Newspaper Page Text
Vol VI.
Darien <fisasette
WEDITED AND PUBLISHED
BY
;g*A’S. F. GRANDISON.
(on the bay)
‘• Aims per annum, payable in advance.
Srtlsement, notexceeding i /br*ei lines,
i-Jive cents for the fiiist insertion —
and a half, each succeeding
BUI letters on business to the editor,
post paid.
of Ninian Edwards.
•hßited to the House of Representa-
T*Vis bt the Speaker, April 19, 1824.
ADDRESS.
nHBB honorable the House o f Representatives
mf&jSittie Congress of the United States,
mgmpe now to the report that contains the
“JHHnus insiuuation against my credibility,
j So much of it as relates to this subject, is in
;punHß)wi n g words, viz: “The hon. Mr.
£syi(siiiss, late a Senator from Ellinois, having
, stStf®|n his examination before a commit
'the House, on the 13th of February,
: the late Receiver of Public Mo
~ neriyll Edwardsville had, on his advice and
in Wppresence, written a letter to the Sec
>; vetgTOA enclosing a copy of the publication
wfai|j|(Mr. Edwards represents himself to
haitSHlftde sometime in the year 1819, an
nowiing his intention of retiring from the
r gNHg§>rship of the Bank at Edwardsville,
: he had advised the Receiver to with
hollpjis deposites from the Bank until he
further orders from the Sec-
and that the Receiver afterwards in
him, that he had received A LET
vpj§Kj§om the Secretary, directing him to
-fmjpßie the deposites: The Secretary
] (foljsnlit proper to state, that no such letter
,mm e Receiver is to be found on the files
.JMfpepartment; that the officers employ-
have no recollection of the receipt
.. IgSpbi a letter, and that, on an examination
‘lMKrecords of the Department, it appears
! ' ; aHKr ANSWER to any such letter, direct
■i Receiver to continue the deposites,
written to him, by the Secretary of
the Treasury.”
This statement bears intrinsic evidence
| fl that |fc was intended to deprive me of the
benefit of my justification—not voluntarily
made,, but drawn from me by the committee,
ir jgHrd to the Bank of Edwardsville; and
pfnHject me to the odious suspicion of hav-
falsely. Were there any doubt
subject, it would be removed by the
of a distinguished individual, whom
not be respectful to name in this
fSßrnunication, and who, since I left the ci
losflS&Mi9 not thought it beneath his dignity to
exhibiting the report, and expres
.BHpis opinion that it “placed me in a di
'eiMh.” He may yet find it more difficult
patron to get rid of one, of infinitely
m interest.
°‘B cv ' n & as 1 cad up° n my God to wit
sincerely and confidently do, that Mr.
irr did receive the letter mentioned
report, and that it is now in his
c, or has been purposely destroyed,
regard this attack on my reputation
by any thing I have ever wit
-K or heard of, as emanating from so re-
a source, except certain manceu-
and stratagems, to fix upon a much
‘lgflHjldistinguished individual of this nation
|HH|graccful charges of a guilty participa
tion® horse-stealing, and the passing of
money, which I have somewhere
mcflnth, in the course of my reading. Ma
iiciMinsinuation is the resort of a timid
mind.! Wilful misrepresentation denotes a
one.
” ;'jHmgard to the time which has been se
] WMtgbr making this attack upon me, it ve
re9embles the management which
resorted to at the last session
k^H> ress ’ t 0 defeat a certain applicant for
appointment. This gentleman
before the President for many
‘mm He was su PP orted b y gentlemen of
respectability, and of different par-
I ttßfehc statesof Illinois; Missouri and Ten
tlHl No objections to him were antici
pateffiy himself or his friends. And none
l b e President was about to
> HHHr his nomination to the Senate. Then
nomination could no longer be kept
II baclßfty any contrivance whatever, and
e ’HH|l then, did Mr. Crawford exhibit
The gentleman’s residence
Ko remote, and the session of Congress
too Bspent, to admit of any defence or ex
plarßon from him and thus he lost the ap-
As this case is strongly marked
. characteristical traits, which tend
_ the objects and designs of this
’ i ( |^^B ned attack upon me, I refer for a fur-
of it, to my letter to Mr.
