Newspaper Page Text
Vol. VI.
||ftarten <S?asette
MpED AND PUBLISHED
H 9. F. GRANDISON.
K (ON THE bay)
Jgkr annum, payable in advance .
Hpment, notexceeding/onrteen lines
Re cents for the first insertion —
mLscven and a half, each succeeding
■
on business to the editor
Kwst paid.
lib of JSTinian Edwards.
Hb to the House of Representa-
Ht the Speaker, April 19, 1824.
[Concluded.]
ADDRESS.
W&korable the House of Representatives
Me Congress of the United States.
‘1 there were two calls in this
1 which rendered it the duty of
to have transmitted all the cor
and though, in answering the
lie expressly stated that he had
ll the correspondence required
ion, excepttwo letters from the
:. Louis, which were of a confi
:, yet your honorable body will
ig reasons to doubt the correc t
statement, and I shall be much
the third call, with which he
complied, has been sufficient
n him all the correspondence
Bank of Missouri. The omis
, addressed to the department,
ounted for on the supposition
‘ht have miscarried. But this is
hichtheletters,orcopiesoft he
Bec’ry. himself which should al
n the department, are not liable
owever, sometimes disappear,
of the receiver, at Edwards
> have done. If not, it will be
icount for the absence of a let
th of July, 1819, which is pre
i been addressed by Mr. Craw
tank of Missouri, upon the au
port of a committee of the le-
Missouri, at its session in
committee appointed to exam
concerns of the Bank of Mis
jri. Mr. Crawford’s letters to that bank
:re submitted to the inspection of the com-
the report, which I have the ho
rMSwith to transmit. [ll] contains ex-
several of them, among which is
his letter of the 30th of July, 1819,
’ljßßjh enough appears to prove that it
s :Rpnbraced by the call, and ought to
communicated, unless it is a mere
JHgjion by the committee, for which no
motive can be perceived.
not time to dwell upon several cu-
that are disclosed by this
• -1 I beg leave, however, to refer your
body to the contract with the
Missouri, as therein set forth. An
nUnn of it will enable you to decide at
it is correctly represented
jHßrawford’s report ofit, and whether
right to withdraw any part of the
deposite, under any pretence
before the expiration of six months
to be employed to receive
moneys.”
flHHgard to the letters that have been al
dtfK I will barely remark, that, if so ma-
Wally belonging to the department,
be found on “its files,” it will not
flfre if it shall hereafter appear that the
receiver, at Edwardsville, has
■Hnerlooked; or, if the former were pur-
is nothing improbable in the
discs that the latter has shared the same
But this letter may have been received
’ and he may have forgot
■■■ presume, I may fairly demonstrate,
|HHng that his memory has been ex
treacherous, in other instances, of
Horner consequence. For this purpose,
Hjjjve, * n ,e rst place, to call the at
ntipji&f your honorable body to his oath,
Irojljlße committee.
BAigdless of the salutary admonitions of
HHRrb “of the glass windows,” he has
mm>y oath somewhat freely, and he can
*<easonable cause to complain if his
undergo a slight investigation.
•^H§f s own examination before the com
QIKWANY PART of the correspondence.
us hear Mr. Dicken’s, his uonfi-
Hclerk. On the examination of this
IHRiaii before the same committee, he
■vs, Ht is the general directions of the Se
when information is called for, to
thing that relates to the subject.
fpfHlhe call was made I looked over all the
ctRH filed and unfiled, relating to the
|R The papers, after selfected, are
*®SBP re secretary; and in this case,
me to collect every thing in the
[nCpipiating to the subject* They were
and submitted to his inspection,
fllicase, fromthe urgency of it, I took the
M|ls and rough drafts. The papers re
some time before the secretary while
H making the report, after I gave them
IMw. and before he communicated to the
■ififiJ be recollected that Mr. Dickens is
■Mr, Crawfords’s witnesses against me,
his highest confidence. Now, if
swears the truth, I would ask,
Bp could have happened that so many
’ |R of the correspondence with the banks
v Kntsville and Missouri alone were sup-
RBed, without Mr. Crawfor’s sanction?
