Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1824-07-20

on account of the United States, sncb SIMS -
the Receivers should depcsite in it. but ms ,as
ponsibie for the same only i'm kind. But. Ills
u correct, does not diminish but ONLY. removes
10 an carrier point the D,sna,, tserient of the Sc
cretary. 1t appears to place him in dilemma
IL ms contract with the Bank of Missouri did
not, as Is stated. secure 10 him the right of re.
neral deposite and transfer, to the same extent
that, by the chartered the Bank Of the United
Estates, D and his contract with that bank, he
possessed that right, it follows that he was ndis.
| Greet IN permitting the Bank of the UnitpJ
states to Withdraw from this obligation, before
he conid impose it on another bank. And ii, as
may DC inferred from the observations of the
committee, 1t was proper that the Secretary
should receive, an Kind, notes which, under the
contract with the Bank of Missouri had been.
for months, deposited to the credit orthe United
States, because at the time they were deposited
they were good, ii would seem that a custom
hohse bond might be discharged, when it be-
came due, In notes, however, deprecated, pro-
vidcd they had been good at the date OF The
bond.
Tolnitfy this nnwise and irregular proceed
ing, upon the ground that, from the coniccturcs
OF the Secretary, no ultimate loss will be sus-
tanned by the United States, on the uncurrent
paper so received would he TO proceed upon a
principle winch would allow of every snccies of
speculation, on his part, with the public funds ;
aprinciple al war with integrity and prudence
IN fiscal operations, and with the practice and
regulations OF this and other countries.
In the British House of Commons, the first
chareg brought against Lord Melville, was, not
tor the loss or waste of the public funds, but
Tor permitting their acknowledgement by subor-
dinate officer, who had deposited them in pr-
vale banks, IN manner similar, in all respects,
to the operations of the American Secretary Of
the Treasury with fl,tc or,I, II.
the British Government sustained no loss by
THIS MANIFESTATION of Mr.. Trotter. 1t was the
practice, and not the eccnt, which was dcnounc-
ed before the House ofCommons. 81 am an.
pailed (said Mr.. Whitbread) at the reelection of
no less than thirty four millions Of the public
property having passed through Lord Mevlle,s
paymaster's hands. Why, sir, the report
states, explicitly, that upwards of eight millions
had been IN the hands OF his private bankers,
passed through the same channel. cannot but
think that this negligent criminality is deserv-
ing OF the severcst apprehension"
MIR. Pitt, the warm and powerful advocate OF
Lord Melville, was forced, oy n sense of truth
to confess that this permitted misapplication OF
the public money, contrary to law, though
"tDtthoat actual loss to The state, was not to be
Justlhcd;" was constrained to advise the eras,Ire
OF his friends name from the list of Prvy
anu th'lS eSpfeSSS(i, TO ms
ine, o-',.rtry, the conflict between the tender
ness of his friendship, and the subIimity of his
patriotism. 81 am not (said that magnanimous
| man. ashamed to confess, that have not given
this advice without bitter papg. / will no,
erase from my bosom the feelings of private
friendship.n
When the report of the Committee was franz
ed, the only evidence which was known to ex-
lst, that gave the advice represented in my
fcf I,o
my own solemn declaration to that effect, and
my publication of 1919, announcing nv intenti-
on OF withdrawing from the dictatorship of the
Bank OF Edwardsyile. Upon this evidence the
committee thought fit to admit, sstilat there was
no doubt Mr.. Edwards gave such advice, as he
represents 70 the Receiver" and, at the same
Zine, and against the same evidence, they de-
ny, .'hat the Receiver icyofe on the subject ofis
aotoicc TO the Secretary" For this discrepancy
there IL no apparent reason. The second fact
Is as credible, at least, as the first-indeed the
admission Of the first, seems to establish the
probability of the second--a probability not
weakened by the remark ofthe Committee, that
lnasmuch as the same person was the Receiver,
of Public Money and President of the Bank
'ft is hardly probable, that as Receiver he would
advise the Secretary that he could not repose
confidence in the Bank OF ); i1ich he was Presi-
dent. Even in this double relation he might
not have dissuadcd erccssice confidence, it is vet
very clear, that, as his interest in the former
capacity greatly exceeded that which he held
in the latter, he was under the operation of a
direct motive to give such Information as he did
communicate. And, upon this motive, which
the Committee declare could not erist, the Sc
cretaTy actually relied, fsee his reply, page !
as insur1ng the faithful communication of ali
such information. These remarks apply with
equal force to the declaration by which the
Committee would seem TO accuse me of swear
ing falsely, ''that there is no evidence that the
Receiver wrote Oh the subject Of this advice TO
the Secretary. i assorted, uppe ontt, That /
saso me Receiver sc,4ic 10 The Secretary, and en-
close my publication and ! confess, tllat feel
no uncomfortable distress at the reflection that
my oath is faIsiGed by the Committee, in regard
to a fact probable in itself, and at least as Gre
di5!c as one which my oath is suffered 10 estab-
lsh.
As TO the famous letter from the Receiver.
there can no,C be no doubt that it was written
and despatched to the Secretary; or, if from
technical objections 10 the testimony, the Com
rn:ttce should not be disposed TO act upon if, G.
nough may be seen TO show the propriety Of al
lowing further time for producing, in due from,
testimony enough to establish the fact; and, this
ask The Committee to do, If they arc not salts
fed Of the fact. Ii must be admitted that, as
had no power to 5uHlmon witnesses after | nv
self was summoned, | could do no more than OBJ
tain voluntary affidayits, and that had but lit
tic time for doing tbs much. The question of
this letters having been received by the Secre-
tary, appearing 10 depend on n comparative es-
tiInate of the opposing weights Of the probabili-
ties Of the fac; on which have relied and of the
5ecretary's denial, il is proper 10 examine nm
utely, the character Of that denial. This will
hof ,14tr,1 fr, H,,