Newspaper Page Text
Vol VI.
feanett <*sasette
miTED AND PUBLISHED
. BY ’ 1
:9. F. GRANDISON.
■ (ON THE BAY)
tf.xjtoer annum, payable in advance.
not excee&mg fourteen lines,
for the first insertion—
and a half, each succeeding
“ap letters on business to the editor,
paid.
jßH| ess of Ninian Edwards.
JHb to thx House of Represents-
Speaker April 19,1824.
.Wheeling Ya. April 6, 1824.
Sis Bhave the honor to request you to
jHHphe Address herewith transmitted,
ithmccompaning Notes and Documents,
of Representatives of the Con
#mr, United States.
I have the honor to be, very respectfully,
tyjMEmost obedient servant,
NINIAN EDWARDS,
HMlenbt Clay,
)Wmeibfthe House of Representatives, of
of the United States.
o the%ororable the House of Representatives
omme Congress of the United States.
■HHain proceedings at the last session of
under the authority of the House
RcSesentatives, and a recent report t®
UR.'Mnorable body, by the Hon. Wm. H.
MKd, Secretary ofthe Treasury, seem to
yfgKr. intended, and are calculated, to cast
ton |6e imputations injurious to my charac
r._twpch I know to be unjust, and which,
flggMfTcan demonstrate to be so, I trust
yHHlogy can be necessary for my reques
nKjlve to present my vindication against
ISunputalions, directly to your honorable
imn order that it may be conveyed to
Hon through the same channel by
have been assailed.
HHis a right which, under similar cir
matances, I should suppose, ought not to
Hfied to the humblest individual in the
HH l n this case, it is due to the nation
gMip consideration of the station I lately
sj|, jtnd that which I have now the honor
hold; and, owing to the peculiar circum
inces of my case it is emphatically deman
ds my account, by every principle of
H||Band every regard to justice. Nor is
in either House of Con-
HBn cases which certainly had no great
.CWpTis to such indulgence.
HHill be seen, that I was called upon by
gpfflnittee ofthe House of Representatives
Hwlast session, as a witness to testify be-
KH—that I was subjected to an examina
jfeavhich has not its parallel in the records
Mfree country—and that, after the lapse
Hit twelve months, and just as I was on
a He of my departure for a foreign coun
■l attempt has been made to impeach
Hdibility, on grounds which must have
:Bt all times since my testimony was gi
nHithin the command of the honorable
nHman by whom they have been so op
ly alleged.
‘jßßefuse to permit me tp repel such an
aH in the manner proposed, would be to
thelongest established precedents
(!■ establish in their place, the odious,
pHsive, unjust, and indefensible princi
‘ Hallowing the credibility of awitnessto
iHeached, and yet denying to him the
hHo support it before the tribunal under
:Hauthority he had been called on to
liH independent of all considerations, in
pHrto myself, personally, I humbly con
vHhat your honorable body might well
Hmo receive my vindication, and every
HHpion which I can give to my testimo-
Wgln/our own account, in order to enable
li Hf more clearly to ascertaian the truth
awthe more satisfactorily and correctly
deßleupon, statements now before you,
i H yet acted upon.
Njrithstanding all the canting about an
■ H plot,” the ingenious attempts that
made, and the stratagems that
reKen adopted, by certain newspaper
itbHand others, to mislead and deceive
? Hblic mind into a belief that the com
ttHl, •appointed at the last session on that
jjfit, had thoroughly investigated all the
tßkents made by a writer under the sig-
H °f A. B. in regard to certain suppress
tHuments—and that Mr. Crawford had
rHtriumphantly acquitted,” in relation
tW whole of them—l insert, without the
iH contradiction, that it is known to your
nHahle body that neither of those com
tHes extended their investigation into those
tHients, beyond about for paragraphs,
■Hi were mere bagatelles in comparison
tHther letters and matters that were ex-
Mfly charged, and incontestibly proved,
HE documents furnished by Mr. Crawford
vwff, to have been withheld, contrary to
i ‘pfesolutions of the House which required
|ij, production.
