Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1824-05-28

hand, SEPTEMBER U, tolS, received OF the several
Receivers of Public Moneys, being such as they
were authorized to receive by the Honorable VIM
II. Crawford, Secretary OF the Treasury" II pur
ports have been token from register kept by III,
Cashier of the Bank, from the 9th August, 1878, (,
The 9th Scptcnber 1919: which period includes only
twenty days not embraced by the first arrange
meat under which the bank was accountable only il
kind. by this statement, it appears that the banl
had then on hand notes, taken from Receivers, of
description not receivable by it general deposit,
as cash amounting to S569O6I; of which S263,157
were of the kinds transferred by il the Treasury
Hence, II appears that, instead of the Secretary
having received of the bank umcutrcnt notes which
he was not bound TO receive, tic bank not only tool
upon itself the conversion into cash of other notes,
a large amount, which it had right to pay e
the Treasury i'll kinds but that of the very deScrip
ton of notes which Mr.. Edwards has censured tn,
Secretary for having received, the bank had actual
y right to require that he should receive more thar
double the amount of what he did receive.
1t would be Il great mistake, however, to suppose
that the notes which were received by the Bank OF
Missouri were the notes Of insolrent banks. Those
Of the Bank Of Tennessee and its branches, were
Immediately placed to the credit of the Treasurer
cash; those of the ,hville Bank and its branches
and of the North Carolina Bank, have long since
been paid those of the Mechanics Bank of Aexan-
dria, Bank OF Marietta, and Bank of Stcubenvlle
were caShcd by the banks to which they trans
fcrrcd; of those of the Miami Exporting Company
So,22O 16 have recently been collected. Thus, OF
the whole amount transferred, there remains unpa t
only about $4,000, and of this sum, il is believed
the greater part will be ultimately paid.
Considering the state of tue currency in the west
during the time, and the large amount received by
this bank, which was about $1164O 900, it is doubt
ful whether any individual transactions Of equal
extent, though attended to with great care, would
have been followed by less ultimate loss.
That the charge of having favored this bank, at
the sacrifice the public interest," is without founda-
tion must be evident from the facts which have been
here exhibited That the bank does not consider
itself as having been favored by the Treasury, is
proved by the fact that claim has been preferred
by the bank for an allowance, upon the ground that
the services which it has rendered to the Treasury,
have not been sufficiently compensated. And tits
remarkable coincidence of circumstances, that, at
the very time that charge is preferred by Mr. Ed
wards against the Secretary, for having done too
much for that bank, the agent of the bank is at
Washington, petitioning Congress, because the Sc
crctary had done too little.
The transactions with the Bank of Missouri, be-
ing thus explained, the only other acts, included in
the charge against the Secretary of having received
uncnrrcnt funds, in payment from Banks, arc the
receipt of $4,000, in notes of the State Bank of
North Carolina, and $18,562, in the notes of the
Bank of Kentucky; the former from the Tombeck-
be Bank, and the latter from the Bank of Edwards
vile.
Although, by rigid construction of the arrange
ment, by which these Banks agreed to account for
the public deposites, received by thc as cash. the
whole amount might, perhaps, have been demand
ed of them in specie United States Bank notes
yet, such the intention of the PARTIES
TIC term cash was used, in opposition to that of
" special deposite, and was not meant to render the
Banks liable for the payment uf SPECIE for notes,
which they might receive, on behalf of the Trcasu-
ry, and which might cease to bc convertible into
SPec.c. Such construction is opposed by the Tom
occkbe Bank, i'll its letter of the 18th of Aug. 1919
see Nj. No. j. l66, although the President of tina I
institution expresses its willingness to leave the con-
struc'on to the "justice aud liberal policy of the
Department: Ii is more emphaticaly disclaimcd,
however, by the Bank of Edwardsville, in its letter
to the Secretary, of tile 18th of April 1920, Tsee c.
No. 3, L66. and in his letter to Nj. Edwards, of
the 9th of Jan. 1890 see 4. No. 9, T119,1 hereto
fore referred to. In that letter, the Bank main
tans that" 1t is not supposed that any construction
" ol the conditions, upon which the deposites were
p" received, can render the Bank the guarantee of
those Banks. because il would be contrary 10 eve
Try principle OF reason, to suppose that the paper of
- other Banks, who have, or may, suspend specie
payments, shaf by the act of deposiic in this
"l9stitution, by the Receivers, be converted into
specie, or Its cqrivaicnt. and this Bank held ac-
T" couniab bic toc it as such. We arc persuaded tb,
= never was the intention of the Secretary of the
" Treasury nor can be inferred, from the conditions
upon which the dcpositcs are inade." This letter
as II was written by the President OF the Bank TO
one of its Directors, whom it had constituted an A.
gent for negotiating modification of its arrange
heh' WIN the treasury, may be naturally supposed
to Contain its real views. And, although MIR Ed
wards now denies the construction commended for nv
the Bank, yet, from the terms in which he communi
ated the letter to the Secretary, is presumed that
he then gave it his assent.
Butt although this construction could not be for
many acknowledged by the Secretary, without lead
ing to the evil which the of these
tn
depostes," yet, it was always his intention when
ever the case presented ITSELF to admit such an in
depreciation OF the contracts, might be equitable
and not injurious to the public interest. The letter
OF the Iombeckbe Bank, of the 81 of August 1919
stating that there then on hand in that inst,
tuition, 3lo,OOO, i'll ". Carolina notes, which had
been received, Oh deposite for the Treasurer n nd
WINCH 1t had not yet been able to exchange altho'
no care had been spared in cffecting that object.
since some difficulties were understood 10 affect tho
Bank, presented case ofthis kind. AT that time.
inc state Bank OF North Carolina had not stopped
payment, although it did before the Secrcfarvs
answer was communicated to the Tombcckbe Bank.
The Secretary, having called upon the State Bank
TO disclose the means of paying such of its notes as
ndu oeen received, on account of the Treasury nd
having been informed by the Bank, that it did nos
sess the means and would speedily apply them to
that object, consented that these notes shouid he
tranerred from the credit of the Treasurer il, rho
Tombeckbe Bank, to the credit of the Trc,e,,rcr j.;
the state Bank of North Carolina and, bv that
Bank, they were afterwards paid as were all tic o.
ther claims of every kind, which the Treasury had
upon it..
The case of the Edwardsvillc Bank, added 10 TIC
equitable considerations which were presented in
that OF the Ionbeckbc Bank, considerations OF
policy. The communion ton of the hon. r. NJ John
son, made behalf Of the Bank and referred 10 !,
the Secretary letter of the I'd February, 1921 see
q. No. o, tG1,I which communication was made
with the concurrence of Mr.. Edwards, stated that
the Bank had on band upwards Of $4,000, i'm notes