Lynchburg Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1829-185?, 1849-09-13

/ Ier forn Those duties, were overwhelmingly large, as Ia
been partially shown in a preceding portion oil tins ar
tcle. And IN addi ion 10 ihuse heavy loans (qu. losses !
sustained by individual SCENTS during The em~plnynen u
banks as repositories Of the public funds. hry, them
seize, occasioned losses 10 the government oil more ilai
fifteen millions Of dollars, az previously showo."
The Republican INDUCES in a %fanciful distinc
ton between the duties of the U. ). Bank AM
the State Banks and the Sub-Treasury, as TO col
letting the public monies. The Sub-Treasur,
does no more ofthis than the Deposite Banks did
If It did, there would be no necessity oil collector
Of customs and Receivers of Public Moneys, by
whom all but a small fraction of the money be-
longing to the Government is paid into the Sub
Treasury, as il was formerly into the Bank ofthc
United States, and afterwards into the State De
posite Banks. The Banks dsbursea just as mucl
as the sub Treasury. They held, as the Sub.
Treasury does now. the public funds, subject &c
the draft Of the Treasurer Of the United States
whether that draft be for one hundred dollars or
for a million. The business ofthe Sub-Treasury
is to receive, safe keep,& diSburse the public mon
ey-io do, in short, Just what the United States
Bank was, by lis charter, bound to do, and which
it, at all times, faithfully performed. We, there
fore, deny, altogether, 'that losses under the latter
system Il. e. the Sub Treasury are far more rea-
soRabIe and ercusabh than they were under the
former We are amazed at this deprecatory
language. We had thought it was the object OF
the friends Of the Sub. Treasury to prove the little
risk there was OF the public money being lost I'M
der this system-nay the moral lnposSlblllty of
malversalion-when 10 the Republican makes
the strange confession that under this boosted sys-
tenn, losses 'ARE FAR MORE REASONABLE N
ExCUsABLE" than under those heretofore in exist
ence. In all candor, we would ask, is not this
the severest language yet used against the Sub
Treasury? Can a worse system be devised of
keeping the public money than that under which
losses are declared to be not only reasonable but
excusable :
The Republican winds up the paragraph we
have copied by reiterating the ~charge-the absur-
dity OF which we made apparent in our last-that
the Banks had occasioned a loss to the Govern
lnent, down to the date of Mr.. Secretary Wood
bury's report of February 1871, ~offfteen millions
and a halt of dollars. We have searched the only
periodical likely to contain this report, to which
we have access-viz: Niles Register-but have
not met with it, nor do we remark in the proceed
lngs ofthe Senate any mention ola call being made
upon the Secretary for information like this =
We have discovered, however, lhat the Republi-
can copied the statementfrom the Journal of Com
merce, which paper purports to derive the facts
from the Secretary's report, made in obedience
to acall of the Senate Of the 1llh February, 1871.
We showed, in our last, how losses by d%epreci-
ated bank notes, were ascribed by the Republican
TO the fact Of the Banks being used as financial
agents-when the loss was owing merely to a Vi
tIated currency, which was received by law in
payment of public dues. We expressed our dis
trust Of the amount alleged to have been thus
lost, though we had no precise Information on the
subject, and we showed the righteousness of cal
culating the interest on whatever loss might have
occurred.
The Secretary estimates the loss from deposite
Banks-l. e. from their failure to pay over the
money confded to them-at one million of dol
lars. To decide between the relative safety of
Banks and individuals, as repositories of the pub
lie money, let us see what loss was sustained by
the Government, from the faithlessness of receiv-
ing and dlsbursing agents, during this same time
and let it be remembered that a Sub Treasurer
differs in nothing from a Receiver of Public Mon
les, except in the greater amount offunds which
comes into his hands. We give authority which
the Republican will be the last to controvert,-.
We quote a distinguished leader ofthe Democrat
lc party of this region Of the State. In April,
lSlO, MAJOR JAMES GARLAND, then a member of
the House OF Representatives, issued an able ad-
dress to his constituents, in which the acts and
policy Of Mr.. Van Buren's administration were
reviewed with great power. Ofcourse, the Sub
Treasury scheme was discussed. One of the
grounds of objection, on the part of Major Gar
land, was that 1t would endanger The public mon
ey. To show this, he presents a statement of the
losses sustained by the Government from indiyid-
ual and Bank agencies for the same period of
time. Here it is:
Mdipil ual agency-Disbursir agents s4,25O, 900
Collectors and receivers
to Oct. 1887 2,17S,022