V. KMHWrd on the subject.[7]
:d llt tbe latter part of the week previous to
lan J^V al ' ture fr° m the city, on calling to
! IP leave of the President, I met with
01 Woiwpkens, to whom, in a short conversa
ontmmh him, I communicated my intention
im MBng the city o*i the Sunday following,
ieo Ky before the date of Mr. Crawford’s
tlH Unication ’) and ut * or an arc id e ntal
,as of the Secretary of State, which
his signing a paper that it was
MHHary for me to carry to the Treasury
till after the hours of business
_ .■Bit Department had elapsed, I should
from the city before Mr.
communication was made; and
should not even have heard of it,
ill Ber I had left the United States.
independently of what 1 stated to Mr.
, IHms, my intended departure was strong
‘S by the business 1 was engaged
in the public offices. It was
rLD^B ail y kn °wn; and, if it had not been, it
L naturally to have been expected.
rived of all opportunity of defence, a
fflßy over me might, indeed, have been
surely, the triumph would have
3 ignoble.
way of availing myself of further cha
-1 traits, I beg leave to state, that
P of the public documents is suf
to shew that, in repeated instances,
a replies to calls upon him by
for information, Sic. have been so
. and protracted, as to prevent the pos
?By of investigating them during the ses-
DARIEN GAZETTE.
sions in which the calls were made; and to
require a great degree of charity—possibly,
however, not more than is justly due—to re
sist the belief that he has been as much dis
posed to evade as to invite a scrutiny into his
conduct.
Even the correspondence which :ompa
nied the report in question, though requir
ed by a resolution of the Bth May, 1822, to
be laid before the house as early as practica
ble, after the commencement of the then
next succeeding session, has been delayed to
so late a period of the present session as to
render an investigation of it, before the first
Monday in December next, impossible.
Notwithstanding all these circumstances,
it may be that Mr. Crawford did not intend
to take an undue advantage of my absence.
He must well know with what indignant con
demnation such an attempt would be de
nounced by every magnanimous and gener
ous bosom. What surprises me most is, that
a just apprehension of so degrading a suspi
cion had not induced him to have exhibited
his insinuation a little sooner, or to have de
clined it altogether. But, whatever may
have been hisintention, 1 could not have been
more disadvantageously affected by any con
trivance or stratagem that he could have
adopted, to deprive me of a fair opportunity
of defence.
Scarcely convalescent from a long indispo
sition, exhausted with the fatigue of travel
ling, and required to proceed on my jour
ney with all covenient despatch, I must leave
him unanswered, or content myself with
such a defence as, with all these disadvanta
ges, a very short time of necessary delay on
my journey may enable me hastily to present.
But, what I regard with the most concern is,
that writing, as I must do, without having it
in my power to refer to, and re-examine, cer
tain documents, I shall not be able to avail
myself of some important circumstances
which they would establish, and may be be
trayed into some slight inaccuracies, to which
all men are liable who have to trust to me
mory alone. I promise, however, to be more
accurate than Mr. Crawford has been, in ca
ses in which he had before him every means
of being entirely so.
Having endeavored to establish my right
to mdke my defence before your honorable
body, and taking for granted that a request
so reasonable, under all ihe circumstances
that have been mentioned, will not be deni
ed me, I presume I shall be indulged in eve
ry legitimate right of defence that belongs
to my case.
Among these, it will scarcely be denied
that I have a right—
-Ist. To corroborate my own testimony.
2dly. To show by any means in my power,
that the statement made against me are in
conclusive; and particularly, to avail myself
of any circumstance that is presented by the
documents in the case in which l was called
onto testify, for the purpose of invalidating
those statements. Alid,
3dly. Directly to impeach the credibility
of those who have assailed mine.
