Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1824-07-16

I.faticu as to what kinds OF money il shouIj re-
ceive or pay for the Treasury" These, there
fore, must have been general dcposites, and
having been made at the solicitation ofthe Bank,
without any special agreement, is thereby i'm
posed upon itself the highest obligation i'm re-
gard TO them, that the acceptance OF an uncon-
ditonal and general deposite could create upon
any bank whatever.
But besides this general principle, there was
\ contract that excludes every construction
which coull have imposed upon him anv obi
CATION, moral or legal, To have taken from the
bank any paper that was not of as much value
as the deposite, at the time it was made.
This bank was continued depository of the
public money on the same terms on which il had
been employed as the agent of the Bank of the
United States, except that, instead of the tcpv-
sites being subject to the drafts of the Cashier of
thesfsank of the United States they were. ON
this second arrangement, to be drawn out.
"irom time to time, by Treasury drafts.n
! both cases they were 10 be drawn for as
occasion might require, subject to the following
conditions, viz:
[ 1. lin favor of individuals, to be paid at
sight.
| 9. lin favor of the Bank ofthe United States
| payable in sixty days.
| Ii appears, from Mr.. Crawford's own reports
''tiiat. in 1917, an arrangement was made be-
tween himself and the Bank Of the United States,
by which the public funds were to be deposited
IN the branches Of that institution, in all places
where such branches existed: and, where there
was no such branches, the Bank was TO desir-
nate certain State Banks, for which il would be
responsible, and in which such public moneys
! should be deposited, &C."
In conformity with this arrangement the
Bank of the United States, having selected and
| employed the Bank of Missouri as depository
OF the public money, became responsible to the
Treasury Department to pay cash for all mo
MES therein deposited. This it could have had
no motive for doing, without correspondent
obligation on the part of the Bank of Missouri
Who could be better judges ofwhat would Gre
ate such an obligation, than the enlightened
President and Directors of the Bank of the u
nited States9 Their disipterested opinion on
| the subject IS practically demonstrated by the
adoption of measures which they must have con-
sidered FULLY adequate to secure their own in
terest, and impose upon the Bank of Missouri
the correspondent obligation above referred to-
Their therefore, not requiring ga stipulation as
| to what kinds of money the Bank of Missouri
should pay" is the best proof that they did not
consider any stipulation in addition to those ex-
pressed Or implied by the contract, as necessa-
ry to impose upon that Bank the obligation to
pay cash.
j If, then, notwithstanding the want of such a
stipulation, the Bank of Missouri was answera-
bic to the Bank of the United States for the pub
lie dcpositcs as cash, by what kind of argunlen.
can it be demonstrated, that the absence OF
} such stipulation exempted it from a similar
obligation in its subsequent engagements with
the Treasury Department?
BY the contract, there were but two ways by
which the Secretary could claim the right 10 de-
nand, or the bank the right to make payment.
The one by drafts in favor of individuals, paw
able at sight. The other by drafts in favor of the
Bank OF the U. s. payable in sixty days There
| was, therefore, no obligation on MIR. Crawford
to receive one cent himself, nor to enter into an
| arrangement with other banks to receive any
| part of the deposite. from the Bank of NIissou-
RI. How, then, was he s'boundn to accent the
| uncurrent money which he received from that
bank BY the contract he could have lawfully
required it to pay the whole amount of depositcs
either on drafts in favor of individuals, or Of the
Bank OF the United States, subject to the con-
ditions that apply to each. Had lie drawn for
the whole amount of the deposites, according to
the contract, his drafts could not have been dis
charged, without the consent of the holders
thereof, in any thing but legal money, and pro-
test of the drafts would unquestionably have
furnished good cause of action against tie bank
Bat it is manifest, from other considerations,
that it could not have been the intention of the
parties that the deposites were not to be cons-
dcred rs cash demand upon the bank. Both
parties knew, at the time of the contract, that
| the Bank Of the United States would not receive,
III payment, any thing but cash, or its eGuiya-
| lent; contract, therefore, on the part of the
Bank of Missouri, to pay, if required, tue whole
amount of the Deposites TO the Bank of the u
nitcd States, must have been understood as an
obligation to pay it in legal money or such other
funds as that bank would consent to receive.
| Ii the construction now contended for by Mr.
Crawford be correct, it equally applies to all the
other banks which he employed, whose connex-
ion with the Bank Of the United States ceased
ON the 30th June, 1919, and more judicous
| arrangement, nor one better calculated to per-
| pctuate sttfe evils of special depo5itcs,n could
not well have been made. They were not
bound TO receive any notes, which, at the time
OF deposite were not equal to cash; and if thcy
might thereafter discharge the obligations Gre.
ated by those deposites in deprecated paper
there could not be worse management than per-
hitting the deposites to accumulate, as he SAYS
they did in the Bank of Missouri, in rather less
than one year, to the amount of upwards OF
100000, composed principally of notes most
! liable, ffon the very nature of the times, to de-
preciate.
| Under such circumstances, however solvent
| the Bank of Missouri might be- such an amount
of notes could not be kept on hand 50 long,
without danger of great loss TO the Treasury,
and therefore it must have been bad manage
mcDt, not to have found some means of excbang-
ing them for cash, or applying them TO the pub
lie service.
Ills, however, but waste Of time, TO dwell
upon point, which the testimony of some OF
the best informed and most distinguished gen
temen of which this country can boast, taken in
this case, proves TO be so Incompatible with the
4