Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1840-1842, 1841-01-12

tee has been annually appointed and the last En- ami
nation OF the vaults, preceding the fight OF the FIRST
teller, was made on the 10Th January, 1889. In
practice, for many years past, the examination Of
the vaults seems 10 have been always nearly con-
temporaneous with the destruction OF notes select
ed as unfit Tor circulation, and therefore cancelled
There was an obvious convenience in this arrange
ment and the two processes requiring no little time
and iaoour each was postponed until both could be
performed.
"ln respect to the 18th and 18th regulations and
the resolutions Of February 5h, 1899, we have as.
certained no facts, worthy, our opinion TO be re-
ported, except such as relate TO the amount Of
ney placed, or permitted from time time to remain
IN the hands OF the first teller. Upon this subject
our enquiries have not been carried back beyond
the year 1876. the reports Of the vault committees
prior to that year not being entered on the minutes
By the reports OF that and the subsequent years,
all OF which are so entered, find that at the ex-
atninauous of the vaults from 1895 TO $780, the mo-
ney IN the teer's hands varied from about SEQ 900
to less than $4,000; from 1880 TO 1886, inclusive
u IN no instance much exceeded 100000; in 1887,
It exceeded 100000; in 1888, 81 200 900; in Janu.
| airy 1889, S350.O00 and ut The time Of Dabney's
fight on the close Of I'd April, 1910, there should
have been in his hands Sl,293,0o9 So"
The House would see, from the extract Just read,
that, oy the 9Th bylaw adopted in 1904. the Pres-
cent and Directors Of the Bank required 10 ap-
| point by ballot a committee Of three members
whose duty u was to examine all the concerns of
| the b,nk ut least once month. How had that
uu.y oeeh performed why, II appeared that, for
4 ~.
when committee was appointed, they very rarely
performed their duty. Was this no neglect of duty
on the part OF the Presidentl Had that bylaw
1cen acted upon as ought TO have been, the late
ueiaication would have been rendered impt ssible
on'ct the charter, too, committed to inspect was
| ofuered To be appointed every three months This
hau also been neglected. The teller was to have in
nls hanus only suthcient capital for the daily con-
| SUMPTION, YET the President had allowed him TO
have upwards OF million of dollars nj A time i'm lis
hands Had the President then performed his dut;e.
IN any one OF these PARTICULARS Was this gene.
super'ntenosnce OF all the affairs Of the Bank,
ano OF oil the oteers1 The President was the onIv
director who received a salary-he presided at the
BOARD, and was presumed TO know much more than
'he o'her members who received no pay met but oc-
| casionally, and would of course look mn 10 H.,
and be guided by his judgment liz appe,rrd On H.
race OF the report that il he had performed his du-
Ties, That defiication could never have occurred He
relied upon the evidence furnished by the Presden,
himself and his friends as arsumen, ;r,es;s,;Ip
AGAINST the rc-apPontment OF that officer He would
ASK me attention OF the House to the following ex
tracts from the amendment to the report presen,rd
oy the gentleman from Richmond city:
NO sufficient apology, however, has been offered
~ ea' omeer ior suffering the cashier TO allow
Ddohty 10 Keep Tor months and years together III.
amount Of funds daily shown by his
10 DC IN ms hands. On the contrary, the commit.
Tee deem It TO have been grave neglect of duty on
nus part not to have required the instant correction
oil SO loose and hazardous state of things and IN
have invoked, If necessary TO that end the auILor
| ~ OF the board of directors.