Hese important statements, and the mat-
Hnd things contained in my testimony,
‘■neither been investigated by any com-
Ho, nor acted on by the House—and if
Hstimony had been, it is now revived
Hr. Crawford himself—and, surely, if it
Bmpetent to him to attack it, it cannot
Hr or just to withhold from metlie equal
H of defending and supporting it.
H refering to the resolution of die House
H 1) under which the second committee
Hvestigation was appointed, and to mv
Hfii nation by that committee, (2) it will
Hen that the latter fully merits the char
■r I have given to it, that it was wholly
Hthorized by any powers delegated
He committee—and that it evinced a far
Hter disposition to implicate me in some
R of censure, in regard to the public de
■ts in the Bank of Edwardsville, than
Bivestigate the conduct of Mr. Crawford,
Bo enquire into those subjects for which
■committee had been professedly appoin-
E Whatever may be thought by those
Id may be at the trouble to examine the
■of interogatories that were put to me, as
Ihe source from whence they originated,
Be can read some of the following state
pits and documents, without being goii-
Iced, that a very small portion of candor
DARIEN Ipllf GAZETTE.
.* * , •> ‘ S'/- -
would have rendered a part, at least, of those
interogatories unnecessary and uselss even
in the opinion of the committee itself. (3)
Whateyer may have been my agency in
procuring the Bank of Edwardsville to be
made a depository of public money, it had
nothing to do in originating the great sys
tem adopted bv Mr. Crawford, of employ
ing the local banks, and, in several instances,
in direct violation of law, by allowing them a
permanent deposite of nine hundred thou
sand dollars, equal to a salary of §54,000 per
annum, for receiving and transmitting the
public money, which the Bank of the Uni
ted States was bound to do without com
pensation, and would have done, without
those immense losses to the public, which
tnust inevitably result from the adoption of
apian so contrary to the letter and spirit of
the bank charter—and to the avowed inten
tions and objects of Congress in granting it.
The effect of my application to have the
Bank of Edwardsville made a depository of
public money, was merely to have deposites
made there, that otherwise would have been
made in the Bank of Missouri, which previ
ously had been authorized to receive the
public money, collected by the two Recei
vers in Illinois, who Slone were directedto
make their deposites in the Bank of Ed
wardsville. My agency in the transaction,
therefore, did not prevent the depossting of
a cent in the Bank of the United States—
and your honorable body may well judge,
whether the public interest could have been
much jeopardized, by the change I recom
mended, from the following statements ex
tracted from the documents presented to
you by Mr. Crawford..
The Bank of Missouri had a capital of §2lO,
000, of which, the stockholders drew out of
it, on pledges of stock, 186,335 dollars, leav
ing only 23,665 dollars for the further ac
commodation of themselves, and others.
Upon the last sum, its real banking capital,
it discounted and paid on over drafts, to the
amount of §244,345,52. The whole amount
of its dicounts, including payments on over
drafts, was §430,680 43—of which sum, its
directors alone were responsible for §297,
492 13, if, as is presumed to be the case, they
were chargeable with over drafts, to the a
mount of §11,622 27.
To this, bank, Mr. Crawford allowed a
permanent deposite of 150,000, equal to a
salary of §9,000 per annum. He permitted
the publje money to accumulate in t, to the
amount of §726,031 90, in the cource of
nineteen successive months, ending with
the first of September, 1819, without exac
ting those precautionary returns and state
ments, which he himself considered essen
tial, to ensure the fidelity of all the banks,
appointed to receive the public money—and,
eventually, he received from it, in part pay
ment of its debt, contrary to the positive in
junctions of the resolution of Congress; of
1816, a large amount of uncurrent notes,
some of which were not worth twenty-five
cents in the dollar.
