The Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1822-1829, 1824-07-06


aud considered by the Committee.
The evidence has run into much detail,
aud some parts. Of il, probably, have not \
very material application TO the main
subject Of inqiry II seemed prar'-.
haneyet, 10 The Committee, To allow IA
ihnss concerned = iiher.d indulgence in tbs
respect.
After a patient attention 10 al the evi.
deuce, aud t. whatever has been urged, IN
tie way Of reasoning tic case, the Conn
miftee see no cause IL charge or modify,
~ any material respect, tie result to which
trey came on the former luse stigation, and
/ which thy have already Submitted 10 the
House. on the contrary, they fnd, IN this
! further and fuller examination, corfo
hnration, generally speaking, "T the
plnions Which they have heretofore ex
pressed.
On sumo parts Of The inquiry, indeed,
evidence has now been produced To points
which were not, individually and parilcn
lirly, taken into the consideration of the
Committee on the former occasion. To
these, perhaps, some reference ought now
To- BIZ made. Tncy may be- considered as
new articles,or ucw specifications of charge;
aud although not very definitely or formal
Nv made, yet, AS evidence has been taken,
Intended TO support them, they become
subjects If consideration.
One of these respects the depositrs IF
public money, made or allowed by the Sc
crelarv, IN the Banks of this district, nj the
Instance and % the solicitation of the
Banks themselves, and - an accommoda
ton 10 them. AT il ime 0f considerable pc
cunlary pressure, 10 1919.
In their former Report the Committee
expressed their opinion IN relation To- depo-
pasltes nf this nature and referred 10
public communication of the Secretary IN
which the facts were ayosed, and in which
a practice, of a like character, was stated 10
have been Of early existence and long con-
tnuanee. The Committee did moi deem II
necessary 10 call for proof Of that which
was admitted and As il WAS Of opinion
that the practice itself waa irr.gular aud
dangerous, it did not think it material la
inquire particularly, whether, IA the only
case in which loss was apPfche"drd rom
This cause the probability of such loss MAS
g thrr greater or less than the Secretary
rad supposed. This apprehrndcd loss Is
in The case of the frankln Bank of AleX-
andri,. In the letter Of the Secretary Ia
the President of the Senate, of the 25th Of
February, 1925, he says, in regard to thla
Bank that u letter al he District Attorney
thercui h communicated, showed that
there was no danger ol loss 10 the United
Stai ..
TIE evidence now offered and received,
lends ~ show thai there IS a probability Of
final loss from this Bank but in other res.
pacfs there is no new view OF the case pre-
,ented
The debt due the Government from the
Bank OF Vncennes, has also been brought
rward, and made the sub ecr of inquiry
md peof. Nothing Distinguishing this case
from those of other Western Banks in
which the public money had been deposit.
ed, and in regard to which loss had hap.
pened, or was expected, had attracted the
attention Of the Committee, as important
% he considered, at the time of their for
ner Report
The case Of this bank had been previous
v made the subject of Report 10 the
House by the Secretary, on the 2lst of Fe
,ruary, 1872, and in answer to ii resolution
, ssed on the thirty inst of January pre-
'rdag, in which u statement of the debt
II he means wi ieh had been taken and
I,ed IL secure il, were laid before Congress.
The evidence now taken relates principal
y, as IN the preceding case 10 the amount
Of the loss which may be expected TO be
Incurred.
The only remaining charge which may
% regarded as not before examined, i, an
litigation, ~ information that owing to the
ault of the Secretary, the Tensioncis
md public creditors of the government
n EAst Tennessee, were, III some instAn
'es, paid in bank paper not equivalent to
specie.
The circumstances attending this trans
'rtion seem tn he fully stated in the test
monv Of Hugh l. White. II does not ap
pear that any knowledge of these paw
nrnts having been made IN deprecated
paper WAS communicated To the Secretary.
The measure adopted by him for the rea
'onable provision of u proper fund at the
,lace 81 disbursement, were, as far as the
Committee can Judge, sui BE and Judi
;lous lie had right In expect the pay !
nents 10 be- male in spccie,or rs equivalent;
, atlfasi, tnhc Intermediary thing should
a9pen IL prevent sch payment M in
Tnrmat m vas given 10 him of ANY disap-
ointmeDt of his expectation in this respect
w b'ose "n"s' u'ay IL WIS ~ pay =
aad M complaint appears In have been
pre- erred by those whose duty ii Was To
receive.
In regard to thr contested letter Of Ben
lamn Stephenson, oft g eth of CCtahrr,
1910, the Committee sec no cause 10
change the opinion which WAS entertained,
snd which they Intended to express in li,i
former report that although the letter was
written, as stated by MIR. Edwards in his
testimony. there WAS no evidence that Mr..
Stephenson communicated or transmit ted il
to the Secretary of the Treasury.
The Commiltss- luu1u