Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1874-12-04

\ - -AAANa - 4AA-@ ~ Z
He accounts for this balance by saying
that II may have been collected in
| United States currency, and may have
been paid out in taxes, etc.
TENNESSEE MONEY.
The trustee states that according to the
books Of the bank it, circulation was as
| follows:
New issrie Issued In the sStatel... 1000 80
New issue ISSUED in the south).-......... lss,0O
Total in circulation when assign
ment was si,4leoeo
OLD ISSUE.
Amount of old S23, }f6
or old issue he states that the follow
ing amounts have been burned and cam
celled, tO-wit:
others. ......s aS7g 90
otheTs.;........,............... sl4,lsl %
oihers:........'....;,;..,........'... ,Osl5n 10
Cancelled by Treasurer Morrow and
Ottlefs..... Hl.f2 60
Cancelled by trusiee..................... ses 3
On hand and not Cancelled .........-.... 90 y
if- I'll 10
Amount burner and Cancelled
more than issued. ................ sl05S5 10
NEW ISSUE.
Amount of new issue.......-.......sl,57 ~ .S20 90
OF new issue the trustee states that
the following amounts have been burned
and Cancelled. to-wit:
Burned by Watson and others. ssi,2li 10
Burned by Morrow ana others. 1884 90
a cam eat "a
9iOl,7I2 %
Amount new issue OutstsndingSl, S7j,577 50
From the above statement it appears
that there have been burned and cam
celed sos, SOS 10 more of old issue than
was ever issued. Surprising this to have
been new issue burned and cancelled as
old issue, the amount Of new issue now
outstanding is 81 ,569, 10 10. The resO-
luton does not authorize the committee
to consider the liability of the State as
to the new Torbet issue. They therefore
express no opinion in relation to it.
DISCREPANCY.
Between exhibits "B' and'"C'' there
is discrepancy Of SI30,S50 60 as to the
circulation OF the bank when it went
into liquidation. According to exhibit
"B, which shows the assets of the bank
when seized by the United States au-
thOrities as shown by the books Of the
bank, the assets were Sl4, 902, 3l2 a.
According to exhibit "C,u which is
WatsOn's statement OF the assets reeeiv-
ed by him, the assets were Sl2,-
927, T59 AZ. The difference be-
tween these amounts is 81, 974, 553 80.
This difference results, in part, from the
70 hat 4, l..
are omitted from exhibit sc, =" and from
the further fact that the trustee has only
charged himself with amount of bills
and notes, bonds. ETC., actually received,
while exhibit "B" merely states what
assets should have been on han accord
ing to the books. There is also some
real estate now on hand, the proceeds Of
which would go to balance these exhib-
its. The coin returned with the assets,
and which formed a part of the cash
mentioned in exhibit "B," did not come
to the hands of the trustee, and also ac-
counts for the discrepancy in part.
HOW THE TRUSTEE DISCHARGED HIS
DUTIES.
The committee are of opinion that the
trustee acted for the best interest OF the
bank, in refusing to bring suit against
the officers of the bank and others who
had drawn funds from the bank after its
removal from Tennessee, and after May
6, 1861, although required to do so by
act of the Legislature 1t may have been
that s1me such persons should have
been sued, and that actions against them
would have been successful but indis-
criminate suits would have been ruin
GUS to the bank. The committee are
slsO-of the opinion that the compromis-
es made by the trustee with William
Spence and with John Erskine were
highly advantageous to the bank, and
that the Spence matter resulted in 3
very considerable saving to it. There
may be other cases in which the bank
was benefited in the same way. The |
trustee states that he contracted with !
nearly ali his agents ana attorneys to |
pay q per cent. on amounts collected
and paid over by them, which We're GER
tainly good terms for the bank, and as
low as could be asked.
ON THE OTHER HAND,
the testimo ny of H. q. ScOvel and 9TH
ers shows that a full and accurate ill.,
ventoTy Of the notes and bills, and other
assets, was taken by said Scovel, Wat
son and Lowering, who were appointed
by the board of directors for that pur-
pose. The committee called upon the
trustee for said original schedule or in
ventory, but the trustee failed to intro
duce the important and essential paper.
He replied that the inventory had been
taken on small books and loose papers, |
and that they were thrown aside as use.
less, and were not at hand. On the coh-
trary, II. q. ScOvel, who was a director
when the inventory was made, and as
sisted to make it, swears that ii was
taken on large books, and left in the GUS |
tody OF said Watson. In the loss of, or
failure to get, the original schedule, it |
had been deprived of the beginning cor
ner of the Investigation, and it could |
never be known what assets were re- |
csived by said Watson unless said sched- |
ale was found, except by his own state |
ment. When called upon for the in /
ventory Mr.. Watson replied |
that the itemized list of notes
and bills shown the committee had |
been carefully copied from the original
but did not remember who /
copied it, and that his report to the
chapcery court and governor, made
from said copy, was intended to be, and
was, conclusive evidence of what the di-
rectors turned over to him. The trustee
cannot state nor show when, nor with
whom he exchanged coupons for bonds
and cash; nor when he exchanged the
South Carolina money for bonds; nor
does he show from whom nor when he
United States currency or dues
to the bank; nor the amount Of United
States currency received; nor to whom,
nor when the southern bank notes were
sold; nor did he exhibit to the commit
Tee his bank book, as trustee, when call
ed upon to do so, but filed what he stated
to be copy OF his account, Herewith;
nor do his books show who were the ac-
ceptors or indorsers upon bills and notes
in his hands or received by him; nor do
they give the numbers of the notes and
bills, but only show the makers thereof.
THE CHANcERY COURT
Of Davidson county, on the twenty
sixth day Of June, 1872, ordered the
trustee to make an itemiZed and detailed
report of the assets received by him and
Of his doings as trustee. He has not
made such report or complied with it in
the least. He never has at any time
to the meeting Of the commit
tee, made
ANY DETAILED REPORT
or statement of assets received by him,
nor of collections made; nor of pay
ments, so far as the committee can as
certain. In these respects he is guilty
of the grossest negligence, aud his fall
ure to preserve the original inventory is
HIGHLY CENsURABLE.
The committee regard the trustees
failure to preserve the particulars Of his
as a culpable neglect of
duty, leaving an open door for specula-
ton, which no amount Of examination
could detect.
1T is DUE THE TRUSTEE