Newspaper Page Text
>?v.-
FREDEBICK S. FELL
CITI SUXTIft.
Dally Paper.-,... Eight Dollars per annum.
Country Paper........ ...Sis Dollars per annum
MTABaa IS ADTAKCB
{£ All news and new advertisements appear in
both'pspers. -CD
& National Nomination*
At a meeting of the Democratic Mem
bers ot Congress, in the Chamber of the
House of Representatives of the United
States, February 14, 1824, the following
* resolutions were unanimously adopted.
Resolved, As the sense of this meeting,
that
W.M. H. CRAWFORD,
6f Georgia, he recommended to the people
United Sta es as a proper Candidate
- ! oFP ' -
of the
for the office
resident, and
ALBERT GALLATIN,
Of Pennsylvania, for the office of Vice Pre
lr ' '
KA f '. c, ,"7 v,to r,c ‘ following, (one day before the date of Mr Craw-
4ldent, of the United States, for four years communication,) and, but for an accidental
from the 4th of March, 1825.
Awe
SATURDAY EVENING, Mar 8.1824.
RcpriiHital
Continued.
In regard to the time which has been selected
for making this attack upon me, it very miiiih re
sembles the managemenr which Mr. Crawford re
sorted to, at the last session of Congress, to defeat
a certain applicant for a land office appointment
This gentleman had been before the President fbr
many weeks. He was supported by gentlemen
of the first respectability, and of different, parties,
in the states of Illinois, Missouri, and Tennessee
No objections to him were .anticipated by him.
self or bis friends. And nonewas made till the
President was about to transmit his nomination to
the Senate. Then, when a nomination could no
longer be kept back, by any eonlrtvanee whatever
tnd not till then, did Mr. Crawford exhibit hiji ob.
jections. The gentleman’s residence was too re
mote, and the Session of Congress too far spent,
to admit any defence or'explanation from him,
and thus he lost the appointment. As this case is
strongly marked bv certain characteristical trait W
which tend to illustrate the oty'ectt ami design of
this toeH timed attack upon me, I refer, for a fur.
therexplanat bnofit, to my letter to Mr. Craw
ford on the subject. 17}
In the latter part of the week previous to my
departure from the city, on calling to take my
leave of the President, I met Mr,Diolcins,to whom
in a short conversation with tiim, I communicated
my intention of leaving the city on the Sunday
following, (one day befoi
I apprcheBsioBs hi f egavd to any ran
ihility that I had imposed upm myself, euse
I had not withdrawn, ns already stated, from the
Directorship” of the former Out Mr. Crawford
. loes not deny that he received my publication,
and even if lie had not received it* it having been
made irt two different state's, and he having been,
hr 1 have shown, put upon inquiry io regard to
that bank, and informed of the difficulties it had
had to cncolmter, t certainly might rely upon the
notoriety of my acts, in this respect, with a much
THE TARIFF RILL —Thi* bill (says the Na
flonal Intelligencer,) it is apprehended by its
friends, has already received its death blow in the
- Senate. The vote for striking out the proposed
increase of duty on iron, seriously menaced it, but
the vote of yesterday, striking out the duty on
hemp, is considered fetal to it. ' Every Senator it
In hit teat, [there is one vacancy, occasioned by
the appointment of Mr Edwards, of Illinois, to
Mexico,} aud both the above questions have beer,
determined by a majority of one vote only >
> The following letter from a senator inCongres-,
to the editors of the Richmond Enquirer, placet
the fact of Mr. Edward's having denied being the
Author of the •'A B letters,” beyond a doubt.
”Senate Chamber, dpril 26,1824.
<*'Mr. Ninian Edwards declared, to Mr/No^le, a
Senator from Indiana, that be was not the auttaoi
a jof the A B. publicationi lie did this pending his
nomination as minister to Mexico. In cop**’
quence of the declaration, Mr. Noble states that
be voted for him. About the same time Mr Ec.
wards declared to Mr. Elkin, a member of th<
.bar in this city, that he was no more the author ■
the A.B. publication, than the editor of the Rich-
Rond Enquire? was. This was said in reference
to a remark in the Enquirer, in which Mr. Ed-
Wards was spoken of as the reputed sulborof A.
