Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1824-05-08

: Har,s,.hc, al Gctudify itithkOfd The depoSiieS
as above suggested; unless il can he believed
that he did, in one single month, distinguished
| by IN particular circumstances, receive 10 the
amount of S52,7IG SIS, equal to the rate oil
500 500 60 per annum.
Let us then inquire IL little into the proba-
bll,ty of his having written To MIR. Crawford
or, rather, into the great improbabiliiy of his
aot haXipg done 50.
This gentlemen united in himself the Office
of Receiver and President Of the Bank oil
Edwardsvile. As Receiver, he had posit,.
orders To make his deposites ia hat bank, and
was bound 60 make monthly returns of his ac-
counts To the Secretary of the Treasury. As
President, it was his duty to have monthly
returns OF the state of the bank, and the
amount OF public depositeS therein regularly
transmitted To the Secretary. Is il, then, Ia
be believed, that he should have withheld the
depOsites contrary 10 his orders, without hav-
ing given to Mr.. Crawford some reason, either
AS Receiver Or President, for his having done
50! And, If he had failed 10 perform this
duty, is il credible that Mr.. Crawford would
have been so negligent aud ,7a'tentive to has
duty, and SD regardless of the punic interest,
as not 10 have called him 10 an account fur
| such conduct?
But if further confirmation of the letters
having been written and received by Mr.
Crawford, too, were wanting, strong presump-
tons IN favor of both may be derived from
the very guarded and characteristic ar,jfce
by which he would seem equally to deny the
receipt of the letter. aud that any instructions
had been given to the Receiver TO continue
to make the depOsites. Let it be observed.
that my statement as quoted by MIR. Craw-
ford, is, that the Receiver informed me he
had received LETTER from the Secretary.
directing him To continue the deposites"-
Nr Crawford does not deny that such direc.
tons We're given, but he says, sit appears that
no ANSWER to such letter, directing the Re
ceiver to continue the deposites, was ever
written" &c. From this peculiar manner of
denial, can but infer that, not being willing.
from some cause or other, to admit; the receipt
OF the letter, Mr.. Crawford confrired to give
the directions under some other form or pre-
text than that of "a direct ANSWER 10 it,
But that such directions were given, cannot
doubt, though have nothing TO rely upon
for this opinion but the Recei, er's word for
the fact. 1t Mr.. Crawford did not write TO
MN specially on the subject of his having
withheld the deposites, il can only be salts
factorily accounted for on The suppositlon,
that he MIR. Crawford) did. in some form or
other, give such directions as he supposed
would produce the proper corrective.
| Another fact, in confirmation vt my state
ment Is, that one of the two Receivers who
had been directed tn make their deposiics IN
the Bank If EdwardsvlIt, was ordered ;e
make his elsewhere. But, under what pre-
text do not know, nor do recollpc: ever
to have heard probably, however. undrr
some one, equally calculated tn disguise thu
real motive, as the giving of directions, with
out acknowledging the receipt of the letter
that produced them.
| IL will not, persuade myself, be considered
a trlninS confederation of my Statements that
IT was not made 10 the committee for the FIRST
time !; hui that IN private correspondence
between MIR. Crawford and myself more than
twelve months before my examination bv
the committee, had asserted the same facts
substantially to himself.
In my letter 10 him Of the 9Th of February.
1929, (which would not venture 10 refer TO.
III had not his answer TO it,) say, {" beg
leave most respectfully to suggest, that, it
would be but an act of Justice To me, TO pre-
sent my publication nf 1919, in which | d.
chred would be no longer responsible for the
bank OF Edwardsvillel in any way whatever
rms publication was contained in the ST.
Louis Enquirer, which believe you took, at
! That Time. Ii was also cOntained in IA paper
which forwarded 10 you myself and IL
'oas Enclosed and referred TO, in a letter from
Col. Stephenson, (he President of he BankJ
and the Receiper dLsOl 10 you. aphich htier, he
informed me, hat been amstcered. Since The
iail OF 1919, my connection with thar bank has
entirely ceased, except that am IA stakeholder
10 #, without, however, ever having borrowed
one cent from it,"
! In my letter TO Mr.. Crawford of 18th Fee
bruary, 1899, say To him, :" I must, however.
say, sur, that. as the information in the Trca-
| sury Department, relative To my original re
commentator of the Bank of Edwardsvile
has, for some time past been distinctly under
stood, and freely used, at this place. Wash
lngtonI ! can bat consider it somewhat unfor-
| tunatP for me, that other cam ,uuuicofione -,
The Department, which ought to have termi
mated all responsibility 90 my part, have not
been equally known. That | was the cause
OF the deposltes being made there in the first
instance, freely acknowledge. But, that
unrquivocalIy declared, | would not be held
responsible for that, or any other bank, in any
way Whatever, after the fall of 1919; that uot,
'oere notified thereof in due time that the de-
posites have not been continued there in con-
sequence OF my recommendation, since that
period; and that the bank was then in a GOOD
situation, may, l think, according to my pre-
sent impressions, fairly insist upon And, II
so, the partial information, now in circulation
at tins place, is not. calculated To do me that
justice, which, hope, have right TO expect
rom your magnanimity. Ii would therefore
afford me great pleasure, assure you, sir. that
the whole Of my conduct, in relation 10 that
business, should be so fully known as to be
| no longer misunderstood
The first Of these letters was written five
days before his report of the l4ih February.
l 1922. The second bears the same dale of tbp
latter. They must both, therefore, have been
written before any charge Of suppressions had
been made, ar suggested
Had the existence of the Receivers letter
been denied, or the slightest iniimation OF
questioning IT, been given, at the time il was
thus asserted, could, and would, have proved