Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1824-06-04

ed letter from the Secretary, directing him to con-
tiuue the deposites. The Secretary has said, that
no such letter from the Receiver was on file in the
Department, and that of its officers had any
recollection of such letter; and, moreover, thar
that there was no record of any answer. The adj
dress, Notwithstanding this declaration, aims to
prove that such letter was written; and, among o.
Their arguments, adduces the fact, that there was,
about this time, actual suspension Of deposites
AT the bank; which the address attributes TO the
caution of the Receiver, under the advice which
had been given him. To this, il is answered by
the Secretary, that this suspension owing the
neg igence not the caution of the Receiver; that
the Receiver was directed frequently and repeated
ly to continue his deposites, and make them
gularly and punctually: danger then being apprc
hen,ici, not from the bank, but from the con-
tinuancc Of large sums i'll the hands Of the Re-
cciver
Without entering into detail of all the facts
connected with ,his subject, it seems the commits
tee, that there i; no doubt that Mr.. Edwards did
make publication, paper G. in the newspapersin
1919, as he represents, and that Inc gave such adj
vice rs he represents, TO the receiver But there is
no evidence that the Receiver communicated il, or
wrote on the subject of it, to the Secretary. In
deed it is not very probable he would have done
so. II is TO be remembered, that he President
of tie bank, well as Receiver of public moneys,
and he would hardly advise the SECRETARY that he,
Receiver, could ieposc confidence i'll the bank,
the President and head of which he waa The COM
mitcc does not deem it all material 10 inquire whc
thcr the Secretary received copy of Mir.
Edwards publication. There is nothing in thar
communication which should have alarmed him for
the safety of the public money in the Edwar'lsville
bank for, although Mr.. Edwards announces his iu-
tention of withdrawing from 4 participation in the
direction of il, he speaks in most decided terms of
its solvency and safety. While the committee sees
no reason to believe that Ms. Edwards acted with
any improprety in procuring the dcposite of the
public money in that bank, or in regard to the
nuance of such dcpositc. il pcrccves, the other
hand, no reason whatever for surprising that the Sc
crctary continued the dcposites after being adon-
iShed by the Receiver, that they were unsafe. On
the contrary, the committee thinks the correspond
cnce fully shews, that the depostes ointted or
thought to be so, through negligence and default
and that in enforcing and insisting them, the Sc
cretary governed by proper regard for the Sc
curty of the public funds. The committee, howe
yer, would take this occasion to observe, that, in
their opinion, the appointment Of the Presidents of
the local banks, i'll which public moneys are depo-
sited, to be Receivers of the public moneys, TO be
deposited in the same bank, is injudicous that it
has happened in several cases; and that nconveni-
ence or mischief may be not unlikely result ftom
such practice.
from this Bank also. contrary law the committee
think that the construction, which appears to have
been commended for by the bank, and acquiesced in
by the Secretary, of the first article of the arrange
mcnt between them, Is not the construction {;
especially if nothing be regarded hut the terms of
the contract. The words of the first article are
That the public moneys shall be entered to the
credit of the Treasurer cash. 1t would seem
impossible that these terms could mean any thing
else than that, for the amount of these deposites
the bank should become directly debtor 10 the
United States, and that this debt, thus assumed.
should, like others, be legally paid If this con-
struction, which the committee hae given To the
contract be correct, these were illegally re-
ceived.
The Secretary's view Of the case appears. howe
vcr to have been different. He says; the term "cashn
was used in opposition to the term ESPECIAL demo.
sue, ana was not intended subject the ba nix to
The payment OF specie for notes which We're not con-
verabe into specic and that il was not understood
by either of the parties, that the bank was fcsoons
BILE for the credit of other banks whose notes were
deposited in it. The correspondence sufficiently
shews that the bank expressed the same opinion at
an early period of the connection, and long before
this case arose. The construction insisted upon
was, I'm effect, that the bank to receive such
bills as the Receivers had lawfully taken and wish
ed to deposite; and, these would be of different
pahNs more or less remote, the banks should for the
compensation which 1t received be at the expense
OF collecting them, that the proceeds might lie
| transferred, without farther expense or trouble
On the part OF The government, to the order
! OF the Treasury: but that, nevertheless if n.
ny such bills became dscredied, while in this pro-
cess collection, by the Iailufe of H.. oans
which issued them, the loss shall fall on the go.
vernment.
| Although the committee do not agree to the cor.
rectness of this construction, yet they no
to doubt that tho Secretary may have honestly sup
posed that the banks entered into the arrangement
with this understanding Of its meaning nor an,
ground to believe his conduct, in this respect Il
have been governed by any improper motive. L
ought TO be added that the Secretary states, tina
one reason for receiving these bills from the
Edwardsville Bank, was, that he had, at tina
| time, some reason 10 apprehend of pune
! tualty good faith OH the part of that banI
/ itself.
| The case of the Bank of ToTbcckbe, as it is ey
planned III the Secretarys answer does not call fo
any particular observations. 1t is not unlike that O
LdwardsviIle except that jim the former case, no los
appears to have occurred. The loss in the case o.
the Bank Of Edwardsvie, arising from the recent
OF uncurrent notes. will be twenty thousand dollars
unless 1t should turn out, as the Secretary saws
he is assured it will, that the notes will vet b,
paid.
! The committee has requested Of the Department
TO be informed Of the present amount due to the u
States from the following banks, to witt The Branch
Bank OF Kentucky, at Louisville; the Huntsville
Ba2k; the Bank of Missouri; the Bank of Vinccn.
mes; the Bank of Edwardsville; and the Farmers
and Mechanics Bank of Cincinnati and of the
present circumstances of those banks; and, vbe.
ther there be reason to apprehend loss from any
other bank in which the public money is dcpo-
sited.
In answer to this request, the Secretary has COM
municated statement of the Treasurer, giving the
information required, which accompanies this repor,
marked d.
by this 1t would appear, that the balance now due
the government from these banks, is four hundred
and forty thousand eight hundred and twenty dol
lars and sixty-thrce cents.
To be con,inued.)