Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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to be placed in the Hank of Kdw&rdsville; and it was to that Hank that they must have been res tored, if they were withdrawn from the Rank of Edwardsville.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 “ *