Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1841-01-05

of 2j;h March upon the terms Indicated and in June
following signcd their assent To the Executive Your
Committee therefore feel bnuHd 10 report that
siderable deiacalons could have occurred, had the
Cashier performed the duties rnjoncd npou han, a
Committee of the board duly performed the duties OF in
spection required Of them.
| This large dctacalon your Committee believe could
not have occurred had the provisions in force prior
the acceptance i'll 1889 OF the benefit provided by the
act OF 23th March, 1887, together with the obc atoms
enjoined by the act of g2d of same monitor the
provisions of the last mentioned act have been
piled with BY those whose duties therein Indicated
Another fact ought, perhaps, to be stated before end
ing with this head OF enqniry--viz: that nobyaws ex-
cep those already referred TO adopted by the bank
after The acceptance of the charter I'LL July last,
several months after the discovery of the dcalcaton,
though the Directory possessed the power to establish
the same under the said law, and no board to
4 cure the bank was enforced from the late Cashier,
though il appears that after the acceptance of the char
ter referred to, it recommended by the principal
bunk to the branches require bonds from their
il also appears by reference to the act OF
22d of March, that though The Cashier held his office
only during the pleasure OF the Board OF Directors and
being verbally requested, declined giving bonds,
and still he retained in office and continued to act
as Cashier till JULY 1910.
Sd. To the nterrogatory what the reasons con-
neced with the removal of Anthony Robinson, jr,
from the Office of cusier of the Bank Of Virginia,
which did not equally apply TO john peterborough,
President of the institution and what they were: your
committee feels justified in stating, that while there
seems to exist some doubt whether the late Cashier
would have been removed after the discovery OF the
dciacaon had that defalcation alone exised-yet II
appears to have been supposed that to continue him IN
office was inconsistent with the interest of the stock
holders, because of subsstng prejudice against him
among the dealers ofhe Bank and other officers of the
Bank, and the opinion perhaps, generally enter
taned that the Cashier not fully competent TO dis
n charge the appropriate duties of Cashier In refer
ence to the President like opinions were not entertained
a,,hln fhnff Tho fltntn tbnr opnl,lc
person the time thong Of President and the
belief in addition, that if the Cashier retained,
other Of the subordinate officers of the Bank whose
vices were deemed important, would not agree to
tinue in the Bank, had much weight IN deciding the
question against the Cashier and in favor OF the Pres
dent In reference too, to the imputed negligence there
exists this difference that the particular duties required
Of the Cashier of more specific character than
those which should have been performed by the Pres
dent whose duty in reference to the whole subject
general supervision, though he moreover presid-
ing officer the Board Of Directors (of whom him
self was one,) and in the Directors, the prnci-
pal neglect 10 have been failure periodically
to inspect the vaults enoined above,the enforce
, ment of attention 10 which the committee believes par
tcuary perained TO the President, land together with
recurring puncual and accurate discharge Of their sepa
rate duties especially incumbent upon the Pre-
sdent The Committee believe the negligence OF Ell
Their officer enough require his removal but they de-
sire not to be misunderstood casting unmerIted
proach on either officer, and feel convinced that
coaniZant Of the facts of the late dealcaton justly
impuie TO either other censure than pertains to
omssion-ailure to perform they ought the duties
enioincd upon them respectively, and on the due per-
Torrance OF which the stockholders relied confidently
In reply the enquiry, "whether the interest of the
State does not require that SAID President shall not be
reelected: YOUR Committee answers, that beng con-
yinced that the late dealcaton could not have occur
red and that if any dealcation had occurred, 1t must
have been comparatively triing, had the Cashier per-
formed his duty the Board OF Directors theirs, the
1 ,I,,t,ag
the Board, and general SUPERVISOR and that it
particularly incumbent upon HIM regularly ut The pro-
per time, to have required inspection Of the vault
and to require ofthe subordinate officers Of the Bank
puncual and accurate discharge of their ducs-that
/ the loss to the stockholders chiefly consequent upon
!; neglect has been than half million OF dollars
your committee cannot recommend The re-appoinment
of the President.
1t proper add further that had the directors each
of whom had light at the board suggest the propre
ty of inspecting the vaults, performed this duty, is
highly probable, in the opinion Of the Committee, that
the loss could not have occurred. In relation oo 10
over-draft by Merrill & Green, noticed in the Com
mtce report discovered 10 exist during the absence
Of Mallory, your Committee is If opinion that such of
the officers of the Bank Of the fact eyince
too little attention their duties in being satisfied after
the return of Mallory, several dat IS after and his in
formation TO that effect that the amount had been set
ted-more especially the circumstances of Merrill Il
c Green not then deemed auspcious andas Mallo
ry continued absent for several days after the discove
r OlncefS
whether The oyerdratt had been settlcd-The committee
believes that duty required immediate mention Of The
fact after the discovery 70 the CaShior and the' nothing
less was discharge OF duty 1t TO have been the
IMPRESSION, perhaps Of the officers That the fact had
been mentioned TO the Cashier and Of tn. officers
thinks he did state the fact 10 the Cashier; which, how
ever, the Cashier does recollect, and your Commit
tee imputing want Of veracity to etherdtems the
# matter uncertain. AT all events some OF the officers
seem to believe that the overdra with the previous
consent of The Cashier, and known, If not saictloned
by him-Error or fraud alone could account To- -and
J., the duty of each one, not satisfied, that the
Cashier knew of the iact-to have gone himself and
stated the fact, and not to wait till I'd Ocobr, many
e days after, when Mallory came homeland WHEN
tce of the fact to him, he appeared confused, and
returning after having quilted the Bank mat day.
stated that the amount settled. 1T is DUE
10 state that these are all tho comments on this partlcu
' lar your Committee feels authorized TO maze. The
Committee imputcs intentional wrong to tb- officers
Your Committee further report that in consequence
Of the illness of the President he has not been
able to certain written inerrogaores lrcpound
ed him. But they state, farther, that he pre-
f sent before them with the late Cashier, tic day
which the first written nlerrogaores were prpounded
and which day frequent references made to the
report of the commissioners appointed BY lie EXecu-
tive, and which he not understood by the Commit
tee TO contradict assert to be untrue in import
ant parcular-certanly in none special! sci forth in
this report and this report, far as relates TO the
President is founded on the report Of uose commits.
sencrs and the report OF the President made 10 the
Directors in July $780, in which, after stating they
had sustained loss of nearly one-sevtnth of their
capital about Is per cent. by the bad conduct
of some Of their officers; and also thatthe President
and Directors have relied too much the vigilance
Of the Cashier, and he has relied too muh the pro-
bity of the Teller-they have not examined into the
funds of the Cashier, (Which, in truth, all the
funds in the Bank,) the bylaws rendered proper
| and he has allowed the Teller TO retain money
in his hands than necessary for tie daily opera
tions of the Bank, without examining his vault,
eording the bylaws and regulations for the interior
mana cement of the Virginia Bank and the provisions
of the of Assembly adopted in 1881, and his own
that the late Cashier had been requested to
execute new bond, which he declined to do-they
have not felt themselves authorized withhold their
Report the subject to be acted must occur next
Tuesday.
The Committee add hereto the various written ques.
tons and of the Cashier and the interroga-
tories addressed to the President, together with the
solution of the committee, requesting the present
Cashier to ascertain from his hyscinns whether the
of the Presidents health wonld hermit him