Re document, No. 119, before referred
H>st indisputably proves that upwards
Hpnty letters of the correspondence with
DARIEN 181? GAZETTE.
the latter bank were suppressed, on the
first call for them; and that these very letters
were ‘'in the office.” If then, Mr. Dickins did
collect, and lay before Mr. Crawford, “all
the papers filed and unfilled , relating to the
subject,” which he was so strictly ordered
todo, and swears he did; by whom could the
suppression of so great a portion of the cor
respondence with the bank of Missouri have
been effected? If not by Mr. Crawford, his
own statement shows that it must have been
done by Mr. Dickens. To permit so flagrant
a breach of trust and confidence, to pass
with impunity is to sanction it. If this sup
pression escaped Mr. Crawford’s notice
when he answered the first call for those
letters he could not have been ignorant of it
when he shortly afterwards complied with
the second call by transmitting the very let
ters that had been suppressed. Yet, we
have never heard that Mr. Dickins has been
punished in any manner whatever—and
fromthe relation in which these gentlemen
stand to each other, it connot be presumed
that he has been even blamed.
Again; Mr. Crawford, in his testimony
says, “it is usual when resolution require in
formation which the records or files of the
office afford, to send copies—but when
there is a press of business, the originals
are sometimes sent, as in the present case.”
Thus, it appears, from the oaths of these
two gentlemen, that Mr. Dickins delivered
al l the “originals and rough drafts” to Mr.
Crawford—& that the latter sent them to all
the house. No one therefore could reason
ably expect to find copies among them Yet,
upon an examination of the correspondence
with the Huntsville bankalone.it willbefound
that about one third of the pages it occu
pies, and more than that proportion of the
letters are given as extracts. These, surely,
cannot be originals unless Mr. Crawford and
the President of the Bank of Huntsville
were in the habit of sending extracts of their
own letters to each other—a novelty that
can scarely be believed to have accurred.
But, besides the striking variance between
Mr. Crawford’s statement of having sent the
originals to the house, and the fact of this
case, the transformation of those originals in
to extracts requires explanation, at least.
It is difficult to conjecture any motive for
sending these extracts, instead of the origin
als, unless it was for the purpose of omitting
and withholding something which the latter
contained; and if Mr. Crawford never sanc
tioned the omission of any part of the cor
respondence, by whom, and with what mo
tives, could these extracts have been made,
and foisted into the place of the originals?
It cannot be too much to say that there ap
pears to have been censiderable forgetful
ness in some parts of this affair.
Mr. Crawford must also have forgotten
the resolution of 1816, when in direct vio
lation ofi ts positive injunctions, he received
from certain local banks in discharge of their
debts to the United States, and at par, the
large amount of uncurrent notes, which in
his report, he admits he did receive from
them.
But his memory must have been mucli
more unfortunately treacherous to him, in
two other particulars, relating to this busi
ness, for I shall show that he has made two
palpable and important misstatements in re
gard to it.
Being called on by a resolution of the
house of representatives to state the amount
of uncurrent paper, which he received from
the local banks, that had been made depos
itories of public money, received from the
sale of lands, he admits a receipt of a large
amount from the banks of Edwardsville,
Missouri, and Tombecbee. But as an ex
cuse for his conduct, he represents those
notes to have been deposited in these banks
“before the date of their contracts.” under
which they agreed to account for the public
deposites as specie.
This I do most unequivocally and posi
tively aver to be a misrepresentation and an
indefensible apology, and your honorable
body cannot fail to be convinced of it, by ad
verting to the contracts themselves. 1 will
refer to only one of them at present. The
very first article of the contract with the
bank of Edwardsville, under which it recei
ved the first cent of public deposites, is in
the following words, viz: Ist, that the pub
lic moneys shall be entered to the credit of
the treasurer as cash,” which may be seen
in document No. 66, letter G, No. land 2.
