Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1824-05-21

w estern banks aud the Treasury, was present
ed under the FIRST resolution, rs is exhibited IN
the whole mass of the correspondence. But,
u the fact we're Otherw Use, nothing could bs
more unjust than To consider the omission of
every letter not communicated under that res
olufiOn, as suppression with an improper de-
sign.
Although these explanations may be deem
I'd sufficient answer to Mr.. Edwards's charge
OF suppression, generally yet, there are some
particular instances which he has specially
dwet upon, and to which he attaches partici-
lar importance, that it may be we'll specially
to notice. The first Of these Is, the circum-
stance, that &" extracts were communicated.
Instead Of entire letters, in parts of the cores
pondrDce with the Planters and Merchants
Bank Of Huntsville.
BY referring to the letters alluded to, and
which have been transmitted entire, under the
last resolution of the House, it will be seen,
that the parts omitted 10 be communicated, re-
late 20 an occurrence wholly of temporary
nature, entirely unlmpOrtant in itself, and hav-
ing nO bearing whatever on the subject Of the
call. II seems, that, after the termination Of
the arrangement between the Bank of the u
nited States and the Bank at Huntsville, the
Cashier Of the former drew certain drafts up.
on the amount standing at his credit in the lat
ter hank TIL. So, the Bank at Huntsville de-
clin-d TO pay, under an erroneous idea, that il
was accountable 10 the Treasury for the mo-
ney.
AS soon as this was made known TO the Sc
| crptarv, he wrot- To the Huntsville Bank to
reno, the misunderstanding The bank Jus
tilted itself, by quoting certain expressions Of
In. Srcrrtary's circular, Of July, 1919. The
Secretary replied, that, if the bank had quo.
ted correctly, tiir circular mast have been i'm
perfect, and desired To have il sent back for
examination. II was sent back was fund
Ia he inaccuratrly copied the misunderstood
ing Was removed the drafts were paid and
there the hole matter ended. In the pas
sages relating to this subject, notice as also ia
ken OF the accidental omission Of the bank to
render some returns. These are the parts of
the letters in the correspondence which were
| not communicated I; ard this explanation will
| show, with what little reason il has been infer
| red, that every ON isson in the correspondence
| contains sUm~thing which the Secretary must
have an improper motive TO conceal.
These observations apply Ia all the extracts
! transmitted In that correspondence, except the
letter Of the President of The Huntsville Bank
of the S0th Sept. 1919. As this letter does
not apr"ar to have been transmitted under the
last resolution, it is presumed to have been
mislaid. The purp"rt Of tile preceding part
oft, II not recollected, but search IL now max
| communicated.
Az additional importance is attached, by
Mr. Edwards, to the circumstance of" ex-
tracts" being sent IN this case, as conrd dictirg
that part of The Secretary's testimony before
a former Sci. CT Commute. oi thu House, " hich,
speaking at the CORE spondence generally.
states, that, in consequence Of The pressure IF
business, the original letters and rough drafts
had been communicated under the resolution
OF the 18th February, 1922. No such cantra-
diction, however, can b. imagined, without
misintrrpreting the OBJ, ions import of the Sc
cirtary's words. He spoke of the commun-
cations generally and il is a fact well known,
that it consisted almost entirely of originals
and rough drafts. But il is irreconciieable
with common sense, to suppose that he meant
10 convey the idea. that papers which bore on
their face the title of" extracts" which he
had himself communicated and described az
" extracts" were either originals or rough
drafts.
Neither the Secretary nor Mr.. Dickns has
any where said, in their testimony, as Mr.. Ed
wards supposts, that the latter delivered all
the originals and rough drafts to the Secreta
ry, and that the Secretary sent them ali
to the House. The fact is otherwise. Ahthe
correspondence with the banks referred to,
was not called for, as has been ali eady shown
nor was IL ever asserted that all was sent
nv. Dickins collected, az he has stated. all tn
correspondence that he could find. fled and
unified, that was likely TO have any bearing on
the subject from this he selected such as, in
his judgment, was required by the resolution
and such " extracts"ss were made under the
exercise of this Judgment. After the papers
had been thus selected and arranged, he laid
them before the Secretary, together with such
statements in relation TO other parts Of the re
solution, as the Secretary migbtrequre for his
report. These papers were in the possession
ofthe Secretary while he prepared his report Il
but were referred to no further than was ne
cessary for that object ard the correspon-
dence thus prepared by Mr.. Dckns, was
transmitted, in the same state, to the Honse.
This circumstance will explain The appearance
ofthe marks on the Passages which Mr. Due
kins has stated To have been marked by him
for the purpose of calling the Secreiary's At
tenion to them and which, if they had been
observed by the Secretary would have been |
ac,ed on by him, either by directing the marks
to be- removed, or extracts excluding those
passages to be prepared.
To remove all pretext for the insinuaiion |
which Mr.. Edwards has founded upon the |
c,rc umstance of Mr.. Dickins ha, ing been en- |
pioyed to select the papers, in this case, in
stead of Mr. Jones, the chief clerk, to whom
u had been usual to commit the selection of
papers required by Congress, il is proper 10
STATE. That the resolution Of the House did, in
'his instance, take the usual course Of refer |
ehce 10 MIR. Jones; AVID that il was at his re-
quest ana upon his suggestion Of the propriety
of referring It tn Mr. Dickins, because Of his |
betfer knowk dye Of the subject. that the duty
was transferred to him.
"a. AZ.