The Massachusetts spy, and Worcester County advertiser. [volume] ([Worcester, Mass.]) 1825-1831, 1826-01-04

rejected.
BANKS. The article :. our last on this SUBJ
Ject has caused some animadversion in several
of the Boston papers, the substance Of which
is contained in the following statements from
the Boston Statesman -
s The Suffolk Bank has bought no exchange
on London or nearly OF quite two years, neuer
did business with S Williams, nor has il in
any way lost money by Mr.. lV's failure.
There never was report Except that
insinnated by the spy that the Suffolk Bank
was in doubtful credit.
No Boston paper ever affirmed the solven-
cy OF the Suffolk Bank there never having
heen an intimation 70 the contrary"
In reply we assert, and, for the truth Of it.
may appeal to every man of business in town,
that report did prevail here that the Suffolk
Bank had stopped payment; that Immediately
afterwards the Boston papers mentioned that
reports unfavorable to one Of The Banks in that
city, were in circulation, but that they were
untounded, and confidence in its standing was
expressed. 1t was also reported that The i'm
plicated Bank would suffer by the failure in
London, and one of the papers had some re-
marks in relation to it. Vow, it is true that
reference might have been had to some other
Bank, but here it was understood as applying
to the Suffolk Bank, and to that only. These
circumstances, together with The means allud-
ed to in our last for procuring funds, we be.
lieved fully justified US in the publication Of
that "reprehensible paragraph" as it is styled
by the Statesman. The Daily Advertiser pro-
fesses not to know what means are alluded TO-
We answer, then, that we alluded 20 the at
sometimes by wheedling, to induce other
Banks TO take portion of capital from their
own vaults, where they ought to have it to
do business upon, and to place it in deposit at
the Suffolk Bank, so that that institution may
receive the benefit of il.
We expect the Statesman, as an act of
justice, will publiFh this reply, and we would
suggest TO the Editor, whether common cour-
tesy should not induce one Editor, when he
has occasion to animadvert upon another with
whom he does not exchange, 10 forward the
paper which contains his structures.
The Boston Courier imputes to us hostility
to Boston. We can assure the Editor tina. we
have no such feeiDgs-that we have ever
felt, aud do still feel, deep interest in the
welfare and prosperity of the Metropolis of
our native State. And, for that reason, we
the more regret TO see a narrow and crooked
policy pursued, which must, in the end, inev-
tably ALLEVIATE the good feelings Of the com
munity from her, and drive the trade Of the
country to her great rival.
The Daily Advertiser, and Courier, have
done us injustice in connecting our suggestion
relative to the removal of the Seat of Govern
ment, with the article on Banks. The for
mer was not suggested by the latter, but il
subject to which we have intended to call
public attention for some time, and i. was
merely accidental that it was noticed last
week more than at any other time. The
Advertiser speaks OF it as threat, for what
cause we know not all we wish is n candid
discussion of the SUBJECT, and we shall be sat-
rfed with such disposition Of it as may APP
pear best. The Courier inquiries il wo would
remove the Seat of Government to Me,c. York,
AID the Advertiser asks where we would re-