The Arkansas banner., 1843-11-04

De Baum. and ssOne who thinks,o settle the matter among themselves. As they seem not to understand each other, perhaps the public will have sagacity enough to see that every mite is cast in, to overwhelm Col. Sevier : even Mr. De Baum cannot close his own de- fence, without "cutting and thrustlng .'- What are the facts De Baum was employed by the State Bank, (of which he was a direct- or.) 10 take on 300 bonds, sold or contracted to the War Department, and to receive the money on. them. He paid over 100, and re- ceived the money; and the balance of the bonds were deposited i'll the Bank of Wash ington For the amount of the l00 bonds, he accounted, on his return, to the bank He also paid to the bank, on his return, the S9.500, which he had retained out of the funds from the Government, or eastern ex- change, according to contract with the dl- rectors, before the bank went into operation. that he was to retain thatmuch of the capital of the bank, and pay it in Arkansas bank pa per, as he did. Allow me here to ask Billy Trimble, where the Directory got their au- thority to loan to Mr. De Baum S9,500, be- fore the bank acem into operdtion2 Where is the authority to loan James De Baum, or any one else, the capital of the bank
 And was it not as lawful for Col. Seyler to retain S14,000 of his stock, the capital of the bank, as De Baum But, they say, Col. Se- vier did not give his note for the amount, un- til he returned True; but Mir. De Baum me- ger gave any note at all. De Baum was a large and extensive dealer. He went east, to purchase goods; and as he was a director and would be absent when the bank went ill., to operation, he agreed to deliver the bonds which had been before sold to the Secretary of War; for which service he required, ol there was granted him, loan of Sa9,500, O the capital of the bank, which was paid bacl in Arkansas paper. again ask, where is thu difference between the two cases? yet one | excused, and the other condemned-one wa a 1rhig, the other a democrat. Read the re port, (A.,) and see the striking difference il the conclusions of the committee in the two cases. ONE WHO KNOWS.
 :: A sale of 300 of these bonds was made in May, 1887, to the Commissioner of indial :. Affairs, at Washington City, and was sent t that place, by MT. James De Baum. The De partment, however, not being able to mak payment of the bonds so sold, only 100 wer delivered by Mir. De Baum, on the 10th of Ju ", 1887, for which he accounted to the bank as shown by statement marked A., No. D. From that statemenl, 1t will appear that th sum of S9,527 50 was paid by Mir. De Baum here, in notes of the principal bank; and jus tice to him requires we should state, that un der the charter the directors were limited tc all accommodation of $l0,000, and as MT ' De Baum would be absent on the business O the bank, when the institution was expected to go into operation, and thereby be delayed in obtaining any accommodation at home there seems to have been an understanding between him and the directory, before his leaving home, (not however entered on thei minutes,) that he might use the discount tC which, as a director, he would be entitled, a the east, should he find it necessary; auC that this accommodation should be repaic here, and be in lieu of all charges as agent his actual expenses excepted. The remain ing 200 bonds, negotiated with the Commis- sioner of Indian Affairs, as aforesaid, were deposited with the Bank of Washington; an( of these, As were, at different periods up tC the 31st of August, 1859, delivered to the Secretary of War, by A. Il. Sevier and ". s Fulton.n