Newspaper Page Text
*
148 .Vnl xxn
rnuBsmr Krtotim, jutr s, iss*
Whole Tfo 446s
Testimony and Documents,
I Accompanying tit* Report of the Special C >m
miitee of the House of Representatives on
THK MBMOBIAI. OF NINIAN EDWARDS
[coxtihoed]
IThomas F. Riddiclc. sworn, at the request
of Mr. Edwards
The Dank of Missouri had a capital of
two huudted anil fifty thousand dollars, of
which sum 840,000 was placed in an of
£ce of discount and depusite ar St. Gen*
neve, which said office was entirely under
jthe control of the principal Dank, in all
respects; the cashier and all the directors
and officers were appointed by the mother
Sunk, end removed at pleasure* Their
fnnal .iperatioityve-* aUu directed by
he principal bank, at St. Louis. The of-
ice at St. Genevieve loaned money on
pfsoual security,| but never on pledge of
Block* Stockholders residing at St. Gene*
ie»e pledged their stock at St. Louis, if
hey wished to borrow on that security; not
nore than 80 per cent, waa allowed on
luch p* 'dge. which was considered only
is collateral security. These loans were
^1 ways considered safe, and better than any
hersonal security. 1 believe that the stock
as never fallen below 80 per cent.
A large amount of public moneys had
kccumuiated in bank prior to the 9th Au*
(us», 1819, but it consisted, for the most
H in notes of the various banks of the
tat, which had been received by the
and offi d» and could <ot be used by the
Treasury dischaige of debts due by the
ivernment. TheBunk«>fMi«i80UN,atit8
expense a»d risk, (and fo» which they
iv* not as yet been allowed any compen-
itinn,) converted those funds to a large
amount, say 8600,000. itM^uch funds aa
vould pay the Treasurer’s drafts at 8t.
jouls. But the government having no
occasion to disbui **’ any Considerable tt>
nnunt at St. Louis, (as the bank were in
i roed,) made a proposition to the. bank
i transfer its funds to the Bunk of the U.
j5ta.es, and certain of its blanches;and, as
i omuensa on for thiu sei vice, agreed that
(150,000 should remain in bank as a per*
Salient deposite, but which might, never-
lieless, be drawn on when disbursements
nu Id be made at St Louis; agreeing, ala a,
list further compensation should be madp
Fthe deposite, should not bo found ade-
[uute for the service proposed to.be render.
This waa accepted in part on the 9th
lugust. 1819, sod a sum, amounting to
ear 8450.000, before and af'er that time
vas paid to the Bank of the 17. States and
(ranches, nr funds worth 4 tier cent, pre
nium to the bank. The premanent depoi
Itb waa frequently drawn on, and reduced
m. I'nount considerably below $150,-
'’he bank has been allowed no coiii-
sensation as yet for this service beyond
yhat the uncertain benefit of this deposite
light have been worth to them, which, un
er circumstances, ought to be estimated
; a ve<y small sum. Moreover, the Bank
bf Missouri had *o eucoun'er the hostility
bf nearly all the institutions of the Wrat
pom whom the bank of Mia-nuri had to
hake demand for specie funds, or such
(her funds as would satisfy the Treasu*
er’s drafts; and also from gentlemen con.
hected with those banks. This fact will
be seen by a reference to the printed cor*
fespondence with banks. Se>' letters from
President of the Bank of Kentucky to
be Secretary of the Treasuiy, May 25'h.
[819; September 29,1819; tetter from hon.
II. Crawford to President of the Bank
bf Kentucky, July SO,1819; also, letters
root i. .i Ninian Edwards as Senator of
i U. States, May lOlh and 12th, 1819,
greeted to Thomas F. Riddick, one of the
directors of the Bunk of Missouri, which
aid letters last named are filed with the
Committee of Ways and Mea.,s, in support
bf a petition presented by Thomas F. Hid*
lick, as agent for the bank.
