The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1878-12-25

The letter laid before the House Of Repre-
sentatives by JOHN SHERMAN, in replyto the
HEWITT resolution, is an extraordinary
affair. 1t is safe TO pronounce this letter
the only document OF the kind ever penned
by Secretary of the Treasury. The admis-
tions which it contains are startling enough.
but the shifts and equivocations by which
these are defended evlncc q contempt for the
popular intelligence, a duplcity, and an
cifrontery for which We should vainly seek
Aparallal in the history Of this country.
IL will be remembered that Mr. HEWITT
charged that vast sum Of money-some
thirty millions Of dolars-had been suffered
to remain on deposit for some months in
single banking institution in the city Of New
York. Toeyery banker and business man the
gravity Of such charge was palpable and
fragrant. Nor will its significance escape
any in this community who remember what
fortunes were once amassed IN the office Of
City Chamberlain through the percentage
paid by banks to the incumbent for the
use OF municipal moneys. But Of course,
the aggregate amount Of which Chamber
lain could dispose is perfectly insignificant
compared with the immense accommodations
ofthe Federal Treasury. Where the balance
allowed to remain for term Of months in
given bank should mount to such a figure
as thirty millions. the profits flowing from
the use and control Of such a colossal capt.
tai would be plainly on Il scale Of portentous
magnitude. The inference would be irrosist-
ible that n transaction pregnant with such
sinister advantages had not been concluded
without substantial considerations 1t is
hard to believe that any honest man would
expose himself to such an inference.
JOHN SHERMAN admits that Just such
transaction took place between himself and
the First National Bank OF New York city.
His statement shows that So early as the
first day Of juno las when the total amount
OF public money on deposit with all the
banks OF the United States fell short of
S22,OOoOJO, more than thrce-fourths Of the
whole, or nearly SlG000OO1. were
lodged In this single institution. The books
OF the Treasury disclose further that by
the first day Of July tho balance to the
credit Of the Government in the First Ma
tional Bank had been swollen omore than
thirty-two millions, when the sum of Fed
eral deposits throughout the country was
only forty millions. From the last men
II,
the average balance left in the con-
trul of that establishment was not less
than thirty-eight millions, whilo at one
time, namely oct /, the deposits reached
the astonishing figure Of forty-lvc millions.
Nor was there single hour between
juno and November when the amount of
Government money intrustcd to this favored
institution did not represent more than
two-thlrds Of all the balances credited 10 the
treasury in all the banks Of the United
States What honest end, what purpose Of
sound policy could be served by con-
tcrIing on one bank such monopoly Of
privilege and oppOrtunity2 Is it By such a
grossly partial and Onc-sdcd dstribu-
ton OF favor5 that an upright linaneicr
would seek tp conciinte the monoycd inter-
est at the critical moment when tho country
was about TO enter on the momontOus cx-
pertinent Of rcsumption2 In view Of such O
state Of things how must tho gicat mass of
bankers In city and country interpret SHRR-
MASS professions OF friendship and esteem ?
Now, how does the DE- JdciO Secretary at
tempt 70 Justify his preference for n partic-
ular bank-a preference which could hardly
Hail to discourage and dlsaffect tho great
majority Of banking associations Any
thing less lucid and explicit than SmERMAH's
explanation could not be framed. In his
loose ambiguous, and often disingcnuous
language there Is no such thing as q square,
Straightforward, and positive anirmance.
II IL insnuated that the immense sum OF
money above stated was suffered 10 re-