Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1824-07-23

ntsinoS that apply To each. Had he drawn
lar the whole amount OF the deposies, accord.
| ing To the contract. his drafts co,Ld moi hay.
been discharged; without the consent of thy
holder thereof, in any thing hut legal none,
and protest OF the drafts would unqu.s,in3,-
bly, have furnished good cause of action against
the hank.
But it s manifest, from other considerations.
that it could not have been the Intention ~
the parties hat the depostes were MT 10 be
considered as cash demand upon the bank
Both parties knew, at the time OF the contract.
that the Bank Of the United States would not
receive, IN payment, any thing hut cash, or its
equivalent; a contract, therefore, on the par.
of the Bank of Missouri, To- pay, If required,
the whole amount Ofthe deposites to the Bank
of the United States, must have been under
! stood AS an obligation TO pay it in legal money,
or such other fuuds as that bank would con-
sent tn receive.
IL the construction now commended for by
MIR. Crawford he correct. it equally applies to
all the other hanks which he employed. whose
connexon with The Bank Of the United States
ceased ON the 30th June. 1919, and more in
J"dicious arrangement, nor one better calc,i-
lated to perpetuate the evils Of special d.po-
sites,' could not well have been made. They
were not bound to receive any notes which.
mt the time of deposiie were not equal To cash
and it they might thereafter discharge the OH
legations created by those deposiies in depre-
ciated paper, there could not be worse man
agement than permitting the drposites to &C
cumulate, as he says they did in the Bank of
Missouri, in rather less than one year to the.
amount of upwards Of s 100000. composed
principally of notes most liable from the very
nature of the times, To depreciaie.
Under such circumstances, however solvent
the Bank of Missouri might he, such an amount
OF notes could not he kept on hand SD long,
without danger of great less TO the Treasury,
and therefore il must have been bad manage
ment, not TO have found some means of ex-
changing them for cash, or applying them to
the puiic service.
II is, however, but n waste OF time Ia
dwell upon point, which the testimony of
some of the best Informed and most distp.
gnished gentlemen of which this country can
boast. taken in this case, proves to he so in
compatible with the general usage and prac-
tice of banks in such cases.
l will. therefore, notice this part Of Mr.
Crawfor6's communication no farther than to
make a single remark upon the eviGs.uce. by
which he eudaayOrs that be was "bound" to
have taken even more oncusrent notes than he
did receive flom the Bank of Missouri "This
evidence. (says he,) is statement T.. prepared
at the Bank Of Missouri, and laid before the
Missouri Legislature, by committee which
was app"inted 10 examine the report of the
Bank, and which committee represents itself
tn have md before IL, and carefully examined,
The books notes, and such other p,oars of the
bank, as were necessary. The statement is
of moneys on band, September 6, 1919, re-
ceived from the several Receivers nf Public
Moneys, being such as they were authorz.d
10 receive by the Hon. VIM. " Crawford.
Secretary Of the Treasury II purports, he
adds, to have been taken from register
kept by the Cashier oflhr bank from The s,h
August, 1918, 10 the 9Th September, 1919.
which period includes only twcnty-sr,en DAG
not embraced by the first arrangement uuder
which the bank was accountable only in kird.
BY this statement il appears that the bar,,
had then on baud notes taken from r c.iv.
er5 al description not receivable by il nu
general drpnsl'e "a cash, amounting Ia
10000, Of which Sg83,757 were nf thu
kinds transferred ny it to the Trraeuf."
stepping so short, however, with his quo
taiIon from his document, ne has omitted :.
most material part of II, which owe throws his
whole conclusions for, in reference 10 tho>e
very notes, the document states that. thouab
they had been received as abov. staf.d
=" the bank did. d. its own expense and r;sf.
convert the same into specie" IL then n u
document is good for airy thing it leaves hin
whony des''inie o! any Apology whatever, for
receiving uncnrrent notes from that bank.
But waving all question of his obligation 10
rfcr''e,uncurrent notes f-om this bank. re-
turn 10. and insist upon Il specific statemeot
contained in my communication 10 the House.
which think he has but poorly -vaded.
IL Us tins. " That being called on by resolu-
ION of the House of Representatives TO state
'he amount OF uncurrent notes which he re-
ctived from these hanks, he ha4 nlisstated il.
making IL less than ii really was"
To decide this matter il is necessary to see.
both what he has said, and What he had done
in regard to it.
In his report of he 18th February. 1929.
page 3, in replying TO the call that had brrn
made upon HIM. for the amount of uucurrent
paper which he had received from certain
banks, he says as follows. VIZ
t. From the Bank Of Tombe. kbe there have
been received 1881, in the NOTES of the
State Bank of North Carolina.
From fha Bank Of Missouri there have hoo,
received the following sums, viz:
In notes Of the State Bank ofN.C. co mn
"p" VI i'Hs"s'he 1884
OF the Farmers and Mechanics
Bank Of Cincinnati ,1>ohe
ottbe Miami Exporting COMFY 8sfI
@ :. lou" W Cinc'Dpaii S,84G
pa"H W nntkingnm 99l
Oh The Farmers, Mechanics. e.
M anufacurers' Bank of Chill
licothe 90
And, from the Bank Of EdwardsvilIe ,hars
nave been received 8 1850, in notes of The
Bank of Kentucky and its branches.
In the two first cases, the notes were recc;v.
ed IN the month Of March. 1890 and in ,h,,
th'rd. IN Ociocer, 1891. An these not. s. above