Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1824-07-30

".
In 1928, Mr.. Edwarls declared, on o."s, Ia the
Con'mii,ec OF Congress, that he very match SUI
priced THAI this correspondence tmraui'g tie alleged
letter OF Mr.. Siephensou, Of 10 h y .su,cr aud he
alleged answer was not communicates, iy ;i.s o. C.
Rotary, under resolutions of the House ~; krpresrr
ta,iyes, Of the OH January aud l2 ii March, 1872,
calling Tor CERTAIN cosrespondence beweea the lrea-
suTy Department aud sundiy banks.
la his address to the House, Of the 9Th OF April
Lass, he sayss 90 Believing, AS call my God wit
nsss sincerely and confdcpiy do, that Nj. Craw-
ford did receive the letter a. al in The above
port, and a; i, is in his possession, has been
purposely destroyed" Ia the same address, he IN
fers that, II this letter was not answered, Mr. Claw
ford being Tor some or other unwilling TO
knowledge the receipt OF con,riveJ TO give the
directions Ito continue the deposiies under some
other form IN eicxt than thai OF direct answer 10
ln.)
In his replication, presented to the Committee
siuce the adjournment of Congress, whole pages are
occupied lay argument tn show that The alleged let
ter oil the 18th October was seat, was received, and
WAS answered All the officers in the Secretaty's
office were called, as Witnesses, to iroye that the
letter had been received ia 1919, or had been found
si"ce the Sscretary's report, OF 22'i March, 1924
and that the Secretary had purposely DELAYED maxi
ing thai report until Mr. Edwards was about to leave
Washington. la all OF which, the testimony adducrd
was conclusive, thaA nei;her the charge itself, nor
e,,ber 0t The incidents alleged in aggriva;icu Of IL
by MIR. Edwards, WAS trse.
Mr.. Edwards argues, too, in his replication, that
The Edwardsville RECEIVERS leiier ought, according
to MI. Crawiords own view OF the subject, To have
,iyes, under The before mentioned resolutions, be-
cause one other Receivers lc,ier (iae Receiver at
81. Louis) had been communicated with his report OF
the -, omitiing to remen,ber that this was
communicated under a call requiring all the cores
pondencs IN relation 10 The aux OF Mssouri, which
made his duly transmit all letters ing thu
bank, from whomsoeyer received
In his testimony now taken beurc The committee
Mt Edwards declares he believes that in 1919, the
Secretary might have conceived tie idea of conceal.
ing the letter Of Alr SiephensOu IL il had been re-
| ..nIf
Bank OF Edwatdsvi!e afterwards faded, an even,
which, although he did not anticipate, he might have
unprecedented In the same testimony, when COM
PEELED to admit that letter cou! moi have arrived
by mail, from the 10Th OF Octobe, To the l., of No
vember 1919, he added To tina, admission, an insu-
uaiion, oath, that the letter Of The Secretary was
aniedaed, or retained, until The arrival OF the alleg-
ed letter OF the iSh Oct. 1919. Afer The tesimon,
otMr Sweeny was gwen, instead Of Discovering Ih,s
ins'nuaion, he was silent, and, three DAYS aile,-
wards, adds to that part OF his testimony, that om
which might lie inferred that the letter Of the 2h
OF October sent by pivaie coavoyaGce TO Louis
| Silie and thence, 10y mail, TO Washington.
All these decla' aiions, and The publication of Mr.
Edwards, Al Louisville, in whic., he ASSERTS that he
has the esstlbe proof that the Receiver a,
Edwafds,i'le did write the letter mentioned in his
examination, anu that MIR. Crawford d,d wife let
Ter 10 The hees"ef, directing han TO continue The de-
posites in the Bank Of Edwardsviie make il neces-
saiy that II should he distinctly brought before the
committee Thai MIR. Edwards ia Il. r. rent parts of
hls testimony, comrades himself tha, his cs,imony
I
the present committee that his state lnen,s IN ms
addresses to the House, and IN his addresses To ,he
committee are contradictory TO each other that ms
statements now given GU oath, shew that The n,pies
sions which his av16ssses. were intended 10 make
were AS he knew, an founded that lac voluntarily
declared, inihe m6st cmphaiIc nanaer, 10 different
pe.soa, .h. ne was nor the author Of various putin:
Cations against the Secretary, which he uow ack-
nowledses 10 have written and, finally that he was
Us admitted by himself, a party To maieiai shera-,
ton i" paper, producedby himself, pu,porng 10 be
\ "A nv n "a rIufs.
