Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1832-06-01
&" May %, As, 900.
" 20, $4,000.
May 10, 10 days 5000 collateral.
- 81 q RilLln % oln LIZ 49, :

" 2I c. Biddle 3s 3l9 10 days SIS June
o the two first notes, Mr. Whitney declared, in answer
TO leading question from the Chairman that no entry
had been made upon the books: that he took his note OF
them from memorandum in the Tellers drawer and that
on making the discovery he directed the officers of the
Bank, both the Cashiers to enter this money upon
the books that it done-hat he did not see it done
but subseqehy saw the books the entry OF ''bs re-
ceiVabe, which he knew was the entry made by his or
der
He further stated that Immediately after making this
discovery and giving this ORDER he had gone into the Pre-
sdents where he found him aone that he told him
what he had discovered DONE and requested that no
such transactions should be repeated while he was D
rector OF the Institution That the President did not denv
the facts he had stated themthat lie cooued up very
much, and promised that such thing should happen
again.
This testimony appeared TO be in all respects so ytra
ordinary and deeply affect the moral character OF
the President OF the Bank, in which the subscriber had
been long accustomed TO repose the unboInded
hdence that he deemed 1t proper ction
so lar as possible, TO its origin AS the question of the
chairman OF the Committee which drew forth this test-
indicated that he had previously been made acouan
ed with IL in detail, and he had first stating his
pectaion to prove these charges declined naming The
witness by whom he expected prove them, the sub
sciber resoed by interrogation the witness to ascer.
tain that which the Chairman had declined communicat.
ing to the Committee He inquired of Mr.. Whitney
whether lie had had previous communication on th suL
lect with any member OF the Committee What had been
ms motive Tor giving tho tesmony Whetherit had been
voluntary or solicited! 10 these questions he answered
that e had made previous communications TO the chair
man at his apartments in presence of another member oil
the Committees that he had no particular but general mo.
ves Tor giving the testimony; that he did recoec
whether it had been voluntary asked of him. but upon
being pressed by further question, he answered, that
Judge Clayton had been recommended him by letter
from Mr. denton. This disclosure then confirmed by
the chairman.
The subscriber requested that his objections TO the adj
mission oil this evidence, while anonymous should be
tered Oh the journals of the Committee and ar expa-
naory entry also made the request of chair
man.
MIR. Whitney appealed with great confidence TO his
memoandum and TO the books of the Bank correspond
ing with it, TO confirm his story but there was nothing
III The memorandum 10 show I,d t.L.U
from the books of the Bank There was internal evidence
in the memorandum that it could not have been taken be-
lore the 10Th OF Mays and there evidence on the
books OF the Bank that it probably taken from them
on the 9Th of Maythat the only day on which one
of the books of the Bank correspondent with the
randum of Mr. Whitney.
But Mr. Whitney testified that no entries had been
made oil the certificates of stock in the Teer's drawer OF
the two sums of $4,000 and "a 900 dollars minuted on
his memorandum, the books until after he had ordered
the entries TO be made while the books of the Bank prov.
ed that entries OF both those sums had been regularly
made those respective days. 25th and 26h of nj ay
Mr. Whitneys own testimony showed that he had seen
he books alter the entries were made, and there
thing except his declarations show that he had no
taken his memorandum from them.
Mr. Andrews and MIR. Wilson, the two cashiers from
whom Mr. Whitney alleged that Inc had received the frs
information oil this cmbeZzlemcnt of the moneys of the
Bank denied in the most explicit and unqualified terms
that any such transaction had taken placedened
only that they had ever given TO MIR Wbnev such i'm
formation as lie had affirmed TO have received from them
but the existence at any mc of any facts which wou
have justified hemin giving such information.
count Clerk at whose drawers Mr. Whtneys narrative re
presented him bayng made his discoveries and pivc
his orders for making the entries with equally ssc
veraon, denied that any such transaction had ever tnkc
place. so far as they concerned
The President of the Bank confronted with whitney
declared upon oath, that there not one word of m
IN his statement Of his interview with him. And Mr.
Whitney was left with his ragged memorandum and hi
OATH dsed by the cOncurriug oaths Of the FIVE inliydu
ais who with certainty of knowledge could contradict him
Nor this all Mr.. Whitucy's statement was con
hned by the puTpOr of his memorandum and the conte
oil the books OF the Bank, 20 date Of time Of no wide
range than the 10Th 9th Of May, 1924. Tn,
president OF the Bank subsequent day. proved by the
correspondence OF the Bank, tlat from the 22d TO the
last day oil that month"; he was not at Philadelphia, bu
on visit to the city Of Washington, the business
the B1nk For these discrepancies from the testimony
Mr. whitney, as upon his examination he termed them
he did not attempt 10 lie Withdrew, however
the statement that he had Ordered the entries Of the tyy
sums Of 5000 and $4,000 dollars TO be made upon th
books, and placed the armance in alternative position
to meet the evidence appeared in fact upon the books
lie now said be had ordered The entries 10 be made or hat
found them already made and confirmed them. But hi
never attempted to show TO The Committee wbence o
how he, single Director, had derived tie authority
ordering the Keepers OF the respective books to make an,
entry upon the books whatcver authority which al h
keepers Of the books denied 10 belong 4 Director
The question was put TO Mr. Whitney VIII ether, uDor
his making his discoveries, he had considered himself
having fully discharged his duty, as Director BY
making known the transaction 10 the Board Of Directors
all to which he answered that he had not considered N,
subject in that point OF view.