Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1824-07-17

e"Pno', anu hsaru hstn say that such WIS not
, the fact that Gov. f. had disavowed the au
} thorsh'p OF those publications. but it had no
Connection with bis vote, as he was his friend
and should have voted for the confirmation al
his appointment IN any event.
z. Did Gen. Noble say, al that time. that
ne did not believe that disay oval was intrn,led
to have any effect upon the nomination OF
Gov. Edwards?
A. All that know of it is embodied in INV
answer to the frs: interroga,ory.
G. Have you had any conversation with Mr..
Eik'n: on the same subject |? ESQ, please state
what It was, and when
| AL think at some period of time. shor1Iv
atfrr the Address of Gov. Edwards was pre-
senfed 10 the House. and after the publication
m me Enquirer, To which have alluded. Mr..
Eihsns informed me in conversation. sought
! ~ myself that he had heard Gov. E. Incl
toensssy' remark, upon reading this article in
the Enquirer, in which he is spoken of 40
Ninian Edwards Of A. b. plot me,nory,n
that ne WAS no niOre tl. author Vt that plot
thanthe Editor Of the Enqurer-I speak with
more prsciseeess Of the conversation with
MIR. Elkfns than of that with General Noble.
JOHN s. BARBOUR
Thomas H. Benton, ofihe Senote, s,ooy,,. on m.
part o Mr.. Crawford.
Question by Mr.. Forsyth. Were you not
well acquainted with the connection of Mr..
Edwards with the Edwardsville Bank:
A. From general report only never did
any business with him in that character.
u Do you knew that he made efforts,
from the establishment of the institution iii
MS failure, to keep up its credit with The pub
A. What know personally is the publca
ton in the St. Louis Enquirer, Of which was
an editor.
Do you know whether the statements in
thar publication are correct ,
ITO this question Mr. Cook objected. The
committee decided that il might be pull
"A. very well remember my opinion al the
Time that the publication was made. 1t was,
that the publication would give credit 10 the !
bank, t0 which Il wan not entitled In con. |
iorm'fy with !nat opinion, and from No other |
motive thai to countervail the effect If that |
publication, wrote M article, which was pub.
lished either in the same paper, or in one next
succeeding, that think the same,l in whic h
gave some of the reasons which induced me
10 believe that the Bank was not entitled 10
the credit which Mr.. E. gave to il in his pnhli-
cation. have not seen that article since but
The facts and circumstances rest upon nv
mind, and am still OF the opinion that then
was.
q. What were the facts on WHICH this
opinion was formed
had from general report, thu, majority Of the
stock was held by two or three stockhoI.
ders who were persons Of little or M property.
The Stockholders to whom l allude were ar.
RO. Latham and Gen. Payn, the latter of HON
was reputed to cover stuck fur the Nlrssrs. |
Johnsons, OF kentucky. MrLatham WAS gan
orally reported 10 he the insovent partner of |
firm in Kentucky-I think either Latham g. |
BrOadhrad, or Latham g. M"rehead; and
haf he
been employed as lawyer to collect debts
from him. The Me ssr. Johnsons were genrr-
ally rrputrd to be in bad prcuniary circu,n-
stances. The stockholders having majority
ut the stock, could change the Directors at
any election. This circumstance depri, ed
the hank of credit in my eyes. Another cir
cumsiance which made me believe that In.
publication OF Mr.. Edwards would give the |
Bank credit which was nOi due tn il, was |
its silence upon points necessary tn b., known,
such as the pecuniary stability of several al
the Directors. Mr.. Smith, Que Of the Directors.
of whom high Character is given in that pnl,- |
licati"n, was generally reputed To BIZ wiihor
property. or very recently insolvenf. Or. |!
Joseph Bowers. of whom a high character is |
also gwen, was spPculatOr lately arrived in |
the country, claiming and talking Of mush
property, but, as was bclc,e ed, without solid
foundation. The other directors, with. ex-
cep''on OF two or three, were generally repuied |
to own but little property, and to hold a |
minority Of the stock. Another circumstance |
rs The prejudice of the bank, was my belief
that II could not do n business which would |
defray its expenses and support il, owing TO
the little com merce existing 10 the place where
il was established.
Question by Mr.. Cook. You state that Mr..
Edwards made his publication in the ST. LOUIS
Enquirer Of 1919; was Mr.. Crawford on the
list Of those to whom that paper was siatedly
sent
A. Yes.
Z. AT the time you speak of the character
of the Bank of Edwards,iIle, and its claims 10
public credit, did you know any think Of its
actual condition ?
A. had no personal know ledge ofits affairs !;
my opinions were boitomed on general current
report.
q, Did you not, about The same fime. write
10 the Secretary Of Tire Treasury, stating
strong objections 10 the claims of this h,ok
Upon his confidence, and that Of the publ;c /,
A. did SD some time before, soon after the
bank went into operation.
z. Did you receive any reply from the
Secretary on that subject, by which YOU AZ. |
certained that he had received your leiirr2
A. did; and he stated that, awaiting him |
sell Of the permission expressed in nv letter.
to shew il to whomsoever il concerned. h.
had shewn IT 10 MIR Edwards ard Col Johnson.
" were you ut that time Director Of the
Bank Of Missouri?
A. vas not till long after, say two years
or more.
Q. About this time, however, did you not
L.