Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1824-05-25
PUBLIC DOCUMENT.
ANSWER
Ofns Sesrctaryofhe Treasury, to the .4ddress
Of .Ninian Eduards.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT..

May 8ih, 1924.
The Secretary of the Treasury has had the honor
70 receive the letter Of the Hon. Mr.. Floyd, Chair
pman of select committee of the House of Repre-
scntativcs, dated the Goth ult transmitting the
I" Address of Ninian Edwards" and expressing the
readiness of the committee to receive any conmnu-
biitcation which the Secretary think proper to
make, iu reference to the same, and he submits
the following remarks in answer TO the accusations
contained iii that address,
But before he enters upon an examination of the
subicc. of the Address" he thinks it due to him.
self to disclaim the impuaton of having taken adj
vantage of the moment of Mr.. Edwards departure
to arraisn the testimony which had been given by
him before former select committee of the House.
AS the Secretary had no recollection of the commu-
nications to which that testimony referred, and as
they not record in the Treasury Depart
mcn, he considered himself bound state the fact:
and the occasion which presented by the trats-
mission the House of papers relating the
subject, appeared suitable one for making
tho statement. The terms in which it was made
will shew that dsrcspect towards Mr. Edwards
was intended And. if the occasion not ear
iiCr presented, the delay far from being caused
sought by the Secretary, was produced by cir
Cumstances beyond his control. For reasons sta
ted to the House at the last session, the papers
could not then be transmitted; and, although consi-
derablc cXerton used, it not until the
day on which they sent to the House, that the
preparation of them completed.
1t is not deemed necessary, in this communica-
ton, to recaptuate the injurious allegations con-
tanned III the g address," The aeness Of the SEES
sion requires dcspatch; and this answer shall DC
bricfa explicit
The first charge to be noticed relates to two let
tcrs which Mr.. Edwards, in his testimony before
tue Committee, on the 18th February, 1923, had
stated To have passed between the Receiver of Pub
Tic Moneys at Edward;vi!lc, and the Secretary of
the Treasury, and which, not having been commu-
ncatcd to the House under the resolutions of the
9th of January, 1922 and 18th March, 1892, agree
ably to Mr.. Edwards allcdscd expectation, and
which the Secretary having stated to be neither on
file nor on record i'll the Department, to be re-
collected by himself his officers, he is accused OF
having suppressed or denied.
AS the resolutions under which it is alleged tina
these letters should have been communicated, call
only for the correspondence between certain banks
and the Secretary, il is unnecessary explain why,
among the letters which were commune tcd, any
correspondence between Receiver" and the Sc
cretary not to be found. Nor is it easy TO ina
CINE how any one, informed OF the tenor of those
resolutions, should have entertained the cxpccta-
tion of seeing the letters in question: among the pa
pers which transmitted.
The blame of not having communicated These
supposed letters having been thus easily removed
by referring to the terms of the resolutions them
selves, which show that such letters were called
for, the next question is, whether such letters ever
passed between the parties.*
In the absence OF all direct testimony, in support
of his assertions Mr.. Edwards has resnrted 10 prob
abilities; and mas endcavored to infer n contirma-
ton confederation III its favor from circumstan-
ces that susceptible of no such iutcrprcta ton
That which he chiefly relies upon is the omission of
the Receiver at EdwardSvillc make his dcpositcs
in the Edwardsville Bank in the fourth quarter of
1879: which lac states was in consequence of his
publication and advice; and he asks whether il is
to be believed that the Receiver would have with
held the dcpostes contrary TO the Secretary's or
dcrs, without giving him ason, and whether, il
he had done 81, would not have called him to ac-
count.
The means exist, in the monthly returns of the
Receiver, and the correspondence between him and
Che Secretary, on record in the Department. by
the aid OF which, this may be invc stgat cd
Copies OF these papers herewith transmitted.
BY these i: Will be- seen, that the frs, ins fractions
gwen to the receiver, 10 make mis- dcposiics in the
Bank of EiwardSvil.c, were Of the 2lst Dec. 1878
that, III pursuance %! these n.tuctions, he made his
ffs' dcpositc i'll that Bank the 2Gth of Februa-
~, 1919, OF $1,000, which time he retained in hi,
possession a balance of 200J2 On the 2lst of
March, lie deposited S5,36i, and retained sI9,154
In May, he made no deposito and in June, ONLY
S8,l79, retaining Sl9.l13; and from that time TO
suth December, he made no deposite. Whence IL
appears, that, with the exception of small sum- in
June, amounting 10 less than onc-thlrd of the money
then or hand, he made M dcpositc between the last
OF April and the last of Dec, a period of eirh,
months; during which he retained an increasing
balance Of from 10000 to $4,000! and that even
about $4,000, all the money then in his posses. |
sion.
Instead Of a Withholding of the dcposies in :hc !
4th quarter of the year, here is retention of them
with the exception before noticed, for eight nc Yths
1t was scarcely contended that all these omissions
OF duty were the result of the advice given by Mr.
Edwards TO the Receiver to withhold the deDos:tcs
until he could receive the Sccrctarys Instructions |
On the contrary, it will be shewn, by the cores
pondencc as far as II is susceptible OF bring shewn
negatively, that part of these moneys was with
held from dcposite, upon that prctcxt.
On the 9th August, a; about which time the Re- !
ceivcfs monthly return for June received, the
Secretary wrote TO the Receiver TO know why he
retained the public moneys in his hands, contrary
20 his instructions, and informing him, that, as there
was Bank AZ his place Of residence there could be
no excuse for his doing so.
On the 18th Sept. (scc No. e0,) Mrs. Stephenson,
the wife of the Receiver, answered this letter. in
consequence of the absence Of her husband, and in
formed the Secretary, that from what she had heard
i'll conversation, between the Receiver and others,
she believed lie had retained the money to meet the
drafts of certain public agents i'll the country, which,
tie Secretary had authorized him to purchase. And
it is be observed, that though this was the fall
of 1872 Mrs. Stephenson said nothing of Mr.. Ed
wards publication advice.
On the first of Nov (sec No. 23,) the Secretary
wrote again to the Receiver, complaining of the
continued detention Of the public money in his hands
which he presumed had been the result of his letter
Of the 9th April, (sce No 10 and directed that
Immediately on the receipt of this letter, hr will pay
into Bank, the whole of the public money in his
possession the 30th inst and farther instrucnr
him not to consider the letter of the 9th April as
authorizing bin TO retain the public money in his
hands at the end of each month. Here it appears
that, FAR from attrGutng the Withholding of the
dcpositcs to the cause alleged by Nj. Edwards the |
Secretary attributes it to the cause assigned byAIrs
Stephenson, in her letter Of 9th of Sent And If s