Newspaper Page Text
jfHesiieiiflw* _
Mr Crouifvrd'iJln.iUer— Continued
Jiccn written byliioi to the Receiver.
The idea, however, is groundless. —
There is no real difference in the
meaning of the words employed by the
Secretary and those ot Mr. lid wards,
in relation to the letter. II the Re
ceiver had discontinued tae deposites,
tor reasons stated by him to the Sec
retary! (as Mr.E. alleges) and if lie
had, in consequence, received a letter
from rlie Secretary, directing him to
continue the deposites,(as Mr. K. also
alleges) such a letter, whatever might
have tieen its torin, was, in tact, an
answer to the letter of the Receiver.—
The denial of the Secretary that any
such answer was recollected, or was
on record, so far from being evasive,
was direct and explicit, and covers, as
was intended, the whole ground pres
ented in the charge.
Jly this clmrge, contradicted, as it i
is, by all tire facts which have been
adduced in tire case, is also rendered
more improbable by the wa.it of any
assignable motive for the Secretary’s
alledged conduct on the subject.
What object had he to serve, by con
tinuing tiie deposites in the Hank ol
Edwardsville, if lie had received any
communications which authorized the
opinion that they were insecure in that
Hank ? Mr. Edwards has charged
him with an improper partiality for
the Rank of Missouri, yet it was that
Hank from which the deposites were
taken, to be placed in the Hank of
Kdw&rdsville; and it was to that
Hank that they must have been res
tored, if they were withdrawn from
the Rank of Edwardsville. There
was no other bank within reach. If
“the charges of favoritism towards the
Bank of Missouri were well founded,
the Secretary would have readily
availed himself ot the pretext furnish
ed by the alleged communication of
the Receiver, for restoring the depos
it!* to that Bank.
The instructions given to the Re
ceiver at Kaskaskia, to deposite in the
Hank of Missouri,so far from confirm
ing the allegation, that a letter from
the Receiver at Edwardsville, enclos
ing the publication of Mr. Edwards,
had been received by the Secretary,
lead to a contrary conclusion. Ihe
correspondence with that Receiver,
at the period in question, is herewith
transmitted. It appears, that, on the
18th of September, 1819, this Recei
ver wrote to the Secretary, enclosing
his account current for the month of
August proceeding : anil, as there ap
peared by that account a large balance
of public money in his hands amoun
ting to about $30,000, he seems to
have considered it necessary to ex
plain the cause. His explanation was
the same as that offered by Mrs. Ste
phenson, for a like retention of mon
ey, to meet the Indian payments ;
and in this case as in the other, not
any publication of Mr. Edwards, or
any circumstances affecting the char
acter of the Hank of Edwardsville,
which, if such had existed he was
bound bv the Secretary’s instructions
to communicate. It was known to
the Secretary that it was not so con
venient for this Receiver to deposite
at Edwardsville, between which place
and Kaskaskia there was very little
communication as at St. Louis, with
which there was frequent intercourse.
In the next letter w ritten to this Re
ceiver bv the Secretary, which was
on the Ist of November, 1819, the
Secretary, without alluding to any
publication of Mr. Edwards, or any
letter from the. Receiver at Edwards
ville, which if any had been known to
him would naturally have been allu
de 1 to ou such an occasion, directed
the Receiver at Kaskaskia to deposite
in the Hank of Edwardsville all “the
money in his possession at the close
of the month, and afterwards to de
posite in the Rank of Missouri. The
Receiver did not make this deposite,
for reasons stated by him in his letter
of the 10th of January, 1820, until the
3d of that month, as w ill be seen by
the list of moneys deposited by him on
that day. From iiis silence on the
subject, it is evident that there was
nothing in the circumstances of the
hank to reader the deposites impro
i' o '/
The accusation of having presen
ted contradictory statements of the
amount of public money,in the Rank of
Edwauliville, and of having trans
posed other statements from that
hank, in the communications made by
the Secretary to the House, and of
having done so for the purpose of dis
guising the truth in relation to the
deposites in that bank, with a view
to thoir bearing on the charge con
needed with these supposed letters,
is altogether without foundation. The
bank statements of December and
November, which arerefered to, either
formed [Krt of, or accompanied the i
titter* which they immediately fol
low in the printed papers; the first
having been written on the partof the
same paper as the letter of the ?th of
January, 1820,t0 Mr. Edwards, and
the latter having been enclosed in the
letter of the 6th of January, and both