But, for his own opinion upon the subject,
even in a case where there had been no ex
press stipulation “to pay cash,” 1 refer your
honorable body to his letter L. No. 1, to the
President of the bank of Huntsille, dated
11th of January, 1818, where it will be found
that he says, “in making the Planters, and
Mechanics, bank of Huntsville a place of de
posite, at its particular solicitation, it was
expected that the transfer of the funds
which it undertook to make would be effec
ted in funds that circulated at par at the
place where the transfer was directed. As
the receiver had been directed to receive
the bills on no banks which did not dis
charge them in specie upon demands, it was
for tlie amount deposite in specie, or in
bills which would be received as specie, at
the place to which the money should be di
rected to be transferred, unless it should
state the contrary.”
But this is not the worst case; he has, in
the same report, mistated the amount of un
current notes, which he did receive from
those banks, making it much less than it
acctually was; and some of the suppressed
letters in the correspondence with the bank
of Missouri will prove it.
This statement, no doubt, will surprise
and astonish y our honorable body; but you
will not long regard it as a proof of temerity.
1 shall, however, content myself with bare
ly stating enough to carry resistless convic
tion to your own minds of the truth of it.
None shall doubt, who will either read or
hear the testimony exhibited to you, by Mr.
Crawfoad himself.
DARIEN, (GEORGIA,) equal anti Cract 3|Utite. TUESDAY, JUNE 15, 1824.
The suppresed letters B, No. 13, from the
president of the bank of Missouri, dated 11th
October, .1819, B, No. 19, from Thomas
Reddick, agent of that hank, dated 18th Feb.
1820, taken in connexion with Mr. Craw
ford’s settlement with the said agent, will
prove that the sum of 1175 dollars, which
he, [Mr. Crawford] received from that bank,
though artfully stated so as to disguise the
fact, was composed of 290 dollars of notes
on the Franklin bank of Alexandria, and 88 5
dollars on the Mechanics’ bank of Alexan
dria.
His own suppressed letter B, No. 7, dated
29th May, 1819, contains a notification to the
bank of Missouri, of the failure of the former
of these banks. And a friend has furnished
me with the following extract from the files
of the National Intelligencer in regard to the
latter, “August 28th, 1819. The Mechan
ics’ bank of Alexandria does not redeem its
notes in specie, and its notes no longer pass
here currently.”
The suppessed letters B, No. 25, from
himselftothe president of the bank of Mis
souri, dated 14th of November, 1820, and
the president’s answer B, No. 26, dated 12th
of December, 1820, will show that the re
ceiver from that bank 40,156 dollars in
notes on the bank of Tennessee and its
branches, which were deposited in the
branch United States bank at Lovisville, on
the 2lst of May 1820, to meet the Treasu
rer’s draft.
A report from Luke Lea, pension agent
at Knoxville, to J. L. Edwards, afthe pension
office, d&tcd 27th January, 1823, shows that
these notes were, “mostly oil the branches
of the Knoxville bank.”
1 have, in my possession, proof that those
branches stopped payment in the summer of
1819, but I deem it unnecessary to exhibit, as
fevery member of the delegation in congress,
from Tennessee, as well as other members of
congress, must know that they had failed to
redeem their notes in specie long before the
notes in question were received by Mr. Craw
ford. It is only necessary to add, that none of
these notes are included in the amountof un
current notes reported by Mr. Crawford. —
Now, though the probability, that these
misstatements were innocently made, is
somewhat weakened by the suppression of
the letters that would have detected their in
accuracies, I do not deem it necessary to in
sist that they prove any thing more than a
greater degree of forgetfulness and inadver
tence, than to have forgot or overlooked
such a trifling affair as the letter mentioned
in my examination. If they were intention
al, it would prove the statement made
against, me so much the less, entitled, to
credit.
In makin*g deposites in the local banks of
Louisville. Cincinnati, Cbilicothe, and the
District of Columbia, inwall of which places
branches of the bank of the United Stales
were eslablised, and in some instances con
tinuing those deposites for years in succes
sion, without making any report thereof to
Congress, Mr. Crawford'must have forgot,
for a very long time indeed, and on a great
variety of occasions, both the letter and
intention of the following section in the
law establishing the Bank of the United,
States.
