Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1824-07-16

VOL. i. No. SO.
/ Der 6, 1919, received from the several Receiv-
/ ers OF Public None, s, being such as they were
authorized 10 receive by the Hon. Win. II.
! Crawford, Secretary of the Treasury II rur-
/ ports, he adds. tn have been taken from Rc-
custer kept by the Cashier of tl.e Bank from the
9th August, 1878, to The 9th September, 1919,
winch erioi includes Only twenty seven DAYS not
embraced by the first arrangement under which
The bank was accountable only in kind. BY
this statement IT appears that the bank had then
ON hand notes taken from Receivers of des-
cription not receivable by ii ON general depo-
ste as cash, amounting 10 S563,061, of which
$685., 737 werecuf the kinds transferred by il 10
| the Treasury,
In stopping SO short. however, with his Quota.
tion from tins document, he has omitted a most
material part oft, which ovcrthrows his Whole
conclusions: FOR, in reference TO those yo:-y
| notes, Inc document states that, though tI.1,-
mad been received us abors stated, SHE bank.
dtd, az lis o,cn expense end ,ish coare,t the
s1ae into specie" If then this document is
good for any thing, it leaves him wholly destitute
oil any apology whatever, for receiving unEur-
rent notes from that bank.
But waving all question of his oblicationtto
receive uncurrcnt notes from this bank return
TO, and insist upon, a specific statement corr
tanned In my communication 10 the House, which
think he has but poorly cvaded.
/ Is this. s'That being called on BY reso-
luton of the House of Representatives to sl.s,y
the amount OF uncurrcnt notes which he recev-
ed from these banks, he has msstated IL, making
II less than II really was"
To decide this matter it is necessary TO see,
both What he has said, and what he has done in
regard to it.
In his report of the 1Ith Feb. 1892. page g.
in ing 10 the call that had been made upon
him. for the amount of uucurrent PAPER which
he had received from certain banks, lie SAYS as
follows viz
.Fron the Bank of Tombcckbe there have
been received 81 1, in the notes of the State
Bank of North Carolina. -
From the Bank of Missouri there have ba,n
received the following sums, viz.
In notes of the State Bank of N. c. s5oooo
of the Bank ofNashvie eo,811
the Farm. and slcchn. Bank
of Cincinnati I19d5
ofthc Miami Exporting Comp. 1861
oil the Bank of Cincinnati 3,3A6
OF the Bank OF Muskingum got
of the Farm. Mech. 81 Manu-
facturcrs' Bank of Chilli $50
Ana, from the Bank of Edwards, lie there
have been received Sl8,562, in notes OF the
Rank Of Kentucky aud It's branches.
| In the two first cases, the notes were received
in the month of March 32o, and in the third.
in October, 1921. All these notes above de-
scribed, were uncurrent ut the time they were
received from the banks *'s* 4**## In
no other case have uncurrent banl, notes been
received from any-banlk in which the public mo-
ney has been deposited.
] These are the assertions of Mr.. GRAVEYARD -,
bout which there can be no dispute If. then.
can show aaother case, or either cases il, which,
uicurrent bank notes have been as clearly re-
ceiyed from the Bank of Missouri, as i'm the ca
scs he has mentioned, make good my state.
| ment. This being all that desire, shall con-
tent myself with but single case at present
letter L. No. of fhe OIL
to the President of the Bank of Missouri, lie
acknowledges, that Sin consideration of a pro-
position made by Col. Riddick, as agent for tie
Bank of Missouri" he had agreed TO take a draft
Gin favor of the Bank of the State of Tennessee
payable at Louisville, for $40, 156, in notes of
that bank and its branchesn (See document
66.)
Ills letter b. No. 25, to the President of the
Bank of Missouri, of the 18th Nov. 1920, and
the Presidents answer, B. No. 90 of the 18th
December, 1920, (see document 10Y show.
that the said S40,156, in notes of the Bank of
Tennessee and its branches, were transmitted
to the Branch Bank of the United States, at
Louisville, on the 21st May 1920, according 10
his orders, where they were received by him
The Hon. Hugh l.. Whites testimony shows.
that these notes were mostly on the Branches of
the State Bank of Tennessee, and that these
branches had suspended specie payments some
time In the snmmnr of the previous year.
| These notes, twill be seer, are not ;ncI,icd
among the uncurrent notes which Mr.. Crawford
acknowledges to have received though they
were equally entitled TO u,at denominations
therefore submit tho naked fact 10 the Cou,.
nlittee that he did receive uncurrcnf notes to a
considerable amount, in another cose bes;,jes
those specified in his report on that subject,
Without positively denying this statement,
MT: Crawford would seem 60 irnpuenii, by al
ieging that those notes were immediately pisaed
TO The credit of the Treasurer, as cash, bv*a!,a
Bank OF Tennessee. This, if ever so correct.
cannot disProve the fact have alleged The
notes, IN the hands of the Treasurer were as
much cash demand upon the bank, rs any en-
Try 1t could make on il. books upon the alleged
transfer. But, had they been paid the next
day, 1t would not prove that they were not nm
current when received. They however re-
rnalncd ut Louisville, from the 21st of RIay,
| 1870, till January 1922, and have only been
discharged by Payments in deprecated psper,
to pensioners, and possibly few other public,
creditors; so that, il the Treasury has escaped
loss, IT has fallen upon those who were emitted
to tho gratitude and Justice of this country.
But have not pretended to alicgc any thinf,
moro upon this subject than the mere fact thai
more uncurrc1t uotcIwerc received than has
| been stated by MIR. Crawford; and, therefore.
II Is not incumbent upon INC TO show, tI,at tie
Treasury has sustained any loss or that the
| Bank OF Missouri has gained an Advantage at
| the exPcnce OF the poor pensioners OH the CO.
| Yern'ncnt- have not represented these ga,
notes of IDsgiYcOt hanks - like those an eo,,e IS