Lynchburg Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1829-185?, 1849-09-20
THE LYNCHBURG VIRGINtAN.
PRoPRiEroRs.
LYNCEsnURG. sEPTHMBEH 20. 1910.

- NhF " "
PRoFBtEroRs.-
LYNCHBUEsG. sEPTEWBE. 20. 1910.
10. The Republicanyof Monday, commences
ar article headed The Banks again, as follows:
1--WE did not charge that either the Nirginian or c
Wing party ever eonfendrd directly for any saeh thing;
but we did say tlai heir frelusnt bfa,t hat the & vem
nent never lost any thing by the United States Bank,
wblc Ina institution had the eustaly oflhe public mon
ey, was calculated Ia produce such an impression upon the
public mind. l. this MT true Who would suppose
fmm anything that the Nhi1- ever say upon he su sct
hat. during the agency nf the Uni e. States Bunk. mon
ey WAS LOST TO The government, by the 'iegliaeace aad
rasealDy Of collecting and discussing agents. To the amount
IF millions Of dollars ? Who would supp Sc that deial
cations were far more frequent hen llan they have heen
since ? Aud yet such Is the flct. Millions ofthe public
money Were stolen during the agency of the banks, and
defalcdtion after deialcation occurred. The "Nirpinian"
itself admits that sir millions. four hundred and t,centy-
eight thousand and t,ceniy tteo dollars were linus lost by
individual agency, and yet the cIntrary would appear
from what thai paper had previously said.o
And further on, he says:
"lt is true. hat The banks were not to blame fr the
immense i'ss IN question Occurring during Their custody
ni the public money. nor WAS ii ever attempted to hold
hem responsible for such defalcatians but what is The
course pursued by the Wings towards the Independent
treasury Every symptom Of dedication or malfeasance
IN office since thatsyslem went iut9 operation is forth
with sci down by them t, lis account. The sub treas
uTy did H." "tho snb-lreasury did IT, is the ready cry
If that party upon the happ ming Of such an event
Now, all thai we maintain IS. thu lhesl two systems be
judged equally. Ii the independent treasury is 10 be
held responsible for every loss Of the public money occus-
ring during Is * stence; tlcn the sIme rule SHOULD be a
dopted with regard t. the hanks"
This Is fairly put. II would be the height of
folly and untairnesS to hold the L. S. Bank and
the State Banks, responsible for the losses the
Government may have sustained by the defalca-
tlon OF mcn over whom they had no possible con.
trol-ol receiving agents who, instead of placing
the funds In the deposite Bank, used them for
their own purposes; or of discussing agents who,
having received money upon checks on the Banks,
pocketed ltlnstcad of applying it to public uses.
1t might seem, on the other hand, unreasonable
aud unjust, to hold the Sub Treasury accountable
iot any losses sustained through agents of a like
character. Bat there is some difference in the
cases. In The first place the advocates Of the Sub
Treasury Were in the habit OF Boosting that defal-
cation under the system was almost a moral inn
possibility and, in the second place, a Sub
Treasurer, after all, differs in no respect, whatev-
ef,-eNcept IN the larger sums conided to him
from any other receiving or discussing officer OF
the Government. There is not a safeguard thrown
round the public money,in the hands of the Sub
Treasurer at New York, or New Orleans, which i,
got seen to protect the gold aud silver in the chest
OF the Receiver Of Public Monies, at the remotest
land-oilce, or of the Collector of cuStoms of the
most unlmportant Revenue district. ANY dcfalca.
ton, therefore, ofa receiving and diSbursine off.
eer-thoughit might have Just as readily occurred
when the Bank of the United States. or one o.
more State Banks, instead of a single individual
had the custody of the funds at New York-wil
naturally enough be trumpeted forth as negative
testimony against the Sub-Trea>ury. Il may be
argued, not unfairly, if the smaller Sub. Treasurer
rob the public, why may not those who are clarr-
ed with tarlarger sums and who have greater IA.
clIltles for peculation, With Banks as the prima
ry repositories of the public funds, we have seer
that receiving and discussing agents have defraud.
ed the Government Of more than six millions O
dollars, since the government went into operation
Instead of Banks, some half-dozen or more midi
yiduals now have the custody, primarily. of the
public treasure, while the rest OF the machinery
through which the losses occurred. remain pre-.
cisely the same. When the Sub-Treasurv is If
operation fifty years, ii will then be time to insti.
tutc a far comparison Of the working Of the TIVE
systems. So far, the analogies are unpropitious te
the new scheme. Government losses, by Bank,
as financial agents, thus far, amount to less than :
million, whilst the cotemporaneous losses hrouol
individual agency, exceed six times that sum
There is now nothing but individual agency. an6
We leave IT to the seader to say what is to be the
result, Judging from the past. There are now
more stringent provisions, and some additional Sc.
eurltv, perhaps, is thus given but we fear no
enough TO compensate for the greater number O
agents which must be employed and the large
sums which must be diSbursed.