Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1841-01-16

terated in the arguments upon that floor that if the
Cashier had allowed the Teller to have great deal
more money than necessary for the daily transac
lions of The Bank that this defalcaon never could have
occurred, and that if the President had properly
csed his duty, be might have corrected such state of
things, and the loss could have taken place Had
President Of the Bank any power under the laws to
control the amount of money which the Cashier had
lett N the possession of the Teller The rule the by
law expressly stated that the Cashier should take charge
OF all tue specie and funds in the Bank much excepted
ne might Judge necessary be left in the hands Of the
leer Tor the ordinary transactions of the Bank. The
Cashier was peculiarly the officer Of the Bank, TO take
charge of the funds of the Bank-he gave heavy
bond Tor The faithful discharge of the duties of his Of
flee, and inasmuch he was the officer responsible
for the funds of the Bank for his protection and for
his protection alone it enacted, that he should al
low the Teller (who also gives bond though much
smaller one) only TO have much money as might
he necessary for the ordinary daily trausac Iona of
the Bank Surprising that Doctor Brockenbrough
finding that the Cashier had left in the hands of the
Teller million and odd dollars, when but few
thousands were necessary, had gone to the Cashier
and told him, that by doing he violating his
duties blight not the Cashier very properly have told
him, s'that IS my business, and not yours. am
sponsble for the funds of The Bank, and have given
bond for the safe keeping of those funds If am will
ling to risk the money the hands of the Teller-if
consider the money safe in the vaults Of the Teller
as IN my own, you have no reason to complain. II /
do let him have more money in his hands than is ne
cessary for the ordinary transactions of the Bank am
ust much responsible for that money If il were
IN my vaults, and the Bank is secure, because, in
addition 10 myself, they have the superadded respon-
s:by Of the Teller HIMSELF and the securities OF his
bond The money was ust safe in the hands Of the
Teller, with and as | am responsible for the
funds do not thin that any else has right 10
complain. Might not the Cashier, with seeming
shew OF good reason, have thus addressed the Pres-
denp That the right TO supervision did not give right
to controu!, was no new opinion, he might refer for
proof 10 the example, to which the gentleman from
Richmond City, id this course Of his argument, on
another point, had adverted TO the almost universal
opinion entertained in that country; TO the general OPT
Mon expressed upon this point, IN somewhat similar
CASE when officer Of the Government Of the United
States, whose duty il TO To the general faithful
discharge of their duties, by all the suoo.dinaes Of
Government, had undertaken 10 ccnlroul public Of
hcer in the discharge OLA duty not peculiarly his
duty, than the safe keeping of the monies the duty
Of the Cashier when he overs;cppcd the line Of his Of
flee TO controu such officer. What then the OPT
MON Of the majority in that House, and the OPT
MON OF majority in the country when the head Of
their Government outsepped the line Of his duty, and
under the prctext of a general supervising power
over all Executive officers, had undertaken TO control
the Secretary OF the Treasury the discharge Of his
particular duties: did they not characterize it
act OF usupation denonnce il abuse Of power:
Was that opinion right i'll that instance and wrong in
this The duty 10 coniide TO the Teller funds, whether
Of large small amount, duty, right, and
cus!vely pertaining the Cashier, devolving upon him
by the bye-aws, and when those laws stats ~ that he
should only enrnst him with sufficient cash for the ord
daily transactions of the Bank the regulation
adopted for the protection Ut the Cashier himself, and
not Tor the protection of the Bank. Allowing the Tel
Ter 10 have in his hands large amount of money
not considered 10 endanger The interests of the Bank
because the Cashier made responsible for all the
funds of the Bank; and had the President attempted TO
interfere with the Cashier in this particular, he might
very justly have replied he had supposed, and sad
at IS my business and not yours. II thus appeared
that The dedication had taken place by The Pre-
sdent permitting the Cashier to allow the Teller
10 have more money in his hands than
sary. II was not the duty of the President TO in
terfcrc in the NATTER and therefore, in this respect
there was neglect Of duty by him.
1t was further charged that he did not call the atcn-
ton of the Board TO the necessity for appointing Com
mttces Of Investigation, the rules required. What
was the extent OF his omission in that respect, and
what agency had it in facilitating the deiacaon, /,
seemed, that the bylaws Of the Bank required that
should be appointed to monthly examine
tie vaults, and that the law regulating Banks re-
qurcd that such inspections should be made quarterly.
1t seemed, nevertheless, that for long series of years
these regulations had not been complied with Was
that The fault of DR.. b. Was that fault which fell
so peculiarly on his head, that he to expate the
offence in the punishment sought TO be dispensed.
appeared that those duties had been neglected for years
and years, during which time they had had hundreds
Of Directors not one of whom had insisted the per-
Torrance of that duty; the agents of the stockholders
who enacted the law had for long series Of years,
neglected that duty, and with the of every
body might be inferred from the length of time il
had been neglected, during the terms Of many diff.
crent Directors. Again: supposing such committees
had been appointed and that they had exccnted their
duties; would it even then have prevented the deta!
cation: II was quite clear, that DR.. Brockenhrongh
could not have been appointed a committee to
NINE INTO matters under his own care-cvery sort OF
1r0prley required that other Directors and himself,
not being one, should be the Examining Committee
Til re would have been most obvious improperly in
placing the President committee 10 investigate
he manner in which his own Bank conducted.
Would the appointment of the other Directors as an
Committee have prevented the dealcation'
hat 1t would not was proved most conclnsvely by
he fact, that in January, 1889, there appoint
ID committee to cxaminc-that that committee
lid examine after the defalcaiion had proceed
ID to considerable extent: and that they did
lot discover it. The reports lately published showed
hat at the very time the committee appointed, OF d.
ec,ors, had examined the wants, the dealcatcn had
proceeded TO the extent Of 5 OC0, and that far from
Iavng discovered it, ;hcy had reported that all was
we'll Did it appear, then, that if DIR. b. had suggested
o the Board and hs omission 10 make this suggestion
considered his whole oence) the necessity for the
appointment oil the committee, that then the deiacation
would not have taken place, at all events av been
sooner detected: Reasoning from analogy, the contra.
" would have been the case; for committee had been
lppointed and they had failed TO discover the dcfaca-
ion which then existed 1t did not, therefore, appear,
hat the neglect Of Dr. D. had produced the deiacaton
or his strclcs, compliance would not have prevented
t. And yet but for the defalcatlon would have
dreamed Of removing him from his office.
It had been urged by the gentleman from Tyler, that
f DR.. B. was the able fnancer which lie was repre-
,entcd 10 be, he ought to have known from the work
ny of the Bank, tina. there was something wrong
roIng on; and he would confess that he himself
when this fact first presented itself to his
mind He agreed with the gentleman from Tyler, that
Is an officer acquainted with his dutes the very ope
alton of the Bank and the condition of its circulation
,uyh to have apprised him OF the fact, that that crcu
alton had been improperly increased. But was he
,ot aware of the fact, and did not his knowledge
IF that fact itself ultimately lead the discovery
which had taken place. Dr. B. in the report which he
made 10 the stockholders shewed that it was by that
,ery means, and his econ thereupon that the defaca
ion was at length discovered. And here he would re-
mark, that was this part Of Dr. BIS address to which he
heretofore referred, as having removed from his mind
III doubt. He had thought with the gentleman from
Tyler that the President ought 10 have discovered the
dedication without any other lights than the mere fact
tba nr Will decrease oil