the letters and the statements having,
when transmitted by Mr. Edwards, in
his letter of the 16th February, been,
it is believed, in the same order as
that in which they appear in the doc
uments. The Treasury statements,
from which the balances in the Rank
of Edwardsville, at the end of the
2d, 3d, and 4th quarters of 1849, are
quoted by Edwards, were prepared,
by the Treasurer, from materials in
his own possession ; and the secretary
had no more to do with the prepara
tion of them, than Mr. Edwards Dim
self. They were communicated as
the statements of that officer. The
cause why the statement of the 4th
quarter of 1819, differs ir. amount
from that rendered by the bank for
the same period, is, that, in the for
mer, the Treasurer has deducted from
the sum standing to his credit in that
| bank, the amount of two drafts which
he had drawn on the bank, and which
had not been paid at the time, when
the bank statement was prepared.—
The sum stated by the bank is there
fore, more than thus stated by the
Treasurer, by the amount ot these
drafts. This is more particularly
shown in the accompanying note from
the Treasurer, all of whose statements
are prepared on the principle, and
have always been so prepared. It is
considered unnecessary to dwell lon
ger on this branch of the suhject. 1 hat
no such communications, as Mr. Ed
wards alleges, were made, is believ
ed to be conclusively demonstrated
and if so no arts could have been re
sorted to fur ‘the purpose of conceal
ing them. Rut, at every stage of this
investigition, this remark naturally
suggests itself; that even if both the
communications alledged had actually
been made, there was nothing in that
fact for the Secretary to conceal ; Mr.
Edwards has stated on oath, his opin
ion, that, in the fall of 1819, the Bank
of Edwardsville was in as good con
dition as anv bank in which the pub
lic moneys were deposited; and, if
so, what necessity was there for the
Secretary to discontinue the deposites?
Whether Mr. Edwards was, or was not
a director, and whether he did or did
not choose to be responsible for a bank
it the bank were in a good condition,
was a matter that ought to have had
very little influence upon the conduct
of the Secretary 4 of the Treasury. In
connection with this charge, it is to be
remarked, that it is true that commu
nications were made to the Secretary
against the Edwardsville Bank, and
particularly in a letter from the Pres
ident of* the Bank of Missouri, of the
9th of August, 1819. Rut, as the Re
ceivers, both at Edwardsville and Kas
kaskia, were instructed, by the Secre
tary’s letter of the 31st December,
1818, that, if any circumstance aftect
ing the character of the Edwardsville
Hank, should come to their knowledge
they should communicate the same to
the Department, and es no such infor
mation was received from them, and
as the Rank continued to fulfil its en
gage ments, there wag no sufficient rea
son for discontinuing the arrangement
which had been made with it. The
fact is, that it was not until two years
after the letter of the President of the
Bank of Missouri referred to, that the
Edwardsville Rank stopped payment.
Hut although this charge is consider
ed as sufficiently answered, the only
remaining circumstance presented by
Mr. Edwards in its support shall also
be noticed. He represents himself to
have stated, in two letters written by
him to the (Secretary, in February,
18-22, (hat he had made such a publica
tion, that the Receiver had transmit
ted it, that the Receiver’s letter con
taining it had been answered; and in
fers, from the Secretary’s silence on
the subject, admission of the fact.
Thai the Secretary did not reply to
this, or to any of the other matters
contained in those letters, resulted
from bis having declined any corres
pondence with Mr. Edwards on the
subjects to which they referred,in con
sequence of a menace which the first
of (hem contained. This will be seen
by the Secretary’s answer, which to
gether with Mr. E 1 ward’s letter, arc
herewith transmitted.
The next principal accusation tube
examined, relates to the Secretary’s
transactions with the Rank of Missou
ri ; and charges him with having, in
the arrangements made with that Hank
in regard to the public deposites, al
lowed it advantages for whiph it ren
dered no equivalent, and with having
received from it uucurrentbank notes,
whicn lie was neither bound nor au
thori/.ed to receive. The direct con
nection between the Treasury and the
Hunk of Missouri began on the Ist of
of August, 1818. Before that time
the Rank had acted as the agent of the
Hank of the United States, it had ful
filled its engagements with that insti
tution, with good fuitn ; its condition,
was considered sound and prosperous;
ami its reputation stood higlias well in
the Atlantic as in the Western tlatex.
