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


ing these papers, to understand what was MIR. Ed |
wards actual relationship to the Bank. If he had
not wished be considered, by the Secretary, as
director and agent of the Bank, which the papers
pu-ported, would he not, III some way, have given
him to understand that he was not so? Instead OF
doing this, in mis- letter the Secretary accompany
ing the papers, he referred them fully exana-
tory of their object, and thereby gave his to
their contents.
Evidence might, indeed, be more positive but
taking these circumstances in connection with each
other, it is doubtful whether any negative evidence
could more satisfactorily establish the conviction,
in any candid mind, that no such Communications,
as MIR. Edwards has alleged, ever passed between
the Secretary. and the Receiver.
Mr.. Edwards claims to have found n further con-
rmaton OF the Receivers letter having been writ
ten and received by the Secretary in the expressions
used by the Secretary in speaking Of the letter al
\ legged TO have been written by hi,, the Receiver
The idea, however, is grountlless There is no real
difference in the meaning of the words employ cd by
the Secretary and those of MIR. Edwards, in relation
to- the letter. If the Receiver had discontinued the
dcpostes, for reasons stated by him tie Sccreta-
ry, Gas MIR. L. allegcs) and if he had, in conse-
quence received letter from the Secretary, direct
ing him to continue the deposiies, Gas Mr. Z. also
alleges such letter, whatever might &c been its
form, was, IN fact an answer to the letter of the Re-
ccivcr. The denial of the Secretary that any such
answer was rccollectcd, record so far
from being cvasive, direct and explicit, and CO.
vers, as was intended, the whole ground presented
| in the charge. n
But this charge, con,radiccd, as it is, by all the
facts which have been adduced III the case, is al
rendered more improbable Ivy the want of any
signable motive for the Secretary alleged conduct
on the subject. What hject had he to serve, by
continuing tine deposes in the Bank of Edwards
vile, ii he had received any communication which
authorized the opinion that they We're insecure in
that Bank: MIR. Edwards has charged him with an
improper partially for the Bank OF Missouri vet il
was that Bank from which the deposi,es were taken
to be placed in the Bank of Edwa roisville; and it
was to that Bank that they have been restored
II they were Withdrawn from the Bank of Edwards
vile. There was no other Bank within reach. If
Tie charge of iavoriism towards the Bank OF Mis-
sour were well founded, the Secretary would have
readily availed himself of the pretnxt furnished by
the alleged communication of the Receiver, for re-
storing the dcposite to that Bank.
The Instructions igvcn to the Receiver at Kas-
kaSkia to dcpoSc in the Bank of Missouri, SO far
from confirming the allegation, that letter from the
Receiver at Edwardsvillc, enclosing the publication
oil Mr. Edwards, had been received by the Secrcta-
~, lead to contrary conclusion. The correspon-
dcncc with that Receiver at the period in question:
is herewith transmitted it appears that on the
18th Sept. 1872 this Receiver wrote to the Sccreta
ry, enclosing his account for the month of
August preceding; and, as there appeared, by that
account, u large balance, Of public money in his
hands, amounting to about $4,000, he seems to
have considered II necessary to explain the cause
Ills explanation the same as that offered by
Mrs Stephenson, for like retention of money, to
meet the Indian payments; and, in this case, as i'm
the other, not amy publication of Mr.. Edwards or
any circumstance affecting the character of the |
Bank of Edwardsville, which, If such had existed
he was bound by .thc Secretary's instructions 10 |
communicate. 1t was known to tho Secretary that |
was not so convenient for this receiver depos;te
at Edwardsvillc, between which place and Kaskas- |
k1a there was very little communication, as at ST. |
Louis, with which there frequent intercourse |
IN the next letter this Inv Tho Co
cretary, which was on the LIST November, 1919 the
Secretary, without abiding to any publication of
Mr.. Edwards any letter from the Receiver at Ed
waFasviilc, which, if any had been known to him.
would naturally have been alluded to on such In
occasion directed the Receiver at kaskaskia IN de-
postc III the Bank of Edwardsyiilc all the money |
III his possession at the close of the month, and f
forwards to deposite in the Bank of Missouri The
Receiver did not make this deposite, for rea- |
sons stated by him in his letter of the 10Th jam |
airy, 1890, until tho Sd of that month, as will bc
seen by the list of moneys deposited by him on that
day. From his silence OH the subject, il is evident
that there was nothing ill the circumstances of the
pank TO render the deposita improper
The accusation of having presented contradic |
tory statements OF the amount of public money! in
the Bank of Edwardsvillc, and of having tranpo,ed
othcr statements from that bank, in the commun;-
cations made by the Secretary to the House, and
OF having done SO Tor the purpose of Disgusting the
truth IN relation 10 the cpositcs in that bank with
with these supposed letters, is altogether without
foundation. The bank statements of December
and November, which arc referred to- either
formed part of, accompanied, the letters, which
they Immediately follow in the printed papars |
the tlrst having been written on part of the same
paper as the letter OF the 7th January 1920 to Mr.
dwardS and the latter having been enclosed in the
leter OF 9th OF January, and both the letters and
'he statements having, when transmitted by Mr. Ed
wards, III his letter OF the 10th of February been.
IT Is believed, III the same order in which they an
pear in the documents. The Treasury statements
from winch the balances N the Bank OF Edwards
Fe, at the end OF the 2d, Sd, and Attn Quarters M
1917, are quoted by MIR. Edwards were prenarcd
oy me treasurer, from materials Of bis own nos,os
sion ana the Secretary had no more 10 do with the
preparation Of them, than Mr.. Edwards himself -
1Ihey were communicated the statements of t,o.
oHicer' Inc cause why the statement Tor the 4h
quarter oil 1919, differs in from that rcndcr
ed by the bank for the same period is that in tho
former, the Treasurer has deducted from tho sim
standing to MS credit in that bank, the amount of
two drafts which nc had drawn on the b5nk ard
which had not been paid at the time when the bank
statement was prepared. The sum stated bv the
bank, therefore, is more than that stated nv the
treasurer, by the amount of these drafts. This is
more particularly shown in the accompanying note
from the Treasurer, all of whose statements are
prepared on the same principle, and have alwavsI
been so prepared. II is considered uuneccqsorv
to dwell longer on this branch Of the subject, That
no such communications, as Mr.. Edwards alleges
were made, Is believed to be concusivelv demon
stratcd; and if so, arts could have been rosorted
TO for the purpose Of conccaling them But o,c
very stage OF this investigation, this remark natu
rally suggests itself: that even if both the conmu
nications alleged had actually been made. ,bero
was nothing in that fact for the Secretary In
conceal MIR. Edwards has stated, on oath HE
opinion, that, in the fall of 1919, the Bank of
BdwdTdSvillC was rood coud,:,r