It will, also, be seen, by a reference to
ie several agreements made by the Bunk
vith the Treasury Department, and the
general correspondence; also, the original
eriificates of deposite, that the Bank ot
Missouri never become bound, until the
9th of August, 1819, to pay over to the
Treasury any other or better funds than
such as they should receive from the land
offices not having it in their power, before
Che said 9th of August, to direct what kind
of paper should be received inpayment for
lands: this was, before that date, regulated,
by a list furnished the different Receivers,
|by the Treasury Department, and, whether
at par or uot, war received from them by
the Bank of Missouri, and certificates of
[deposite, issued by the Cashier, stating the
amount received in par funds, and the a*
I mount received in such' paper as had been
authorized by the Treasury Department.
Tue Bank, tner$forej cjearly had a' .‘right
I to pay over such funds as was received by
tltein; and the government,' in common
justice, is bound to make compensation foi
the.risk and loss incurred by the Bank, in-
converting those funds into such othpr
funds as could bo used by the Treasury, in
payment of demands against them.
whenevei these fair demands of the
bank shpil be liquidated and settled, the
amount that will be then found due the U.
otatoa will be much lessened, and the a*
* M nt that has been transferred by the
bank ample, and greatly m ire than s-iffi
cient to satisfy every cent justly due by the
bank to the United States. The amount
that now stands charged on'the books of
the Treasury, is the nominal amount «.f all
the moneys of every description paid inti
bank by tne land offices, without any de
duction having been mode for services ren
dared, and for risk and loss in exchange.
It will also be seen, by reference to the
reports oi the bank, and the report of (in
committee of Ihe Missouri Legislature,that
the Bank oi Missouri did at ail times con*
efoci its operations with great care and
circumspection, hever having an average
discount including notes on pledges of
stock (with the exception ot the deposite
of 8150,000,greater than the capital stock,
and never ftavi;>£ its paper signed fin ci>*
culation to a greater amount than 8204,-
938 29, of which suit!,- (if the books of t e
bank were within my leuch,) 1 am aatistied
it wotild oe found that the average amount
in circulation, from the completion df the
payment of the capital stock, to the day of
suspension, did not exceed 880,000; *he
S reatest amount that appears ever to have
een in circulation, was 8153.899 50; of
which sum 825,000, or near that amount,
was specially deposited in the Branch
Bank of the U. States at Lexington, and
belonged to the Bank of Missouri; at the
rime the bank suspended payment, only
886.000, or thereabouts, was in circula.
tion.
The suspension, in August, 1821. cannot,
therefore,be attributed eithe- to excessive
I «anv, or to an excessive issue of the paper
of the bank; but to the general situation of
the western country, whirh rendered it
impossible for ti e hank tn collect from i’*
debtors, with sufficient promptness, in
meet the demand* for specie, created by
the pressure that existed at that time,
and to the circumstance of this bank
being almost the only one who continued
to pay specie on demand in the Western
country.
q bv Mr Conk Were you President
of ii-< B». k of Missouri in 1821 ?
A I was. i ;
q. i»y same. Do you believe that dm ac
count and monthly returns made by that
bank were correct, just, and *rue?
A. I believe they were and that tne state
ment made by myself, and forwarded to
Mr. Crawford, under date of 30th June,
1821 was also just and'toe.
q F< om what Land f >ffire were the lar
gest deposites mad*- io the BanknfMissou
ri,between the 1st of July, .1818, and 9th
Angus', 1819?
A. F inn the Land Office at Franklin.
Q When did Gen. hmith make his first
deposite?
. A I believe on the 7th December, 1818.
<2 How much larger do you suppose
tlioe deoosites were than those from any
other offii ■ ?
A Something more than twice the a
in. urit fom *he office at St ' Louis.
q Wh j t was the amount of tien. Smith’s
deposited between the aforesaid peri its ?
A. 1 believe they amounted to 4uG 966
dollars 76 cents; toisl take from a inemor
.inilum in my possession.
q. Were any of the dotes received from
him refused to'be received as cash, and
were they specially entered ? If so, state
the circumstances, and whether General
Smith was apprised thereof.
A. Gen. Smith very seldom made his
depositee in person. Hih office being near
2Q0 miles from the bank they were gener
ally placed in bank by *omr person in
whom the General hud confidence, travel
ling to St. Loui9 or to the Eastward, or by
s trading un the Missouri river. ( d-
not remembei that the bank ever had any
difficulty with Gen. Smith or any other
person, about his depositee, i believe they
were always made in the same funds which
he received for lauds, and certificates wen-
issued to him by the Cashier, stating the
kind of funds deposited, which certificate*
were,, no doubt, forwarded by him to the
Treasury Department, as vouchers.
q What amount of internal taxes were
de United, much or little ?
