Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1874-12-13

OOiu retained By the state HOLM 40
A copy Of this statement was incorpo-
rated in my report to Gov. Brownlow, No
vember 20, 1866, and in my first report to
the Chancery Court. The statement was
laid before our Board Of Directors in full
meeting, on the 18th of November, 1866.
The Board had before them the detailed
list Of the bills and notes. They had &C
cess to the schedule books referred to, and
all other books and papers used in the ex-
animation and denomination of the assets
OF the bank, and they, by written resolution,
unanimously approved the above statement.
Now, l would respectfully ask the public
If the above statement, verified by five wit
nesses besides myself, is not a better be-
ginning corner for an investigation of my
trusteeship, than some two or three sched-
ule books written by four different persons,
verified by no one and containing nothing
but a partial list of bills and notes? /
would ask, also, If it be true that without
these schedule books it can ever be known
what assets were received by me?
The committee in reference to the above
tabular statement of mine (Which is incor-
porated in their exhibit O say that they
cannot vouch for its correctness, because 1
produced no evidence of it other than my
own statement. The committee saw the
resolution on the minutes Of our Board
approving the above statement, and would
ask what better evidence / could give of its
correctness than the testimony Of five men,
most Of whom are known to this commu-
nifty, and whose standing for integrity and
veracity is above suspicion?
FIFTH CHARGE-DISCREPANC OF STATE
MENTs.
The committee do not charge me, be-
lieve, with any discrepancy between nv
own statements, but they produce the state
ment of the Bank of Tennessee when it
was turned over to the Federal military
authority in 1865, TO show a discrepancy
between that statement and mine given
above. This statement of 1865 shows the
amount of assets at that time to be, accord
ing to the books of the bank, S14,902,-
312.34, which is S1,974,553.30 more than
the amount Of assets in my statement. 1t
is true that the committee do not hold me
responsible for this s1,974,553.3O, but
giving the statement of assets in 1865 as
the true amount of assets at that time, and
having shown to the world such entire
want of confidence in my integrity, and
having stated that had no proof whatever
Of what assets came TO my hands, the pub
lie will naturally infer, without knowing
any facts in the case, that the S1,9T4553.30
of assets, or part Of them, came into my
hands and have not been accounted for. II
should be borne in mind that my statement
Of assets, with the exception Of the nOmi-
nal accounts, is not derived from books,
but is made out from an actual and careful
examination Of the assets that were turned
over TO me. But the statement of
1865 produced by the committee, is
merely accounts taken from the
books Of the mother bank and its branches,
the books of some of which the cashiers of
them had not seen for years. There was
no examination Of the assets at the time,
and consequently it is impossible for any
living person to tell whetherthe assets on
hand then corTespOnded with the statement
Ii is now known that at the time this state
ment was made out, Sl61, 900 of the bills
and notes Of the bank were not in the
hands of its officers, but were in New
Orleans, aud that part Of them had been
captured by Gen. Ben. Butler; SI35, 700 of
the notes and bills Of the ROgersville |
Branch were hid away in North Carolina;
and $685. of the State bonds belonging
TO the bank had been disposed of, and no
books. Furthermore, the bank had been
removed by the military authorities from
Nashville to Memphis in 1862. II was
then taken to Chattanooga; from there it |
was removed TO Georgia, and il was moved |
to five or six different places in Georgia |
and other States; sometimes part of the |
assets in one place and part in another, |
sometimes under the charge Of one person |
and sometimes under the charge Of another. |
In 1865 the Federal military authorities |
took possession Of the bank and removed |
it TO Nashville. 1t was then put in the |
charge of three persons appointed by the |
executive officers Of the State, and after |
wards Oyerhauled by committees of the |
Legislature. With the knowledge of the |
facts, that the assets Of the bank were scat |
tered, large amount Of them not in the |
hands of its officers, a part of them dis |
posed OF, the remainder carried about from |
place TO place-sOmetimes in the hands of |
soldiers, sometimes in the hands |
of one person and sometimes |
in the hands Of another, is it not |
taxing the credulity of the community too |
far to ask them to believe that a mere |
from the books of the bank, with |
out anything TO cOrrObOrate it, is any evil |
dence of what assets Of the bank were on |
hand at the time that tie statement was |
made? and if there should be any missing |
assets, is it not asking too much even of |
my worst enemies, to believe, or even 10 |
suspect, without a title Of evidence, that |
any Of those missing assets came to my |
hands?
Fortunately for me, as l am so unjustly |
and relentlessly pursued, and fortunately, |
too, for the former custOdians of the bank, |
who have also been censured, the ap- |
pointees of the Chancery Court find that |
the amount Of the bills and notes Of the |
bank admitted ln my statement above of |
1866 TO have come to my hands, is little |
larger than the amount claimed by the |
bank in its statement Of 1865, when the |
military took possession of ii; and am |
glad to know, too, from the same source, |
that the discrepancy in the two statements |
is principally in the nominal accounts
that is, such as represent no assets-such |
as profit and loss and interest accounts, |
and that there is ne important deficiency |
in any class of assets, excepting in the gold |
and State bonds. But the gold was not |
turned over to me, and have no response !
bility for that, and have been able to as
certain what became of most of the missing |
bonds.
That there should have been a loss Of |
some Of the valuable assets of the bank,
moved about and kept as it was during a |
state of war, is not surprising. But it is
surprising that the loss was not far greater |
than it was.
SIXTH CHARGE, IN RELATION TO BONDS |
AND COUPONS.
n