Much as he has mystified this subject, in
several of his reports, and particularly in that
one which is part of documents 105, (in the
Bth vol. State papers, 2d session 17th Con
gress,) in which he blends a deposite in the
Bank of Missouri, of §64,913 58, with “ the
special deposites which passed through the
Bank ofthe United States,” it cannot excuse,
or even successfully disguise, the flagrant
impropriety of his having received, at par,
the uncurrent notes above referred to—for,
by the very document last mentioned, it ap
pears that this deposite had been “re-trans
ferred to the Bank of Missouri, and assumed
as casA, in September, 1819” which was
previous to the receipt of those notes. His
own letter to the Cashieir of the Bank of
Missouri, dated 23d March, 1819, and the
Cashier’s answer, dated 25th of .Tune, 1819,
(4 and 5) clearly shew, that no justification
for receiving uncurrent paper can be deri
ved from that circumstance. Besides he re
ceived uncurrent notes that were not, and
could not, have been included in that depos
ite—for, not to mention other cases, the
notes which he received on the “Bank of
Georgetown, Kentucky,” were not at that
time, even receivable in the land offices. Nor
was there ever any contract between the
Bank of the United States, or the Treasury
Department with the Bank of Missouri, from
which the latter could derive any right ta
tender, or be any justification for receiving,
those uncurrent notes.
But, had it been otherwise, it would not
be less difficult to justify the placing of this
bank upon i footing so different from that of
all other similar depositories of public mo
ney.
Under all these circumstances, it would
seem incredible, that any injury to the pub
lib could have resulted from the change of
deposite, for which I applied; and the at
tempt to subject me to censure, for the small
participation which I have had in this busi
ness, ought to be considered as a plain ac
knowledgment of the awful weight of res
ponsibility that rests upon him, whose espe
cial duty it was, to take care of the public mo
ney.
My responsibility, however, did not long
continue; for, finding the Bank of Edwards
ville, on my return from Congress, soon after
it had been authorized to receive the public
money, involved in some difficulties, I deter
mined to sustain it against the dangers that
then threatened it, and, after seeing it in a
safe situation, to relieve myself from all kind
of responsibility for that, or any other bank.
Accordingly in the sameyear, I made apubli
cation in several newspapers, and in two dif
ferent States, of my determination to be held
no longer responsible for that or any other
bank. This publication can be established by
a part, if not the whole ofthe respective de
legations. now in Congress, from the States
of Illinois and Missouri. It was forwarded to
Mr. Crawford, and I have no apprehension
that he will ever deny having received it.
lie had, also, been put upon inquiry, in re
gard to the Bank of Edwardsville, by a bitter
philippic, in ample detail, against it, which he
received front) the Hon. Mr. Benton, of the
Senate. This was shewn to Col. Johnson
and myself, and a copy of it was transmitted
to the bank, where I suppose, it now re
mains.
He was fully apprized of those very difficul
ties of the bank, which produced my deter
mination to retire from it. They were com
municated in letters from myself to colonel.
Johnson, which were intended to be, and
were, forwarded to Mr. Crawford, The re*
DARIEN, (GEORGIA,)— eqm\ anb exact TUESDAY, JUNE 1, 1824.
ceipt of two of them is acknowledged by his
letter to Col. Johnson, of 15th July, 1819, in
which he says, “yours ofthe 28th ult. came .
to Jiand this morning. The circumstances
connected with the Bank of Edwardsville, as
developed in the two letters of Gov. Edwards,
submitted by you to my perusal, will receive :
due consideration.” In the same letter, he
says, “With Gov. Edwards I had no person
al acquaintance before last winter. The
opinion which I had formed of his talents and
integrity, from the official correspondence
which had been carried on between us, both
in the War and Treasury Department, has
been confirmed by personal acquaintance.
“The different subjects upon which he
had occasion to ask my decision, during the
last session of Congress, were fairly and can
didly stated; his comments upon them were
judicious, and it afforded me great pleasure
to be able, after due examination, and reflec
tion, generally to coincide with him.” The
session here spoken of is the one in which
I made the application in favor of the Bank
of Edwardsville.
