Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1824-07-23

| i'arture Tor u foreign cuuntry.
But Mr.. Crawford has, in his communities
ion, attempted 10 avail himself Of an addition
al ground 10 convict me of false swearing. IN
what he is pleased 10 call my alleged cxpec-
tation" that the letters referred 10 in nv test;-
mony rs having passed between himself and
Col Stephenson, wOuld have been communi-
Gated To the House, under ooe or other of thu.
resolutions Of February, 1879.
| As the resolutions" SAYS he. A." under
which il is alleged these letters should have
been communicated, call only for the cores
pondence between Certain banks and the Se-
cretary, It IS unnecessary TO explain why,
among the letters which were communicated,
any correspondence between a Recei. er
and the Secretary was not TO be found. Nor
is IT easy to imagine how any one, informed Of
the tenor OF those resolutions, should have
entertained the expectation of seeing the
letters in question among the papers which
were transmitted"
In order to correct understanding of this
part OF the subject, it may be useful to advert
my testimony before the Committee. In
this, after stating that had prevailed upon
"Col. Benjamin Stephenson, the Receiver,
and the President ofthe Bank of Ed,oardsriiie,
TO write to the Secretary" Sc. say:
was much surprised at not seeing this cores
pondence in the report, as well AS one or more
letters, which, l confidently believe, were
wrltten to the Secretary Of the Treasury,
'n.l8l9, Tor the purpose Ofapprizing him Of the
situation of the Bank, at that time, and in
ducing him to forbear 10 draw upon il, until
| II could relieve itself from the pressure it was
then encountering." Now, as, from my whole
statement, in regard to this matter, it is evil
dent that the subject matter of the letter re-
ferred to IN my testimony, related mach more
tn the affairs of Ina Bank, than 10 the ordinary
duties OF the Receiver, ii surely is not more
extraordinary that should have expected to
have seen this letter, or so much Of il at least
as related TO the affairs uf the Bank, !" among
me papers which were transmitted than that
MIR. T.. himself should have Transmitted variety
ofietters from this same Receiver, under the
resolutions referred to. But he has, in other
instances, acted upon the very consideration
which induced the " expectation" on my part,
TO which he now excepts !; or why did he
transmit his letter to the Receiver at ST. Louis;
OF 18th January, 1892. (see document No. 1897
and state, in the report which IL accom- panied,
that he had transmitted " all the additional re-
turns and correspondence required by the re
solution, except two letters from the Receiver
at St. Louis, which were Of confidential
nature?" Nothing could have rendered il
necessary to have communicated the first, or
to have apolosized for not transmitting the
as the letter Of Col. Stephenson did, to the
affairs of the Back.
Having thus disposed Of the amplfications
which he has given to his original charge, as
| contained in the report 10 question, now re-
turn To the latter, which is as follows /:
The Hon. Mr. Edwards bate Senator
from Illinois, having stated, on his examination,
| before committee Oft House, on the 18th
February, 1898, that the late Receiver of Pub
lie Moneys at Edwards,le had, on his advice,
and, in his presence, written letter to the
Secretary, enclosing copy of publication
which Mr.. Edn ards represents himself Ia have
made, some Time in the year 1919, announce
Ing his intention of retiring from the director
ship of the Bank of EdwardsviIle, and that he
had advised the Receiver 10 withhold his de-
postes from the Bank until he could receive
further orders from the Secretary; and tina,
the Receiver afterwards informed him that
he had received letter from the Secretary.
directing him To continue the deposites the
Secretary deems it proper TO state, that no
such letter from the Receiver is to be found
ON the files of the Dapai tment; that the oil
GERS employed in it have no recollection of the
receipt ofsuch letter; and that, on an exam
ination Of The records Of the Department, il
appears that no answer TO any such letter, di-
recting the Receiver to continue the deposites,
WAS ever written to him by the Secretary of
the Treasury"
Whatever different interpretations, ingenious
and forced constructions might have given to
this report, Mr.. Crawford's elaborate COM
nentary upon IL must now carry conviction 10
every mind, that its real object was, at least.
10 create suspicion of The truth Of nv state
ment, both in regard 10 the Receivers having
written the letter mentioned in my testimony,
and of his having afterwards informed me
that he had received letter from the Secre-
tary directing him TO continue the depostes."
The report itself, as well as the commentary,
alleges circumstances which are intended to
nvslidate the former, and he has Impeached
the latter by denying that he ever gave such
Instructions tn the Receiver.
The facts, then, fnirly at issue between us,
are:
LIST, Whether the Receiver did write The
letter alluded to?
cd, Whether he afterwards informed me.
that he had received letter from the
Secretary, directing him to continue the de-
posites 2"
As TO the first. 1t appears, that on the eth
of August, 1919, MIR. Crawford addressed
letter to the Receiver, most emphatically re-
qulring him TO state, why he had not then
" deposited the public m0neys,in his hands in
the bank, 10 conformity with the instructions
from The Department" and alleging that there
could be no longer any excuse whatever for
retaining the public money" (See No.1.l
II is difficult To believe, either that the Re-
ceiyer would have neglected to answer this
peremptory letter, or that MIR. Crawford
would have tolerated such a disrespectf,,
omissiUD. The latter, however, has stated adj
dltionai circumstances which render il wholly
improbable that any such neglect should have
occurred. He represents the Receiver as bav