\t the last session of Congress, Mr Edwards
was called before >he commit'ee raised in tbeTf.
of R upon the ”Suppreued Document!,” Before
that committee he was examined on oatb, ami
^Suppressed? the information that he waahimse)
the v.B. whose charges the committee were in
vestigating.”
Late accounts from Porto Cabello, state that a
fclsn for a revolt against the government of Col
.ombia has been discovered by Gen. Paez, and
the leaders s-ken up at Caracas, sent to the Cal-
Shoo,* and executed.
The packet ship Amity, from Liverpool for New
tork, went ashore on Squam Beach on the 25th
bit and bilged—part of the cargo was savfcd. The
passengers arrived at New York next day.
Beaufort T. Walts, of So. Ca.bas been appoint.
«d Secretary of Legation to the Republic of Co.
fbmbia
The U. 8. abip Cyane, having on board Mr
Brown, our Minister to France, arrived at Cher-
Burg, previous to the 25th March, from N. York.
The fire at New Castle, (mentioned yesterday,)
Was got under the same evening, by the assistance
iif the tire companies from Wilmington.
Late accounts at New York from Cape Coast
Castle, tbe (capital of the British settlements in
guinea,) statethat Sir Chat, McCarthy, who wav
f)n a march to attack the Aalianteea, with a force
of about SO00 natives and merchant^ was attack
«a by about 10,000 of he f >rmet on the 21st of
Ian. and entirely defeated. Neither Sir Charles
nor unv of tbe merchants had been heard of at the
last accounts. The news was brought to the Cape
by some of the natives who escapedr
Eighteenth Congress.
April 29.
IN SENATE.
resolution submitted yesterday by
Mr H Johnson, of Louisiana, directing the
postmaster General “ to report to the Sen
ate, at thfir next session, the nearest prac
ticable pout route from New Orleans to
Washington City,” was again read for con
pideration. '
Mr. Johnson, iri explanation, stated that
A route might be established through the
States of Parolina, Georgia and ‘Alabama,
which would not exceed in extent 900 miles
ra-The extent of the present route, he be-
leived to be nearly 1500 miles. He hoped
the survey of the route would be immedi
ately made, and that the report required
would be laid before Congress at the com
mencement of the next session.
THE TARIFF
The Senate then resumed the consider
htion of the bill“ to amend the several acts
for imposing duties on imports.”
Mr Lloyd, of Mass, moved to amend
the bill by striking out the £>11< wing clauses
V<*n hemp two cents per pound.”
After an animated debate on this motion
fchich occupied the Senate the principal
part of the day, the question was taken on
filrilung out, and decided in the affirmative
—Yeas 24 : Nays 23.
So the duty on Hemp Was stricken out
by the Committee of the whole, and
The Senate adjourned
[Nr> business-of. interest was transacted
tis^Iotiso of Representatives^.
ngagement of the Secretary of State, which pre.
vented bis signing a paper that It was necessary
For me to carry to the Treasury Department, till
after the hours of business in that Department had
elapsed, I should, have departed from the city be-
fore Mr Crawford's communicati >n watmadeiand
probably should not even have beard of it, till af
ter I had left the United States.
But, independently of what! stated to Mr Die*
kins, my intended departure was strongly indica
ted by the business I was engaged in transacting
in the public offices. It was generally known: ana
ir it had not been, it was very naturally to have
been expected.
Deprived of all opportunity of defence, a victo.
ry over me might, indeed, have been easy, but
surely, tbe triumph would have been most igno
ble. *
By way of availing myself of further character,
ivticnl traits, I beg leave to state, that an inspec
tion of the public d euments is sufficient to shew
that, in repeated instances, Mr. Crawford's replies
n call upon him by the house for information, c.
have been so tardy .md protracted, as to prevent
the possibility of investigating them during the
sessions in which the calls were made: and to re
quire a great deg, e of charity—poariiiy, how
e/er, not more than is justly due—to resist the
belief that he bss been at much disposed to evade
as to invite ascru iny into his conduct.