Had Mr. Crawford been as much disposed
to profit by the impressive lessons of experi
ence, which he was constantly receiving, as I
was by those of a few months onlv, it might
have prevented a vast accumulation of “una
vailing fiends ,” and have enabled him, much
earlier, to have secured to the Bank of the
United States, “in their just extent, the ad
vantages intended to be secured to it by the
charter,” which he fairly promised to Con
gress, in his report of the 10th December,
1817, [6] and necessity for which, he seems
to have been duly sensible of, in another re
port, (8 vol. State Papers, 2d session 17th
Congress, p 77,) in which he says, “In the
winter and spring of 1819, the Bank of the
United States was, in the opinion of the en
lightened officer who presided over its di
rection, in a great degree indebted for the
preservation of its credit to the forbearance
of its creditors, and to the support which it
received from the Treasury Department.
Sucli were my impressions of its critical state
that I felt it my duty to accept propositions
made by the Board of Directors, which, un
der other circumstances, would have been
declined.” It is wonderful, therefore, that
with these impressions, he should have
thought it consistent with his duty, to have
extended such favors as have been noticed,
to a single local bank; much less to the mul
titude that shared his patronage, and could
not have existed without it.
It would be just as fair and candid to im
plicate me in the unjustifiable indulgence
that lias been extended to the Bank of Ed
wardsville, since its failure, as to endeavor to
involve me in any kind of censure for its con
tinuance as a depository of public iponey, af
ter the fall of 1819. At the time of its fai
lure, its resources were, 1 am well satisfied,
more than amply sufficient to have secured
its debt to the government. But, every man
of common experience and observation
knows, that, the resources of all banks, in its
situation, must necessarily become more aiul
more impaired, and are more liable to be mis
applied. Yet, strange and incredible as it
may appear, 1 have never heard nor do I be
lieve, though I reside in the same village in
which the Bank is located, that Mr. Craw
ford has collected one cent from it; or made
any adj ustment with it; or resorted to any mea
sure to coerce the payment of its debt. He
who could find motives for an indulgence so
extraordinary, and, at the same time, so in
consistent with, and detrimental to, the pub
lic interest, could not have required either
my recommendation or sanction, for continu
ing this Bank a depository of the public mo
ney after the fall of 1819.
[To be continued .]
ANSWER
Os the Secretary ofthe Treasury to
the Address of Ninian Edwards.
Treasury Department,
May Bth 1824.
The secretary of the Treasury has had the
honor to receive the letter of the honorable
Mr. Floyd, Chairman of a Select Committee
ofthe House of Representatives, dated on the
28th ult. transmitting the “Address of Nin
ian Edwards,” and expressing the readiness
of the Committee to receive any communi
cation which the Secretary may think pro
per to make, in referrence to the same, and
he now submits the following remarks in
answer to the accusations contained in that
address:
But, before he enters upon an examina
tion of thesubjectofthe “address,” he thinks
it due to himself to disclaim the imputation
of haviug taken advantage of the moment of
Mr. Edward’s departure to arraign the tes
timony which had been given by him before
a former select committee of the House. As
the Secretary had no recollection ofthe com
munications to which that testimony refer
red, and as they were not on record in the
Treasury Department, he considered himself
bound to state the fact—and the occasion
which was presented by the transmission to
the House ofotherpapers relating to the same
subject, appeared a suitable one for making
the statement. The terms in which it was
made, will shew that no disrespect towards
Mr. Edwards was intended. And, if the oc
casion was not earlier presented, the delay,
so far from being caused or sought by the
Secretary, was produced by circumstances
beyond his control. For reasons stated to
the House at the last session, the papers
could not then be transmitted—and, although
considerable exertion was used, it was not
until the day on which they were sent to
the House, that the preparation of them was
completed.
