Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1824-07-02

state what amount OF bills deposited on account
Of the government was in the Bank Of Missou-
ri at the time the suspension of cash payments
took place.
A. was not expressly understood, il it was
supposed that l sand that the government funds
in bank at thc time of the Suspension consisted
of bills. Although a credit then stood on the
books of the bank To the United States, the mo-
ney corresponding with that credit was not ac-
tually in the bank. The ainonnt duc the govern
ment, as appeared on the books of the bank, was
very near the amount allowed as n permanent de-
po,ite, winch was payable six mohths after the
bank ceased to be employed as AN Office OF pub
lie depositc.
o. What sum did then remain in bank, Of
bills which had been entered to the credit of the
u. States:
a. \ very small amount, perhaps about FIVE
thousand dollars.
q. When the arrangement was made with the
Bank of Missouri, under which it was to rctaiR
a permanent dcposite, what was the amount first
understood it should 50 retain
A. One hundred and fifty thousand dollars.
q. Was there not al arrangement made with
the Secretary Of the Treasury by letters of Au-
gust and Sept.f 1919, by which tho same mo-
neys were TO have been received by the govern
ment, or Il considerable portion of them, as were
received under the subsequent arrangement of
March, 1920: And did not the bank fail 10
| CD,iftllg WIN tic iiol ~ d'9 'Ci ttl ~
a. the letter of the bank of the 9th Aug.
1919, and the arrangement made by me, in
March 1920, will answer that question. What
ever paper, under the first arrangement was not
transfer rcd, the Bank, of course, was accouuta-
bic for, IN cash.
q. Was not a part of the same paper which
was TO have been transferred under the first ar
rangcment, afterwards received under the Sc
cond, in 4 deprcciatet state'
\. No. l believe that all the paper transfer
red to the government was of the same value at
the time 1t was agreed TO be transferred by let
ter of the 9th of August.
q. Was not n considerable part of the paper
transferred under the arrangement contained in
the letter of the Goth OF March, 1920, greatly
below pare
A. 1t was.
Q. What amount of it, as nearly as you can
recollect, was below par?
A. Something more than one hundred thou
sand dollars.
@. Did the Bank of Missouri ever receive an
answer from the Secretary of the Treasury. Il
the following clause in a letter signed by Aug.
Choutcau, President, anddated 9th August, 1875
viz:
"As to the Bank Of Edwardsville the only
one near us, we cannot give it our confidence.
Their paper is received with distrust, even in
their own neighbourhood, and passed from hand
to hand as soon as possible. Owing to the in
tImate connection which it had with the Bank
of st. Louis, which cannot pay its debts, and
has entirely discontinued business, the capita
stock of that bank has been taken for the mJst
part, and is now owned by FIVE or six individuals
some oftIem living out OF the state, and the di-
~rection secured to such persons as they may
choose to appoint. There are other objections,
which we forbear to mention"
A. never saw any answer to this clause, 6
believe that none was ever received by this
bank.
G.. Was the opinion here expressed by the
Bank of Missouri, concerning the Bank of Ed
wardsvillc, continued TO be entertained by the
former, for any length of time after the date Of
that letter, and how long ?
A. cannot positively say, as to any otlei
person but myself; but my impressions were
changed, after | understood from common re.
port, that the Bank of ElwarIsvillc had de.
tcrmined TO forfeit the stock of those persons who
should not pay the acquisitions of ttc bank.
understood that General Payne, of Kentucky
and others, were stockholders to a large amount
and believed that they would fail to pay TO.
the stock subscribed, if dcmanIcd in cash.
This, think, was my impression at the time,
butt it was derived merely from report then pre-
vaiIing.
TiIOS. F. RIDDICK.