The latter I shall probably waive; for, tho’
I have at all times, felt myself at liberty to
animadvert upon Mr. Crawford’s official con
duct, and to defend my own, both of which
he has found me prompt to do, in cases that
never yet have met the public eye, yet 1 ne
ver have intentionally treated him with the
slightest indecorum, or a want of that res
pect that is due to his station. [B.] Respect
for your honorable body would, of itself, be
sufficient to induce me to abstain from the
language of passion, or abusive vituperation,
before you. Respect for myself would pre
vent me from using it any where else.—
1 cheerfulty leave that resource to bullies,
political tools, mercenary hirelings, and those
who conscious of their inability to defend
their own conduct, can find no better means
of diverting publicattention from themselves
to others. I shall, nevertheless, freely urge,
and insist on, such facts as I know to be true,
disclaiming, however, any other construction
of them than the most innocent of which
they are susceptible. If 1 shall point out pal
pable omissions and violations of duty, or
shew that letters, which ought to have been
communicated to the House, have been sup
pressed, and that various misstatements have
been officially made, I shall attribute them
to nothing more than forgetfulness, inatten
tion, inadvertance, or some erroneous, but
innocent views of the subject.
This will be sufficient to shew that the ne
gative statements of Mr. Crawford, and “the
officers employed in the Z reasury Depart
ment,” ought not to prevail against my posi
tive statement on oath. If others should sup
pose this forbearance on my part a little too
fastidious, and that the cases which I shall
exhibit are evincive of intentions less inno
cent, let it be remembered that their views
of the subject would unquestionably render
the case the stronger in my favor.
With these preliminary remarks, I pro
ceed to my defence against this mal apropos
statement of Mr. Crawford.
It will be recollected, that I was not a vo
lunteer in giving my testimony before the
committee, and I can conceive of no motive
which could be supposed, by any but a most
depraved mind, misled by its own wicked
operations, to have influenced me to make
an uncandid statement. As to my responsi
bility, in consequence of having applied to
Mr. Crawford to cause certain deposites to
be made in the Bank of Edwardsville, in
preference to that of Missouri, surely I have
shown that enough was known about the
later bank, at the time my testimony was
given, to have freed me from all apprehen
sions in regard to any responsibility that I
had imposed upon myself, even if I had not
withdrawn, as already stated, from the “Di
rectorship” of the former. But Mr. Craw
ford does not deny that he received my pub
lication, and even if he had not received it,
it having been made in two different states;
and he having been, as I have shewn, put
upon inquiry in regard to that bank, and in
formed of the difficulties it had had to en
counter, 1 certainly might rely upon the no
toriety of my acts, in this respect, with a
much better grace than he relies upon a
supposed notoriety of his repeated but un
published omissions, to comply with the
most positive legal injunctions as an excuse
for those omissions, which he does in a letter
of the 24th February, 1823, to the Chairman
of the Committee of Investigation; and in
which he also seems, almost, to insist that his
violation of his duty was equivalent to a ful
filment of it.
DARIEN, (Georgia,) <£qua! anti <£jeact
It could have been no object with me to
have established an additional suppression
upon him; for if time do not fail me, it will
be seen, before I am done with this subject,
that I had in my possession proof, whose cre
dibility could not be questioned, of his hav
ing suppressed, in a variety of other instan
ces, letters enough of a much more import
ant character and delicate bearing, for any
purpose that the utmost malignity could have
contemplated as possible as to be effected by
such i. cans. [9.]
The amount of my statement before the
committee, as well as I can now recollect it,
(not having it in my power to refer to it for
exanf iation,j but which will be supplied at
Wash, igton, is
Ist. That, for the reasons therein mention
ed, I made a publication of my intention to
retire from the “Directorship” of the Bank
of Edwardsville.
2d. That I advised the Receiver iff Public
Money at that place, to withhold his depo
sites from the bank, till he could receive fur
ther orders from the Sec’ryof the Treasury.