It is not deemed necessary, in this commu
nication, to recapitulate the injurious allega
tions contained in the “address.” the late
ness of the sesion requires desptach—and
this answer shall be brief and explicit.
The first charge to be noticed relates to
two letters which Mr. Edwards, in his tes
timony before the committee, on the 13th
of Februrary, 1823, had stated to have pas
sed between the Receiver of Public Moneys
at Edwardsville, sknd the Secretary of the
Treasury, and which, not having been com
municated to the House under the resolu
tions ofthe 9th of January , 1822, and 12th
of March 1822, agreeably to Mr .Ed
ward’s alledged expectation and which the
Secretary having stated to be neither on
file nor on record in the Department, nor to
be recollected by him self or bis oncers, he
is accused ofhaving suppressed or denied.
As the resolutions uuder which it is ailed
ged that these letters should have been
communicated, call only for the correspon
dence between certain “banks” and the Se
cretary, it is unnecessary to explain why,
among the letters which were communica
ted, any correspondence between a “Recei
ver” and the Secretary was not to be found.
Nor is it easy to imagine how any one, in
formed of the tenor of those resolutions,
should have entered the expectation of see
ing the letters in question among the papers
which were transmitted.
The blame of not having communicated
these supposed letters, having been easily
removed, by referring to the terms of the
resolutions themselve, which show that no
such letters were called for, the next ques
tion is, whether such letters ever passed be
tween theparties.*
In the absence of all direct testimony, in
support of his assertion, Mr. Edwards has
resorted to probabilities; and has endeavored
to infer a confirmation or coroboration in its
favor, from circumstances that are suscepti
ble of no such interpretation. That which
he chiefly relies upon, is the omission of the
Receiver at Edwardsville to make his depos
ites in the Edwardsville Bank, in the 4th
quarter of 1819, which, he states, was in con
sequence of his publication and advice; and,
he asks, whether it is to be believed that the
Receiver would have withheld the deposites
contrary to the Secretary’s orders, without
giving him a reason; and whether, if he had
done so, the Secretary would not have called
him to account.
The means exist, in the monthly returns of
the Receiver, and the correspondence be
tween him and the Secretary on record in
the Department by the aid of which, this
maybe investigated. Copies of these pa
pers are herewith transmitted.
By these, it will be seen, that the first in
structions given to the Receiver, to make
his deposites in the Bank of Edwardville,
were of the 21st December, 1818; that, in
pursuance of these instructions, he made his
first deposite in that Bank on the 28th of
February, 1818, of §12,000, at which time
he retained in his possession a baliance of
§20,092. On the'Slst of March, he deposi
ted §4,590, and retained a balance of §lB,-
600. On the 30th April he deposited §5,-
861, and retained §l9, 158. In May, he
made no deposite, and in June, only §8,179,
retaining §19,143, and from that time to the
30th December, he made no deposite.
Whence, it appears, that, with the exception
of a small sum., in June, amounting to less
than one-third of the money then on hand, he
made no deposite between the last of De
cember, a period of eight months; during
which, he retained an increasing balance of
from §29,000 to §56,000! and that, even on
the last of December, he did not pay over,
by about §IO,OOO, all the money then in his
possession.
Instead of a withholding of the deposites,
in the fourth quarter of the year, here is a re
tention of them, with the exception before
noticed, for eight months. It was scarcely
contended that all these omissions of duty
were the result of the advice given by Mr.
Edwards to the Receiver, to withhold the
deposites, until he could receive the Secre-
instructions. On thecontrary.it will
be shewn, by the correspondence, as far as
it is susceptible of being shewn, negatively,
that no part of these moneys was withheld
from deposite, upon that pretext.
On the 6th of August, at about which
time the Receiver’s monthly return, for June,
was received, the secretary wrote to the Re
ceiver to know, why he retained the public
moneys in his hands, contrary to his instruc
tions; and informing him, that, as there was a
bank at his place of residence, there could
be no excuse for his doing so.
