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

1Atwcsn the capital and the circa1stis'
OF ho creditor. The proportion, then
of tais bank, upon The fitness OF which
the Committee declare the prudence o
accommodating ST26 900 Of public mo
ney in IT depended, is MOI as 100000 u
10 100000, but as 10, 600 is to 40, 1000
and The amount hazsrded in deposits By
the Secretary ofthc Treasury, stands re-
lated TO the capital OF the bank to which
i, was confided, not in the proportion oil
$4,000 to $4,000 but in that oT726,-
900 TO $4,000; and this 100000 en-.
dsngered by its disadvantageous and in
adequate proportion to an admitted ex-
cessive amount of issues. Besides, this
nominal capital of 100000, was sub
jccted to the pressure of other exhaust
ing operations. The discounts TO the
stockholders and directors were made
on pledge of their stock, SO that, to
this extent, that species of financial ca
p,city which SloO of capital may repre-
sent and authorize Sl5e in issues, was
destroyed.
As.ths proposition Of the Committee
cannot be sustained, the force OF my
statement, which it was intended to OBJ
viate, still bears upon the conduct OF the
Secretary, and demonstrates, that, IN his
intercourse with the Bank of Missouri,
he not only was guilty of negiecfing his
duty, but OF mismanaging the public
funds.
In my address to the House, il was
alleged, that the Secretary had neglect
ed TO exact monthly returns and quar-
terly lists of its debtors from this bank,
and thus dlsregarded the means N his
power of understanding the condition OF
the bank, and of providing against any
loss which might occur to the United
States from the embarrassment or lnsoi-
vency of this institution. This fact IS
admitted by the Committee to its full ex-
tent, but is not viewed by them as evinc-
ing neglect Of duty, or censurable mat
tention TO the interest OF the United
States, although in the Secretary's con-
tract with this bank, as represented by
the Committee, these returns, &c. are
carefully insisted on, in order " solely 10
aid the Secretary in determining the
proprieiy nf Continuing or disseminating
the arrangement with the bank"
In considering my statement which
falls under both charges, and imports
that the Secretary received large
amount OF uncurrent paper from the
Bank of Missouri, the Committee de-
clare this institution was not bound by
the condition proposed to it by the Sc
cretary, previously to the 9th August,
1919, to receive, as cash, on account OF
the United States, such sums as the Re-
ceiver should deposite in it, but was re-
sponsible for the same only in kind. But
this, if correct, does not diminish, but
only removes to an earlier point, the
gais management Of the Secretary. 1t
appears to place him in dilemma. 1t
his contract with the Bank of Missouri
did not, as is stated, secure to him the
right of general deposite and transfer to
the same extent, that, by the charter OF
the Bank OF the United S ates and his
contracts with that bank, he possessed
that right, it follows that he was indis-
Greet in permitting the Bank of the Unit
ed States to withdraw from this obilga-
ton before he could impose it on another
bank. And il, as may be inferred from
the observations of the Committee, it
was proper that the Secretary should re-
ceive in kind, notes, which, under the
contract with the Bank Of Missouri, had
been for months deposited to the credit
Of the United States, because at the
time they were deposited they were
good, it would seem that custom house
bond might be discharged when II be-
came due, in notes, however depreciat-
ed, provided they had been good at the
date Of the bond.
To Justify this unwise and irregular
proceeding, upon the ground that, from
the coniectures Of the Secretary, no uI-
innate loss will be sustained by the
Emitted States on the uncurrent paper 80
received, would be to proceed upon a
principle which would allow Of every
species af speculation, on his part, with
the public funds-a principle at war with
integrity and prudence in fiscal opera
lions, and with the practice and regula'
tons of this and other countries.
In the British House Of Commons the
frs, charge brought against Lord Mel
Vile was, not for the loss or waste OF the
public funds, but for permitting their
mismanagemcnt by subordinate officer,
who had deposited them in private
banks, in manner similar, in all re-
spects, to the operations ofthe American