Receivers Office, al Eiwaidsviie /; an alteration.
the obvious effect Of which was 10 deceive The com,
nee and The public, the character OF Tue III
Snai, from which The copy was taken.
s therefore, respectfully snbninied, that moth
inS affecting the Secretary, and depe ndng upou lie
oath oil Mr. Edwards, can he taken as proved.
Hon. JoHS FLOYD, Chairman, &c b
Unptepared, NJ present, 10 dsi.uJ nsysclr apans,
the testimony Of the Hon. MIR. No,r, by which /
have been perfectly surprzed, have been compelled
| 10 lock TO future period for tist purpose. Lest
however, some erroneous differences 10 my prejudice
may he drawn ironi the want OF formal defence on
this subject before The Conmiee, do most solemn
ly declare, before God and my county, that, m the
conversation which MIR Noble states 10 have passed
between him and myself, whensoeyer ~ wheresoe-
yer any part OF II may have happened, he must, Al,
least, have greatly misunderstood me- both IN regard
10 tie A. b. publications., and 10 Mr.. Crawford /; and
that, II the conversation, alluded Ia, ANY pa.t OF il,
happened, ms be says it did, in his own room il nst
have been alter my nomination was Confirmed Ivy III
Senate.
II will be recoec,ed that Mr. Noble d,sc,,u,;uy
all party considerations, had pfofessed TO lie my
friend and bad taken an active part in favor OF
the confirmation OF my nomination; of which, he
proves, was we'll apprized IL wouli, therefore,
have heen most extraordinary, that | should have
thought IL necessary To have made such Stale ats 10
him, by which nothing WAS 20 tie gained, and that /
should have totally forborne TO make ihem 10 any
Other Senator.
| Nor can i, be considered less s,rsngc If those
statements we're made bim during The pendeney Of
my nomination, that he, with all his zeal ia my favor
and acting IN direct opposItion TO the wishes Of his
political friends, shonld never, either wiih view 10
aid ne, TO Justify HIMSELF have given the slightest
iDtimsiion of such he represents 10
have passed between u.s. 10 any OF those gentle
whom il was calculated TO conc,lia,e, aud from
whom opposition expected.
A. to the conversation ic mentions in regard 10
Mr.. Crawford, it al'udes 10 facts which hsp.
pened before became member OF Congress, and
| of which had no knowledge until since the COM
me nc mcn ut of the present controversy.
The very professions Of gratitude which he saws 1
made to him, would apply with mnc, more force and
proprieiy 10 period alter, Ihan before, the con
rmation OF my nomination and, from The nature OF
the case, they would seem 10 have been prelica,ed
upon ,lisinIeres,edDess his part, which wa. the
| more highly appreciated, hecanSe i; overlooked ,e
circumstances Of his friendship ard my bosliii,y To
Mr. Crawford, which is at with Tho whole state
aieni he has made, concerning o'y opinion Of the
| cosduct ui thai geaeman
| That Mr.. Noble may have misunderstood ne will
| not attempt TO gainsay. But, | hope for future
happiness, never did intend TO have expressed my.
sen 10 him, or asy other person, so To have con
eeyed The opinions and sentiments which he has i'm
puted 10 me nor can account, by any hing within
my own onedge, for sncl great cIiappr hensions
| MY OBJECT, however, s not now 10 present aa .r
sueot upon the case, but simply 10 reque 81 The
m'ilee 10 accept Of ihls my denial OF MIR. Noble
testimony, and 10 have il printed with my oiser com.
! mBDIcaiions TO lie committee.
| NlNIAN EDWARDS.