Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1824-07-23

of The Receiver uf the 18TH Oct. he is,as silen
as ID either vt THIN as he is to the latter ar a
he Mas To that part Of the letter Of the Presi
d"ntof the Bank 0f Missouri, of the OH An
gusa 1919, which gives such an alarming &C
coua If the Back of Edwardsvilie. His no
having noticed the letter in'question, in any
his Subsequent COMMUNICATING, therefore, fur
nish.s no evidence tnsrebut the strong pre-
sumption, that have relied upon, TO prov,
that he must have received II.
Let us then briefly inquire, whether his let
tier OF tue LIST November could have beer
written on the grounds upon which it profess
es TO have been written. 'as;-
He processes to have been induced 20 write
| 1t, from an inspection and examination Of the
monthly accounts ofthose Receivers, and com
mences 1t In the following words, viz: f" Upon
referring to your monthly accounts, it appear,
mat you have retained all the money which
has been received by you since the month Of
s4ugust Inst Nov, q moments rcil.c.i.u j.
all that can be necessary TO convince YOU that
there could not have been. at Washington, on
the LIST November, more than Que monthly ac
count of moneys received after the month of
August preceding. And, if he had really re-
ierred to their monthly accounts, he would
have perceived that the Receiver at Kaskaskia
mad retained, in his hands, all the money re-
1 .
ceirer AT Edwardsville had made no deposite
since the Ist day of the preceding July--cir-
cnmstaoces, which il is extremely Improbable
ne would have overlooked, or Neglected To aid
vert 10 IN his letter, unless, indeed, there was
some popularity in these cases that defies all
SIKH IN guessing, which rendered it more ex
cusahle in these officers to have retained one
part of The public money than another.
bai, ilsomething more than meets the eye
was not Intended, why was his letter to the
BANK OF Edwardsvile, of LIST November, 8 I9,
'ose her with its enclosure on the subject Of
'nose very deposites, suppressed Their
omission concealed a fact which affords very
strong presumption that he had received the
ictef OF The Receiver at Edwardsville Of the
ION October; and 1t is rendered less proba-
bile Ina, they were withheld through inadyer.
tence or forgetfulness, from the circumstance
OF my having called his attention to the subject
ny my correspondence with him in February,
8s2, just about the time he made the report
that ought To have contained them.
ms letter. though at last brought out upon
the third call upon Mr. Crawford for his cor
respondeDce with the Banks, and accompany
ING the report that intended to affect me
so inJurou-!y, is still given 10 such manner,
as not only to Conceal the true state Of the case
but to produce and impression directly con-
trary to the fact, by emitting to communicate
its enclosure, which is so referred To az npces-
sariIy to make il part Of the letter and this
impression would probably never have been
questioned, but for the present contest. io
which the report has involved me.
The letter commences by saving, The lei
ter, of which the enclosed is copy, was ad
dressed To the Receivers Of Public Money al
kaskaskia and Edwardsville xxx M ~
10 prevent the Inconvenience and risk which
may result from the accumulation of such large
sums in the hands of those officers, have this
day directed them 10 deposte in The Bank the
sums which may be in their possession on the
3oih instant, and to deposite, monthly, the
money which may be received during each
month"
Now, in what Bank would any one suppose
these monthly deposites were 10 be made ?
Certainly 10 the Bank Of Edwardsvile, t.
which the letter was addressed. But palpa-
bic as this conclusion may appear the fact is
directly otherwise, and the enclosure will prove
| it. By the latter Mr. Crawford says, /" re-
quest that ynu will Immediately deposite in the
Bank of Edwards lille whatever sums may be-
in your hands on the 3oth instant, (November
1881 NIX 4. You will, after the dppo.
site herein directed make your drpostes in
the Bank of Missouri until otherwise direct
ed" Who. let me ask, could have inferred
from the letter above that these directions had
been given To those Receivers, or to either OF
them And can II he denied that this enco-
snre ought TO have been communicated, for
the sake Of truth, il nothing more?
But let us see now this case stands in other
respects. II he did not send such letter, and
give such instructions TO those Receivers, he
made direct and positive misrepresentation
TO the Bank, for which, no adequate motive
csn he u.rcaiv.d Ruf sf[.o 10 t~;,~,...yc -
ser.s, he did give such Instructions, il shows
most clearly that he did intend to suspend the
making Of deposites in that Bank, and accounts
much more satisfactorily than he has done in
his communication TO you for his letter of the
GOTH April, 1920, which directs the depssiics
10 be continued with a degree of particularly
that would scarcely have been thought neces-
sary, if theirs had been no reason to suppose
il had been his intention to discontinue them.
But be has appealed to the want of any as
signabie motive for the coucealment Of any of
the foregoing facts, as proof that none was
Intended. L take no issue with him upon his
motives or Intentions. / may, however, be
permitted 10 say, that the pertinscity with
which, In opposition to all the proofs l have
exhibited, he still endeavors to hold me res
pOnsbe for The Bank of EdwardsyiIle. after
the Fall Of 1919, renders it probable that he
might not have been willing TO let me escape
from responsibility At that time. Overwhelm-
ed, as he was with representations against the
Back, my withdrawal from it may have con-
frmed bis fears, and rendered him reluctant
To disclose any circumstance that was calcu-
lated TO devolFe upon him an increased res
ponsbliy for events then spprehended, and
since realized
Having received a communication through
the committee, that contains a refereAce to a
conversation that am represented TO have