Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1824-07-06

~ NoPJ ho" PrcSchtcd, which may have beer
gone III consequence OF the object for which thi
1 copy was taken which originally. was moi tina
IL might be sworn. t.. bit that it nigh. be pub
iishcd. 1t was sworn To subsequently to the ar
l rivai OF the summons from this Committee t,
+, myself.
| e. by Mr.. Forsyth. Was that nadcr5cor
ing made by yon, orat your request
n. do not t:tink il WAS made b. me, ami
do not re:ncmb.r that it was male ut nv re
quest | dosrpposc it was made by the rsntic
nan wn' took The copy, AMI That It was don,
oy nun in consequence of hi; knowl .Igc of IN,
, OBJECT In searching fI. the letter.
q. by Mr.. Forsyth. You say that YOU per
ceivo a part of the copy i, UNDERSIGNED. Is thu.
the first time You have noticcI the c,rcuir.
stanc:?
, a.. do not rccollect ~noticin. il herc,,G,r,
bat tiiin;i It'll highly probable that / dill, a, the
copy was intended for publication, and this is a
point to winch | should naturally have wished
To cn!i the public attention, & of which wish tho
gentleman who mni etIeco,., was wcllapprL:ni 1.
q. by Nj. Forsyth. Your beliefs tina,
this unicrscoTing was done before the affidavit
WIS attached to the COPY?
A.. Suc:, IS my belief. have no doubt fit.
q. This copy has ben alrclIv published.
Have You seen the Publication of il in one of
the public newspapers Of ti.is city
A.. | haze.
g. Wasthc COPY for that public ti,n far.
nis'ici b. yon?
\. | submit t, the committee whether tia i,
a proper question.
Nr. Forsyth here stated that he hal a par
ticr.ar rcaso;. for making the inquiry. Th.lat-
ter as published. contains a part in italics. which
corresponds 10 the rart underscorcI in the CO.
ny now presented; and he wished to ask whether
tue types Of the publication were set from this
copy?1
4. l have no objection TO answer, provided
the committee think it n proper question. This
copy is that from which l suppose The rublica-
ton was made, Is it was !urnishcd By myself fer
that purpose.
q. How long was it out OF yonr hands,
\. Not more than 4 day or two, as well as
can rccoiicct.
q. Was it sent to the Editors Of the paDcr in
which II was published, or was il delivered per-
sonaliy,
\. L do not recollect which. MY impression
Is, d delivered tito some person to take il to the
printcrs-probably Mr.. Cook. Whoever tool,
ii. | consider the act as equivalent to Il personal
delivery of it by myself.
q. Did you search, or cause search TO be
made, i'll the Office of the Receiver at Edwards
vile, for the answer of the Treasury Depart-
nicnt - the letter o. which you ROW present 4
copy
~. | wcntt to the Office for the special purpose
of cndcayoring TO ascertain if t'i>rc was not q
: ISNNS III IL W VIZ. vi VI piN 10 nc llIe Ike
ccivcr, directing him 20 continue the depositc:
in the Bank of EdwardsyilIc.
Z. Did you find the answer to the letter oil
which you nov present Il copy
A. | found q letter from AIR. Crawford, of the
9Th of August, 1910, L think; another OF the Ist
of November, OF the same year; and one of a
pril probably the 2Othl 1920. The second ri
these, viz tiat OF the LIST OF Novenbcr, IL is nv
opinion, was written in consequence of the let
Ter OF the Receiver of October 18th, 1916.
Q. You state, in your examination before the
committee OF the last Congress, that Col. Ste
phcnson informed you, after he had written
that letter, that he received 4 letter from the
Secretary Of the Treasury directing him TO
continue the dcpcsitcs in the Bank of Edwards
vile. In yorrlcttcr to the Secretary, oftle 9th
February, 1929, YOU say that nc fmcaninr Mr..
Stephenson Informed YOU that that letter had
been answered. wish 10 know exactly what
the declaration made to you by Mr.. Stephenson
was; whether he said he had received an an
swcr to the letter, o: w!,.'lcr he said he had re-
Coivcd n letter directing him to continue the
dcpo5itcs i'll the Edwarisyillc Bank
a. The letter Of the I2th October was writ
ten previously TO my coming on TO Congress.
On my return from Congress, after the session
succeeding The date of this letter, | asked The
Receiver what answer Air. Crawford had given
to- that letter. iIe told INC either that he had
fiS$'' ~ q Stt1 W. Stbut u u!iItliiI
him 10 continue The dcPo5i!c5, Or that aIr. Craw-
f1ri had written TO him directing him TO do SO
from which | understood him That he had re-
cciycl an answer from Nr. Crawford. ] anDasi.
tive ictoiim me That he had received aicltcr from
MIR. Crawford, directing him 10 continue the
d~oposites bat, whether lie alluded 10 t.!o letter
Of the lst November, 1919, or to thai OF the
20Hl April, 1920 or 10 any other letter in par
~tiCuiaT, | do not hio:y for do not rccoIlcct 10
have seen either OF these letters from Nr. Craw-
ford until my late return to- EdwarisviiIc.
q. Did not yDu consider that letter which
you drafted for Mr.. Stephenson, as letter from
the Receiver of Public Moneys - the Secrcta.
ry of the Treasury
a. 1t was certainly a letter from the Re.
, ccivcr of Public Moneys, but nc was, at the
, same time, President of the iianlS of Edwards
vile. perceive, from the copy it is dated al
/, the GO Receivers Office" know that The Re.
ccivcr'o letter was written from tho DRAFT a!!uIcJ
= to.
y a.. Won state tn1t you retained from Con
\ gress III The spring u tGt0, AMI found the Bmt
OF Edwardsyillc Under great pressure. wi5l
to know whether You aPpriscd the Secretary o
: the I rcasrry that s1c!i was the fact, or advised
{ the Receiver o! Pablo Moneys 10 wijihOlc
: dcpositc5 in that bank on account of it
= A.. do not r~ecolicct that I did write direct
: " 10 tic Secretary myself: but | an under n
impression that tic President Of the bank dr
= write him a letter, the object of which was {
5 iudIce him 10 forbcor drawing upon the banl
while it was under di.Iicuitv. | made a com
ninicltioa 90 Col. Johnson during that Summer
whose brothcr-in-law held moro stock in On
bunk than any other person, of the GINCGltio
with wlIiCh the bank was then Struggling, an