A I do not remember of any depositeB
being made of that description.
Q by M i Foi sy th. When were the de
posiies of the Tennessee paper made by
the Bank of Missouri, at Louisville?
A. I believe in May 1820, having pro
missed Mr Crawford to have it forwarded
as soon as I arrived at St. Louis, which
was done by a special agent. * I was after
wards infowned that the agent of the Nash
ville Bank received the amount of the
Nashville Bank paper but that the agent
of the.Tennessee Bank bad left Louisville
a short tune before the arrival of th* spe
cial agent of the Missouri Bank at Louis
ville, and deposited it iu the Branch Bank
of the United States. ...
Thomas F. Riddick 6ta»es, that, while a
Director of the bank, .he had access, at all
titries: to the books and papers of the bunk
being nominated by-the President to act in
hisplace protem, when 'he - Was absent at
his farm; or was holding Indian treaties, or
otherwise uflable to attend ;'that he coun
ted the Tennessee and other paper trans
ferrud to the Treasury, before the proppsi
tion of the 9th August 1819. was made, and
that he took with him, wlwo h? left St.
Louis for Washington city, in Dee. 1819,
a considerable part of the" funds intended
to be transferred and made a depusite at
Chillicothe, and in the Branch Bank of the
Uni ed States, at Washington, which de
pontes made a part of the charge against
him as agent of the bank, as contained in
the monthly returns made to the Treasury
ill the months of January anil Febuary, 18
20. Also, that what I have stated before
the committee of my own knowledge is
true and what 1 have stated as matter of
opi. on. I believe to be true.
q oy Mr Cook. Wiren you discounted
bores for individuals, in what kind of mo
ney did you advance the amount of such
notes? ’
A. Those discounts Were Usually left in
deposite, and drawn forin small sums at
different limes, They were then paid,
generally, in notes of the Bank of Missouri,
or in such othef funds as. the bank had at
the time, or as the party demanded.
q. Did not the amount of discounts by
the Bank of Missouri always very greatly
exceed the amount of its notes, in circula
tion?
A. It is my impression that it always
greatly exc eded that amount.
q. Did not so much of the money ad-
vunivd for discounts,as exceeded Ihe a
mount of the banks own paper, consist, o r
moneys deposited ini 1 by the government?
A It consisted in pa>t of such moneys,
but not wholly, because rome part id those
money > were in notes that the batik could
lint u e.
q Did the bank ever refuse to receive
divo&ites uiadp by Gen. emith. as cash ?
A. So much ol ihe deposite as was in
cash was received as cash; so much of it
as consisted of bills was receipted for as
such; but the whole amount waa credited
logether, without distinction.
q. Did you, in receiving deposites from
the Land Offices, ever keep a separate ac
court ot paper and uf cast,?
A. A memorandum of the sort of funds
received was kept by the Cashier; but it
did not go into the books of the bank.-*-*
But. in p ivate accounts with individuals,
a separate account was. in some instances,
kep; for cash and for notes, by inserting tn
ihe ledger, opposite lo the sums paid, the
words *‘ca- h,” or 'foreign notes,” as the
case might be. , Whei- d<.‘po»ite« were
made on account of the UniieJ States, a
certificate was issued by the Cashier, stat
ing whether the deposite had been made
r ish. or io such notes as the Land Ufficet
weredirected to receive.
$ Was ->ut the principal part of the
lurid deposited by government in the Bank
of Missouri, transferred to the Bianch
Badk of the United States, at Luuisviile,
and to other bunks in Kentucky?
A. There was no transfer made to any
ot'-er bank in Kentucky, but Ihe bank at
Louisville. The transfers made by the
bank will appear in the cominuoiration of
lit* 'Treasurer No. 2, dated March 1st
1823.
q. Were not the funds which you say
were worth four per cent premium, and paid
over by the bank to government, derived
f"om the government deposite* ?
