Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1824-07-16

TESTIMONY AND DOCUMENTS
ON THE
MEMORIAL OF .N1yyI.q.N EDW.qRDS,
(CoNrINuED.l
Bat he did not, in fact ssdccline any cores
pondencc with me the subjects to which nv
letters referred )" for, IN answer TO my first one
among other observations which he made in re-
Luton IL those subjects he says 81 assure you
SIR, 1t will afford me great pleasure to commune
cate to Congress alt the information in the pos
session OF the Department, concerning that
Bank, your agency III bringing 1t into connec-
tion with the Treasury, and the representations
which were made against" &c. thereby mani
Testing disposition rather to shcw that he had
NO desire to conceal and withhold the documents
alluded to, than to deny their c ,stcncc.
Under these, and other circumstances mem
toned in my communication TO the House OF
Representatives, it would be extraordinary ON
the supPostlon that my publication and the Re-
cciycr's letter had not been received, even if he
had declined replying to my letter of February,
1922, that their existence should have remain
ed for perio of more than two years unques-
toned, and that en- doubt upon the subject
should have been for the first time suggested,
sat the moment of my departure for foreign
country"
But MIR. Crawford has, in his communication,
ground to convict INC OF false swearing, in what
he IS pleased 10 call my ''alledgei expectations
TIT the letters referred to i'll my testimony as
lg passed between himself and Col. Ste
pncfson, would have been communicated 10
tue House, under one other OF the resolutions
Of February, 1922.
.'.As the resaiutons,n says he, "under which
it is altedged these letters should have been
CO .l;nunic.ted, call only for the correspondence
between certain banks and the Secretary, it is
unnecessary to explain why, among the letters
which were communicated, any correspon-
dence between sReceiyer' and the Secretary
was not to be found! Nor is it easy TO imagine
how any one, informed of the tenor of those re-
solutions, should have entertained the cxpecta-
tom OF seeing the letters in question among the
papers which were transmitted"
In order to correct understanding of this
part of the subject, it may be useful to advert
to my testimony before the Committee. In
this, after stating that i had prevailed upon
"Col. Benjamin Stephenson, the Receiver, and
the President Of The Bank Of Ei,ca,dsuiiLe, to
write to the Secretary" sc. say: 81 was
much surprised at not seeing this correspon-
dencc IN tue report, as well as one or more let
tiers, which, confidently believe, were written
TO the Secretary of the Treasury, in 1919, for
the purpose of apprizing him of the situation of
the Bank, at that time, and inducing him TO for
bear to draw upon it, until it could relieve IL
self from the pressure twas then encountering. u
Now, as, from my whole statement, in regard
to this matter, it is evident that the subject mat
of the letter referred to in my testimony, related
much more to the affairs OF the Bank, than to
the ordinary duties of the Receiver, it surely is
not more extraordinary that l should have ex-
pected 10 have seen this letter, or so much of il
at least az related to the affairs of the Bank
ssarnong the papers which were transmitted 81
than that Mr.. Crawford himself should have
Transmitted variety of letters from This same
Receiver, under the resolutions referred to.
But he has, in other instances, acted upon the
very consideration which induced the ''expec-
tationn on nv part, to which he now excerpts;
Or why did he transmit his letter to the Receiv-
or at 81. Louis, of 9th January, 1922, (see doc
uEncnt No. 49, and state, in the report which
il accompanied, that lie had transmitted cal
the additional returns and correspondence re-
quired by the resolution, except t,co letters from
tie j2eceiUer at So. Louis, tc!tich Of con-
.tltcnt;af nature ?n Nothing could have rem.
dcrcd it necessary to have communicated the
first, or to have apologizc1 for not transmitting
the other, but the circumstance of their rela-
ting, as the letter Of Col. Stephenson did, 10 the
affairs of the Bank.
Having thus disposed OF the application
which he has given to his original charge, as
contained in the report in question, l now re-
turn to the latter, which is as follows:
"The Hon. Mr.. Edwards late Senator from
Illinois, having stated, on his examination be-
fore a committee of the House, on the 18th Fc-
bruary, 1913, that the late Receiver of Public
Moneys at Edwardsyile had, oniis advice, and
in his presence, written a letter to the Secrcta
ry, enclosing copy ola publication which Mr.
Edwards represents himself to have made, some
time in the year 1919, announcing bis intention
of retiring from the dictatorship of the Bank o
Edwardsyile, and that be had advised the Re
ceiver to withhold his deposite5 from the Score
fary; aud that tie Receiver afterwards informed
him that he had received % letter from the Sc
crctary deems it proper to state, that no suci
letter from the Receiver is to be found on tho
files of the Department.; that the officers EN-
ployed in il have no recollection of the receip
Of such letter; and thai, on examination o
the records of the Department, it appear
that no answer to any such letter, directing
the Receiver u continue The dcposites, was eve
written to him by the Secretary OF the Tfea
sury."
Whatever different interpretations, ingeniou
and forced constructions might have given 4
this report, Mr.. Crawford's elaborate common
tary upon it must nov carry conviction TO ever
1sint. that its real object was, at least to Great