Edwardsville spectator. [volume] (Edwardsville, Ill.) 1819-1826, 1824-12-07

Suoitpi'y VI h'o pau ~''' - y
; said that magnanimous man, ashamed to
confess, that have not given this advice
without bitter pang. will not erase
from my bosom the feelings of private
friendship"
When the report Of the committee
was framed, the only evidence which
was known to exist, that gave the adj
vice represented in my address, 10 the
Receiver at Edwardsville, was my own
solemn declaration to that effect, and my
publication of 1919, announcing my in
tcntion of Withdrawing from the director
ship of the Bank of Edwardsville. Upon
this evidence the committee thought ut to
admit "lhat there was no doubt tina, Mr.
Edwards gave such advice as he repre-
sents to the Receiver" and, at the same
time, and against the same evidence,
they deIy "that the Receiver sorofe on
the subject of this advice to the Secreta-
ry." For this discrepancy there IS no
apparent reason. Tho second fact is as
credible, at least, as the first; indeed the
admission of the FIRST seems 10 establish
the probability of the seconds proba-
bility not weakened by the remarks OF the
committee, that, inasmuch as the same
person was Receiver of public money
and President of the Bank, " it is hardly
probable that, as Receiver, he would adj
wise the Secretary that he could not re-
pose confidence in the Bank of which he
was President" Even if in this double
relation he might not have dlssuaded er-
cessive confdencr, it is yet very clear
/, that, as his interest IN the former capacl-
! ty greatly exceeded that which he held
in the latter, he was under the operation
of direct motive TO give such intorma-
ton as he did communicate. And upon
this motive, which the committee de-
clare could nor erist, the Secretary &C
tually relied, see his reply, page 40 as
ensuring the faithful communication OF
all such information. These remarks
apply with equal force TO the declaration
by which the committee would seem to
accuse me OF swearing falsely, that
thero is no evidence Tint the Receiver
wrote on the subject OF this advice 10 the
Secretary" asserted upon oath that
SAP the Receiver write to the Secreta-
~ and incisse my publication and
confess, that I feel no inconslderabie
distress a, tho reflection that my oath is
falsifed by the committee, in regard 10
a fact probable in itself, and at least as
credible as one which my oath is suffered
to establish
As to the famous letter from the Re-
ceiver there can nozv be no doubt that 1t
wa. written and despatched to the Score
tary, or, if, from technical objections to
the testimony, the committee should not
be disposed to act upon it, enough may
be seen to show the propriety OF allowing
further time for producing, in due form,
testimony enough to establish the fact,
and this, ask the committee to do, it ,
they are not satisfied ofthe fact. II must
be admitted that, as l had no power to
summon Witnesses after l myself was
summoned, could do no more than OBJ
tain voluntary affidavits, and that had
but little time for doing this much.
The question of this letter having been
receivedby the Secretary, appearing to
depend on comparative estimate OF the
opposing weights, Of the probabilities OF
! the fact on which have relied, and OF
the Secre,ary's denial, it is proper to
examine minutely the character OF that
denial. This will be found to be very
eqnivocal. l assert that such letter
was written, and that believe, as Is now
evident, it was transmitted, and ofcourse
received. The Secretary does not deny
that it was received, but declares II Is
not ON file, and is not recollected by the
officers employed in the Department to
have been received, of whom however 1t
now appears by their own testimony
with the exception of Mr.. Dickens)
that neither himself nor any one else
made any inquiry in regard to that malter.
When state my belief that the letter
was received, obviously mean by the
Secretary, and it is an infirm and ialla-
cious answer to reply, not thatthe Seereta-
ry did not receive it, but that it is now NOT
on fIe, and is not recollected by the Off
GERS employed in tho Department
(whose credit is rather literally pledg-
sd) to have been received, both which
declarations may be true, and yet the
letter be in the Secretary's pocket.
Again, stated tina. the Receiver told me
he had, after transmitting this letter to
the Secretary, received letter from him
directing him Ohe Recovery TO CONT
nue. the deposites. This also the Secre-
tary denies in his report, and in the same
indirect and evasive manner. He does