The Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1822-1829, 1824-06-08
CONTROVERSY BETWEEN
Y. Edwards and W. IL. Crawford
address Of Ae .Steretary qt TIE Treasury.

-
lnoies from the Banks OF Missouri, Ed.
uardsyille aud Tombcekbr, contrary 60 the
agreements with those baGIss :, and contrary
To law, being thus answered, there remains
| ia connection with this branch of Mr. I'd
wafds's accasafiUn against the Secretary
only thai OF having, ia his repor, Ia Con
gees, missisted the amaus' so received
j Upon a thorough examinations, however
i il is asserted, that all the noics received
! from those banks, far which the Treasurer
did MT receive q CASH credit III The banks Ia
whelrtllsy were transferred We're specified
in lhr repart made by the Secretary on
the SUBJ Ct, with thccxeeption of S28b,in
notes of the. Franklin Bank Of Alexandria,
hieh folmed part of the funds received
from the Bank of Missouri, agreeably IN hrs
.lrtleroft The 20lh March, 1920, but which,
~ las report Of the l4tb February, 1924,
ere accidentally omitted To be mentioned.
That there was 10 Intentional .coneealtnrnt
on this subirct, is evident, from Tire manner
ia which The Secretary complied with that
part of the resolution which referred 10 il.
by ihc resolution, he Vas required 10 state
whether any uncuffeui III Deprecated pa
per had been received from certain banks,
which the go9eu.nent was not bound 10
receive. AS the Secretary was OF oplnion
thai al lle paper OF THAI description Which
hc had received from those bauks, was pa
per that he was houadto receive, liz might,
without blame, have answered, that none
such ms v ere alluded To IN the resolution
had hupn. rcce1g ed. DESTROYS, hdweN"r, to
put ihu House in possession ri ah ae facts,
he stated what uncurrent paper had been
received, and whyit had been received (;
aud he included ia the statement, .sBper 10
the amount OF several Thousand dollars,
which, M the time he made his d"post",
had actually been pad IN cash. Under
these circumstances, it might have been
reasonably supposed, TINT thls trivial omis
sion was, AS WIS truly the Case, wholly ac-
oidenral, and unintcntonal.
The charge of withholding letters and
called far by the House, rests
upon no better foundation. THIS, howeVeH
might have originated inpart, IA the want
Of attention 10 the true import of the reso-
luton under which these letters aud infor.
nation were called for. The resolution of
the II ouse, Of the 9th January, i822, ms
printed, required Il statement showing ia
" hat banks the maneys received from the
sale orihe public lands have been deposited,
since the lst of January, 1873 the con.
tracts under which The said depusitcs have
been made; the correspondence between
them and the Treasury Department rela
tive thcleto," &c. &c.--lt has been doubt
I'd, whether, according To the proper rules
TT construction, the correspondence here
called for. related Ia any thing more than
the contracts. II is believed, however, that
this doubt gives place 10 certainty upon an
inspection Of The resolution, rs transmitted
10 ihr Secretary 10y the Clerk of the House,
between which, and the resolution MS pin
ted, there is arcin. rll able difference in the
That which appears in the
latter as "A FIRST member of sentence, ter
minatiug with Il scnicolon, Is, in the orSi-
nal (sre annexed M. Al, which Is herewith
complete sentence ending
with aperod By this difference, the woida
d" relative thereto" ARE made applicable
exclusively Ia the contracts =, and orcdarsc
the correspondence required by the reso
lution, is the correspondence. between the
banks and tine Treasury relative to con
tracts under Which moneys received from
the SIDES ~ public lands sitr'e the lst of
January, 1919, have been deposited.
II will he strn, however, that, IN the col
lection Of the correspondence, IT va Mt
confined to that object but, that IN add
zion to Every thing which related thereto,
there WAS communicated 50 much Of the
of the other banks referred
to, AS would enable the House 10 form II
lust nlinion OF the Wilde subject, not only
of the arrangements with these banks in
tliis particular. but oftbe relationship s1b
slsling between them aud the Treasury.
The resolution Of the House, Of the i2th
March 1922 had reference only To three
banks. those of EdwRrdsville, Tomhcckbr,
aud Missouri it called Tor M eortespon
deuce exception relatlon 10 the bank of
Missouri, and, az itrcqnrca AL the CORES
pundcnce in relation To the bank, not before
communicated, all such correspondence as
could be found was transmitted. Yet, al
though these two resolutions are distinct
from each other in their requirements, Mr..
Edwards affects To consider every letter
which was communicated under the latter
as having been improperly withheld under
the former.
That some of the papers transmitted IN
der this resolution might not, With propre
~, and perhaps with advantage, have been
Sent underline first resolution, is not assert
ed Watcher any such, If any such there
be, were accidentally emitted, o. whether
they were not deemed necessary 10 an
understanding Of the subject is not n0w
reeollected. AS there was no consciousness
on the part of the Secretary that any of his
transactions required concealment, or mer
tied censure, aud as It WAS supposed that
the object az the resolution was exclusively
TO obtain information, the whole aim in
selecting the papers aud making the com
mnnication, Was To pot the house IN pos
session of such Information, and such only,
as would best serve 10 elucidatc the subject
10 which il related.
But, TO whatever cause the nml sion of
any of these papers is attributable, the
omission itself is u'important Ii is he
lieved, that THE papers communicated I'M