The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1849-08-10


We assure our friends Of the Opposition
that they will profit little by undertaking
the defence Of the late defaulters They
accuse us Of attacking Mr.. DENNY and
Mr.. COLLINS "ferociously." They deny
that Mr. DENBY is ''dishonest" de-
faulter. They deny that Mr.. COLLINS is a
defaulter at all. Now, we have never as
sailed these men. Our attacks are aimed
at the administration and the system un-
der which the public money has been lost.
John Styles and Richard Roe, or any two
other fancy men, will answer our purpose
just as well as DENLY and Collins. We
merely employ their names to identify
their cases.
But how is it with Mr. MASON and Mr..
WALKERl 1t is said to have been signi-
fed to Sir William Draper, at the request
of Lord CRANKY, that he should desist from
writing in his lordship's defence. Has
the sole organ received any such intima-
ton in the case of the secretariesi Are
they reluctant to entrust their case to his
care! If not, why are they not defended
How is it with the Sub-treasury, which
was aOarrante4 to save the country against
all these defalcationsl Does the sole organ
abandon its defencel Does the Union re-
lapse into the ideas of the Richmond En-
guirer on this subjectl Does the sole or
gan think as i'll now of the Sub-treasury
as it thinks of Mr.. VAN buren,, who
pressed it upon the country after it had
been thrice condemned, and Gin spite Of
the lamentations of the peoplep'
1t is not the defence of Mr.. DENBY or
Mr.. COLLINS that the people care about;
but they want to know something about
the operation Of the system which the Bal
timore Convention told us had done such
wonderful things for the country.
If the Opposition journals will examine
the papers in Mr.. Collins case, however,
they will find that even his friends very
family deny the allegation of default, and
then state the specific facts that make him
defauIter. The very statement of the
Cincinnati Enquirer proves all that we
ever alleged. 1t appears that Mr.. BOND
called at Mr.. COLLINS Office on the 18th
of June, and showed him his letter of ap-
pointment Mr.. COLLINS asked when he
would take possession. Mr.. BOND replied,
Tmmediately." Mr.. COLLINS had pre-
viously received an order from the Comp
troller directing him to deliver all the pub
lie property in his possession. Doubling
whether "money'' came under the descrip-
ton Of "property," he did not pay it over.
The good sense of this may be illustrated
by single question. If Mr.. COLLINS
possessed one hundred thousand dollars in
his own right, would he or not consider
himself a man Of "property'"
On the 26th of June, the Secretary Of
the Treasury addressed letter to Mr..
COLLINS, telling him, we suppose, that mo-
ney was property, and at all events d.
recting him to transfer to his successor the
public money in his hands. This was
demand and order enough, we should
imagine-but Mr.. COLLINS did not comply
with it, but retained the public money
twenty to thirty days longer, which he was
bound by law TO delirer forthwith, or sub
ject himself to the liabilities of defaulter.
1t seems that the Secretary of the Trea-
sury, finding that the Comptroller's order
of June 4th, and his own order of June
26th, had not brought the money, thought
proper to write third demand under date
of July 9th, which at length operated,
and Mr.. COLLINS commenced counting out
the public money. As an illustration of the
beauties of the Sub-treasury, it may be
stated that this process was expected to
occupy several days.
Mr.. COLLINS defenders undertake to
implicate the Secretary of the Treasury
and Mr.. BOND, the new surveyor, in the
fault of his neglect. They say the Sec
rotary did not address him the right kind
Of letter in the first instance; and they
say that Mr.. BOND did not make any
I" demand" We suppose that nobody
but Mr.. Collins would doubt if money
was property-or fail to understand an
order" from the Secretary as possessing
the same virtue with " demand" from
his successor.
His own friends have furnished the evil
dence which proves Mr.. COLLINS de-
faulter. If they will only read the act
which they have been praising for the last
three years, they will understand more
about the matter.
As long ago as November, lS4S, Mr..
WALKER had occasion to reprimand Mr..
COLLINS in no very gentle language. He
spoke of the continued evidence of his
neglect to make proper returns of moneys
receiyed and exnended. and fold him that