Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1824-05-28

tant omission has been made, by which the Secretd-
RVS opinion on the point is wholly misreprescnted.
AS quoted by MIR. Edwards, the passage is in these
words -" In making the Planters and Merchants
Bank of Huntsville place of deposiic, at its part
cuar solicitation, il was expected that the transfer
of funds which it undertook to make, would be eff
ieced in funds that circulated at par, at the place
where the transfer was directed. As the Receiver
had been directed To receive the bills OF no banks
which did not discharge them in specie, demand,
il was expected that the bank would be answerable
for the amount deposited in specie or in bills which
would be received as specie, at the place To which
the money should he directed to be transferred,
less il should state the contrary" @But,o as con.
tinues the Secretary, (and this is the part omitted
by MIR. Edwards0 las no explanation of this ma
turc has been made sought either side, this re-
QUESTION will not be vigorously required" There
is however, question concerning this bank as TO
uncurrent notes were ever received FROM it.
| The charge Of having received uncurrent notes
| from the Banks of Missouri, Edwardsvie, & Tom
bcckbc, contrary to the agreement with those banks
and contrary to law, being thus answered, there re-
mains, in connection with this branch of Mr.. Ed
wardss accusation against the Secretary, only that
of having III his report to Congress, misstated the
amount so received. Upon u thorough examina, lion
however, it is asserted that all the notes received
from those banks, for which the Treasurer did not
receive Il cash credit i'll the banks to which they
were transferred were specified in the report made
by tho Secretary on the subject, will. exception
of $3.50, i'll notes of the Franklin Bank of Alexan-
dria, which formed part of the funds received from
the Bank of Missouri agreeaby to his letter of the
10Th March, 1920, but which, in his report of the
9TH February, 1922, were accidentally omitted to
be mentioned. That there no intentional con-
cealment OH this subject, is evident, from the man
ner In which the Secretary complied with that par;
OF the resolution which referred to it-By the
luton, he required to state, whether any
rent or deprecated paper had been received from,
certain banks, which the government was not bouni
to receivc.-As the Secretary of opinion, that
all the paper of that description which he had re-
ccived from those banks, paper that he was
bound to receive he might without blame, haze an
swered, that such as were alluded to in the re-
solution had been received.-Desirous however, to
put the House IN possession of all the facts, he
ted what uncurrent paper had been received, AMI
why 1t had been received; and he included in tn
statement, paper TO the amount of several thousand
dollars, which, at the time he made his deposite, had
actually been paid in cash. Under these circum-
stances, 1t might have been reasonably supposed.
that this trivial omission was, truly the case
wholly Incidental, and uuintentional
The charge of withholding letters and information
called Tor by the House, rests upon no better foun-
dation This, however, may have originated in part
i'll the of attention to the true import of the re-
solution under which these letters and information
were called for. The resolution of the House, of
the 9th Jan. 1922, printed required statement
showing lii what banks the moneys received from
since the LIST of January, 1876 the contracts under
which the said deposites have been made the cor
respondence between them and the Treasury De-
partment relative thereto SC. &C. sc. 1t has been
doubted whether, according TO the proper rules of
construction, the correspondence here called for re-
lated TO any thing more thar the contracts 1t is be-
iievc, however, that this doubt gives place GER
taity upon inspection OF the resolution, trans
mtted to the Secretary by the Clerk of the House,
between which, and the resolution as printed, there
is remarkable difference in the punctuation. That
which appears in the latter the first member of
sentence, terminating with semicolon is, in the o.
riginal, (sce annexed No. Ill, which is here with
transinttedO complete sentence ending with Pc
ROD BY this difference, the words ssreiative there
to-, arc made applicable exclusively to the contracts
-and OF course, the correspondence required by the
resolution, is the correspondence between those
banks and the Treasury, relative to the contracts
under which the moneys received from the sales OF
public lands since the LIST of January, 1915, have
been deposited.
II will be seen, however, that, in the collection
OF the correspondence, it not confined TO that
objects but, that. in addition to every thing which
related thereto, there was communicated so much OF
the other correspondence with the banks referred to-
as would enable the House TO form Just opinion of
the whole subject not only of the arrangements with
these banks in this particulars but of the relation
ship subsistng between them aud the Treasury.
To be conclued on Tuesday1