Edwardsville spectator. [volume] (Edwardsville, Ill.) 1819-1826, 1824-06-29

Receiver OF public moneys to withhold the de-
posltes from the bank, until he should receive
further orders from the Treasury, that the Re-
ceiver thereupon, wrote to the Treasury, en-
closing Mr.. Edwards publication, and, as he
afterwards declared, received a letter from
the Secretary, directing him to continue the
deposites The Secretary has said that no
such letter from the Receiver was on the file
IN the Department, and that none of its Off
GERS had any recollection OF such letters and,
moreover that there was no record of any an
swer. The address, notwithstanding this de-
clsraton, aims to prove, that such letter was
written; and among other arguments, addu-
ces the fact, that there was about this time.
an actual suspension of deposites at the bank;
which the address attributes to the caution of
the Receiver, under the advice which had
been given to him. To this il is answered by
the Secretary, that this suspen4;4.. se.e.4-i.,s,
to the negligence, not the caution OF the Re-
celver; that the Receiver was directed fire.
| quentlv and repeatedly To continue his depo-
sites, and to make them regularly and punctu-
ally danger then being apprehended, not
from the bank, but from the continuance of
large sums in the hands of the Receiver.
Without entering into a detail of all the
facts connected with this subject, it seems to
the committee, that there is no doubt that sir.
Edwards did make a publication in the news
papers in 1919, as he represents, and that he
gave such advice as he represents to the Re-
ceiver. But there is no evidence that the Re-
ceiver communicated it, or wrote on the SUBJ
lect of it, to the Secretary. Indeed, il is not
very probable that he would have done So 1t
is to be remembered that he was President of
the bank, as well as Receiver of public moneys,
and he would hardly advise the Secretary that
he, as Receiver, could not repose confidence
Ak. l. L =
he was. The committee does not deem it at
all material to inquire whether the Secretary
received or saw copy of Mr. Edwards pub
lleatIon. There is nothing in thai comniB-
cation which Should have alarmed him tor tie
4 safety OF the pubic moneys IN the Edw ards
vile Bank for although MIR. Edwards annotn-
ces his inten ion of Withdrawing from paiti-
clpati0n in the direction oft, he speaks in
most decided terms of lis solyency and safety.
| While the Committee sees no reasonao be-
heve that Mr.. Edwards acted with any impro-
priety IN procuring the deposite of public mo-
ney III that bank, or in regard to the confirms
ance OF such deposite, it perceives, on the
other hand, no reason whatever for suppo-
sing that the Secretary continued the depo-
sites after being admonshSd by the Receiver.
that they were unsafe. On me contrary. the
committee thinks that the correspondence
, fully shews that the depostes were >~n,itted.
OF thought 20 be so, through negligence or de-
fault and that, in enforcing and ms Sting on
them, the Secretary was governed ~ pro-
per regard for the security of the public funds
The committee, however, would take this op-
poruaily 10 observe, that, in their opinion,
the appointment ofthe Presidents Of the local
banks, in which public moneys are deposited.
to be Receivers Of the public moneys, to ae
deposited in the same bank, is inja " ,as
. | a.. :. A it4f
Inconvenience or mischief my DC hot uhhEe-
| ~ to result from such prsctce.
As to the charge Of receiving uncurrent
notes from this bank also, contrary to law,
, 1.-The committee thinks that the construction,
which appears to have been commended for by
y the bank, and acquiesced in by toe Secretary,
/ OF the first article of the arrangement between
n them, is moi the true CONSTRUCTIONS especially,
, if nothing be regarded but lie terms OF the
contract The words OF the first article are,
o .That the public moneys shall be entered to
e the credit of the Treasurer as cash" II would
e seem impossible that these terms could mean
! any thing else than that, for the amount OF
4 these depostes, the bank should become di-
e rectly debtor to the United States, and that
' this debt, thus assumed, should, like others,
4 be legally pad. If this construction, which
the committee has given TO the contract, be
correct, these notes were Illegally received.
j. The Secretary's view of the case appears,
n however, to have been different. He says,
: the term " cash." was used in opposition to the
# term "sbecial debosite,' and was not intended
/, to subject the bank to the payment Of specie
!. for notes which were not convertible into spe.
r Gle; and that it was not understood by either
IS of the parties, that the bank was responsible
:. for the credit of other banks whose notes were
o deposited in it. The correspondence sufh.
.'