Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1824-06-08

as the month? The precise dale Z. -ornst;me.
OF immense consequences in such matters.
Cd. Why is the letter left unfinishr,l-witb-
out top ar bottom?
Sd. This latter is not taken from The letter
book, on which are recorded the letters thar
are d'spaichrd-hut on a loose, insulated niece
ot paper: hespealtins rather the aithor's wish
10 write. than the fact that he had actually
Sent away his letter.
3th. In the late correspondence which subse.
qnently passed between Alcssrs. Crawford aud
Stephenson, there is no reference whatever 10
this October l.tter-lr MIR. C's nf April GOTH
1890, he recalls his attention tn his own previ,
Gus letter of Ncv. LIST which called upon h,u,
10 Opposite III bank the public monies in his
hands-but no reference 10 this October Copy
OF Son 9th of June, S, promises 10 do bet,
.tr Tor the future; hut sill! no refere,ic a 70 Els
October letter, though NE might suppose he
would nave lugged II in by way of excuse for
ms PRIOR nrgIects Why, no reference mt all
to this letter, when so many Occasions occur
RED Tor referring TO II, IL il had been sent
.. WIS behind hand in his pa y,nent TO the gov
eminent and hence il may be readily ac,
counted for why he should avoid writing on
the subject.
:. s,h. No such letter isto BE- found on file in
the Treasury Ofice-aud no such letter is re-
collected BY any. the Clerks.-The .proba-
'"Su 49, tidt u tNC NeCetVeT uf0 ever
write such letter. ii was never sent, or never
received.
bullet US go, back TO the original insinua-
ton of E. against Mr.. Crawford 1t turned
upon this, that MIR. e. received a letter from
the Receiver, calculated to alarm him about
the solvency Of the Edwards, lille Bank; that
notwithstanding, Mr.. &. DIRECTED him 10 con-
tinue his deposites IN that Bank &c. Sc
Mr.. T.. would have the committee Of 1922 be,
lleve, thai this last-named letter Of Nr. g. was
an answer tn the Receivers Irtter-nud in
ms address, hcrserr indirectly To make nu.
inat MIR. Crawford must then Ina ' e received Mr.
- letter. Ills letter from Louisville is cal
cu'a'sd 30 leave the same Impression. But no
such 'n'nS why does he not also find in
the Land Office, Mr. C's ansuer. aa Wi, "a
the "Copy"'-Mr C's instructions TO denosis
were not IN unsrer TO the Receivers letter.
ILey were contained in the letter of Nov. Ist.
winch Mr.. T. has made pubic with the rest
OF me w cstern correspondence--whi he bas
never conceaIed-which he has never beep
charged with coDcealing.-The attrmpt TO
connect That letter with the Receivers letter
Is con;emptbie .Pquiyucaiinp, well worthy
of the character of Ninian Edwards.
But, lastly, read the Receivers letter. Was
ise'e, any thing in it calculated IL, alarm Mr..
=. about the public d.posites n. E's publ.
caton IS truly stated by the present Commit
lee 10 have no such effect. Was the Re-
cslvers letter When it expressly states,
thd' nc considers the situation of the bank as
favorable as could either be expected or desi-
red"-that " 1t remaiaed under the control of
its present directors, he should auprehend
no KIND OF danger to the public or to individ-
uaIs" ;-and that he bias 50 no reason Ia an
tors"!