Even the correspondence which accompanied
the report in question, though required by a reso
lution of the 8th May, 1822,, j be laid before the
House as early at practicable, after tbe commence
merit of the then next succeeding session,has been
delayed to so late a period of the present session
•» to render sn investigation uf it, htjbrc the fret
Monday in December nett, impossible.
Notwithstanding all these circumstance*, it may
be that Mr. Crawford did not intend to take an
undue advantage of my absence. He muat well
know with what indignant con Ipmnation such an
attempt would be denounced by every magnani
nrous and generous bosom. What surprizes me
most is, that a nut apprehension of so degrading
a suspicion had not in luced him te have exhibit
ed his insinuation a little Stoner, or to have declin
ed it altogether. But, whatever may have been
his intentions, I could not have been more dis4d
vantageously affected by any contrivance or ttrw
gem that he could have adopted, to deprive me
of a fair opportunity of defence.
8esreely convalescent from a long indisposition,
exhausted with the fatigue of travelling, and re.
quired to proceed on my journey with nil conve
nient despatch, I must leave him unanswered, or
content myself with such a defence as, with alt
these disadvantages, a very short time of necessa
ry delay on my journey uny enable me hastily to
present. But, what I regard with the most con
cern is. that writing, as I must do, without having
it in my power to refer to, and re examine, certain
documents, 1 have not been able to avail myself of
some important circumstances which they would
estabfiib, and may be betrayed into some slight
inaccuracies, to which all men are liable wbo have
to triist to memory alone. I promise* however, to
be more accurate than Mr. Crawford has been, in
cases in which he had before him .every means of
being entirely so.
Having endeavored to establish toy right to
make my defence before your honorable body,
aud taking it for granted that a request so reason
able, under all the circumstances that have been
mentioned, will not be denied me, I presume I
shall be indulged In every legitimate right of de
fence 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 shew by any means in my power,that
tbe statements made against me are inconclusive!
and, particularly, to avail myself of any circum
stance that is presented by the documents in the
case in which I was called on to testify, for the
purpose of invslidating those statements. A nd*
3dly. Directly to impeach the credibility of
those who have assailed mine.
defend my own, both of which he has found me
prompt to do, in cases that never yet have met tbe
public eye, yet I never have intentionally treated
htm with the slightest indecorum, or a want of
that respect that is due to 111? station (8.) Res*
pect for your honorable body would, of itself, in.
duce me to abstain from the language of passion,
or abusive vituperation before you. Respect for
myself would prevent me from using it any where
else. 1 cheerfully 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
public attention from themselves to others. I shall
nevertheless, freely urge, and insist on* such facta
as I know to be true, disclaiming, however, any
other construction of thehi than the most innocent
pf which they are susceptible. If I shall point out
palpable omissions ?md violations of duty, or
shew that letters, which ought to bave been com-
municated to the house, have been suppressed,
and that various misstatemente have been officially
made, I shall attribute them to nothing more than
forgetfulness, inattention* inadvertence, or some
erroneous,but innocent views of the subject.
This will be sufficient to shew that the negative
statements of Mr. Crawford, and “the officers em-
ployed iii the Treasury Department,” ought not
to prevail against my positive statement on oath.
If others should suppose this forbearance on my
pari a little too fastidious* and that thi 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
thejalronger In my favor.
With These preliminary remarks, I proceed to
my defence against this mal apropos statement of
Mr. Crawiord.
It v/ill be recollected, that I was not a volunteer
in giving my testimony before the committee,
and I can conceive of no motive which could be
mis-
inflii-
As to
ipnosed, by any but a most depraved mind,
d by its own wieked operations, to have i
enued me to make an uncandid statement. i.
my responsibility, in consequence of having ap
plied to Mr Crawford to cause certain depositee
o be made in the ILnk of Edwardsviile, in pre
ference to that of Missouri, surely I have shown
that enough'was known about the fatter bank, at
the tiu.Vmy testimony watt given> to havCfreei)
better grace than he relies upor
riety of his repeated but unpublished omissions, to
comply with the most positive legal injunctions as
an excuse for those omissions, which lie dots in
his letter of the 84tb February, 1823, to the Chair-
man of the Committee' ot Investigation, and in
which he also seems, almost* to Insist that his vio
lation of his duty was equivalent to a fulfilment
of it.
