Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1832-05-22

I W i
was violation of individual right, and the refusal
to answer it, though in terms entirely respectful
and dispassionate, carries with itself a consurc up
ON usurpcd authority, not undiscovered.
| To this call upon the Presidents of the ~ York
Banks, the subscriber had another objection The
chairman of the Committee had by an act of Con-
gress. authority to administer oaths to witnesses,
and tho Committee had received from tho House
authority to- send for persons and papers But
the subscriber did net consider the committee as
possessing the power of dclcgating to other men
authority TO take dispositions from persons whom
the Committee were authorized to call before them
selves, and hear in person. No member even of
the committee, other than tho Chairman was au
thoriscd to administer oath. To administer
oaths to witne sscs was in the competency of the
chairman specially authorised by the statute. To
send for persons papers existing, in the com
lpntcncy of the Comm tco, luthor cd by the House.
But to direct to be taken, and to receive as tcst
mony, dispositions of persons whom the Commit.
tee might have summoned to appear and testify
before themselves, was MS the subscriber believed,
to transcend their lawful authority, and to set a
precedent which would lead to most pernicious a.
buses. This encroachment of power could not
be justified by the request of the chairman Of tho
Committee to the Opponents, that James Watson
Wobb and Mordccai NJ. Noah, the persons whose
testimony it was supposed their deposition, would
discredt, should have notice of the tino and place
when and where they should be takon. To give
notice of deposition to he taken to impcach the
testimony of another is the duty of party to
cause, and not of the dcponent Emself-Ths wit
ness whose testimony is to DO discredit ed cannot
be bound to receive n notification from the witness
called to discredit him. The volunteering of
Committee to send forth mandates in search of
contradictory evidence, TO asten mputations per-
Jury upon witnesses of veracty, before them unim-
Ipeached, has, in the view of the subscriber an as
poet too unjust and odus in self to he legitimatod
by any notice given to the witnesses thus outra ced
in their feelings and their rights. The whole proce-
duro was IN the opinion of the subscr ber, unlaw-
| ful and unjust. He recorded against it his vote
| J Of tho nd bo
his duty to repeat his protestatioas against it in
this report.
But whatever may havo been the true state of
the relations between Messrs Webb and Noah and
tho local Banks of New York, it was with these
statements and allegations that Mr.. Webb, in Au.
gust 1881 applied to the President and Board of
Directors of the Bank Of the United States, for
an accommodation loan of twenty thousand dollars.
The President and Directors considered it it had
been viewed in the recommendation of the Mayor
of New York-as a business transaction. Yet it
did not escape their attention that political color
ing might, and probably would, bc given to it by
the invetccate enemies of the Bank. They were
aware that If tho loan granted it would be H.
able to the charge of favor dispensed to purchase
the aid and support of the newspaper, in behalf of
the Bank; and if it should be denied it would be
charged as proof of hostility to the Admnistra-
ton of the General Government and its CHI eff
Sure that they could in cvont escape the GEN.
sure of enemies prcdsposed to blame, they granted
the loan, to which afterwards in December an
addition of fifteen thousand dollars was made
Notes of Mr.. Webb, endorsed by Mr.. Noah and
payable to Silas f. Burrows, has been previously
discounted for Mr.. Burrows, but without tho know
ledge of Webb Noah, as they testify to tho
amount of seventeen thousand dollars. OF these
sums so much has been paid, that there now re-
m inns due from Mcssrs. Webb and Noah, TO the
Bank sum of about eighteen thousand dollars
payable in semiannual nstamcnts and from the
statements laid before the Committee, believed by
the subscriber to be safo as any other debt upon
the books of the Bank.
The transactions of James Watson Webb and of
| Mordccai NJ. Noah, with the Bank of tho United
States, formed, in tho opinion of the subscriber,
no proper subject of examination by the Commit
tee, or of investigation TO the House, further than
TO ascertain, whether i'll those transactions, there
had been any violation of the law of the land
Within the pale Of the law, if this be Il Government
of laws, and not of men, Webb and Noah were
not amcnablc for their conduct, their opinions.
to the House of Representatives of the United
States, or to any Committee by them appointed.
In behalf Of the United Stltes, as largo stock.
holders in the Bank. general superintendcnce over
the proceedings of the President and Directors of
the Bank. is, no doubt, vested in Congress
Bnt the subscriber does not bolicve that the Presi
dent or any Director of tho Bank, is, or can BE-
accountable to a committee ofc House of Con
gress or to tho House itself for the motives or
reasons upon which he acceedcd objected to
any discount. Tho practice of all well.rcgulaied
I banks is, and must be, that declared by the tcst
mony of the Presidents of the two Banks in New
York to be theirs. The reasons mofipes for &C.
coping or rejecting note offered tor discount
arc not subjects of enquiry at the Board itself.
The reasons of each Director in his own
beat. His own colleagues at the Board La no
rigEt to enqur in.o them.-They arc in his own
discretion.
Ii is indeed within the bounds Of possibility that
this discretion should he abused to the injury and
damage of the stockholders. But in the transact.
ions of the Bank with Webb and Noah, no loss or
damage has occurred to tho stockholders, nor is
any to be apPrehended In tho original charges
presented to tho House by the Chairman OF the
Committee, there of Substituting the
T Press and the accommodations to Mcssrs. Webb
and Noah were understood to be among the most
prominent e1empliIications ofthat namelcss crime
which an esligation of the affairs of the Bank
would disclose 10 the world 1t would happily be
fruies search to find in the criminal code of this
Union, or of any gifts constituent States such
crime subsidizing the Press. When the
charge frs, brought forward by tho Chairman
Of the Committee, in the House, it was impossible
10 ascertain of what overt covert acts this of-
fence, thus novel and underlined, consisted; nor OK.
ccpt in tho proceedings of the majority Of the
mittoe can the subscriber yet comprehend what
the clement Of this and still underlined offence.
The majority of the committee, Immediately after
entering upon the discharge of their duties at Phil
dolphia, commenced n search into all the accounts
with tho Bank of Editors Of Newspapers In the
returns to this demand it fou nd that Webb and
Ncah, far from being solitary culprits in this un-
heard of traRsgression, in the very rssperta-
BILE company of the Editors of the National Ca
zette, Of the United States Telegraph, of the
T Globe, Of the Richmond Enquirer. This informa-
ton scarcely in the possession of the com.
mittce before, it found it's way into the public
journals, and thus all the editors of those well
known prints stand, by exhibition of their pri.
yate accounts, charged before tho public as con.
ductors Of presses subsidized by the Bank. Tho
committee did in no other instance than that of
the New York Courier and Enquirer, 60 into an