Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1824-07-20

,posit,s, for the purpose Of lrsscning the ad-
lii,onai weight Of responsibility which hc !
hought-anL truly thought-ihe ciicun-
,ances mentioned in his letter had devul,ed
ip"n hT.
My objects in referring to my publication
and Ia this letter, were twOfold. l.
l. tn shrw the course Of conduct l had
pursued in relation to my withdrawal iroM
tine Bauk. Il
9. III shew that Mr.. Crawford was well
informed aud duly notified .h.rO'. Both
were rendered necessary by the unyenerous
and disingenuous attempts To subject me to
unjust ceI,sure, which are adver,rd to in my
correspondence with him, in February, 1892
Ii is remarkable that, with pertinacity
the most Extraordinary, he still p-rseveres in
his etfurts Ia implicate me in the transactions
of that Blnk, well knowing that my cOnnec-
tion witt it has long since ceased. And
h. nee is Ms iabored effort, in his late commu-
nicasiup to the Committee, to prove that
| yu,ai..Ae ed ts be Director thereof after the
fall Of 1919. In doine ,tIs, he must have at
| tempted to impose upon others what he him
self could not have behaved. With all the in
formation which to must have had at the time
Of writing his late COMMUNICATION, what could
be less Unsuitable than the implications to
which he has thus So recently end.a, ored
TO subject me? What4er else he may think
of mt, you cannot behGa that he thinks me
80 great fool, s'tO h9s SD repeatedly and
publicly ssserted, and lhally sworn to- the fact
vi my having Withdraw from the DireeiUrship
Of that Bank, if it had sbfbeen true; since, in
| that case, II would hav been easy to have
cony3cte6 me of falsehold aud perjury. What,
the9 can be thought ofhis 'candur, in insist
Ling, even at this late psi0d, that continued
| to be Director Of that Bank, after the fall of
1919
Let us, however, how he endeavors to
establish this fact.
Referring to that par my oath before the
Committee, in February, 1898, in which
had sworn that tholgh had once been elected
a Director, since Gal Of 1919, had refus-
ed to accept the a boiitment, and had had
nothing 10 do wftf1s3he management Of the
Ba nix, since that ti6e, p Yet" says he, In
the following winf5 lr. Edwards is found
in the character Ola DIector of the Bank,
but Of Director specially delegated and au-
thorized by the Bank to conclude an impor-
tant arrangement with the Secretary, in res
pect to the terms on which the Bank was to
continue depository of public money. BY
the printed papers accompanying the Secreta-
RVS report TO the House, of the s7th April,
1899, it appears that, on the 10th February,
1890, MIR. Edwards, then in Washington, trans
mitted to the Secretary letter fromIthe Bank
to the Secretary, signed by this very Receiv-
err, as President of the Bank, containing list
of directors for the year 1890, in which MIR.
Edwards name is included that, at the same
Time, he also transmitted to the Secretary a
letter from the Bank, signed by the same Mr..
Stephenson, informing the Secretary that Alr.
Edwards, zone Ofthe directors of the institu-
tlOn," is authorized to suggest certain mOdi-
hcations ofthe contract between the Secretary
and the Bank, and to conclude such arrange
ments as he may deem acceptable, which will
be considered obligatory !" and he likewise
transmitted, at the same time, a letter from
the Bank, addressed TO himself, signed also
by MIR. Stephenson, stating TO him, at large,
the changes desired by the Bank, and the rea-
sons therefor"
Contrasting all this parade Of circumstance s,
with all that did, in regard to the authority
mus conferred upon me, F" TO suggest certain
notifications of the contract" and to my
special delegation to conclude the important
arrangement" it would seem that Mr.. Craw
ford could not have desired a stronger cOnlir-
nation of the truth Ofthe very statement which |
he now affects to question. What did do y
Nothing more than write TO him short note,
IN the following words, viz. I" have the honor,
herewith to transmit to you certain cOmmani-
cations, which have recently received from
the Bank of Edwardsvile, the object of hich
Is fully explained by the communications them
selves" Is it presumable that any member of
the Senate, mot excepting my colleague, who
was opposed TO the bank, J would not, under
similar circumstances, have done this much ?
Gould l, with any kind Of decent respect for
portion of the peol represented. have
Without otherwise saying any thing to him
on the subject, simply left the papers TO speak
for themselves. At this time he and myself
were on terms of intimacy, and, as thought
cordiality and friendship. Had not been de-
termined not 10 interfere further in the bust
ness, should certainly have spoken to him
about 1t. Had he not perfectly understood,
from my publication, &c. the reasons of my
silence, he would, doubtless, have mentioned
the subject to me. But no conve, sation hav-
ing taken place between us, in regard to this
matter, confirms my statement, and affords a
very strong presumption that he had receiy ed
all the Information before referred TO.
His attempt to produce an impression unfa-
vorabe TO me, from the circumstance of nv
names appearing on the list Of Directors, is
the more extraordinary, since he himself has
Prefaced his remarks on that subject, with an
extract from my oath, from which it appears,
that, though bad been once elected 10 that
station since 1919, had refused to accept it,"
lie well knows that to constitute Director,
requires the cOncurriDg wills of the electors,
ahd Inc person elected; and, knowing / had
refused to accept the appointment" nothing
can be more heterogeneous than to pretend to
recognize me in that character. If he had
entertained the least suspicion that had not
sworn truly on the subject, bis whole conduct
towards me can leave no doubt that he would
have spared no pains To have been prppared