Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1824-05-21

them in specie on demand, il was expected
that the bank would be sweral!e for the
amount deposited, in specie, OF in bills which
would be T-cei, ell ms specie, at the place TO
which the money should b. directed to be-
transferred unless il should state the contrary"
"iBui, AS continues the Secretary, and this il |
The part omitted by MIR. Edwards,) as no
sought on either side, this requisition will not
he vigorously reqrned." There ia, however,
| no question concerning this bank, as no I'm
| current notes were ever received from il.
The charge nf having received uucurrent
notes from the Banks Of Missouri, Edwards
vile, and Tombeckbe, contrary to the agree
ment with those hanks, and contrary tn law,
being thus answered, there remains, in con-
nection with this branch Of MIR. Edwards's
accusation against the Secretary, only that Of
| having, in his report to Congress, misstated
! the amount sn received. Upon a thorough
| examination, however, it is asserted. that all
the notes received from those banks, for which
! the Treasurer did not receive a cash credit in
| the banks to which they were transferred,
were specified in the report made by the Sec
rotary on the subject, with the exception of
$ sG5 dollars, in notes fthe Franklin Back Of
Alexandria, which formed part nf the fund.
received from the Bank Of Missouri, agreea-
bly, To his letter Of Goth Of March, 1890, but
It ",
18s2,were accidentally omitted TO he mention
ed That there Was no intentional conceal
mett on this subject, is evident, from tn. man
ner IN which the Secretary complied with that
part Of the resolution which referred to it,
by the resolution, he was required To state,
whether any uncurrent or deprecated paper
| had been received from certain banks, which
The government was not bound to receive
AS the Secretary was of opinion, that all the
M NOR inf hat si,cr rs,,yt., 1T 4.
reiSed from those banks, was paper that he
WAS bound 10 receive, he might, without blame,
have answered, that none such as were alIud-
ed To IN the resolution had been received -
i)rsirous, however, TO put the House in pos
session of all the facts, he stated what uncur-
| rent paper had been received, and why il had
been received /; and he Included in the state
| n'ent, paper 10 the amount of several thousand
d9ais, which, at the time he made his d-po-
site, had actually been paid in cash. Under
these circumstances, it might have been rea-
sonahly supposed, that this trivial omission
was, as was truly the case, wholly incidental,
| and unntentiona!.
| The charge Of Withholding letters and in
formation called for by the House. rests upon
| no better foundation. This, however, ma,
have originated in part, in the want of a,trn-
ton 10 the true import Of the resolution under
which these letters and Information were call
cd for. The resolution of the House. of the
9Th January, 1892, IA printed, required Ga
statement showing in what banks the MONEYS
received from the sale Of the public lands have
peen deposited, since the LIST Of January. 1918 :;
The contracts under which the said depnsites
nave been made; The correspondence between
them and the Treasury Department relative
| thereto" Sc. &c. &c. II has been doubted.
whether, according to the proper rules of con-
struot,on, the correspondence here called for,
related to any thing more than the contracts.
IL IS believed, however, that this doubt gives
place to certainty upon an Inspection of the
resolution, ~ transmitted to the Secretary by
the Clerk of the House, between which, and
the resolution as printed, there is a remarka-
BILE difference in the punctuation. That
which appears in the latter as the first mem
her of a sentence, terminating with .emcn
Ion. ~, in the original, (see annexed No. al,
which IS herewith transmitted) a cnmpIct.
sentence ending ~iih period. By this differ
ence. the words relative thereto" are ma dr.
applicable exclusively to the contracts; and,
OF course, the correspondence required by the
resolution, is the correspondence between
thnsr banks and the Treasury, relative tn tn.
| contracts under which the moneys received
from the sales Of public lands since the Is,
of January, 1873, have been deposited.
Ii VIII be Seen, however, that, in the COL |
Jrc.h-n ofihe correspondence, IT was not con. |
hhed IN mat object but, that, in addition 10 |
every thing which related thereto, there was
communicated go much Of the other cores
p'ndence with the banks referred is. as would
eoable the Heuse to form a inst opinion of
the whole subject, not only of the arrange
n;rnts with these hanks in this particular. but
"f the relationship sub.stiog between them
| and the Treasury.
The resolution of the House, Of the 10Th
March, 1922, had reference only to tbre.
banks, those "f Edw ardsrilr. Tombeckbe. and
Missouri; II called for no CORE spoDdrnce ex. |
cePt in relation to the bank of Missouri. and |
as IT required all the correspondence in reIa- |
ton To That bank, not before communicated |
all such correspondence as could he found
was transmitted. Yet, although these two
resolutions are distinct from zach other in their
requirements, Mr.. Edwards affects 10 consider |
every letter which was communicated upder |
The latter as having been improperly with |
held Under the former.
That some Of the papers transmitted under
this resolution might not, with propriety, and
perhaps with advantage, have been sent under
the first resolution, is not asserted Whether
any such, If any such there be, were acrdrn
tally omitted, or whether they were not deem.
ed necessary tn an understanding of the sob
iect, is not now reaolected. As there was no
consciousness on the part oftle Secretary that
any ofhis transactions required concraInrnf.
or merited censure, and as it was supposed
that the objerr OF the resolution was excin-
svrIy IN obtain information, the whole aim
IN selecting the papers and making the com
Tpsicaion, was 10 put the house IN posses
sion ii soch information, and such only, as