The large amount of money to be re
ceived from the sale ot public land in
that quarter rendered a connection
with such a bank not only convenient
but necessary.
In the first arrangement with the
bank, there was no stipulation as to
what kinds of money it should receive
or pay for the Treasury. The receiv
ers were instructed to receive the
notes of such hanks as paid specie on
demand for their notes, and no others ;
and to deposite them in bank to the
credit of the Treasurer. When public
disbursements were to be made, the
Treasurer issued his drafts, and the
Brfnk discharged them in such funds as
it had received.
On the 23d of June, 1819, the Sec
retary, in the execution of a general
system, which had been adopted with
the approbation of the President, for
the reasons stated in his report to the
House of Representatives of the 14th
February, 1822, and in his letter fn
the chairman of a select committee of
the House, of the 24th of February,
1823,proposed anew arrangement to
the Bank. Bv this arrangement,
the Rank was to receive the notes
of such specie-paying hanks as were
in good ctedit and in general cir
culation, and to account for them
as cash : to transfer to the Bank of
the United States, or its branches,
the surplus of the money which it
might receive that could not be dis
bursed at the bank , and, for the
expense and risk of making those
transfers, which were expected to
amount to a very considerable sum,
it was to have a standing deposite
of 150,000 dollars, which standing
deposite was always subject to be
reduced by anv disbursements that
could be made at the Bank. This
arrangement was accepted by the
Bank on the 9th of August, 1819.
It was modified'in August, 1820,
by limiting the local bank notes to
be received to those or the Atlan
tic cities, and of the state of Mis
souri ; and thus it continued until
the Bank stopped payment on the
14th of August, 1821. To estimate
justly, the advantages offered to
the bank bv this arrangement, it is
necessary to examine what were the
probable services to be rendered
bv the hank under it. About the
time when the Secretary’s propo
sition for allowing a standing de
posite was made to this bank, there
was a balance remaining in bank,
over and above what can be ex
pended there, of upwards of 640,-
000 dollars ; and this, too,after the
bank had transferred upwards of
100,000 dollars. This large balance
had accumulated in rather less than
a year. Taking into consideration
the revival of credit among the
western banks which had then ta
ken place, it was reasonable to sup
pose that the payments into that
bank would not decrease more than
on* half during the next year: upon
this supposition, the amount to be
transferred under the arrangement
would be about $320,000, a year. The
risk and cost of transferring monev
from St. Loui3 to Louisville, which
was the nearest point to which it
could be transferred, has been stated
bv the President of the Bank, in his
letter of the 29th November, 1819, to
be at least 3 percent,which,upon that
sum would he $9,600; and that was
reasonably to be looked to, at the time
the arrangement was made, as the val
ue of the service, probably, to b® ren
dered under it, in this respect, by the
bank, to the Treasury.