It could haVe been no objeot with me to have
established an additional suppression upon him:
For, if time do not fail me, it will be seen, before l
am done with this sublect, that I bad in my pos«es
sion proof, whose credibility could nat be ques
tionea, of his having suppressed, in a variety of
other instances, letters enough, of a much more
important character and delicate bearing, for any
purpose that the utmost malignity cuuldliavecon
template,!, at possible tr be effected by such
means. [9 }
The amount of my statement before the com
mittee, as well as I can now racollec) it, (not hav
ing it in my power to refer to it for examina
tion,) but which will be supplied at Washing
ton, is
1st. That, for the reasons therein mentioned, I
tmde a publication of mv intention to retire from
the “Directorship” of the Bank of Edwardsviile.
3d That l advised the receiver of public money
at that place, to withhold his deposites from the
bank* till he could receive further orders from the
Secretary of the Treasury.
3d. That the receiver did write to the Secre
tary on the subject, enclosing my publication, Etc.
4th. That the former afterward-, informed me
that he had received A LETTER from the latter,
directing him to continue the deposites.
Now, it ia not denied, and dare not be, that I
did make the publication alluded to, and this I
could not have done, for tile reasons that infiuenc
ed me, eotiftistcntly with the known friendship
and intimacy that then subsisted between the re
ceiver and myself, without giving him the advice
mentioned in the second part of the above state
ment. But* th^t I did give that advice, is much
more strongly corroborated by the fact, that the
receiver did actually withhold the deposites, and Mr.
Crawford knows it. This might be established by
the monthly returns of both the receiver and the
bank But these are in the possession of Mr
Crawfbrd. I, however* felicitate myself upon be
ing able to wtisly your honorable body of the fact
by documents that have been furnished by him-
self* but which, thank God, are now out of his
power.
By his report of the 27 h February, 1823, (8
volume State Papers, 2d sess. 17th Con. pages 31
33, and 35, j it will bqseen that the amount of de
posi'e stated to have been in the bank of Edwards
ville, to the credit of the Treasurer, was,
At the end of the 2d quarter of 1819 £45,560 6 r '
At the end of the 3d quarter of 1819 45,475 04
At the end of the 4th quarter of 1819 53,191 59
The.two first of these statements are presumed
to be correct, or nearly so 1'he latter is cntirelv
otherwise* as I will prove to your., satisfaction,If
there is any kind'of confidence to be reposed in
previous statements exhibited to you by Mr Craw-
ford. Had it been intended to disguise the fact of
the receiver's having withheld the deposites, as
above stated, and to give some semblance of plau
■Utility to the recent insinuations against myself,
nothing could havfc been more ingeniously or
more otsingeniOusly, contrived, for these purpo
ses, than this last B'att-m ;i.t. IF it had been truly
stated that, instead of £53,191 59, tbe real amt
in deposite, at the end of the fourth quarter, was
S 98,191 59J, the contrast between this sum and
e amount of the previous deposites, might have
afforded some corroboration to my statement be
fore tbe committee. But this, subsequent events
have proved, it was intended to question. I will,
however, make the case too plain for doubt.
By the report last referred to, it appears that
the amount of deposite in tbe bank of Edward,
ville, to the credit of the Treasurer, on the last
day of June and Sepiember, was a little upwards
of £45.000.
By Mr. Crawford’s previous report of the 27lli
April, 1822, (in which is an ingenious contrivance
of placing December before November,) it is
shown by the bank returns themseiveB, that, on
the 30th November, 1819, the amount of deposite
was £45,475 04J, and that, on the last day of the
uccei ding mon. h, (the end of the fourth quart ;r
of 1819,) it was £98,19159$, (10} and not £53.-
191 59, as.subsequently repot ted from tbe Trcasu
ry Department.