3d. That the Receiver did write to the
Secretary on the subject, enclosing my pub
lication, &c.
4th. That the former afterwards informed
me that he had received A LETTER from
the latter, directing him to continue the de
posites.
Now, it is not denied, and dare not be,
that I did make the publication alluded to, and
this I could not have done for the reasons that
influenced me, consistently with the known
friendship ind intimacy that then subsisted
between the receiver and myself, without
giving him the advice mentioned in the se
cond part of the above statement. Bnt, that
I did give that advice, is much more strong
ly corroborated by the fact, that the Receiv
er did actually withhold the deposites, and
Mr. Crawford knows it. This might be es
tablished by the monthly returns of both the
Receiver and the bank. But these are in the
possession of Mr. Crawford. I however, fe
licitate myself upon being able to satisfy your
honorable body of the tact, by documents
that have been furnished by himself, but
which, thank God, are now out of his power.
By his report of the 27th February, 1823,
(Bth vol. State papers, 2d session 17th Con
gress, pages 31, S3, and 35,j it will be seen
that the amount of deposite stated to have
been in the Bank of Edwardsville, to the
credit of the Treasurer; was,
At the end of the second quarter of 1819,
§45,560 68. At the end of the third quar
ter of 1819, 45,475 04. At the end of the
4lh quarter of 1819, 53,191 59.
The two first of these statements are pre
sumed to be correct or neai’ly so. The lat
ter is entirely otherwise, as I will
your satisfaction, if there is any kind of confi
dence to be reposed in previous statements
exhibited to you by Mr. Crawford. Had it
been intended to disguise the fact office Re
ceiver’s having withheld the deposites, as
above stated, and to give some semblance of
plausibility to the recent insinuation against
myself, nothing could have been more inge
niously, or more disingenuously, contrived,
for these purposes, than this last statement.
If it had been f ruly stated that, instead of
§53,191 59, the real amount in deposite, at
thevend of the 4th quarter, was §98,191 59£,
the contrast between this sum and the amount
of the previous deposites, might have afford
ed some corroboration to my statement be
fore the committee. But tins, subsequent
events have proved.it was intended to ques
tion. 1 will, kowever, make the case too
plain for doubt.
By the report last referred to, it appears
that the amount of deposite in the Bank of
Edwardsville, to the credit of the Treasurer,
on the last day of June and September, was
a little upwards of §45,000.
By Mr. Crawford’s previous report ofthe
27th April, 1822, (in which is an ingenious
contrivance of placing December before No
vember,) it is shown by the Bank returns
themselves, that on ahe 30th November,
1819, the amount of deposite was §45,475,-
04$, and that, on the last day of the suc
ceeding month, (the end of the fourth quar
ter of 1819,) it was §98,181,59$ [lo] and
not §53,191 59, as subsequently reported
from the Treasury Department.
From the correspondence between the
several amounts of deposite in the Bank, on
the last days of June, September and No
vember and the difference between them and
that of the last day of December, in the same
year, no one can doubt that the Receiver
at Edwardsville did actually -withhold the de
posites as above suggested; unless it can be
belived that he did, in one single month,
distinguished by no particular circumstances,
receive to the amount of §92,716 55, equal
to the rate of §692,598 60 per annum.
Let us, then, inquire a little into the pro
bability of his having written to Mr. Csaw
ford, or, rather, into the great improbability
of his not having done so.
This gentleman united in himself the of
fice of Receiver and President of the Bank
of Edwardsville. As Receiver, he had posi
tive orders to make his deposites in that
bank, and was bound to make monthly re
turns of his accounts to the Secretary of the
Treasury. As President, it was his duty to
have monthly returns of the state of the
bank, and the amount of public deposites
therein, regularly transmitted to the Secre
tary. Is it, then, to be believed, that he
should have withheld the deposites contra
ry to his orders, without having given to
Mr. Crawford some reason, either as Recei
ver, or President, for his having done so?—
And, if he had failed to perform this duty, is
it credible that Mr. Crawford would have
been so negligent and inattentive to his duty,
and so regardless of the public interest,
as not to have called him to an account for
such conduct.
