Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1824-07-09

| w,
Jcctions to the claims of this bank upon his con-
tdcncc, and that Of the public.
a. uid SO some time before, soon after the
bank went into operation.
u ('d you receive any reply from the Se-
cretary Oh that subject, by which you asccr-
tanned That he had received your letter?
/ "A. did and he stated that, avaiIinr him
sen OF the pc mission expressed i'll my letter, To
sheT 1T to whomsocvcr it concerned, he had
shewn it to Mr.. Edwards and Col. johnson.
q. Were you at that time a Director of the
Bank of Miss uri.
a. was not till lone after. sa, two veara
or more.
Z. About this time, however, did you not
make communications in your paper TO the Pub
lie, strongly supporting the claims of the Bank
of Missouri to the public confidence
"A. made very few, if any: do not now
remember one.
| q. Was it not your opinion, that that hank
was entitled to confidence?
"A. 1t was, most dccisively. After nv first
arrival at Washington City, in 1890, had spo-
| heh 10 Mr. crawford in favor of the Bank 81
missouri After that bank had stopped nav
ment, and resolutions had been submi,tci in
Tue House o. Representatives, upon tie subject
OF ITS failure, and of the public depostc in Is.
myself and Mr.. Scott, representative from N1;s,t
souri,, went to MIR. Crawfo and offered 10
give him, III writing, the previous statements
wihch we had made, verbally, in favor of the
bank: MIR. Crawford declined receiving any
statement from us. His precise words do not
I Is;hc'nper' cut he declined taking from us any
thinS Ike vouchers to shield him from RESPONSE
biiity. stating, think, that the correspondence
'vonid show that every thing was fair, and that
| he had proceeded on sufficient grounds.
q. Which bank first failed to pay specie Ger
Its notes, the Bank of Missouri or the Bank of
| Edwardsvillc.
| a The Bank Of Missouri But have been
| informed and believe, that the Bank of aIissou-
ri had assets at the time of its stopping specie
payment, to an amount beyond the claims upon
IT; that 1t has settled all these claims either by
paying them or securing them to be raid
"hilc the BANK OF Edwardsville has neither paid
or secured It's debt TO the United States
q. AT what time were you employed 10 col
lect debts against AIR. Latham?
A. Sometime before / came 10 Congress, in
1920.
G. Do you or do yon NOT know that Gen.
rayn Is reputed to be, and do you not believe
HIM to be, amongst the wealthiest men in Ken =
lucky?
a. hare always understood that lie was
a man oil iar@e property; but the general report
was, that the shares in bis name were really the
property of the NIcssrs. Jolnsons.
| u. do you or do you not know or believe
that the Messrs. Johnsons were al that time al
SO considered among the wcalti.ies: men in Ken
lucky,
y. All the information which. bad upon
the subject, represented them to be engaged in
large and critical moncycd enterprises, and that
Their pccuniary credit was most uncertain.
o. Doyon not know that Robert Fogue, ano1
Their Director in the Bank of EdH ardsville. was
at that time engaged in large mercantile con-
Germs, and of unsupported credit
a knew Mr.. Pogue as merchant, aud
ms credit and standing were very good.
Q. William Knny, Joseph Conway, and
Abraham Pricket, were also Directors. Were
not these gentlemen all at that time of high res
probability, and of coDsi erable unncumbered
property, so far your knowledge extends.
a. knew them all personally. Mr. Kin
pey ways represented to me as person
OF con ldcrable property. never heard the
others so spoken of. Iknow nothing about in
cunbran"es any of their estates. They
were all respectable.
Z. DIR. Joseph Bowers, another Director,
is spoken ofby Mr.. Edwards as gentleman of
responsibility. Was not that his general cha
racter, at that period?
a. 1t was. But, my objection to Governor
Edwards publication, was, its emitting TO speak
OF the pccuniary circumstances of the directors
and stockholders.
q. Were the directors and stockholders
liable beyond the amount of the stock paid IL.
a. The Bank of EdwardsyiIle was am in
corporatcd Bank, aud suppose, of course, they
were not.
Q. What was the conversation you had with
General Soble, which induced YOU TO write the
letter i'll the Richmond Enquirer, III relation L,
tiiat conversation
a. had two conversations with Mr. Ed
wards. The first, soon after the appearance of
Mr.. Edwards address. r. occurrcd accidental
II, while passing each other in the large t.iict,-
lar rooa, III the centre of The capitol. It was
very si'r1t. was going III haste into the Sen
ate chamber. Either replying to question
from me, or from some other person, for there
were several passing at The same time, Mr. No
bic said, that Mr. Edwards had declared thet he
was not the author OF the a. Il. publications.
and that lie bad supported him in the Senate.
In repeating that conversation, reported it, and
i'll writing 10 the editor of the Richmond En0ui-
rcr the letter iii question, represented il as il
Mr.. Noble had voted for Mr.. j.. in conse qucuCe
of that dIsavOwa]. il was the construction
which | put upon t!Ic support which he had
given. was not III the Senate during the time
that Mr.. rs nomination was pending. week
Or two afterwards, and when the rc-occurred
some leisure i'll the Senate, and in consequences
Of suggestions that Mr. Edwards had only de-
MED the authorship oftie \. Is. publications by
way Of avoiding an improper curiosity, asked
Mr.. Noble whether he had made inquiries Of
Mr.. Edwards which led 10 tl,c disavowaR MIR.
Noble then stated TO me particularly his con-
versaon with Mr. Edwards. He said that tlrq
disavoval was wholly voluntary on the part of
Mr.. Edwards; that I've had pledged his honor
that he was not the author of the a. y. publ
cations, but MIR. Noble had intended TO vote
FOR him before he heard this disayowal; that hc
had, before hearing Il, made a motion in the
Senate 10 take up his nomination; that Mr. Ed :
IN hat ea.uo r,,nvcr.a.,,., .r,I,., l.,,o-