Lynchburg Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1829-185?, 1849-09-13
THE LYNCHBURG VIRGINIAN.
BLACK FORD, TOwNLEY Il CO.,
P~RoPEIEToRs.
LYNCmBURG. sEPTEMBER ID. Isi.
THE REPUBLICAN ANDTHE BANKS.

nc hepuDllCan, OIL biOludy, Deoins an aTlirlf
on the subject of the United States Bank, will
the following paragraph
"The E,rpinian b1as - that the government never me
with anv losses By The old Unltoi States Bank as lis agen
for keeping and transferring the public money. LITERALLY
speaking, this is ude-lliat is. the Bank did mt diiectl
defrand the government OF any funds deposited in lis vaults
Bot this faci cinycys a false idea T., the reader; for ,ht
VIrginian will not dare contend that during the exisienc.
of thai b NIX as the fiscal agent of the government. n
llsses of the public money was sustained To the treasury
Ufihe country. On The CONTRARY. we undertake 10 say
that Publications. under that Institution were of frequent
occurrence aud for large amounts. Is the fact denied
We have the evidence b,fire US, of names and date"
Who has contended that the Government new
er lost money, by the negligence or rascality OF
collecting and discussing agents, during the peri
Cd that the United States Bank was in operation
Not we assurcdly-not the Wing party. The
remembrance Of the long list of peculatorS, who
fourished in the palmy days of Jacksonism and
Van Burenlsm, was too vivid for any impression
of this kind to rest upon the mind of any one
The names of Swartwout, Gwin, Harris, sc. and
Others, whom Mr.. Secretary Woodbury. refused to
remove after they were known to have stolen
thousands upon thousands of the public money,
were too familiar to permit any such delusion,
even if its perpelration had been attempted. But
what interest could the Wings have had in pallia-
ting or concealing any defalcations which occur
red from 1917 to 1887 The character of the
Bank of the United States was not in the slight
est degree affected. If a receiver of public mon
les, instead of deposltlng in its vaults the sums se
received in payment of the public lands, applied
them to his own purposes; or, If a purSer of the
Navy, or a poymaster Of the Army, applied in the
same way, the proceeds Of the Treasurer's check
was the reputation of the Bank in any possible
manner implicated : The Republican has not
half stated the defalcation. We shall show pres
emily the aggregate Of losses from the unfaithful-
ness of collecting and discussing officers. The
temptation on the part ofthe Wings, when the
Sub-TreaSury scheme was first discussed, was in
the opposite dircctlon-not to conceal, but TO en-
aggerate, these losses. We do not know that
they did exaggerate. There was no necessity, for
the aggregate was sufficiently appalling. And yet
the Republican tries to make it appear that these
deialcatIons were in some way owing To the Bank
of the United Statcs-or that, at any rate, its ex-
istence did not avert them. II lnsinuates some
thing, when it says sthe Bank did not directly de-
faud the Government Of any funds deposited in
its vaults" We ask, if the Bank ever did that
indirectly, which it is admitted it did not do "di-
r%cctly"2
Immense losses were sustained by collecting
and dlsbursing agents-by men who had the GUS
tody of the public money, before it reached the
Bank of the United States as the great depository,
~ " 49, WV ~" - ~ ~ - ~
the various branches of the public service. The
frequency and amount of these Manifestations were
not only admitted, AS we have said by the Wings,
but made the ground of an argument against con-
hding to the hands OF any one man far larger
sums. If a Receiver, or a Collector of the Rev.
enue, had defrauded the Government of thou
sands, when comparatively small sums came into
his custody, was it not to be feared that a Sub
Treasurer, through whose hands millions would
pass, might rob to a larger amount. 1t was not
believed that the name would alter the nature of
the man, or lessen the temptation. We agree
with the Republican, that, whether the public
funds are kept in a National Bank-State Banks
or Sub-Treasury, there must be collecting
and discussing agents. The number of these has
not been lessened in the slightest degree-nay,
there are Just now more of this class of officers
than at any period of our history. The extent of
the country and its rapid growth require far more.
The Sub. Treasury has not retrenched Executive
patronage. 1t places the appointment to many
new lucrative offices in the hands of the PreSi-
dent.
We admit the provisions ofthe Sub-Treasury
act are stringent-that they make felony what
was heretofore but a misdemeanor, or breach OF
trust, and provide for the fine and imprisonment
of the thievlsh officer. And this is all, positively
all And will this suffice to ensure against de-
f%alcation : The laws of Virginia, and of other
States, are now not a whit less stringent against
the misapplication of funds by Bank officers, and
yet robbery by Bank officers continues to occur in
Virginia and elsewhere. The increased severity
of the law has imposed no additional safeguard up
on the funds OF these institutions. After all, it is
the character and integrity of the officer, not
the pains and penalties denounced against de-
talcatlon, upon which we must rely for the faith
full discharge of his duty. The severity of the
Sui. Treasury law-were it even Draco-like-
will be ~mitigated and indeed rendered imperative,
if party sympathy is to cling round every man
charged with violating its provisions. The Dem
ocratic press has maintained the innocepcc of ev-
cry one who has thus far been accused of defalca-
ton. The facts have been denied, when posi-
BILE, and, when too glaring TO be controverted, tn
greatest ingenuity has been used to whitc-wash
the culprt. The Union has never admitted Eli
Moore 10 be a defaulter-though the $50, 900 is
stolen. 1t admits that, somehow or other, Sl55,-
600 is gone from the Trcasurv-but boldly asserts
that no guilt, moral or legal, Justly attaches to the
Secretary OF the Navy, Mr.. DENLY, or Mr.. Os-
borne, or any body else, and that the character
of all are equally unimpeachable. OF what avail
are pains and penalties when party feeling is thus
invoked to screen the guilty ?
But we have wandered from our subject. The
Republican says
"het it be admitted then, for the psrpose of argument
that the DENLY detalcation was one of the fruits of the
Independent treasury. is II an argument against the wis
dom and feasibility OF that system ? Does it argue that