It is true that, from causes not then
to be foreseen, the subsequent pay
ments into the bank fell short of what
had been anticipated. /Jut it is also
true that the whole of the stipulated
standing deposite was not always on
hand. It has already been stated,
that this standing deposite was, at all
times, liable to be drawn upon bv the
Treasury. By the Treasurer’s state
ment of quarterly balances, accompa
nying the Secretary’s report to the
House, of February 27th, 1823, it ap
pears that it nad been so drawn upon,
and that, at the close of six different
quarters, the whole amount in hank,
for which drafts had not actually been
issued, was less than the stipulated
amount of standing deposite, by an
average of $20,000. By a stateinent
accompanying the letter from the
President of the bank, of the 30th
June, it appear# that, at the close of
ten successive months, “ the whole
sum in bank was actually less than the
amount of the stipulated deposit®, bv
an average of $20,000; and if, at all
other times during the two years’
continuance of the arrangement, the
full amount were in hank, the ave
rage of the sum actually in hank, du
ring the whole period, would!have
been but $140,000 dollars. lint, it
is to be observed that, in estimating
the value of such a deposite to a bank,
the certainty of its continuance, for a
<riven time, at least, is to be taken In
to consideration. In respect tu tins
standing deposite, there was no such
certainty: it depended wholly <m the
convenience of the Treasury. It was
constantly subject to drafts for any
part, or e'ven the whole, and it was
frequently drawn upon. Ihe idea,
therefore, that this stipulation, in re
gard to the standing deposite, was
equal to an allowance to the bank
of 9,000 dollars a year, is wholly lal-
It is proper to lirok, on the other
hand, to the servicss rendered by the
bank. During the continuance ot the
arrangement, the bank trausfened, at
its own risk and cost, $454,000, in
cash, and about $138,000 in notes in
kind. Calculating, then, the value of
the transfers at the rate stated loi
transferring to Louisville, winch was
the nearest point, at three per cent,
and the value of the standing depos
ite, actually on hand, at six per cent
a year, the rate of interest, it appears
that the services actually rendered
by the bank, in transferring the pub
lic monev,may be estimated to amount
to $17,800 and that the benefit en
joyed by the bank from the -standing
deposite, without making any deduc
tion on account of its uncert* mt J
may be estimated at 16,000 tltus 1 J‘ av ’
inga balance in favor of the Lan k, ~
lint allowing the advantage and thc
service to be equal, in this resp ec
nothing then remains but the adv an *.
tage derived by the bank from the
temporary and uncertain possession of
the surplus which sometimes remain
ed, over and above this deposite, as a
compensation for all its other services,
in becoming responsible for the notes
received by it, in converting them, as
far as was requisite, into such funds as
might be transferred to the U. States’
Bank, or as might be required in
payment of Treasury drafts which
were always demanded in specie, or
its equivalent, and which, as appears
by the letter from the President of the
bank, of the 30th June, 1321, were al
ways so paid. Hence, it appears, that
not only were no undue advantages in
tended to be granted to the bank, by
the arrangement, but that, supposing
the payment of the debt, now due by
it, to be secured with interest, as is
believed to be the case, the bank has
actually enjoyed no advantages, un
der the arrangement, for which it wil
not have rendered an equivalent.
It is true, this bank has failed. Bu :
it appears, by a document producei
and relied upon by Mr. Edwards, that,
after a thorough examination, by or
der of the Missouri Legislature, thai;
its failure is not attributable to any
act of dishonesty on the part ot the di
rectors, but to that cause only which
has produced a general suspension in
the Western country ;* and that,“ with
a reasonable indulgence, it will be en
abled to redeem its notes, and pay all
its debts.” The sum due by it to the
Treasury is already in a course of
payment, and its ultimate discharge,
with interest, is deemed, by persons
who are well acquainted with the se
curity, to be well secured.
The correspondence which led to
the reception of the ancurrent notes,
wlii#h Mr. Edwards has charged the
Secretary with having improperly re
ceived from the Bank of Missouri,
commenced with the letter of the
President of the bank, of the 9th Au
gust, 1819. He there proposed, aniwtig
other transfers, to transfer $50,000 in
such paper of North and South Caro
lina, and Georgia, as was authorized
to be received ; $40,000 in notes of
the Bank of Virginia ; $103,000 in
notes of the Bank of Kentucky and
its branches ; $15,000 in notes of the
bank of Vincennes ; and $70,000 in
notes of the banks of Tennessee, such
as were authorized to be received ; all
of which were then in bank.
It is to be observed, that the letter
in which this proposition was made, is
the same letter which contains the ac
ceptance, by the bank, of the arrange
ment, under which it was, for the first
time, to be responsible in cash for all
the public money which it might re
ceive. If, then, it can be shown, that
these notes had been previously recei
ved on account of the Treasury, and
were at that time on hand, the agree
ment of the Secretary to receive the
whole, or any portion of them, so far
from being a subject of blame, was an
obligation of duty.
‘•lt is also to be observed, that all
notes which the hank here proposed
to transfer, were not actually trans
ferred before the Secretary’s answer
was received, the bank had, on its own
account, otherwise disposed of a great
portion of them ; and there were final
ly transferred the following:
Os the Bank of Tenneisew am) branches 40,15 ft
Nashville Bunk ami branches 29,844
State Bank of North Carolina 42,000
Certain District notes, viz :
Mechanics’ Bunk of Alexandria 81*0
Franklin Bank 285
Certain Ohio notes, vir •
Farmers’ & Mechanics’ Bunk of
Cincinnati j]
Miami Exporting Company HaUil
Bunkot Cincinnati
*Bc Add res*.
