Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1824-06-29

| ue'eTmiheu-ano no argument :hat was adj
dressed TO him could shake him.
we presume the facts are these. The Pre-
sIdent kept hmselfinformed Of what was tday
after day, we have no doubt going on befor.
! The Committee. His mind was made up To-
get rid Ut this obnoxious minister. Ten DAYS
| ago we slated II ON the authority of the host
direct Information from Washington " that the
President had declared his resolution, as soon
as the Committee should adjourn, 10 give Ed
wards his choice TO resign, or be turned out
IL this be true, (says the letter writer,l Mr. E.
would find very little difficulty in deciding
| tohlch Of The ttoo 10 choose"
These intimatnns had reached Els ears
lie was aware, that efforts were making To
change The PRESIDENTS resolutions. He found
that they were likely TO fail. He, therefore, with
that consistency in artice which forms part
of his character-determines to tender his
resignation, (no doubt 10 a most insidous man.
ner) and then to give out IL the world, that
he had resigned TO guard his own character,
and To screen the administration from further
attacks On his accoust!! These are the misera
bic pretences he employs to cover the disgrace
OF his intended removal-Yes, the chyalrous !:
the disinterested, the high-mided minister, re-
signs on such shallow pretences, to save him
self from the Odium Of being turned out
Thus he stands-the suicide of his own hon
ours-an his official distinctions, Senator Of
the U. -, minister to Mexico, sacrificed To
his own spirit Ofrevenge or to the plots of the
enemies Of Crawford. Such is the castrophe of
Plot, which was got up IN the fall Of 1899, To
blow up w. H. C.-and which has recoiled
upon the head of its hero!
Let the world pronounce whether this
mans folly or profigacy has been the most
signal.
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE.
The Report Of the select Committee is
shorter than we expected. 1t is elaborately
laconic, contenting itself with noticing in the
most summary way the new specifications
which N. +. has attempted to hunt up in every
direction--staiing in general terms " that no
thing has been proved to impeach the integrity
Of the Secretary, or to bring into doubt the rene
raj correctness and ability ofhis administration
81 The public finances, :" and leaving it to other
persons to draw their own conclusions ON
other poiots" las 10 the conduct of the wit
ness, Edwards)-fiOm The facts disclosed by
the ertdence itself.-SU far as this Report re-
lates 10 MIR. C.. we think it ought To be COM
pletely satisfactory. Ii is IA report too, made
up by gentlemen, majority of whom are de-
cidedly opposed 10 Mr.. C's election.-Thr
Committee did not conceive It their duty Ia
go into any discussion about Edwards himself.
II is placed by the evidence"
We shall lay this evidence AS rapidly as pos |
sible before our readers. The n Intelligencer
has already given us more than IL columns,
embracing the testimony ofe6 Witnesses These
contain the statements Of MIR. Lloyd of Boston.
about the nature Of special del t'sites-o Of Judge
White OF Tennessee, about transfer Of "a sum
OF money from the Bank of Missouri for The
benefit ofthe State Bank of Tennessee, whenhe
was the President OF tile last bank the state
ments of James Sandtrson, Jacob Morgan.
Augustine Newton, Charles Il. Chapman.
jams l.. NcKenna, VIM. Rhodes, Daniel
Kurtz, Alexander Kerr, Jonah Thompson,
Clement Smith, O,erton Carr, Richard Smith.
David English, and Thomas Swami, iall EXCEPT
the lasl, who are " have been officers nfth-
Districl banks, respecting certain depustes or
loans made to these banks by the Secretary
the statements of Edward Jones, Thomas
DUNCAN, Samuel NJ. Nc Kran, Peter G.
Washington, Robert Newell, Ashury Dirkns.
and James l.. Anthony, all clerks in the Irra-
sury. respecting the alleged letter of Receiv-
er Stephenson, and Mr.. C's alleged answer
Of neither Of y iich had they the fainir,t re-
collection The statements of Thos. L. Rid
dick, President OF the Bank Of Missouri, res
peciing certain transactions with that bank =
Of John Forsyth, respecting StepheDson's al
the Bank Of Vincsnnes; and Of Lang,ion
Chev.s, principally respecting the financial adj
ministraion, of the Secs.tary of the Treasury.
AS to the " new specifications" (of loans 10
the District Banks) il is in fact very far from,
being a neiC matter, We should like to know
with IS hat ,iew the Editor of the National
Journal (wbo is so silly doing all the harm il
can 10 Mir. Crawford) can assert that the
loans 10 the banks in th- District of Columbia"
are "contrary To precedent"? Has this Editor |
never read the first Report Of the Select Com
mittee, where il states that such practice has |
been adopted {" By different officers at the head |
Of The Treasury Department" from very |
early day? Has he really never seen the |
long letter from Mr.. Crawford TO the Senate |
Of the U. S. Of 25th February 1923, wherein
he explains this whole subject Of loans 10 the |
District Banks (which N. Els suppories would |
Iain make US believe is quite nelc subject Of
charge. lin this letter Mr. g. iustifes the
course he had pursued explains the precau-
lions he had fmployed-and cites various
came into the Department. Yet il is charge |
just got OPP Ia thing without any precedent
at all!
We conclude with the testimony of Lang |
don Cheves, as honorable to w. II. G.. AS to
The general administration Of ihe. finances. +" In |
my opinion the Secretary of the treasury dis
played much ability, great zeal and industry,
perfect integrity, and commanded as much
success as was practicable, under the crcum-
stances Of the times
The precise plan Of The ips.rrecfion al LIS
bon is n,t defined. IL appears, that the queen
and the Infant Don Miguel Intended to deprive
The Kinp of his toyal authority-the army had