A. Some part of them might have been;
ihe greater part was by tne purchase of
bills on the government, sent to the Bank
of the United Slates, at Philadelphia, and
to the Branch Bank of the United States at
Washington city, for collection on the part
of the bank.
q Were not these bills paid for in the
d« that had been.deposited in the bank
by the government?
A. They were paid for out of the gener
al foods of the bank
q Did such general fund embrace the
public depnsites?
A There was no distinct account kept
between the public fund and the general
fund of the bank.
q Was any premium paid by the bank
on those government bills in their pur*
rhasr ? and if so, on how many, and to
what amoum ?
A. A premium was frequently paid by
the bauk upon such purchase. I cannot
say, without a referrence to the books of
the bank, to what amount. A premium
of two per cent, has in some cases been
paid, but it varied from par to one and
a half and two per cent. When the*
bank sold their own bills on the Bank
of the United States, it, sold them at
four per cent, premium.
Q. By what means did the Bank of Mis
souri acquit e funds in the Bunk of the U
States, on which it could draw bills?
A By collections madeJn the Bank of
the 0. States for and on account of the
Bank of Missouri, and perhaps in some in
stances, by deposites mide there by indt»|
viduals to the credit of t|ie Bank of Missou
'Q: AFliat ideec«pti«n jof debts were they
which were collected by the Bank of the U.
States for the Bank of Missouri. /
, A, A, part of them were bills drawn by
individuals, and a part of them were hills
drawn Sy persons authorized to draw on
the Secretary of the Treasury ftv the ex
p«nditure of public moneys. Much the
S reaver pact, I bplieve, however, were bills
rawn by individuals.
Q. You stated that the government funds
'in the Bank uf Missouri, at the time it sus*
pended* cash payments, consisted of bill*
which could not be converted into cash, or _ . ,
HUdfaiiBpenaion would not have happened Vl’A
I wish you now to state what amount »fjt>ou, do do
bills deposited on account of ihe govern* !$tl> P h ' ( io
j ment was io the Bank of Missouri at the 2 H \n*». i M i,
time the suspension uf cash payments took
place.
A. I was not correctly understood, if it
was imposed that I said- that the govern
ment funds in bank at the time of Hie ana*
pension consisted ur bills. Although o
credit then stood »n the books of the bank t
the U. States, the money 'corresponding
with that credit was ftot actually ip the bank
The amount due the government, as nppe.tr*
vl un the buuks of the bank, wus vety neat
the amount allowed.as a permanent depft»*
itt, which was payable six muntha after tin-
bank ceased to be employed as an office of
public deposite.
Q. What sum did then, remain in bank,
of bills which had been entered to the cred
it of the U. States?
A. A very small amount perhaps about
five thousand dollars.
Q. When the arangemeht was made with
ihf 'B ink of Missouri, under which it wfis
to retain a permanent deposite, what was smr „
the amount first understood it should so re- 1
lain?
A. One hundred and fifty thnusmd dol
lars. '
Q. Was there not an arrangement made
with the Secretory of the Treasury by let;
(era of August and Sept. 1819, by which the
same moneys were to have been received
by the government, or a considerable por-
turn of them, as were received under the
.subsequent arrangement of March, 1820?
And did not the bunk fail to comply with
Hie first arrangement alluded to?
df.-The letter of the bank of the 9th of
Aug. 1819, and the arrangement made by
tne, It- March 1820, will answer that ques
tion. Whatever paper, under the first arr
• angement, waa not transferred, the bank,
of course, was accountable for, in cash.
Q. Was notapartoftliesime paper which
was to have been transferred under the first
arrsngeinsnt, aftei wards received under the
second, in a depreciated state?
A. No. I be.ieve that all the paper trans
ferred to the government «»me
vaioewr ine tune uf the trao»fer r 08 ( it was
at the time it was agreed to be transferred
by the letter of the 9th of August.
Q. was not a con'iideiable part oHhe pa
per transferred under the arrangement con
tain* d in the letter nf the 20th of March,
1820, greatly below par?
A. It was.
Q. VVnat amount of it, as nearly as you
can recollect, was below par?
A Something more than one hundred
IhnuHond dolfa>4.