But, if further confirmation of the letter’s
having been written, and received by Mr.
Crawford, too, were wanting, strong pre
sumptions in favor of both may be derived
from the very guarded and characteristic ar
tifice by which he would seem equally to de
ny the receipt of the letter, and that any in
structions had been given to the Receiver
to continue to make the deposites. Let it
be observed, that my statement, as quoted
by Mr. Crawford, is, “that the Receiver in
formed me he had received a LETTER
from the Secretary, directing him to contin
ue the deposites.” Mr. Crawford does not
deny that such directions were given, but he
says, “it appears that ns ANSWER to such
TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 1824.
letter, directing the Receiver to continue the
deposites, was ever written,” &c. From
this peculiar manner of denial, I can but in
fer that, not being willihg, from some cause
or other, to admit the receipt of the letter,
Mr. Crawford contrived to give the direc
tions under some other fofm or pretext than
tha< of a direct ANSWER to it. But that
such directions were given, I cannot doubt,
though I have nothing to rely upon for this
opinion but the Receiver’s word for the fact.
If Mr Crawford did not write to him spe
cially on the subject of bis having withheld
the deposites, it can only be satisfactorily ac
counted for on the supposition, that he (Mr.
Crawford) did, in some form or other, give
such directions as he supposed would pro
duce the proper corrective.
Another fact, in confirmation of my state
ment, is, that one of the two Receivers who
had been directed to make their deposites
in the Bank of Edwardsvill, was ordered to
make his elsewere. Bu’, under what pre
text, I do not know, nor do I recollect ever
to have heard; probably, however, under
someone, equally calculated to disguise the
real motive, as the giving of directions, with
out acknowledging the receipt of the letter
that produced them.
It will not, I persuade myself, be consider
ed a trifling corroboration of my statement,
that it was not made to the committee for
the first time; but that, in a private corres
pondence between Mr. Crawford and my
self, more tnan twelve months before my ex
amination by the committee, 1 had asserted
the same facts substantially to himself.
In iny letter to him of the 9th February,
1822, (which 1 would not venture to refer
to, if l had not his answer to it, (I say, “I
beg leave most repectfully to suggest, that
it would be but an act of justice to me to
present my publication of 1819, in which I
declared I would be no longer responsible
for the Bank of [Edwardsville] in any way
whatever. This publication was contained
in the St. Louis Enquirer, which I believe
you took at thta time. It was also contained
in a paper which 1 forwarded to you myself.
And it was enclosed, and referred to, in a let
ter from Col. Stephenson, the President of the
Bank, [and the Receiver also] to you which
letter, he is informed me, had been answered.
Since the fall 1819, my connection with that
bank has entirely ceased, except that 1 am a
stockholder in it, without, however ever
having borrowed one cent from it.”
In my letter to Mr. Crawford, of 14th Feb
ruary, 1822, I say to him, “I must, however,
say, sir, that, as the information in the Treas
ury Department, relative to my original re
commendation of the Band of Edwardsville,
has, for some time past; been distinctly un
derstood, and freely used at this place,
[Washington] 1 can but consider it some
what unfortunate for me, that other commu
nications in the Department which ought to
have determined all responsibility on my
part, have not been equal./ known. That I
was the cause of the deposites being made
there, in the first instance, 1 freely acknowl
edge. But, that I unequivocally declared,
l would not be held reponsible for that, or
any other bank, in any way whatever, after
the fail of 1819; that you were notified
thereof in due time; that the deposites have
not been continued there, in consequence of
my recommendation since that period; and
that the bank was then in a good situation, 1
may, I llnnk, according to my present im
pressions, fairly insist upon. And if so, the
partial information, now in circulation, at
this place,’ is not calculated to do me that
justice, which, I hope, I have a right to ex
pect from your magnanimity. It would
therefore, afford me great pleasure, I assure
you, that the whole of my conduct, in rela
tion to that business should be so fully know
as to be no longer misunderstood.