On the 18th of September,( see No. 20)
Mrs. Stephenson wife of of the Receiver, an
swered this letter, in consequence of the ab
sence of her husband, and informedthe Secre
tary, that, from what she had heardin conver
sation, between the Receiver and others, she
believed he had retained the money to meet
the drafts of certain public agents in that
country, which the Seccrerary had authori
zed him to purchase. And it is to be obser
ved, that, though this was “the fall of 1819,”
Mrs, Stephenson said nothing of Mr. Ed:
ward’s publication or advice.
On the first of November, (see No. 23) the
Secretary wrote again to the Receiver, com
plaining ofthe continued detention of the
public money in his hands, which lie presu
med had been the result of his letter on the
9th of April, (see No. 17)and directed, that,
immediately on receipt of this letter, he will
pay into bank, the whole of the puplic mon
ey in his possession on the 30th instant, and
farther instructing him not to consider the
letter ofthe 9th of April asauthorizing him to
retain the public money in his hands at the
endof each month. Here,|it!appears,thatsofar
from attributing the withholding of the de
posites to the cause alledged by Mr. Ed
wards, the Secretary attributes it to the
cause assigned by Mrs. Stephenson, in her
letter of the 18th of September. And it is
worthy of remark, that this is the last letter
on the record, from the Secretary to the Re
ceiver, inrelation to the deposites, in theyear
1819—and that this was the last letter writen
to him, on that subject, in that year, will ap
pear by a referrence made to it, in a letter
from the Secretary to the Receiver, of A
pril, 1820, (see No. 26) which is more par
ticularly noticed hereafter.
On the 28th October, (see No. 22) the Re
ceiver, who had then returned borne, wrote
to the Secretary, acknowledging the receipt
of a letter of the 21st of September, (see
No. 21) with anew form of an account cur
rent.
On the sth of November, (see No. 24) the
Receiver wrote to the Secretary, enclosing
a draft, which he had purchased, transmitted
his monthly return for October, and noticing
a small error in his account for August.
On the 16th of November, (see No. 25) he
•Two facts must have occurred, if these
communications were made to account for
the letters of the Receiver not being on file,
and for the Secretary’s answer not being on
record, or among the rough draught: Is.
That the letter itself has been lost; 2d.
That the answer was not copied. Though
the concurrence of these two facts is possi*
ble, it highly improbable,
again wrote to the Secretary, enclosing the
2d of the draft, which he had transmitted on
the sth, But, in all this time, there was no
allusion to Mr. Edwards’s publication and ad
vice— aithough “the fall of 1819,” was now
nearly gone.
At last, on the 31st of December, (see No.
12) the Receiver made a deposite in bank—
in consequence, it is fairly to be inferred, of
the peremptory order of the Secretary, of
the Ist of November, and in consequence of
that only*
That Mr. Edwdard’s publication and ad
vice were not the cause of the retention of
the money, by the Receiver, before the 18th
of September, as manifest from Mrs. Ste
phenson’s letter of that date.
That no such cause of retention existed,
within the knowledge of the Secretary, be
fore the Ist of November, is manifest from
his letter of that date. If the Receiver had,
at any time between the date of his wife’s
letter and of his own letter of the 16th of No
vember, made the communication alleged
by Mr. Edwards, it is to be presumed that
he would, in some manner or other, have al
luded to it in that letter, or in the previous
one of the sth of November. He must have
discovered, on his return from Kentucky,
that the Secretary was dissatisfied with nim
for retaining the public money in his hands.
