Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1824-07-23

cnnc,.s ACCOMMODATING the Secrctary's COM e
,nu.,ic. ..,on The letter o; The ooh OF April, p
W ritten us appears the face OF IL, IN e1n- !,
Sc cn.;, oi tie ii,ns,;cs Of public money hay 4
ing been partially tiI,:c. In ;i'c tcccvcr's =
Office at E,.iyarlsviiic, haas bceu .ouni no let
ter answering the description of air. Edwards, r
in his testimony liz t0e3, or which could have {
been An az yer 80 the paper OF which the copy
is noy produced. MIR. Edwards has stated that
he searched The office with the special object vi ,
discos cr,r,gs such document, aud that, except
,vhat he has produced, none such is to be found.
II is. therefore, respectfully subnttel-
That the paper. in the hand writing of Mr..
Edwards, found on the files OF official letters APP
pertaining. to, aud IN, t- Receivers office,
is evidence only that MIR. Edwards wrote such
a letter:
That i, is not Official, although filed in the |
hand .>.iirg of tie Receiver; it is not his
hand 'r!tins, nor i'll that of any person employ
ed in lis Once, and Is not recorded in his letter
book.
That there is no evidence that the Receiver
ever carried, or sent n copy of il from his Of
fee:
That such letter never has been received
at the Treasury Department that no
swer is ;ts the Treasury Department, or Receiv-
er's oi|ice at Edwardsvilc, or was ever written
t. such letter.
AIR. Edwards having declared, in his last adj
dress to the Committee, delivered on the 10th OF
Secretary, of supervising the a.lege; corrcspon-
dcnce with Mr.. Stephenson, to which his oath Of
l323reiers, 1t might appear supcr1uous to trou-
bic the Committee with these ,,inarks. Eut,
on the very day that MIR. Edwards presented this
disclaimer the alteration In his testimony, here
tofore mentioned, was made; and mad;, too, af-
ter the disclaimer was prepared and delivered.
The conviction, therefore Is, that Mr.. Edwards
seeks Ia leave the stain OF this charge the Sc
Cretary, while he intend. To avoid If he cum the
responsibility OF having made it, and seeks 10
procure for his own testimony, which is the only
testimony IN support of il, degree u! respect to
which it is not entitled. With this view uf hi.
intention, it will hot be deemed improper 10 cx-
anime what has been said aud attempted by Mr.
Edwards on the subject.
In 1928, MIR. E,l;; ar.ls declared on oath 10
the Committee of Congress, Gc was very much
surprlzed that this correspondence (meaninr the
alleged letter of Mr.. Stcplcuson Of l2th Oc-
tohcr, and the alleged ans,rcr.> was not co:nrnu.
nicated By the Secretary, under resolutions ofthe
House ofReprescnatives, of the 9th January and
18th March. 1Go2, calling for certain ccrrcspo
dence between tic Treasury Department and
sundry ban2s.
In his address TO the House, OF the 9th Of A.
prii last, he says ''Bceying, as cali INV God
tp witness sincerely aud confidently do, that
Mr.. Crawford did receive the letter mentioned
III the above report, and tina. it is now in his
possession, OF has been rurpc.ely destroyed"
In the same address, he infers that If this letter
wa :.ot answered, Mr.. Crawford being Tor Some
cause or other unwilling to acknowledges the re-
ceipt of ii, "contrivei to give the direction Ito
continue the dcpositeS) under some other form
OF pretcxt than that of a direct answer 10 it.n
In his replication presented TO the Committee
since Ia, adjournment of Congress, whole rares
are occupied by an argument TO show int Inc
alleged letter of the l2th October was sent WA.
received, and was answered. AiI the officers IN
the SccrctaTyfs Office were called as witnesses,
to prove that the letter had been received j.,
1919, or had been foind since tic Secretary,s
report, Of ed March, 1921; and that tie Sa-
cretary bad purposcly delayed making, t!,at re-
port until MIR. Edwards was about 10 leave
Washington. In all oiFhich, the testimony al
dnced was conclusive, that neither The c,,arrs.
ltsef, nor either nj the incidents aIiea ed ~ ar
gravaton by Mr.. Edwards, W as true.
Idr Edwards argues, too, in his replication
That the Edwardsvitic Receivers letter ought
accordin,: to Hr. Crawiu,d's own view of the
SUBJECT, to hare been communicated 10 the
Iouse of Representatives., under the before
mentioned restrictions, bcuausc one other Re-
ceiver's letter The Racc,yer at st. Louisl had
been communicated with his rcfort Of the -,
oIMtt'nS to remember that this was cIG1Eiuncat-
ed IN Ter cali requiring all the correspond.
,ncc IN relation TO the Bank of Missouri which
iaaGe It his duty TO transmit alctters re aactinr
that bank, from whoasoevcr received.
IL hiss Nmiimony now taken before the cc,n.
Dittce, AST. Edwards declars he believes that.
in 18i9, the Secretary might have conceived Tic
idea oil cenceaing the letter of Mr. Stephenson,
II 1T had been received, to screen himself: from
responsibility, Il Inc D,rnz of Edwar1syic after
wards failed, an event which, athougI. he did
not anticipate, he might have apprehcn,ed. Ia
tie same testimony, VIXEN compelled to admit
that a letter could not have arrived, BY mail,
from The 10Th of October to the Ist of NoYeinber
1919, he added, to that admission, an insinua-
ton, Oh olui that the letter of the Secretary
was a;itadatci, retained, until the arriya! Of
the alleged letter Of the 12th Oct. 1910. AZ.
ter the testimony of Mr.. Siyceny was given, in
stoai Of disaYowias this insinuation he was 81
lont, ani, three days Afterwards, adds to that
part Of .,is testimony that from which il might
b. inferred that the letter of the 9th of Octo-
bcr was sent, By private conveyance, to Louis.
vile, and thence, by mail, 10 Washington
al these declarations, and the publication of
ar. Edwards, 10 Louisville, in which he asserts
that he has The most irrcsttihlc proof that the
Hc:etYcT al EdwardSv lie did IS rite the letter
H'sntonei IN his examination, and ihat Mr.
Crawford did write letter to the Receiver
directing lam In coDt.nrp the dc3ositas IT, n.r
B.tns yf&i:srisy;l!o, make it ncccssar1 that
isehouh - distinctly brought before the com
rn.t;oc. That Ms. Edwards, in different narfs4
OF his testimony, cJIiral.cted himself that his
testimony II 1873 does not agree with his tcst;-
fnony id:t1n oelore the present committee; (h,t
MS statements IN his addresses to the uou-c ~
in MS aL!rassI, 10 ne committee, are Contra
dictoTy 10 cich UineF; that Iiis statements, now
gwen on oath, scw that the impressions wi.ici,