Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1824-05-18
PUBLIC DOCUMENT.
ANSWER
Ofthe Secretary Of The Treasury to the address
Of .Ninidn Ed,cards.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT,

May 9th, 1894.
The Secretary of the Treasury has had the
honor 10 receive the letter Of the Honorable
MIR. Floyd. Chairman Of a Select Committee
of the House Of Representatives, dated on the
9Gth ult. transmitting the "Address of NiDian
Edwards" and expressing the readiness of the
Committee 10 receive any communication
I" hlch the Secretary may think proper to
max, in reference TO the same, and he now
submits the following remarks in answer To
the accusations contained in that address:
But before he enters upon an examination
OF the subject of The address," he thinks il
due TO himself to disclaim the imputation of
having taken advantage Of the moment of Mr..
Edwards's departure to arraign the testimony
winch had been given by him before former
select committee ofthe House. AS the Secretary
had no recollection of the communications to
which that testimony referred, and as they
were not on record in the Treasury Depart
ment he considered himself bound to state the
TACT and the occasion which was presented
by the transmission TO the House of other pa :
pers relating 10 the same subject, appeared a
suitable one for making the statement. The
terms ~ which IT was made will shew that no
disrespect towards Mr.. Edwards was intended
Aud, VI the occasion was not earlier pI esented,
The delay, so far from being caused or sought
ny The Secretary, was produced by circum-
Stances beyond his control. For reasons stat
ed to The House al the last session, the papers
could not then he transmitted and, although
considerable eyertiOn was used, IL was u OF un-
I'll the day on which they were sent to the
House, that The preparation of them was com
pleted.
III is not deemed necessary, in this cOmmU-
n'cation, To recapitulate the injurious allega-
tions contained in the address," The late
ness OF The session requires despatch and this
answer shall be brief and explicit.
The fist charge to BE- noticed relates to two
letters which Mr.. Edwards, in his testimony
before the Committee, on the 18th February
1898 bad stated to have passed between the
Receiver Of Public Moneys at Edwardsvie,
aud the Secretary ofthe Treasury, and which,
not having been communicated TO the House
under the resolutions the ath january, 1899,
and 18th March, 1899, agreeably to Mr.. Ed
wards'' alleged expectation, and which the
Secretary having stated to be neither on file
nor on record in the Department, nor TO he re-
collected by himself or his officers, he is &C.
cus'd 0f having suppressed or denied.
AS The resolutions under which il is alleged
that these letters should have been conmuni.
Gated, call only for the correspondence be-
tween certain banks" and the Secretary, il
Is unnecessary to explain why, among the let
ters which were communicated. any cores
p"nurnce between " Receiver" and the
Secretary was not To be found. Nor is il ca
sy 10 Imagine how any one, informed Of the
tenor oi those resolutions, should have enter
tanned the expectation of seeing the letters in
question, among the papers which were trans
iniiied.
The blame of not having communicated
these supposed letters having been thus east
w removed, by referring To the terms Of the
resolutions themselves, which show that no
such letters were called for, the next question
is, whether such letters ever passed between
the PARTIES
In the absence of all direct testimony, iu
Two facts must have occurred ifihese communication
were mad 10 account be letter Of the Receiver
being on ME ADD for the Secretarys being
record or among the rough drnUghss LIST. That the etc
itself hns been lost ID That the not copied
rhong be concurrence u these facts possible, IL j.
highly improbable.