From tbe correspondence between the several
amounts of deposite in the banks, on tbe last day
of June, September and November, and the dif
ference between them and that ot the last day of
December, in tbe same year* no one can doubt
that the . receiver at Edwardsviile, did actually
yrithhold the deporiteo as above suggested; unless
it can be belieyed that he did, in one single month,
distinguished by no particular circumstances, re
ceived to tbe amount of £52,716 55,‘-equal to the
rate of £692,598 60 per annum
Let us, then, inquire a little into tbe probability
of his having written to Mr. Crawford, or rather,
into i he great improbability of his not having
done so
This gentleman united in himself the office of
receiver and president of the Bank of Edwards-
ville. As receiver, he had positive orders to make
his deposites in that bank, and was bound to make
monthly returns of bis accounts tp 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 t be secretary. Is it, then,'to be be
lieved, that he should have withheld tbe deposites
contrary to his orders, without having given <o
Mr. Crawford some reason, either as receiver, or
president, for his having done so i And, if he had
failed to perform this duty, is it credible that Mr
Crawford would-have been so negligent and inat
tentive to his duty, and ao regardless of the public
interest, as not to have called him to an account
for such conduct l
Biit, if further confirmation of the letter’s hav
ing been written, and received by Mr. Crawford,
too, were wanting, strong presumptions itrfavor of
both may be derived from the very guarded and
characteristic artifice by which he woulu seem
equally to deny the receipt of the letter, and that
any instructions had been givep to the receiver to
continue to mi.ke the deposites. Let it be obser
ved, that my statement, as quoted by Hr. Craw
ford, is, “ that the receiver informed me he had
received a LETTER from the Secretary, direct
ing him to continue the deposites.” Mr. Crawford
does not deny that such directions were given,
but he says, 'fit appears that no ANSWER to tuch
letter, directing the receiver to continue the de
po-ites, was ever written,” &c. From this pecu
liar manner of denial* I can but infer that, not be
ing willing, from some cause or other, to admit
the receipt of the letter, Mr. Crawford contrived i»
give the directions under some other form or pre
text than that 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. Craw*
ford did not wrile to him specially on tbe subject
of his having withheld the deposites, it can only
be satisfactorily accounted for on'the supposition,
that he (Mr Crawford) did, in some form or oth
er> give such directions as he supposed would
produce 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 doposites
in the Bank of Edwardsviile, was ordered
to inake hio elsewhere. But* under \vhat
pretext, T do rot know, nor do I recollect 1
ever to have heard; probably, however, u i
det* some one, equally calculated to disguise
tho real motive, as the giving of directions,
without acknowledging the Receipt of tin
letter that produced them.
It will not, I persuade myself, be consid
ered a trifling corroboration ot my atate
ment, that it was not made to the commit
tee for the first time ; but that, in a private
correspondence between Mr. Crawford and
myself, more than twelve months before my
examination by thft committee, I bad as
serted the same facts substantially to him
self.*
In my letter to him of the 9th February,
1823, (which I would not venture to refer
to, if I bad not his answer to it,) I say, “I
beg leave most respectfully to suggest,
that it would be but afi act of justice to me
to present tny publication of 1819, in which
I declared I would be no longer responsi*
ble for the bank (of Edwardsviile") in any
way whatever. This publication was con-
t'hia ia not the frst
!iavo had to regret that a letter
tm could not lie found, wh *
17 **
way
tained in the St Louis Enquirer, which I
believe you took at that time It was also
contained in a paper which I forwarded to
you myself. And it was enclosed, and rk-
Jerred io, in a letter from ■ Cl Stephen
ion, the President oj the Bank, [and the
Receiver aiso^ to you, which letter, he in*
formed me had been answered Since the
fall ol 1819, my connexion with that bank
has entirely ceased, except that I am a
stockholder in jt, wkhout, however, ever
having borrowed onb cent from it.”
In my letter to Mr, Crawford, of 14th
February, 1882,1, say to him, “I must,
however, say sir,* that, as the information
in the Treasury Department, relative to
my original recommendation of the Bank
ol Edwardsviile, has, tor some time past,
been distinctly understood, and treely used
at this place, [Washington) I can but con
aider it somewhat unfortunate for me, that
other bommUnicatiotis in the Department,
which ought to have terminated all respon
Mbility on my purl, have not hfcen equally
knovVn. Thai I was the cause of the de
posites being made there, it) the first in
stance, I freely acknowledge But, that I
unequivocally declared,! would not be res
ponsible for that, ot* any othet bank, in any
way whatever, after the fall of 1819 ; that
you were notified theretif in due time i
that the deposites have not been comimtfd
there, in consequence of my recommends
tion since that period $ and that' the hank
was then iri a good aituption,! may, I think,
according to my present impressions, fairly
insist upon And, if so, the partial infor
mation, now in circulation* at this place, is
not taluulated to do me that justice, which,
I hope, Ihaye a right to expect from your
magnanimity. It would, therefore, afford
me great pleasure, I assure you, sir, that
the whole of my conduct* in relation to that
business, should be so fully known as to be
no longer misunderstood.”