Another means by which the president and diree
tors might have detected the deiacation before AT
least, 1t had proceeded very far was by conn, Of
| the moneys ofthe bank once a month ne d;r..,si
by the seventh bylaw. It's doubtful whether thi,
bylaw was strictly observed IL is eertoin !,
mas oeeh put partially pursued for long series of
years, and for the last ten wears the seiIIed n,,c
tce seems TO have been to make the count In, orc
year. Your committee can see, however. Ettle-
IT any exteauaon of the neglect al any tine Of ,bs
requirement afforded by previous una uthorized nrac
tce and on the president, not only as n member nj
INC BOARD OF directors, but rs the chief executive
oicer oil the bank, ought, in the opinion of the com
miitee, manly TO fall the blame OF the OMISSION
From this testamony from his friends, they saw
that the President had totally neglected his du,v-
ihat nc hld never enforced any bye-laws,-t.at he
hid even neglected and set at nousht The solemn
requirements OF the charter. In consequences Of
this neglect OF duty, the dealcation had occurred
a detdlcation which might have been prevented had
he thought proper to obey the plain and positive
requirements oil him. Ii true that the Bank had
sustained the loSs;-It was true that the law lad
been neglected, and true that h1d the law NOT
| been neglected, the loss might have been preven,
ed; yet although all these things were true and no
| one could deny them, yet they were told forsoo,L
that the interests of the State required the
ment OF the President. This was the stiongeS,
reasoning he had ever heard in his life for il was
tantamouht 10 declaring that il was the interest of
the State 10 lose their pital. Supposing the bank
|
similar neglect, would members have held the same
opinions then as nowl Surprising the President
was reappolnted, and that during the summer eno.
ther nan million disappears, would his friends ho'd
the same language in that clse they did now y
although woGld they not be compelled AT the nert
session TO take the same course as thew were then
pursunsl-But the interests Of the Slate reouired
that ne should be re elected because only the small
sum OF $500, 600 had been lost;-f the President
was 10 be excu pated because only a small nortion
was lost, by the same process of reasoning thev
would come 10 the same conelus n if all were LOST
lie would put case TO the friends of the President
-SupposIng the gentleman from the city of Rich
mord employed a lawyer to collect n 5 900 and
pays hun his fees IN advance: the Attorney neeiects
his business and loses one-half Of the sum eonfded
10 him; subsequently, the gentleman has another
,oOo winch he wants co,ected: the Attorney says
TO hun that, II is true neglected my duty on a for
mer occaslon that It IS true that lost Won $500
winch might have been saved by proper attention.
and though cannot give you any assurance OF a
more faithful discharge Of my duty, yet it is your
interest 10 employ me TO collect your money
Is II not prooa bic, nay, is not certain that nv
Trend would be slow to admit the correctness Of the
conclusion TO whi:h the Attorney had come Now Il
the reasoning OF the Attorney would he inadmissi-
bic IN relation 10 a transaction Of a purely nrivate
Character, ought not the easonng TO be deem
ed equally lnadmssible in relation TO public Off
CERT would ask Of the gentleman of this CITY to
point out any difference in principle in this case of
the Attorney, and the Of the President of the
overseer who, by excess OF confidence in the ser
wants, had allowed the ne.hali OF your produce to
be run away WITH II the gentleman would not
appoint such faithless counsel and such faithes,
overseers would he be pleased TO point out the dis
Junction that existed IN favor Of DR.. Brockenbroueb
But he had still higher authority TO convict the
President Of the Bank Of being both the incomne-
tent Oyerseer and the unaithful COUNSEL he had con-
victed himself In his adde's to the stockholders
he had acknowledged that he bad not performed his
dutles-he said in respect TO his confidence IN the
Cashier that, Tin this particular instance it is con-
ceded that the defacation could not have occurred
precisely IN the way II has but from the excess of
confidence, The president and directors have re-
has relied too much on the fidelity Of tho icer-
They have not examined into the funds entrusted to
the cashier (which in truth are al the funds Of the
b1nk) as tho bylaws rendered proper, and he has
allowed the teller to retain moro money in his hands
than was necessary tor the daily operations Of the
bank, without examining his vault The practice |
OF frequent examinations Of the cashiers vault by
the board, hasgrown into dsuse for many years in
consequence Of the uniform correctness of his ac-
countsP
Was the President placed there to trust Dibney !
or any other ndiVidual1 was be placed there 10 /
see that the laws, which were adopted safeguards
Tor the Bank were fully carried out and generally |
10 spperiniesd ibe whole affairs OF the Bankl FL
the President placed too much confidence in tho |
Cashier, why did he do sol Was he ugain 10 be |
paced IN that sItuauon, where he might again Of |
iend IN like mannorl Here was a direct admission |