Q. Did Un- Bunk of Missouri ever recei
vc a - answer fr«m the Semeiuiy of the
Treasuiy, to 'lie following clause io a idle
signed by Aug. -Chouteau, President, and
dated 9ih A"„'U«M8l9 vtz; •
• "As to the Bunk of E Iwa'dsville, the on
ly one near us. we cannot give it our ennfi.
•fence. Their paper is received with dis-
truct.eveiiio their own neighborhood, and
passed from bund to hand a* soon ns possi
ble. Owing to the intimate contn-cliiu-
which it had with the Bunk of S'. Louis,
which cannot pay its debts, and has entif ely
discontinued business* the ca* it.al stock of
'hat bank has been taken fur the most part,
and is now owned by ft"? or six itidi* iuid*.
sotneof them livit gout of the state, ami the
direction secured to such persons as they
may choose to appoint. 'There are othei
objections, which wu fotbeat- tn mention.”
A. 1 never saw any answer te this clause
and believe that none was ever received bi
this bank.
Q. Was the opinion here expressed by
the Bank of Misiouri, concerning the Bans
•<»f Kdwardsvtlle, continued to be entertain
ed by the former, for any length nf tim
ifter the date of that letter; and how long ?
A. Icannotpositivel.ysay.as ioany othe
person but my self; but impressions wen-
changed after I understood, from common
report, that the Bank of EdwardsviHc had
determined to forfeit the stock of those
persons who should not pay the requisition*'
of the batik. 1 understood that Genera 1
Puynj, uf Kentucky,and others, were stoct
holders to a larje amoun’, and believed
that they would fail to pay for thS stock
subscribed, if demanded in ensh. Thi-.,
I think, was mj impression at the timr.
but it was derived merely fom report then
prevailing.-
TIIOS. F. RIDDICK.
EXHIBIT of the Amount, S^c. deposited io-tlie
U ink of Missouri, by the Receivers of tin-
Land Offices at Kaskaskia, Frank'in, *t. fc.-u
is, ami F.dwardsville, as contained in twenty
■ six certificates of depusite, enclosed in a com-
mumcaiioo ftom the Secretary of tits Treatii
ry, of tne 8th June, 1324,. to the C >nirnitte<
Appointed on the Address of N. Edwards
Land Offices, and
date oftiie Cer
tificates vfDe*
> posite. v
Ktulcatkiii.
4th Sept 1818
3d Oct. 1818
23A Nov. 18J3
1 § - ■
Deposited ill
Hie botes
ak> batiks
designated
by the Se*
i Cretary of
the Trea
sury.
830,243
' 9,8i»r
WJ
Dept.-si ted in
siic'-ie, in
tf Siutcs
Bank notes
ft i-t no'rs
of Bank of
Mission 1
1st Dec 18t8
<th l-’eb 1819
Frank 'in
tlo
'?4'h do do
’4th do do
9th Np-ildo
'5H- Mn<’,do
19i!i .lunfc,do
33U tlo do
<Vr Iwult.
5HI Oct. 1818
3tt$ov. do
2d Dec. do
tHih do do
I'll P u b 181^
jJ5<ji do do
30Hl March,d.-)
"Oth- April, do
tthi-dr'Jn’ille.
6lli Sept 1818
20th Oct. do
6.1.19
Ffit 00.
8,129
3,611 Oft
50,448
1R.322
7,078 87
5,'4.5 62
2,776
T9
23.476
1,775 19
-- 14 253
86
73.924
27.078 09
37, >35
20,8m- 09
16.667
2091*4
4 ,854
28,734 30
16.670
44 553-02
2,).8o 19
23,515
3.309 04
10.225
1,775 00
7.802
199 09
15,500
328 43
9.8>5
33.916
8J0 09
23 454
1.415 09
4U,3f ! 4
5,758 59
7,(*80
1,135 09
4.000
8553,490
138,503 29
James L. Anthony, stoorn, at the -request
*>f Mr Edwards.