The first of these letters was written five
days before his repor} ol the 14th' Februa
ry, 1822.* The second bears the same date
of the latter. They must both, therefore,
have been written before any charge of sup*
pressions had been made or suggested.
Had the existence of the Receiver's let
ter.been denied, or the slightest intimation
of qucbtionitig 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
himself Bpt he is now dead^ Mr Craw-
ford knew this, before be made the report
in question*--and dead men cannot contra
dict living odes
No on6 can read the interrogatories that
were put to me, by the committee, and be
iieve that Mr. Crawford was not well in
formed of my testimony; before the date «f
his letter to the,chairman of the same com
mittee, which was ti days later than my
examination. From the nature of the in
quiries which he was then called upon to
answer, they afforded as suitable an occa
sion, as the one he has selected, tor ques
tioning my credibility. Why, then, has he
80.1ong postponed itr One thing is certain,
it never could have been undertaken with
greater hopes of success, than when it was
supposed J should have no opportunity of
defending mjrsfelf.
I will now submit to your honorable bo
dy a few remarks, to shew that the nega
tive statements of Mr . Crawford, and his
"officers of the Treasury Department,’’
however confidently relied upon by him for
my total overthrow, arc too inconclusive
for his purpoje#
You have been informed by him, that,
previous to the calls-for*hiq correspondence
with the local bank's, Which Were made the
depositories of public money, it had been
usual to refer all such calls td Mr., Jones,
his chief clerk, but, that, in these cases a
nother clerk had been selected to collect
the letters, &c. which were called for. Why
this change was made, at that particular
juncture, (being wholly unaccounted for by
Mi. Crawford,) is left to conjecture Was
Mr. Jones incompetent to the discharge of
this duty? The very station he holds in
the Department forbids such a supposition.
Had he proved himselFunworthey of confi
dence? If so, lie could nor have . retained
his station; and such is acknowledged to be
bis stern, unyielding, inflexible integrity,
that no one could have supposed him capa
ble of a subserviency in any unfair purpose.
I confess I regret that the change was made:
for, had it not been, I cannot resist the be
lief, that I should have been .spared much
of the labor of this vindication. But, with
out yielding to unavailing regrets, I must
be content to take things as I And them. I,
therefore, proceed to examine the testimo
ny that is offered against me.
This is substantially, 1st. That no such
letter from the Receiver [as that mention
ed in my examination'} is to be found in the
files of tlie Department. 2* That the offi
cers employed in it have no recollection of
the receipt of such a letter. And & That
uie records pf 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,
necessary for my defence
Finding myself grossly mUr .
tn relation to a letter I had writ,. 1 * 1
and beipg determined to vindicJl ’
igamav the insinuations that we« *
ted upon it> i wrotc t3 him J I
Mr. Jones states that,Writ 11
of his recdUestlon, he considered
description to go on the files, andV
sequently it was not filed, if jl; 1
tion is correct, it.accounts f or t i* 1
of the letter from the files, anrf •
lost or mislaid.”* M, lettSf
posed of, Mr. GraWford, in & 1,111
phedly repeated one of the
bove referred to. This W« .“Jy
pelled by me; and, since thwlhT 1
no m«re on that subject. 1 3,4
From this case alone, it migW
reasonable to presume that LL. .
disposition may have been maS.ll
tel now in question. But, with «»?
tive to make such an assertion, Mr
ford has not ventured to sav he did
ceive this letter. It will-not be did
sht-w that other letters, of Infin.tej. *
importance, have been received b*
about whlth, it might be truly
such letters are to he fouhd ih the '
the Depattraent.” He has aometira
other de. ository for them, ih whici
ter mentioned in my examination (
have been placed. It mdy hare l
dressed to him “without the addition!
cretary of the Treasury,” which »»
seen gravely insisted on as gi V j ne hi l
right to consider any letter as *», 1
paper,” though exclusively relatine* n
tets of official duty. Or hi'may
“fconsidetad it not ol a description to
the file8;”*hnd thusmsy “to absence „
the files,” or “Its being lost ot mislaid'
very naturally Accounted for, accordii
the /Hrefrices u,f the Department.