“Be it enacted. That the deposites of the
money of the United States in places where
the said bank or branches thereof may be
established, shall be made in said bank or
branches thereof, unless the Secretary of the
treasury shall immediately lay before congress,
if in session, and if not, immediately after
the commencement of the next session, the rea
sons of such order or direction.
Indeed.lam under the impressiion that,
notwithstanding his compliance with the
above requisitions on on the lOthe of Decem
ber, 1817, which proved that it was then
fresh in his reccollection, and though his
connection with the bank of the United
States, its pressing wants, and the nature
of the business he had to transact with it,
were all calculated to recal his attention to
that part of his duty almost every day, he
himself has, in someone of his reports, ad
mitted that he had overlooked it through
“mere inadvertence.”
1 regret to have to say to your honorable
body, that both the state of my health and
the want of time absolutely compel me, most
reluctantly, to close this investigation of Mr.
Crawford’s -well-timed statement against me,
In this situation, I beg leave to refer you, for
further facts, of which I might, under more
favorable circumstances, fairly and success
fully avail myself, to a few of the publica
tions under the signature’ of “A. B.” here
with transmitted.
Avowing myself the auther of these pub
lications, and with the exception of a few un
important typographical errors, and a mere
verbal inaccuracy in regard to the time of
certain report’s being made, reasserting be
fore your honorable body, and the nation,
that the facts they alledge are substantially
true, I do most respectfully solicit that they
may be taken as a part of and be printed
with this communication. In order to
strenghen my claim to this indulgence, com
bining all the right of defence, of accusation,
and of asking for investigation, which can
entitle me, as a citizen of the United States,
or an officer of their government, to appear
before your honorable body, I do express
ly state:
1. That the honorable William 11. Craw
ford, Secretary ofthe Treasury, has mis
managed the national funds:
2. That he has received a large amount
of uncurrent notes from certain banks,
in part discharge of their debts to the
United States, contrary to the resolu
tion of congress of 1816:
3. That being called on by a resolution
of the house of representatives to state
the amount of uncurent notes which he
received from these banks, he has mis
stated it, making it less than it really
was:
4. That he has, in his report to the house,
misrepresented the obligations of those
banks, or some of them, at least, and pre- 1
dicated thereon an indefensible excuse
for his conduct in receiving those uncur
rent notes;
5. That he has acted illegally, in a varie
ty of instances, by making and continu
ing deposites of the public money in
certain local banks without making re
port therof to Congress, according to
law: and.
6. That he has in several instances with
held information and letters called for
by the house, and which it was his duty
to have communicated:
His oath. Let it speak for itself.
For specifications of these statements, I
offer the publications under the signature of
A. B. above mentioned, and this communica
tion—and for proof, I offer that which they
respeettively refer to.
All this I do defensively—for, if the facts
stated be true, no rational man can doubt
that they must weaken at least, the force of
Mr. Crawford’s statement against me.
I will not chargejiim with bad intentions
in any of those acts. It is more properly
the duty of others to inquire into and judge
of that matter. Ido not ask for an investi
gation of his conduct. Such a request ought
more naturally to be looked for from him
self. But I will say, that, if, being an officer
of the same government under which he
holds his office, I have wilfully and mali
ciously* misrepresented him, in the six fore
going* allegations, it is a misdemeanor that
would prove me unworthy of the office 1
hold. I invite him, or any of his friends, to
make this charge against me, pledging my
self to waive all notice, and, with all the dis
abvantages3 of absence, to submit to an in
vestigation thereof by either or both houses
of congress, and to abide by the decision
thereupon. If this proposition is declined,
I trust we shall have no more canting about an
“A. B. plot.” As to myself. I feat* not the
consequences of any fair investigation, for
I know 1 shall he able, whatever may be the
result, to justify myself to the nation. And
never having obtained any office by the
slightest sacrifice of Independence, I never
will owe the holding of one to reluetant for
bearance, or the courtesy of my enemieis.—
I will only add, that if any attempt should
hereafter be made meanly to take advantage
of my absence, by those who have forborne
to attack me when I could have had an op
portunity of defending myself, I must beg of
your honorable body, and the nation, to sus
pend your opinions, and to be assured that
there shall be no avoidable delay in vindica
ting myself, I have in reserve much matter
of defensive accusation, and should most cer
tainly have invited your attention to the re
port concerning the receiver of public mo-,
neys at Huntsville, and other matters of not
less importance, had time permitted.