I am clerk it\ the ofii c of the Secretary
of tlijs Treasury. I first head >of Mr Stg-
phen-on’s alleged letter to the Department
since Mi Edwards’s memmial waa presen*
ted to Congress. 1 have at all times freO
access to the room in which the B nk let-
teisare kept, and have hud occasionally to
io go there to consult tin sc letteis with r<*
spect It; deposites by individuals, in pay*
ment of.drbts to the goverumenti 1 was
not consulted, previously to the Report
made by the Treasury to’C,ingress on thd
rubject of its conresno'idence with tho
banks, as to. toy knowledge of the receipt
• f the allcg; d letter fr.itii Mr -Stephenson*
I have not heatd that that letter has been
found in the Department, since Mr Ed*
wards’s memorial was presented, nor huvo
! ever heard from any person in the Dc-
parmentr or in any way connected with it #
or from any other person, that such o let*
tci ever was there, or tile Treasury had. at
any time, seen it.
J L.. ANTHONY.
John Forsyth, of the Hours of Repre*tn»
tutivvs. sworn, at the request * of Mr Ad*
wards.
I fi st heard'of me alleged letter nf Me
» - |, .nn-niff li'MtsmjrantT-ih- ._.a-
warth’s memorial was presented to C n*
gress. A day or two after Mr. Crawford’S
report c une into CongreJfA 1 read that re*
|Hirt. but had no cutivcrsatipn with any
person respecting Mr S eph.*nson's letter
until aflerwatdv. 1 never have heard from
the Secretary of the Treasury, from any
person connected with the Treasury De*
partment.Di from any member olCoogi-ess*
that such a letter has been found." I was
shewn by a pu*mber of the li<>use of Re
presentatives a Iciter tiom a gentleman
hi Richmond, in which the writer stated
ih .t n paSsrn cr on board the steam b >at
from AVu-hington down the river, bad
said fr-st Mr Conki a menlpfer. of. Con*
g>v6S fiom litinnis, hud M Crawfonl’s
answer to the tetter of Mr Stephenson
early to produce, on which I called up
on the Secretary of tho Treastuy and
mentioned, to him vvha' I hud braid— Ho
ietl - i was possible, but it scarcely
could be so ” .
JOHN FORSY TH.
S4.?"6 M
2.fi9it 8
fi.010 45
Jonathan Jennings, of the House of Rep-
resentaiivel, swo n ut the request of Mr,
Edwards.
question hy Mr Cook In the report
n- tie by Hie S- cteta-y ol the Treasury to
Congress, I4t!i Feb. 1822, he’states that
••for the public money on deposite in tha
B tnk of Yiiicenne-s at the time of its fai
lure, collateral security ha- been ohmim-d**
I wi-hyou t<> state your knowledge of tha
qature of.thkt security ,
Answer. Tl'e collateral security con-
Oomiisti-d of assignments nf certain bonds
given to the Bunk of Vincennes, it belt - If
f the Slate of Indiana, ami a note »f.n Mr
Bint’ and his endixsers, as also, a transfer
in tru.-t It the use of ihe U S'ates, of cer
tain real properly. The value i f the col
lateral security, when given, I should haya
.-btunaictl, privitleJ llifpri* h;-ti'bcen no sob*
staotial objections to thcchiiracter ond cir*
cumsthnees '.ttnlcr which the assignmenta
and transfer were mail'*, as being worth a
sum no* tnexcecd gSO.CO!'; Hie greater parQ
of wliicli, howevei, since the assigumenta
and transfer, owing to v;iri/»u« causes, has
become untivaiiable to the U. States, and*
in my opinion, the reddue will not yield
mme ‘hat<-&‘2(>,R00-
Q Do y iu know i f ahy steps taken
since the arrang nienl of 1824, to get se
curity fur tin* ili b ?
A. I know of unne, except whlit was
obtainnl through G»'n. Nuhle tfl B o-fk*
ville, Indiana, ibcihe yea - t822; i>f tho
value of when I am ouarqu lintnl.
question by M'-Fioi/d. ii>d vmt any a-
ger.i'y in prodoriiig'.the Bank ot Vindte
nes in h.- made a dopositury of publiqt
moneys?
Altpsert Among others, l recommend
ed that measure, 'j'ue Bank then appear
ed, from its quarterly ret unis, submi'teA
to me as .Governor bf the HiaU-, ‘ to ba
entirely solvent. Tiaigc returns centoia-
ed'only ibegenera) acroui ts o| the liaokf
•\ar as t^ir-institution nqoirt-d, by at.y
proviso;! of it-s ditu tcr, (Q Bnhmit- afiy