The pi'.mubility ol this eiippnsit
greatly stre; gthenetl by the follows
Between 1816 and "the 3l»< Dei
1819,he recei» ed important communit
on the subject of the illicit iniroductl
a large number of \frican slaves itr
United States, which strongly impli
one of his particular frtfcnds By a r
tion of the House of Representatives,
last mefiti'bied date, he was directed
bdftre the House copies of such com'
cations as.h« bad received since 18H
such-information as he possessed, in
tion to the iliii it imr >.laction of-hr
the United Sta es. * But, |notwhhsti
this positive call upon Him, I assert,!
challenge investigation, that he did wii
etierfc and information upon this it
implicating his friend, vihich ought t
been communicated to the House,andi
of which, he did not even permit “ to
the files of the Department.” Gfo
“ m.ght be very truly said of .them/
no such letters are to bo found oo
>fthe Department; and that thei
employed in it have no recollecting
receipt ol them *,”Jor, having been 4i
ted in his own private'bu'rdjii, those ol
could have no mfcana ot ascertiim.iti
fact, and the very motives fi t wtthh]
ihem from the files, would render In
all attempts to find “ answers'* to
“ by an examination of ihe iccoidi
Departm m.” 'nd yet. there isn.do
their huiing been received, and thesti
est pi’otribility that they were aria 1
also tf the authority of the Hou
Representatives was riot sufficient to
tneir production the ndn-productiinnolj
letter of the. Receiver at Edwardi
ought not to excite a moment’s surprii
- But, it also appears that he,and his
cers of the Treasury Department,"
not been able to fi'md a great numb
other letters, and even some ol his own ’ J
cial ones, when required by other ca/li]
the House;or,if they could have been foul
they were suppressed Of this,the
ments furnished by himself afford
bundant and conclusive prpoi. . Many
tances rriight be stated. For the 8a v
brevity,. I will allude to a few of them
Several cases of this kind are pref
by the correspondence w th the Bad
Huntsville. I will refer to but one oftM
This is to» conclusive, for any
elude it; and it requires but a harejimi
tion of the documents themselves “
convinced of it. ..
In his letter L. No.' 7, to the Prestoi
of the Bank of Huntsville, dated the
July, 1819, hd s»ys,.“ You w»H pr® &
bjr the contents of MY LETTER
THE 9th INSTANT, that the failure
the Nashville Bank,'rind its offices,
that time, known to this Department,
was then foreseen that the Bank of Hsi
ville could not fail to be injurausly
by that event,-and by others ofsitnib'
tore, which were then anticipated • _
** * * * The reasons stated in MV*'"
TER OF THE 9th INSTANT, in
of the prompt adoption, by the bank b
measpses necessary © the traitffe* c
public money in the possesion oi tne 1
beyond the nermanent deposite, remain
impaired.” ■, . a
This letter of the Oth July, WwM
referred to in letter jL No.
President of the Bank of Huntsville.
September, 1819 Fet this sariie L
OF THE 9th INSTANT, whose “ »
ancy to the subject matter of the m! 1
mits of no question,“ was not to be
on the files of the department,
purposely suppressed, for it has f
communicated. ’, . 3LJ
By an examination of-the doeutf ^
No. 66 and No. l»9, it will be seen (
more than half the correspondence .
Bahk of Missouri, y though .xal'ed j
resolution of the House, had been P..J
sed. 'Fhe importance and ver V..
import of a few of these “letters, wtlII &
ticed presently, m corinexion with
subject.
But, thohgh
case, either of
, yvero two calls t"
; rendered it,d* 11
m
m
Asm