Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1832-05-22
BANK OF THE u. STATES.
MIR. ADAMS REPORT.
CONTINUED.

From those it appeared that in August, 1891
James WATSON Webb obtained at the Bank of the
u States a loan of twenty thousand dollars upon
his own noto endorsed by Mordecal NJ. Noah The
application for this loan made III person by Mr.
Webb, was sustained by a letter from Mr.. Noah
and sundry statements relating TO the pecunary
condition and credit of the New York Courier and
Enquirer. The letter from Mr.. Noah was enclos
cd 10 the President of the Bank by Walter Bovine
Mayor of the City of New York, who had been one
of the earliest Directors of the Bank, with re.
commentator of the application itself, to be con-
sdcr-d business transaction. 1t was con-
sdered by the Board of Directors who acccded to
the loan desired But the editors of the Courier
and Enquirer had long been, they still are, ar
dent and active political partisans, and their new.
paper has been, and continues deeply Immersed IL.
that portion Of political afar immediately connect
ed with elections. The peculiar character sustain.
cd by the paper and its editors, at the lime whom
this application for 4 loan made, was that of
devoted friends to the present adm inisration, and
particularly TO the eminent citizen at its head
This character they and their paper still retain
They have, of courSe, numerous adversarlcs of the
opposing party, and numerous rivals IN their own.
Sometime before this application for Il loan from
the Bank OF the United States, there had been be-
tween them and some of their competitors for par
~ and public favor, newspaper war, with regard
to the conduct of their journal, and the opinions
of is editors with reference to the Bank o; the u
States. In all this the interests of rival printing
Offices and rival Banks, may without breach a
charity, be presumed to have been very willing aux.
iiaries to editorial virtue and the unsullid purity OF
the publ press. The politics of tho paper had
been, thought to have been, successfully
host e and friendly to tho Bank OF the United
Stotes. In this state of things, it is stated by
McssrS. Webb and Noah, that two three of the
Banks in tho city of New York denied them the
! accommodation of loans which they had previous.
" yielded, and refused to discount for them paper
of unquestionable credit. They affirm that these
City Banks, in punishment of their frondlincss
for the Bank of tho United States, withdrew from
them facilities previously extended to them, and
required the repayment of a large accommodation
loan for which they indebted. To dscrcdii
these lmputations re- affirmed by Mcssrs Webb and
Noah in their testimony upon oath before the Com.
mittce, majority Of tho Committee deemed them
selves authorized to send commission and re.
que't tho Presidents of the two City Banks in N W
York to make offidasits before magistrate,
giving notice thereof to Messrs. Webb aud Noah,
and to transmit those affidavts 10 tho Chairman OF
the Committee at Washington. The dispositions oil
/ Isaac Wright, President of the City Bank, and oi
Albert Gallatin, President of the National Bank
ut New York, were accordingly taken and trans
mittcd to the Chairman of the Committee. They
did not in the slightest degree impair the testimo.
ny of either Mr.. Webb or Mr.. No1h. On tho con.
trary, they confirmed, far as they could con.
firm, that part Of their evidence which it had been
the purpose lii requiring tho aflldavits from tho
two New York banks, to inyalidate. They proved
that at both of those banks, in July, 1891 notes
endorScr of unquestonable credit were reject
cd The reasons of those reflections, both the Pres
dents Of the Bank, with great propricty, declined
to give. They state that at one of the banks nc
note is discounted, if objected to by any one mem
Der Of the Board Of Directors. At the other bank
any note is rejected to which two of the Director,
concur in Directing, and that no Director is re-
quircd to assign any reason for his objection &c
any discount. In these answers of the two Pres.
idcnts, the subscriber cannot forbear to remark q
demonstration of the impropricty of the call by
the Committee upon those gentlemen for their ties
timony in this The object of tho call was to
impeach tho truth Of testimony given by the two
witnesses, Webb and Noah, upon oath before the
Committcc-witncseE whose vcracity stood ms fail
before the Committee that of any other cit
zen of tho community, and who, in the opinion
of the subscriber, could consider the call itset
on the Presidents Of the New York Banks 10
contradict them, in other light than that OF
a gratutous and wanton insult upon them
selves. Of the fact that notes offered by Webb had
been rejected at the New York banks no doubt
was or could be entertained. The reasons of the
rejection were avowedly differences of Mr. Webs
and MIR. Noah, which might even have been incor.
recty drawn by them, without impeachment OF
ilyoir vPfaeity. Tho Committee could not in the
opinion Of the subscriber possess The rie Of call.