The first of these letters was written five
days before his report of the 14th February,
1822. The second bears the same date of
the latter. They must both, therefore have
been written before any charge of suppres
sions had been mande, or suggested.
Had the existence of the Receiver’s letter
been denied, or the slightest intimation of
questioning it, been given, at the time it
was thus asserted, I could, and would have
proved every fact contained in my state
ment in regard to it, by that gentleman him
self. But he is now dead. Mr. Crawford
knew this, before he made the report in
question,—and dead men cannot contradict
living ones.
No one can read the interrogatories that
were put to me, by the committee, and oe
lievethat Mr. Crawford was not well inform
ed of my testimony, before tha date ofhis let
ter to the chairman ofthe same committee,
which was eleven days later than my exam
ation. From the nature of the inquiries
which he was then called upon to answer
they afforded as suitable an occasion, as the
one he has selected, for questioning my
credibility. Why, then, has he so long post
poned it? One thing is certain, it never
could have been undertaken with greater
hopes of success, than when it was supposed
I should have no opportunity of defending
myself.
I will now submit to your honorable body
a few remarks, to show that the nega
tive statements of Mr. Crawford and Ins
“officers of che Treasury Department,”
however confidently relied upon by him, for
my total overthrow, are too inconclusive for
this purpose.
You have been informed by him, taht pre
vious to the calls for his correspondence
with the local banks, which were made the
depositories of public money, it had been
usual to refer all such calls to Mr. Jones, his
chief clerk, but thatjin these cases, another
clerk had been selected to collect the let
ters, &c, which were called for. Why this
change was made, at that particular juncture,
being wholy unaccounted for by Mr. Craw
ford, is left to conjecture. Was Mr. Jones
incompetant to the discharge of this duty?
The very station he holds in the department
forbids such a supposition. Had he proved
himself unworthy of confidence? If so, he
coul dnot have retained his station, and such is
acknowledged to be his stern, unyielding, in
flexible integrity, that no one could have
supposed him capable of a subserviency in
any unfair purpose. I confess, I regret that
the charge was made, for, had it not been,
I cannot resist the belief, that I should have *
been spared much ot the labor of this vindi
cation. But, without yielding to unavailing
regrets, I must be content to take things as
I find them, I therefore proceed to exam
ine the testimony that is offered against me.
This is substantially, Ist. That no such
letter from the receiver, as that mentioned
in my examination, is to be found in the files
ofthe department. 2d That the officers
employed in it have no recollection of the
receipt of such a letter. And 3d. That
the records of the department do not
show that it was answered.
Supposing it to be true, that this letter
cannot be found “in the files of the depart
ment,” it by no means proves that it was not
received by Mr. Crawford.
This is not the first occasion, on which I
have had to regret, that a letter received by
him could not be found when it became ne
cessarv for my defence.
Finding myself grossly misrepresented,
in relation to a letter 1 had written to him,
and being determined to vindicate myself a
gainst the insinuations that were predicated
upon it, I wrote to him on the sth of January,
1821, requesting a copy of it. In his reply,
dated 10th of January, 1821, he says, “the
letter which you have described in yours of
the sth instant, has been sought for in vain.
Mr. Jones states, that, according to the best
of his recollection, he considered it not of A
discretion to go on the files, and that conse
quently it was not filed. If his recollection
is correct, it accounts for the absence of the
letter from the files, and for its being lost or
mislaid.” My letter being thus disposed ofi
Mr. Crawford in his answer, impliedly, re
peated one of the insinuations above refer
red to. Thisnvas promptly repelled by me;
and since then, I have heard no more on
that subject.
From this case alone, it might not be un.
reasonable to presume that some similar dis.
position may have been made of the letter
now in question. But, with every motive to
make such an assertion, Mr. Crawford has not
ventured to say he did not receive this letter.