NINIAN EDWARDS.
Wheeling, Virginia, April 6, 1824.
ANSWER
Os the Secretary of the Treasury to
the Address of Ninian Ednvards.
[ Concluded .]
The charge of having received uncurrent
notes from the Banks of Missouri, Edwards
ville, and Tombeckbe, contrary to the agree
ment witli those banks, and contrary to law,
being thus answered, there remains, in con
nection with this branch of Mr. F.dwards’s
accusation against the Secretary, only that
of having, in his report to Congress, mis
stated the amount so received. Upon a tho
rough examination, however, it is asserted,
that all the notes received from those banks,
for which the Treasurer did not receive a
cash credit in the banks to which they were
transferred, were specified in the report
made by the Secretary on the subject, with
the exception of §285 dollars, in notes of
the Franklin Bank of Alexandria, which
formed part of the funds received from the
Bank of Missouri, agreeably to his letter of
20th of March, 1820, but which, in his re
port of the 14th of February, 1822, were ac
cidentally omitted to be mentioned. That
there was no intentional concealment on this
subject, is evident, from the mannerin which
the Secretary conplied with that part of the
resolution which referred to it. By the re
solution, he was required to state, whether
any uncurrent or depreciated paper had
been received from certain banks, which
the government was not bound to receive.—
As the Secretary was of opinion, that all the
paper of that description which he had re
ceived from those banks, was paper that he
was bound to receive, he might, without
blame; have answered, that none such as
were alluded to in the resolution had been
received. Desirous, however, to put the
House in possession of all the facts, he stated
what uncurrent paper had been received,
and why it had been received; and he includ
ed in the statement, paper to the amount of
several thousand dollars, which, at the time
he made his deposte, had actually been paid
in cash. Under these circumstances, it might
have been reasonably supposed, that this tri
vial omission was, as was truly the case, whol
ly accidental!, and unintentional.
The charge of withholding letters and in
formation called for by the House, rests up
on no better foundation. This, however,
may have originated in part, in the want of
attention to the true import ofthe resolution
under which these letters and information
were called for. The resolution of the
House, of the 9th January, 1822, as printed,
required “a statement shewing in what banks
the moneys received from the sale of the
public lands have been deposied, since the
Ist of January, 1818; the contracts under
which the said deposites have been made—
the correspondence between them and the
Treasury department relative thereto,” &c.
It has been doubted, whether, according to
the proper rules of construction, the corres
pondence here called for, related to any
thing more thah the contracts. It is believ-
ed, however, that this doubt gives place to
certainty upon an inspection of the resolu
tion, as transmitted to the Secretary by the
Clerk of the House, between which, and the
resolution as printed, there is a remarkable
difference in the punctuation. That which
appears in the latter as the first member of a
sentence, terminating with a semicolon, is,
in the original, (see annexed No. 41, which
is herewith transmitted), a complete sen
tence ending with a period. By this differ
ence the words “relative thereto,” are made
applicable exclusively to the contracts—and,
of course, the correspondence required by
the resolution, is the correspondence be
tween those banks and the Tieasury, rela
tive to the contracts under which the moneys
received from the sales of public lands since
the Ist of January, 1818, have been deposi
ted.
It will be seen, however, that, in the col
lection of the correspondence, it was not con
fined to that object—but, that, in addition to
every thing which related thereto, there was
communicated so much of the other corres
pondence with the banks referred to, as
would enable the House to form a just opi
nion of the whole subject, not only ofthe ar
rangements with these banks in this particu
lar, but of the relationship subsisting be
tween them and the Treasury.
