Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1832-05-25


ed States there had been and some OF their
competitors for party and public favour, newspaper war
with regard TO the conduct OF their Journal and the opn
ions of its editors with reference the Bank OF the u
In all this the interests OF rival printing Offices and rival
banks, without breach ofcharfv be presumed To have
been very willing auxilaries to editorial virtue and the
unsuicd purity of the public press. The politics of the
paper had been thought have been successive
ly hostile and friendly The Bank the United States In
this state OF things, tits stated by Ncs-rs Webb Noah
mat TWO or three OF the Banks in the City Of New York
denied them the accommodation of loans which they had
previously yielded AMI refused TO discount for them paper
OF uhqueShonabe credit They affirm that these city
banks, in punishment of their ficnllncss for The Bank of
the United Sate Withdrew from them facilities previous
ny extended to them, and required repayment OF aroe
accommodation loan for which they were indebted. To
discredit these impuiaOns affirmed hy Mcssrs Webb
and Noah in their testimony upon oath before te Com
mittec, majority of the Committee deemed themselves
authorized to send commission and request the President
OF the two city banks in New York 10 make afdavits be-
lore magistrate, giving notice thereof Mesrs Webb
anu Noah and transmit those adavits Chairman
OF the Committee at Washington The dispositions of Isaac
Wright, President Of the City Bank and of Albert
hun President OF the National Bank AT New York. were
accordingly taken and transmitted the chairman of the
Committee They did not in the slightest degree impair
the testimony OF either Mr.. Webb Mr. Noah. On the
contrary, they confirmed far as they could confirm
That part Of their evidence which it had been the purpose
IN requiring the afidavs from the two New York banks
10 inYadatc.
They proved that at both Of those banks in july 1881
notes offered for discount by James Watson Webb with
an cndorscr OF unqucsdouablc credit were rejected The
reasons oil those reflections, both the Presidents Of
Banks, with great pOprety declined to give They
that at one OF the banks is discounted if objected
TO by any ono member Of the Board Of Directors AT the
other Bank, any note l. rejected 10 which two of the D-
rectors concur in Directing and that Director is reon-
red to assign any for his objection TO any discount
Pm these answers of the Presidents the subscriber
cannot or5ea to remark dcmonstra alton of the impropre.
~ OF the call by the Committee upon those gentlemen
Tor their testimony in this The object of the call
was 10 mpeach the truth of testimony given bv The two
witnesses, Webb and Noah, upon oath before the Com
mce-withesse5 whose vcracy stood fair before tIs
Committee os that Of any other citizen Of the community
and who IN the opinion Of the subscrbcr ooud consider
the call itself on the Presidents Of the New York Bank,
10 contradict them, in other light than that of pratu
notes offered by Webb had been rejected at the New
ork BanEs no doubt could be entertained. The
reasons of Tie rejection avowedlv differences Of Mr.
"cbp ana Noah, which might have been Incorrect
~ drawn by them, without impeachment Of their veracity
Ic Don"Vee con,d not, in the opinion Of The subscr
Der' POSES nc IiEbt OF calling upon the Presidents
the New oFk Btnks for the reasons Of their refusing die
counts johannes aison Webb, 10 any other man. Tn,
can 9cH was violation Of individual right and the re-
iusal to answer though n terms entirely an,
dPa'sonaie, carries with Itself ccnsure upon surpc,
authority, not undcserycd.
To this call upon tho Presidents OF the New Yo,,
BANKS the subscriber had another objection Tho cI air
man OF the Committee had by an act Of Congress- a,f
tnoF,y 70 administer oaihs 70 witnesses, and the Commit
tee had received from tho House authorize 10 sond for nrr
cons aud papers. But the subscriber did n;i consider M
Committee as possessing the power of decgaiing 10 ote
men authority 10 take dispositions from pereons o, m,
Committee were authorized to call before themselves an,
W hear in person No member even Of lc COMMITTEE ollie
u"n the chairman, was authorized administer an oath
10 administer oJts 10 witnesses in the competence
tne chairman specially authorized by statute. TO send ia
the persons aud papers exxng was i'm the competency
we COMMITTEE authorized by the House. But 10 direct
"ac' "lI W receive d'tcmouy dispositions Of person
whom The Committee might have summoned 10 appear sn
tcshiy before themselves, was the Subscriber bc
bcYed, to Transcend their llwfI auforifv and fo sc
precedent which would lead 10 uost prtnjcious o,ec
ANS encr9achmont Of power could NOT be justified by M
request o. the chairman Of The COMMITTEES 10 he dspc
nen's, That James " at'on Webb and Morceca NJ Noll
Ihe persons whose esinoyit was supposed these coos
R0h7 "'h'o 'eredit, should have uoice Of the time ~