Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1858-05-27

The above starts out statement sent the com
mittee according TO the July report of Mr.. Spence
made on oath"
Is this so Does not the report show that l also
sWOre had lUl bonds not deposit in the bank a.
security FOR circulation which obtained before the
LIST Of July by returning circulation re-depostiug
when the Comptroller gave me $4,000 in new
notes and about like amount Of old issues which
would do 70 put in circulation again The attempt
is made 20 account for the bonds reported in July
bat only part is taken leaving3the public to dler
that the balance we're frauduleutly obtained.
claim over one hundred thousand dollars more in
my July statement than Col. johnson accounts for
Il IN proof before the committee that few da s
prior the first Of July, 1 stated 10 Col Lutrell,
Comptroller, that l wanted 10 reduce my circulation.
Col LuItr,u states that 1 did deposit with him a
large amount OF circulation so 10 withdraw bonds
cannot recollecs the precise amouut--but knows
that he Issued me fifty thousand dollars Of new
notes. and that the balance Of the circulation that
I gave hln he returned 10 me, which was ABOUT as
much as he gave me in new notes. He cannot re-
collect my taxing away the bonds, but says he was
not in the habit Of keeping bonds OF Free Bank
as investment, ami Ielt his duty 10 give up the
bonds when the notes Of any bank we're returned
him. j Is hardly possible that l would have re
turned 80 large an amount Of notes without taking
ND my bonds. lt Is, however, unfortunate for me
that Col Lultrels recollection is ndstinct this
point. lie, however, states that he gave $780,
600 Of new issues and returned me about tine same
amount in the issues gave him. Does not this &C
count for the lUl bonds OF $1,000 each, reported in
my July statement?
1 asked Mr.. Morton il he did not 20 to the box Of
the Exchange Bank AMI take out Al bonds Of $1,000
each, IN The absence Of tne Comptroller, an or
der had given him for that amount He replied
in the negative
Col Lultreu states that Mr.. Morton showed him
the order, but that he did not give him the bonds
then, and has recollection Of ever giving them
60 HIM since. Tue order gave Mr.. Morton is still
An his possession. Col Luttrell knew this order
was given hm for the bonds
II was ms authority for giving Morton that amount
OF Ooh1s' whenever be returned q corresponding
amount OF circulation. lie did not have the circu-
lsuon when he exhibited The order; and as Morton
subsequently told me he needed the bonds for
some purpose ana took them, as the Comptroller
was absent. This Mr.. Morton denies
Is II not certain If Col Lurell vas rrssent when
he co. The bonds, that the order would have beeu
presented and given the Comptroller. But Mr..
Morton says: E" Col, Luttrell and MYSELF cane To-
gelher, and he did not think IL worth Will 40 five
up the order Col Luttrell does not sustain linz in
this statement. Why not give up the order n I
had been present / should most certainly have 80
led for Il, and not have LETT an order Tor sal OOO
bonds outstanding against me; and Mr. Morton ould
have presented the order, had Col. Lutreu been
present, authority get the bonds The story
improbable, and but for anxiety 10 show that nc
ine ever had access to the bonds but the Comptrol