Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1824-05-25

October, and noticing small error in his account
for August.
On the Ist Nov. (scc No. 25,) he again wrote to
the Secretary, enclosing the 2d of the draft which
time, there was no alluson TO Mr.. Edwards publ
cation and advice, although "thc tall Of 1872
WIS now nearly gone.
AT last, the 3lst Dec. (sce No. 12,) the Recei-
yer made dcpose in Rank; in consequence, it is
fairly TO be inferred, OF the peremptory order of
the Secretary OF the LIST Nov, and i'll consequence
of that only.
That Mr.. Edwards publication and advise were
not the cause of the retention of the money, by the
Receiver, before the 18th of September, Is maui
test from Mrs. Stephensons letter of that date.
Thatno such cause of retention existed, within the
knowledge of the Secretary before the LIST of Nov.
Is manifest from his letter of that date. If tho Re-
ccvcr had, at any time between the date of his
wife letter and of his own letter of the 10Th Nov.
made the communication alleged by MIR. Edwards,
1t is to DC presumed that he would, in some
or other have alluded il in that letter, OF in the
previous one OF the 9th Nov. He must have dis
covered, on his return from Kentucky, that the Sc
cretary was dissatisfied with him, for retaining the
puohc money in his hands. He must have been a
ware that every subsequent return which he trans
united to the Treasury, as it exhibited an iucrcas
ing balance, and as it showed that he made no de-
posites m Bank, would aggravate the Secretary s
dissatisfaction. Under such circumstances, what
would be so natural for him, when he had occasion
W WING W 'hc as 10 make some
to the commune alton which expanc the reason of
his apparent disobediencc, and TO the instructions
which he expected in answer for the government of
MS conduct i'll that important particular? The pre-
sumption IS, that, il such justification of his con-
duct as is now pretended, had existed, lie would,
without doubt, have assigned il but instead of do
ing so, he contcnted himself with the excuse made
by MIS-. Stephenson. Therefore, he was silent on
the subject. He waited the result of her letter.
mat, he received; and accordingly, i'll December,
II is found that, in partial compliance with the pc
remptory order contained in the Secre,ary's answer
to his wles letter, he made deposite in Bank.
That no other letter written TO him on the
subject of his depotes, after that of the lst of No
vcnbcr, is 10 be inferred from the tenor of the Secrc-
tnry letter of the Goth April, 1920 which was pro-
duced by his renewed reinssness. This letter be-
gins thns
'On the first OF November last. vou were instruc-
ted To pay into hank the whole o; tho money in yuur
hands on the Oth of that month, a.,d 10 retain
the public money in your hands at the end of each
month by referring To your monthly returns for
the months of December, January, and February.
IL appears that the instruction has been COMPILE
ed with, sum exceeding $4,000, upon an average,
having been retained by you. during those months.
AS the bank in which your dcpositcs have been di-
rectcd to be made is established in the place in
which your Office is kept, the retention of the money
or any part OF it, one day beyond the expiration of
the month, is without any apparent excuse" After
again repeating the directions for him to deposite
ana rcmarking upon some irrcgulary in his returns
the Secretary concludes thus sit is expected that
all regulations addressed to public officers will be
promptly complied with; ard that, when. from any
circumstance. this should be found mpra Ctcablc
the cause of noncompliance shall be communicated
without delay"
Ii amy instruction in relation to his deposics had
been given 10 the Receiver, since the order of the
LIST OF November that order would scarcely have |
hccn referred 10 alone And. if any excuse or ex- |
hpp b,-, i,,c
seGuent 10 the LIST of November such as would have
been afforded by Mr.. Edward pu5l;ca ton and ad-
vice. the order OF the Ist of Novcn would not ha ve
bcen repeated and renewed an order unsa tis6cd
ana unanswered The style and ma nncr Of this let
Ter oil April ~, indicate not only that neglect had
occurred, but that no explanation had been Offered
Tor the neglect. The Receivers answer confirms |
ms conclusion The Receiver had found, by the |
letter ot the LIST of November, that so far tic excuse
offered ny Mrs Stephenson of retaining money TO |
meet the INDIAN payments had been admitted. But,
wnen, in the month OF April following, he was call
cd upon to account for his subsequent omissions NJ
duty OMISSIONS for which that excuse would no Ion
ger avail, would Inc not, iii ustifcatio Of himself
nave naturally referred to any and every letter that
he had written on the subject; and, il in any such
ieufr he had made communication of the kind al
iegcd by MIR. Edwards, would he not on this occa-
SION. have made some alusion to il,
All 'hcsc circumstances, cofrobora ting ca oh other
80 iuiIy are not only irreconciiable with the infer
'ice which MIR. Edwards draws from the withhold |
nS cl The dcposcs by the Receiver, but tbcy lead
inevitably to the conclusion, that the altered conn
of his publication and advice as rea-
son Tor withholding the depostes, was never made
o. or received by the Secretary, and that 20 such
otter, as he alleges TO have been written bv these
,ratary, was ever written in consequence of anv
such communication.
There IS, however, other testimony furnished nv
oe Receiver and MIR. Edwards themselves, which |
confirms this conclusion.
Mr.. Edwards has stated, on oath. that nc made |
lie publication, and had it specially communicated |
% the Secretary by tie Receiver for the purpose of
lppfizing the Secretary Of his intention 20 Withdraw
rom the Bank, and his determination to relieve him
ef from all responsibility in regard TO it, leaving |
he Secretary TO Judge for himself from the returns
which Inc required to make, of tho propriety Of con-
inuing it depository of the public money that,
according to the pledge which he had given in -
publications he resigned his seat as director And
housn nc was once elected to the station since
nat time, he refused to accept it, nor has he had a.
~ thing TO do with the management of the Bank,
since the fall of the year 1870"
Yet, IN the following winter, Mr.. Edwards is |
ound presenting himself to the Secretary not ONLY
- the character of director of the Bank but of a |
director, specially delegated and authorized by the
banS, 10 conclude an important arrangement with
Inc Secretary, in respect to the terms on which tho
sank was to continue IL depository Of public money
By the printed papers accompanying the Sccretarvs
eport to the House, Of the 9th of April 1892 II an
years, that, on the 10th of February, 1890 Mr. Ed
wards being then in Washington, ira nsmted to the
secretary from the bank to the Secretary
ed by THIS very Receiver President of the Bank
containing list Of the directors, for the year 800 in
which Mr.. Edwards name is included: that a; the |
same time,hc also transmitted to- the Secretary let
Ter from the Bank, sigTed by the same Mr. Stephen |
son, informing the Secretary, that Mr.. Edwards.
one of the directors of the institution, is author
zcd TO suggest certain notifications of the contract