Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1834-06-06


FRANCIS THOMAS. Chairman.
To JOHN SERGEANT, Esq. Chairman of the Commit
tee oil Directors.
[Reply to the foregoing
BANK OF THE UNITED SrArEs,}
May l, 1884.
SIR: have the honor to acknowledge your letter OF
the 30h OF April II has been laid before the Comm tee
oil the Board. aud by their direction make the following
reply:
In saying, that according to the tenor of the resou
lions OF the Committee oil Investigate on oil the 2y.h u
mo. there was "as yet no rractcs difference" between
that Committee and the Board, the Committee Of the
Board sii think the language they used and
appropriate IL true, that in these resolutions the Com
muite OF In, esgaon had asserted power which isght
perhaps. have been nfoverted. But il the
;eniion OF the Committee Of the Board discuss ques-
non the powers oil the Committee oil lnyestg
abstract, matter o, opinion; but simply set forth
their viz OF what they believed 10 Ice the rig hts OF
the Bank, and OF the individual czens nlrusted with
administration
The "prac,icsl difference" according 10 the view Of the
Committee OF the Board, would only when here
should he actual disiing uished rom theoretical
collision, that 10 say, when exerion Of power at
tempted by the Committee OF alton should he met
by an assertion right on the part OF The Board. ncom
paiibe with its prosecution Such state OF things would
be extremely 10 be regretted. Ii must nevertheless, be
conceded that case might be presented in ~hch the
Committee oil the Board would be compelled, by deep
OF duty. 10 consider their rights aud act upon
their views OF them.
Among the risks incident Of judgment in de-
cdlng they would esteem il OF the greatest that their
conduct might by possibility be imputed however un-
justly 10 want OF due respect for the Committee In-
vesgaon, Tor the hig from which the au
~ is derived.
Under the influence of these feelings, and with strong
desire that the Investigation might be conducted in man
ner satisfactory 10 both the parties, the Committee OF the
poau sauy emoaeed me belief Qi may be- that their
sohg incihauon LED them too hastily TO believe) that
mere wasa yet no practical difference" II in tins they
misunderstood me 'eins oil The resolutions oil the Commit
lee oil investigation they will be ready receive the
psnalon Of The committee, in this any other matter
correct the misunder siandng.
ih' deem II due however, to the Committee Of In
Vesugao as wen as 10 themselves 10 say fur her. that,
u" we 'ee'o OF tue Committee oil Investigation ot the Both
mere appears 10 DE misapprehenson oil the meaning
OF ,he COMMITTEE oil the Board in their letter OF the 29
u"o. ne committee oil the Board did not say, ''tlai
me committee oil investigation had not any deci-
sion as TO The mode oil proceeding TO be adopted. They
do not know they, without failing in the respect
due 10 themselves pretend 10 know what may have been
or what may be, the decisions oil the Committee nves-
ugauon excep, so lar as the committee may think TIT 10
communicate them Accordingly, their letter OF the 29h
uitno was founded entirely upon The solutions OF the
same date, copies which by the
with its referred especially TO the Goyu. Gem
ence in the second Of those resolu IONS TO wa: but this
committee has not determined that il will become neces-
sary 10 perform That duty out OF the presence Of those
charged by The Directors submit the same 10 the in
sPecuoh OF me committee" Comparing this with the
resolutions oil the Board OF Directors 10
the Committee Of nvest CATION did appear TO the Com
mtee OF the Board that there decision upon this
mdei'a point anu therefore, that there yet 10
prachcai uiiierence.
Acung upon TIE same principle that has hitherto 60.
Veiheu me COMMITTEE Of the Board, II Is their intention
TO question the statement OF the Committee OF nyest;x
uon, h' they have the power compel the cdon
OF me oooks anu papers oil tile Bank, That such the
doubt, aud as their opi,,on The Co,,mes of The RI