Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1824-07-16
Bv PLEAsANTs & BUTLER?

suspicion of the truth Of my statement. both
in regard to the Receivers having written the
letter mentioned in my testimony, and OF his
having "afterwaris Informed me that he had re-
ccived ietterfrom the Secretary directing him
70 continue the deposiies.n The report itself,
as well as tue commentary, alleges circu,nstan-
and he has impeaci,ed the latter by denying
that he ecer, gaze suct instructions 70 Gse Re-
ceicer.
The facts, then, fairly at issue between us,
are:
LIST. Whether the Receiver did write the let
ter alluded to.
2i. Whether he &c afterwards informed me.
that he had received letter from the Secret a.
| ry, directing him to continue the depositessn
As TO the first. 1t appears, that on the 9th
OF August, 1919, Mr.. Crawford addressed let
ter to the Receiver, most emphatically reauir-
ing him to state, why he had not then s.deposi-
| ted the public moneys in his hands in the bank,
in conformity with the Instructions from the
Department" and alleging that there could be
public money" (Sce, No. ~
1t is difficult TO boieve, either that the Recei.
yer would havencg!ected toansver this percuip-
tory letter, or that Mr.. Crawford would have
tolerated such disrespectful omission The
letter, however, has stated additional circuin-
stances which renderit improbable that any such
neglect should have occurred. He represents
the Receiver as having been guilty ofgreat re-
mssness in regard to his depostes for months be-
fore, and says he. the Recovery ssmust have
discovered that the Secretary was dissatisfied
with him for retaining the public money in his
hands. lie must have been aware that every
subsequent return which he transmitted 10 the
Treasury, as it exhibited an increasing balance,
and as it showed that he made no deposite in
bank, would aggravate the Secretary's dissatis-
faction" Jnr. Crawford, however, relies upon
these circumstances to prove, that if the Re-
'ceiyer had answered tins letter, he would, in
his subsequent correspondence, consisting of
two short notes have made &C some allusion to
the communication which explained the reason
of his apparent disobcdience, and to the intructi-
ons which he expected in answer, for the go
yernment of his conduct in that important par
tcuiar;" but would it not, let me ask, have been
much more extraordinary and unaccountable,
that he should not have answered the letter at
all, than that he should have failed, in bne or two
short subsequent communications, to have al
iuled to this answer.
The letter, in fact, was fully answered on the
18th October, 1919. No otrer answer was e.
yer given by the Receiver. And this is the We
ry letter in question which, after accounting for
its delay, assigns as a reasan for not having
therefore made the deposites, a difficulty that
might thereby hare been created, of complying
with previous instructions presents an account
of the then situation OF the banlx, intimates ap.
prchensions as to its future prospects; declares
an unwiliinGncss to make further deposites,
without such instructions as the Secretary might
think tit to give, &C on full disclosure of the
whole circumstances of the casc;n and among
other things, expressly states, that &C The publi-
cation of Gou. Ed,oa,Is, herewith transmitted
shoes tie course he is disposed to pursue.n All
of which, am happy to say, can be established
by the original draft of the letter ITSELF on files
in the Office of Samuel d. Lockwood, Esq. Re-
ceiyer of Public Moneys, at EdwardsviIle, with
an endorsement thereon in the hand writing of
the late Receiver, (who has been dead about
eighteen months, purportng that the letter was
sent to Mir. Crawford in October, 1919, of
which an attcsted copy is hereto annexed, see
No. 2.)
On the 29d October, 1919, ten days after the
date of the letter last referred to, the Receiver
again writes to MIR. Crawford, and states, that
6 twelve thousand five hundred dollars of the
capital stock of the Bank of Edwardsyiile, hay
ing been paid into the bank since the date of
my last letter, feel it my duty to inform you of
the circumstance, IN consequence of some of the
suggestions made in that letter. (See No. By
The first fact in issue between Mr.. Crawford s.
myself, is therefore established.
As to the Cd, viz: &c That the Receiver in
formed me he had received a letter from the Sc
cretary, directing him to continue thedeposites, y
it must be admitted, that my statement does not
render me at all responsible for the truth of this
Information, and, that it might have been given
to me, even if it had not beeen true. But as
this circumstance would have weakened, so the
fact of Mr.. Crawfords having actually written
letter 10 the Receiver in November, 1919, ex-
pressly saying: ~ request tint you 1o,U, imme-
diately after The receipt Of This letter, deposite IL,
The Eant IF Edcardsciite, the aolto!e Of the mo-
| ncy in your possession on The 30Gt inst.," must
sufficiently corroboratc my testimony.
This letter, il is true, does not profess to be
! an anspey to1he letter Of the Receiver Of the
18th October, 1919, nor have imposed up
on myself any obligation 10 prove it TO be so.
| But there arc certainly strong circumstances to
| show.
| 1st, That it was written in consequence Of
| the Receivers letter;
I'd, That it could not have been written on
| the grounds upon which it processes to have been
written.
As to the first. II is worthy of remark that
in noticing the difficulty" suggested by the
Receiver, as an excuse for not having made the
deposi;cs, Mr.. Crawford is SO particular in
pointing ont the means of obviating that diff
culty that il is almost impossible to resist the be-
lief that lie had then received the letter in ques-
ton.
This belief, however, acquires great addition
al, il moi irresistible strength, from another doc
| ument which Mr.. Crawford enclosed in his let
ter 10 the Receiver, Of the Isl November, 1919.
1t will be perceived, that, among the strongest
reasons urged by the Receiver for declining to
make the deposites, in the Bank of Edwards