Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1841-01-26

violation q the rights oil the ockho.dsrs IN the sA
G. the L lie knew nothing OF the views O. .hr ~
cp,ve on This SUBJECT; lie knsw net N what shi ne
r,o,ri tins gs IL conceived, insulting interference
viii his du;ies BIZ. this hs wauld say, tia. having
the view al this matter he then h.d II lie stood IN Inc
nosition .! The Executive, lie should resist, III TIC 's
ccde ne .ne!, hat n conceived 10 Dc an insoe' ~
,s -e-ence w.,h kaecul tnes. but u IS SAID We a'e
s-sIv n rive him advice 10 constituted Ills House
the Executive Council The privilege OF advising w
Executive Is no: conferred this House, H.. Oh The Ia
ecu,ive Council State. lie cd not pretend 'ee
Il. INTO the suec; OF the misconduct OF ie "i
the Bauk-he believed there had been gross ;'Istaoag &C.
,nent IN the ins:i,u:ion-he was willing 10 vote tas
there had been but lie unwilling 10 interfere
with the discharge OF duties not conferred on lhs
House bu, on another department; of tins Government.
He was unwilling 10 violate the spirit OF the contract
entered into with the stockholders: lie was IN" hg
10 sci precedent which, high party times mish DC
referred 10 10 Justify interference with vested rights
Mr. COLES said that there was no member IN tha'
House who was more reluctant than himself TO pass
censure upon the conduct OF the president OF The BANK
OF Virginia. He would give much 10 escape from such
a vote bu, as one of that body he should OF course
shrink from the performance OF duty which his seat
IN that hall might impose upon him The COMMITTEE
on Banks acting under the orders OF that House. nae m
oured into The condition OF the institution over whch
that officer presided and the conduct ofits officers
and they had repored dealca;ion OF more than half
million of dollars which they asserted had been coca
stoned by the negligence Of the president and other Of
fcers Of the Bank AID they had accordingly presented
for their adoption the following resolution:
aResolred, That the power OF the State, IN the ap
pointment of Directors Of the Bank of Virginia, ought
to be SO exercised prevent the reelection Of The
present Presiden. thereof: resolution as appeared
10 him. perecy unexceptionabe in its terms, and con-
tanning nothing that did not tall within the legitimate
powers and duties of that body. That the Committee
had not erred in attrbutinG this dedication 70 tie acg
sence ofthe Presidcn. Of the Bank, the testimony en-
bodied in their report abundan,lr showed For proof
Of this, lie would ask PERMISSION to READ snort
from the President report TO the Stockholders Of Inc
Bank in which he ack nowledaes this neglect and ''ccn
ceGes that the dealcation could not have occurred
cisely in the way il has, but from the excess OF comb
dence." The President SAID
/ with all the precaution that be used the ab
s,racton of money from the Bank may be effected By
a dishonest officer whom 1t IS Entrusted yet tins IS
the first instance in The lapse Of so years OF any such
case in this institution, and freely admit that more
confidence from that fact, has been entertained than
can be fully justified but If cannot confde in them
who have served lcng and faithfully, in whom are
we to confide In this particular instance it is conced-
ed that the deacaton could not have occurred precisely
in the way has but from the excess Of confidence The
President nd Directors have relied too much the vi
GLANCE of the Cashier, and he has relied too much on
the fidelity Of the Teller. Thy have not examined the
funds entrusted to the Cashier (Which in truth are all
the funds Of the Bank BY the rendered proper
and he has allowed the Teller 10 retain money IN
his hands than necessary for the daily operations
Of the Bank, without examining his vault. The prac-
tice Of frequent examinations OF the Cashiers vau.
hy the Board has grown into dsuse for many years,
IN consequence of The uniform correctness 81 his
counts Here, then, they mad the proof Of negligence
on the part Of the high officer Of this Bank from him
self-a negligence which his friends did not deny,
and yet j. was conended that this House had no au-
,horiy 10 pass tic resolution reported ~ the commit
tee, because in doing they would wound the feel
inrs of nerito-ous and honorable genilcmal--that
would in fact be the iIamolation OF victim, and
that they should moreover he interfering wit! the
rights and duties of another and Coordinate branch
their Government he denied that there Has any thing
mandatory in the resolutlon-any thing that could or
would prove offensive 10 any other department of this
Governments and be asserted farther that the power
enquire implied necessary consequence, the pow
e. TO such action, at least, proposed 10 be
taken in that matter.
To Illustrate this more fully he would suppose that
tie abducing and absconding Teller, ("ho lie heard
was residing III Richmond. in the bosom Of his
fanilv,) his return had been rensated in his stu
alton as Teller 10 TIE Bank-This snpposItion BY
extrayagant, after the labored eulogum pro-
nounced on him Yesterday Ii will also be recoilect-
ed that the friends Of the Teller denied tha; lie alb
Quoted this money for hlnsef-,iey denied that one
cent Of il went into his pocket HIS offence then,
ii he might call II, excess OF Confidence
He was SAID 10 have conided much in the honor
and integrity Of Of his friends: tins he thought
the front Of his otfendlngeNccpt some aatRor ,ecas-
ncsses which however out Of feelings connected
with and belonging 10 'some Of the dearest and most
phrase. Well, suppose this Teller rensated in his
place along with the Cashier and all the old officers OF
The Bank and tina, their Committee had reported these
facts them-hat the half million gone-had
been abducted by legerdemaln process, SO as
that no one could be charged with crminaliy, in
any way made answerahe for the act-had that been
the presented 10 them, would gentlemen then
have coniended, tina: hat House could take action
III the matter: Or, to present yet more iiagrant
case: suppose report should be made 20 the next &C.
half hadI
ed BY THIS process Of abduction, would il be
tended that then that House would have power
and authority 10 pass resolution similar to the one
which had been submitted 10 them; II. this the
true doctrine, then, lie asked, in what relation they
stood 10 the great monied institutions of the State;
and 10 what had they been subjected TO their
authority: Under the existing law they all knew
that if at any time they failed TO redeem their notes
in specie, demand that their charters might be for
feed. Well, had they not suspended specie payments
once and agaln-and their charters taken from
them: On the contrary it not made manifest in
practice, that forfeiture could be exacted-that no
power existed in The Government that could be used
10 cnerce them: That there was indeed 80 who
conld Gu, away ss;hc pound Of flesh without at the
same time cutting his veins and arteries: That
this provision in the law was in fact mere multi
": Thus falling, the only other means of control
ling them, far as he knew, was to be found in the
! authority given the Governor TO appoint minority
, of the Directors and the authority vested III that
House to supervise their proceedings and the conduct
Of their officers but if the reports OF their Bank
Committees could in case lead to any action on the
part of that body, then that power even more in
Operative than the power of forfeiture Itself that
it would seem. that their Banking institutions in
which vast amount of public treasure had been in
vested, and which constituted by the law, the
Treasury OF the State, far from being the responsible
bodies that all had supposed them 10 be, in truth
monsters that could not be too hunted down and
destroyed
a doctrine ike this could not, as it seemed 10 him,
be seriously sustained by any one; and lie must think
that those who opposed 10 the adoption of the
solution, only meant 10 contend, that the negligence
complained Of IN that particular case, was not Of a
character TO justify the which that resolution
would the Presiden. of the Bank. That there
were many members ofthat House who honestly enter
tanned that view Of the subject he knew. He blamed
them not though he differed with them in opinion
but if Inc did not differ yet could he not vote for
the indefinite postponement OF this subject. 1t was
fairly before them in all IFS bearings and ii did seem
to him that it could in way be dismissed but by
of aDDrobltOu Would the