Bank of Mo r,.,
Farmer* Met l.aulJs
factirrrn’ Bnnlc of Cir.i: ’ , a *”
Bank ol Marietta ‘ o,he j- r
Bank ot btuubenvilte ‘4
Making topil,i>i. T~'—•
Tile Kentucky bank notes*
tinned in the Secretary's
the 2d .March,! 820,were n .. ?° r
i erred havmg been otherwise
posed ot by the bank, ft
the Georgetown bank notes'” ,! tr(;
tionecl in the same letter’ \ ?IK
transferred ,• and it is onl v \ 1
a few days, that the Treasurer k
received from- the agent 0 f 1
Missouri Bank un order for tr,
ring them. ranfc r-
That the notes,, thus receive
from the hank, had been Pro ,
taken by the Receivers, will an
from the instruction s given mo 1 ”
officers by the Secret ary, c* p ; e °' c
which are herewith transmit®h
and that, at the time those ■
struetions were given, they w n ’
considered, hy the Secretary'*’
the notes of banks which an dc h
ed their notes in specie, on t
mand, and, consequently, nc d
which by the resolution of C G ’
gress of the 30th April, 1816, * *
authorized to be received i n ’ r J
ments to the United States,is
ifest from the terms of the SaDl j
instructions, in which the
vers are positively interdicted
taking the notes of any bank whi&
does not discharge its notes ond;.
mand in specie.
1 hat these notes were receipt
by the bank from the Receive
during its first arrangement with
the Treasury, and, consequent
previous to its engagement to
count as cash, and that, at the time
they were offered to the Secretary,
they were actually in the possession
of the bank, is established Wy evi
dence adduced by Mr. Edwards
himself. This evidence is state
ment E, prepared at the Bank of
Missouri, ami laid before the Mis
souri Legislature bv a committee
which was appointed to examine
the report of the bank, and which
committee represents itself to have
had before it, and carefully exam
ined, the books,notes,and such oth
er papers of the bank, as were ne.
cessary. ‘ The statement is “Os
moneys on hand, Sept 6, 1819, rc
reived of the several Receivers ot
Public Moneys, being such asther
were authorized to receive, bv the
H on. \Vm. H. Crawford, Secret!
tarv of the Treasury.” It purport’
to have been taken from a regisr
kept by the Cashier of the bant,
from the Bth August, 1818, to tic
6th September, 1819; which peri
od includes only twenty-seven days
not embraced by the first arranje
ment, under which the bank was
accountable only in kind. By this
statement, it appears, that the bank
had then on hand, notes, taken front
the Receivers, of a description not
receivable by it on general depos
ite as cash, amounting to
of which $283,757, were of the
kinds transferred by it to the Treas
ury. Hence, it appears, that, in
stead of the Secretary’s having re
ceived of the bank uncurrent notes
which he was not bound to receiw,
the bank not only took upon itself
the conversion into cash of other
notes to a large amount, which |(
had a right to pay over to the
Treasury in kind, but that of the
very description of notes which
Mr. Edwards has censured the
Secretary for having received, th f
bank had actually a right toreq |,irJ
that he should receive more thw
double the amount of what he did
receive.
It would be a great mistake,how
ever, to suppose that the notes,
which were received of the
of Missouri, were the notes of :n “
solvent banks. Those of the B an
of Tennessee, and its brand' 1 -*’
were immediately placed to thf
credit of the Treasurer cas
those of the Nashville Bank :u’d |!
branches, and of the North Ear
lina Bank, have long since
paid ; those of the Mecha’ (
Bank of Alexandria, Bank of
rietta, and Bank of Steubenville
were cashed by the banks to wh ,c
thev were transferred; of those 0
Miami Exporting Company
220 76; have recently been col’ ( ’ c
ted. Thus, of the whole am® 0 . 11
transferred there remain unp al(
only about S22,(XX), and of this su'j*
it is believed the greater part
be ultimately paid.
Considering the state of the cit
rency in the West, during the ti ’^
and thc large amount receive*
this bank, which was about L
000, dollars, it is doubtful w “ *