The resolution of the House, ofthe 12th
March, 1822, had reference only to three
banks, those of Edwardsville, Tombeckbe,
and Missouri; it called for no correspondence
except in relation to the bank of Missouri,
and, as it required all the correspondence in
relation to that bank, not before communica
ted, all such correspondence as could be
found was transmitted. Yet, although these
two resolutions are distinct from each other
in their requirements, Mr. Edwards affects
to consider every letter which was commu
nicated under the latter as having been im
properly withheld under the former.
That some ofthe papers transmitted un
der this resolution might not, with proprie
ty, and perhaps with advantage, have been
sent under the first resolution, is not assert
ed. Wnether any such; if any such there be,
were accidentally omitted, or whether they
were not deemed necessary to an under
standing of the subject, is not now recollect
ed. As there was no consciousnes on the
part Qf the Secretary that any of his transac
tions required concealment, or merited cen
sure. and as it was supposed that the object
of the resolution was exclusively to obtain
information, the whole aim in selecting the
papers and making the communication, was
to put the house in possession of such infor
mation, and such only, as would best serve
to elucidate to which it related.
But, to whatever cause the omission of any
of these papers is attributable, the omission
itself is unimportant. It is believed, that the
papers communicated under the second re
solution, or the great mass which has been
communicated under the third resolution,
disclose no new fact which it was important,
in relation to the subject ofthe resolution,
either to communicate or to withhold. The
idea of concealment was wholly out of the
question. The delicate nature of many of
the letters communicated under the first’ re
solution, shows, perhaps, a leaning the other
way. But, there was really nothing of mo
ment to be concealed The general outline
of the.arrangements with the Western banks
was well known. They had been published
in most of the newspapers in the countries
interested in them; and they were familiar to
many gentlemen in Congress, some of whom
had been among the first to press upon the
Secretary the necessity and advantage of
such arrangements.
Disclaiming, then, in the most unqualified
manner, any wish or intention in the Secre
tary, of concealing any part of his conduct
in relating to those banks, he opinion is con
fidently repeated, that, after an examination
of all the correspondence that has been, at
various times, communicated to the House,
it will be found that, although more ample
details are exhibited, because the paper#
subsequently presented are more numerous,
as clear and faithful a view of the connexion
between the Western banks snd the Tresury,
was presented under the first resolution, as
is exhibited in the whoie mass of the corres
pondence But, if the fact were otherwise,
nothing could be more unjust than to consi
der the omission of every letter not commu
nicated under that resolution, as a suppres
sion with an improper design.
Although these explanations may be
deemed a sufficient answer to Mr. Edwards’s
charge of suppression, generally—yet, Ah ere
are some particular instances which he has
specially dwelt upon, and to which he at
taches particular importance, that it may be
well specially to notice. The first of these
is, the circumstance that “extracts” were
communicated, instead of entire letters, in
parts of the correspondence with the
Plaanters and Merchants’s Bank of Hunts
ville.
By referring to the letters alluded to, and
which have been transmitted entire, under
the last resolution of the House, it will be
seen, that the parts omitted to be communi
cated, relate to an occurrence wholly of a
temporary nature, entirely unimportant in
itself, and having no bearing whatever on the
subject of the call. It seems that, after the
termination ofthe arrangement between the
Bank ofthe United States and the Bank of
Huntsville, the Cashier ofthe former drew
certain drafts upon the amount standing at
his credit in the latter bank. These, “the
Bank at Huntsville declined to pay, under
an eroneous idea, that it was accountable to
the Treasury for the money.
As soon as this was made known to tht. Se
cretary, he wrote to the Huntsville Bank, to
remove the misunderstanding. The bank
; justified itself, by quoting certain ex
liressions of the Secretary’s circular, of Jit
y, 1816. The Secretary replied, that, if tits
bank had quoted correctly, the ctrcuh r roust
i’ have been imperfect, and desired to have it
JS m o. 22.