He must have been aware, that every subse
quent return which he transmitted to the
Treasury, as it exhibited an increasing ba
lance, and as it shewed that he made no de
posites in bank, would aggravate the Secre
tary’s dissatisfaction. Under such circum
stances, what would be so natural for him,
when he had occasion to write to the Secre
tary, as to make some allusion to the com
munication which explained the reason of
his apparent disobedience, and to the in
structions which he had expected in answer,
for the government of his conduct in that
important particular? The presumption is,
that, if such a justification of his conduct as
is now pretended, had existed, he would,
withoutdoubt, have assiged it—but, instead
of doing so, he contented himself with the
excuse made by Mrs. Stephenson. There
fore, he was silent on thesubject. He wai
ted the result of her lettter, That, he re
ceived in December—and, accordingly, in
December, it is found that, in partial compli
ance with the peremptory order contained
in the Secretary’s answer to his wife’s letter,
he made a deposite in bank.
That no other letter was written to him on
the subject ol his deposites, after that of the
Ist of november, is to be inferred from the
Secretary’s letter of the 20th April, 1820,
which was produced by his renewed remiss
ness. This letter begins thus:
“On the first of November last, you were
instructed to pay into bank the whole of the
money in your hands on the 30 of that
month, and not to retain the public money in
your hands at the end of each month. By
referring to your monthly returns for the
months of December, January, and Februa
ry, it appears that the instruction has not
been complied with—a sum exceeding
§19,000, upon an average, having been re
tained by you during those months. As a
bank in which your deposites have been di
rected to be made, is established in the
place in which your office is kept, the reten
tion of the money, or any part of it, one day
beyond the expiration ofthe month, is with
out any apparent excuse-” After again re
peating directions for him to deposite, and
remarking upon some irregularity in his re
turns, the Secretary concludes thus: “It is
expected that all regulations addressed to
public officers will be promptly complied
with —and that, when, from any circumstance,
this would be found impracticable, the cause
of non-compliance shall be communicated
without delay.”
If any instruction in relation to his depos
ites had been given to the Receiver, since
the order of the Ist of November, that order
would scarcely have been referred to alone.
And, if any excuse or explanation had been
received by the Secretary, subsequent to
the Ist of November, such as would have
been afforded by Mr. Edward’s publication
and advice, the order of the Ist of Novem
ber would not have been repeated and re
newed as an order unsatisfied and unanswer
ed. The style and manner of this letter of
April 20 indicate not only that neglect had
occurred, but that no explanation had been
offered for the neglect. The Receiver’*
answer confirms this conclusion. The Re
ceiver had found, by the letter of the Ist of
November, that, so far, the excuse offered
by Mrs. Stephenson of retaining money to
meet the Indian payment, had been admitted.
But, when, in the month of April following,
he was called upon to account for his subse
quent omission of duty, omision for which
that excuse would no longer avail, would ha
not, in justification of himself, have naturally
referred to any and every letter that he writ
ten on the subject—and if, in any such letter,
he had made a communication of the kind
alledged by Mr, Edwards, would he not, on
this occasion, have made some allusion to it?
All these circumstances, corroborating
each other so fully, are not only irreconcila
ble with the inferrence which Mr. Edward*
draws from the withholding of the deposites
by the Receiver, but they lead inevitably
to the conclusion, that the alleged communi
cation of his publication and advice, as a rea
son for withholding the deposites, was never
made to, or received by, the Secretary, and
that no such letter, as he alledges to have
been written by the Secretary, was ever
written in consequence of any such commu
nication.
There is, however, other testimony furn
ished by the Receiver and Mr. Edwards
themselves, which confirms this concluson.
Mr. Edwards has stated, on oath, that he
made the publication, and had it special
ly communicated to the Secretary by the
Receiver, for the purppose of apprizing the
Secretary of his intention to withdraw front
the Bank, and his determination to relieve
himself from all responsibility in regard to it,
leaving the Secretary to judge for himself,
from the returns, which he required it to
make, of the propriety of continuing it a de
pository of public money:—that, “according
to the pledge which he had given in his seat
as a director. And, though he was once e
lected to the same station since that time,
he refused to accept it, nor has he had any
thing to do with the management of the
■ Bank, since the fall of the year 1819.”
[To be continued.]
JV*o. 20.