Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1869-02-23

y , " - . r.
under military escort from
Augusta to Nashville, and turned
over to the State authorities here.
The Press and Times stated very
particularly the number and char
acter of the packages con-
tanning this eoin-ffty-six boxes,
two small casks, and "a bag
containing $1,000 in new Mexican
coin" The report of the commit
tee appointed to examine the assets
returned with the bank is dated
Oct. 2, 1865, and states that they
"made a careful and prOtracted ex-
animation of the same" They
give the contents of the fifty-six
boxes as SAG, 719.7o, being $685.
280.3O less than reported by Gen.
Upton. But they say nothing of
the "two small casks" and the
''bag." What became of them and
their contents2 Can anybody tell t?
Then there was $50, 900 in gold be-
longing to the Branch of the Bank
Of Tennessee at Athens, which
was in the Bank of Liv-
erpool. The report of the Trus-
tee of the Bank of Tennessee
shows that $4,000 paid over to
Gov. Brownlow on account of Thos.
A. Cleage, has been paid over to
the Trustee" and that "this fifty
thousand dollars was receipted for
by Gov. Brownlow as a payment on
account Of the liabilities of Thos.
A. Cleage, cashier of the Athens
branch of the Bank of Tennessee"
All of this $4,000 mot necessary
for current expenses, has been de
posted on interest, secured by
United States bonds 1t has been
stated that Mr. Cleage came to
Nashville and made q tender of
this gold to the State authorities.
If so, why was it not accepted +?
In not doing so and afterwards
taking greenbacks, the Bank of
Tennessee lost $4,000 or $4,000.
Who pocketed that handsome sum,
tao party who paid the $4,000 or
some other person or persons? 1t
would furnish a curious chapter in
the history Of the manipulation of
the assets of the Bank of Tennes-
see if these matters touching its
coin could be fully and fairly in
vestigated. There has never been
an attempt made to explain the
discrepancy between Gen. Upton's
statement and that of the commit
tee appointed to examine the assets,
nor has there been any explanation
in regard to the missing "two small
casks" and the "bag" and their
contents.
The Memphis Appeal states that
there were returned with the bank
" State bonds amounting to more
than S1,5OO,O0O." We think the
appeal is in error in this statement.
The report of the Bank of Tennes-
see on the lst of January, 1862,
shows among its means S139, .33
worth Of State bonds and Sll0,-
1000 of bonds purchased from the
Nashville and Northwestern Rail
road Company. The report of the
Trustee Of the bank shows that
there was returned with the institu-
ton 100000 of State bonds and
none of the others. We have thus
the return of 103 bonds of the 249
owned by the bank few weeks be-
fore it was taken from this city.
The Trustee has possession Of that
number. The late John A. Fisher
is known to have stated that there
were about two hundred and fifteen
of the old six per cent. State bonds
returned to Nashville with the
bank We have come into posses
sion Of fact which shows conclu-
sively that bonds were distracted
after the assets passed from under
the control Of the officers Of the
bank. Two bonds made payable to
the Valley Insurance Company of
Virginia, and not endorsed by that
company, were shown to a broker
in this city, and he received q letter
from Cleveland, Tenn, describing
third one of these bonds and MAX
ing inquiry as to whether it was
worth any thing, few months at
ter the return of the bank to Nash
vile. The broker in question
wrote to the officers of the Valley In
surance Company in regard to these
bonds, and from them learned the
following facts; The company had
been doing business in this State
before the war, and had made the
oePosite required by law of $4,000
IN the bonds Of this State, which
"'' been issued directly to the
company When the bank was re-
moved to Chattanooga the COMPANY
applied for it's bonds. They Troro