It will not be difficult to show, that other let
ters of infinitely more importance have been
received by him, about which, it might be
truly said, “no such letters are to be fonnd in
the files of the department.” He has some
times another depository for them, in which,
the letter mentioned in my examination,
may also have been placed. It may have
been addressed to him ‘without the addition
of Secretary ofthe Treasury;” which we
have seen gravely insisted on, as giving him
a right to consider any letter as “a private
paper,” though exclusively relating to mat
ters of official duty. Or he may have *,con
sidered it not ofadesaription to go on the
files;” and thus may “its absence from the
files,” or “its being lost or mislaid,” be very
naturally accounted for, according to the
practices of the department.
The probability of this supposition is great
ly strengthened by the following case:
Between 1816, and the 3lst of December,
18T9, he received important communication,
on the subject ofthe illicit introduction of a
large number of African slaves into the Uni
ted States, which strongly implicated one of
his particular friends. By a resolution ofthe
house of representatives, of the last mention
ed date, he was directed to lay before the
house copies of such communications as he
had received since 1816, and such information
as he possessed, in relation to the illicit intro
duction of slaves into the United States. But,
noth withstanding this positive call upon him,
1 assert and I challenge investigation, that
he did withhold letters and information, up
on this subject, implicating his friend, which
ought to have been communicated to the
*house; and some of which he did not even
permit ‘ito go on the files of the department.*
Os course it might be very truly said of them,
that “no such letters are to be found on the
files ofthe depa tment; and that the officers
employed in it have no recollection ot the re
ceipt of them;” for, having been deposited in
his own private bureau, those officers could
have no means of ascertaining the fact, and
the very motives for withholding them from
the files would render fruitless all attempts to
find ‘answers’ to them “by an examination of
the records of the department.” Apd yet*
there is no doubt of their having been recei
ved, and the strongest probability that they
were answered also. If the authority of the
house of representatives was not sufficient
to obtain their production, the non-produc
tion of the letter of the receiver at Edwards
ville ought not to excite a moment’s surprise.
But it also appears, that he and his “officera
of the treasury department” have not been
able to find a great number of other letters,
and even some ofhis own official ones, when
required by other calls ofthe house; or if
they could have been found, they were sup
pressed. Os this, the documents furnishpd
by himself afford both abundant and conclu
sive proof. Many instances might be stated,
For the sake of brevity, 1 will allude to a few
of them only.
Several cases of this kind are presented by
the correspondence with the bank of Hunts
ville, I will refer to but one of them. This
is too conclusive for any artifice to elude it;
and it requires but a bare inspection of the
documents themselves to be convinced of it.
In his letter L. No. 7, to the President of
the dank of Huntsville, dated'3oth July, 1819,
he says, “You will perceive by the contents
of my letter of the 9th instant, that the failure
ofthe Nashville Bank, and its offices, was at
that lime, known to this department. It was
then foreseen that the Bank of Huntsville
could not fail to be injuriously affected by
that event, and by others of a similar nature,
which were then anticipated. The reasons
stated in my letter ofthe 9th instant, in favoi*of
the prompt adoption, by the bank, of the
measures necessary to the transfer of the pub
he money in the possession of the bank, beyond
the permanent deposite, remain unimpaired.
This letter of the 9th July, 1819, is also re
ferred to in letter L. No. 8, from the Pre.
sident ofthe Bank of Huntsville, dated Sep
tember, 1819, Yet this same letter of the 9th
instant, whose “relevancy to the subject mat
ter ofthe call” admits of no question; “was
not to be found on the files of the depart
ment,” or it was purposely suppressed, for
it has not been communicated.
By an examination ofthe documents No 66
and No. 119, it will be seen that more than
half the correspondence with the Bank of
Missouri, though called for by a resolution,
of the house, had been suppressed. The
importance and very delicate import of a few
of these letters wili he noticed presently, io
connection with another subject.
[To be continued.]
No. 21.