Edwardsville spectator. [volume] (Edwardsville, Ill.) 1819-1826, 1824-06-01

turns Of th.'@Ate Of the bank, aad the amount
Of public IL posites therein, regularly trans
mitted to the Secretary. Is it then to be be-
leyed, that he should have withheld the depo-
sites contrary to his orders, without having
given to MIR. Crawford some reason, either as
Receiver or President, for his having done SO
And, if he had failed to perform this duty, IS it
credible that Mr.. Crawford would have been
regardless Of the public interest, as not to nave
called him to an account fer his conduct
But, if further confirmation OF the letters
having been written, and and received by Mr..
Crawford too, were wanting, strong presutilp-
tons in favorpf both, may be derived from
the very guarded and characteristic arunce by
which be would seem equally to deny the re-
ceipt of the letter, and that any instructions
had been given to the Receiver TO continue TO
make the depoSites. Lett be observed 'nat
my statement, as quoted by Mr.. Cra"iofd' Is,
" that the Receiver informed me he had re-
oeiyed LETTER from the Secretary, direct
;ng him TO continue the deposites.' Mr..
Crawford does not deny that such directions
were given, but he says, it appears that no
ANSW Err to such letter, directing the Receiver
to continue such deposites, was ever writer
&c. From this peculiar manner OF denat
can but infer that, not being willing from some
cause or other, to admit the receipt OF the let-
Ter. Mr.. Crawford contriued TO give the dPec-
lions under some other form or pretext nan
that of direct ANSWER to it. But ina sHch
have nothing to rely upon fahH1 for this opinio,
but the Receivers word for the fact if NJ.
Crawford did not write to him specially on tie
subject of his having withheld the deposits,
1t can only be satisfactorily accounted form
the supposition, that he (Mr. Crawford, id,
IN some form or other, give such dIrectionsas
he supposed would produce the proper cor.
receive.
Another fact, in confirmation of nv state
ment is, that one of the two Receivers who
had been directed to make their deposites in
the bank of Edwardsvile, was ordered to make
his elsewhere. But, under what pretext, do
not know, nor do recolIect ever to have
heard; probably, however, under some one,
equally calculated TO disguise the real motive,
as the giving of directions, without acknow-
Lodging the receipt Of the letter that produced
them.
1t will not, persuade myself, be considered
tntiing confederation of my statement, that
it was not made TO the committee for the first
time but thRt IN privste correspondence
between Mr.. Crawford and myself, more than
twelve months before my examination by the
Committee, | had asserted the same facts SUBJ
stantially to himself.
In my letter to him of the 9th February,
1922 (Which would not venture to refer to,
if had not his answer to it,) say, 81 beg
leave most respectfully to suggest, that it |
would be but an act OF Justice to me, to pre-.
sent my publication of 1919, in which | de-
clared would be no longer responsible for
the bank Iof Edwardssille] IN any way what
ever. This publication was contained in the
St. Louis Enquirer, which believe you took,
at that time. II was also contained in paper
which forwarded to you myself. And Il 7oas
enclosed, and referred TO, in a letter fran Col.
Stephenson, the President of the Bank, and
Me Receiver aiso to you, zrich letter, he snt@med
me, had been a,is,cered. Since the fall of 1873,
1iy conneAion With that -h-s entirely ceesed,
except that am a stakeholder in II, without,
however, ever having borrowed one cent rom
it''
In my letter to Mr. Crawford, of 18th Fe.
bruary, 1922, say to him, 81 must, however,
say, sir, that as the information in the Treasu.
ry Department, relative to my original recon-
mendation of the Bank of Edwardsvile, has.
for some time past, been distinctly understood,
and freely understood, and freely used, at this
place, ashington] can but considerit some
what unfortunate for me, that other con,saHnica-
hons in the Department., which ought to have
terminated all responsibility on my part, have
not been equally known. That / was the
cause OF the depostes being made there in the
first instance, freely acknowledge. But, that
1 unequivocally declared, would not be held
responsible for that, or any other bank, in any
way whatever, after the fall of 1919; that you
zrere notified thereof in due time that the depo-
sites have not been continued there, in conse- |
quence OF my recommendation, since that Pc |
rod; and that the bank was then IN good |
may, think, according to my pre- |!
ssnt impressions, fairly insist upon. And, if !
so, the partial information, now in circulation, |
at this place, is not calculated to do me that |
justice, which, hope, have right to expect |
from your masnammity. 1t would therefore.
afford me great pleasure, assure you, sir, that |
the whole of my conduct, in relation to that
business, should be SO fully known as to be no
longer misunderstood"
The first of these letters was written FIVE
DAYS before his report of the 18th February,
1922. The second bears the same date of |
the latter. They must both, therefore, have
been written. before any charge of suppress
sons had been made, or suggested.
Had the existence of the Receivers letter
been denied, or the slightest intimation of |
questioning it, been given, at the time it was |
thus asserted, could and would, have proved |
every fact contained in my statement in regard |
to it by that gentleman himself. Blu, he is |
now dead Mr.. Crawford knew this, before
he made the report in question--ani dead
men cannot contradict living ones.
No one can read the interrogatories that
were put to me, by the committee, and believe
that Mr.. Crawford was not well informed of |
my testimony, before the date of his letter to
the chairman ofthe same committee, which was |
eleven days later than my examination. From
The nature of the inquiries which he was then
called upon to answer, they afforded as suita.
bic an occasion, as the one he has selected, for
questioning my crediblity. Why. then, has |