stated.
nor how tho fact was ascertained, or is ascer.
tainable, lsee his communication page 6.) Such
delays as must have interviewed between the
| date and receipt Of those letters, at season of
the year whent the mail is liable to so little OBJ
struction, affords neutrality-suspicious., in which,
for the present, forbear to indulge.
But would ask, what, but the letter of the
Receiver at EdwardsvlIe of the 18th of Octo-
Der, could have startled Mr.. Crawford into all
tins hurry of writing, and sudden change of the
place ofdeposite; and, at the same time, account
for the subsequent hesitation that seems TO be
fairly inferrible from those otherwise unaccoun-
table delayss As that letter was well calcula-
ted to produce such results, and nothing else ap-
pears to account for them, it cannot be unrea-
sonable to refer them to that cause.
He attempts, to avoid the Inference of his bav.
ing received this letter, and my publication, BY
stating s'that if they had been known to him
they would naturally have been alluded to or
| such an occasion" as that of writing to these
Receivers: in other words, that the recent O
thera would have been acknowledged by him
But he admits the receipt of the letters of MIR
Stephenson. and the Receiver at Kaskasbia O
the 18th September, 1910, and attaches mucl
importance to them in his communication We
though it would have been just rs ssnatura
that he should have alluded to them, as to th,
letter of the Receiver of the 18th October, h;
is as silent as to either ofthcm, as lie is to thc
latter, or as he was to that part of the letter O
| the President ofthe Bank of Missouri, of the
9th August, 1919, which gives such an ALARMING
N pf l.r,o,
not having noticed the letter in question in apy
ofhis subsequent communications, therefore
furnishes no evidence to rebut the strong pre.
sumption, that l have relied upon, to prove
| that he must have received it.
Letus then briefly inquire, whether his let
| ter of the 1st November could have been writ.
ten on the grounds upon which it processes to
have been written.
| He processes to have been induced to write it.
from an inspection and examination of the
| monthly accounts of those Receivers, and com.
| mences 1T in the following words. viz -ssUpon
referring to your monthly accounts, it appears
| that you have retained all the money which
has been received by you since the month of
august last" Now, moments reflection is all
that can be necessary to convince you that
there could not have been at Washington.
on the 1st November, more than one month.
| D account of moneys received after the
month OF August preceding. And, if he had re
ally referred to their monthly accounts he would
have perceived that the Receiver at Kaskaskis
had retained, in his hands, all the money re-
ccived by him after the 18th May, and the Re
ceiyer at Edwardsvile had made no deposit,
since the 1st day of the preceding July-cir
cumstances, which it is extremely improbable
he would have overlooked, or neglected to add
vert to I'D his letter, unless, indeed, there wa
some peculiarly in these cases that defcs al
skill in guessing, which rendered it more ex
cusable in these officers to have retained On,
part of the public money than another.
But, if something more than meets the ey,
was not intended, why was his letter to tn;
| Bank of Edwardsvillc, of 1st November, 13I 0
together with its enclosure on the subject O
those very deposites, suppressed, Their omis
sion concealed fact which affords q very
strong presumption that he bad received the
letter Of the Receiver at Edwardsvie of tiie
18th October; and il is rendered less probable
that they were withheld through inadyertenct
or forgetfulness, from the circumstance of my
having called his attention to the subject by IN,
just about tie time he made the report tina
ought to have contained them.
This letter, though at last brought out upor
the third call upon Mr.. Crawford for hi:
correspondence with the Banks, and accompa
nying the report that was intended TO affect ms
so injuriously, is still given in such manner
as not only to conceal the true state Of the case
but to produce impression directly con
| trary to the fact, by emitting to conmuni
cate its enclosure, which is so referred TO a
| necessarily to make ii part ofthe letter; ant
tins impression would probably never have beer