Article Text
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA, FRIDAY, MAY 7, 1824. DDRESS OF NINIAN EDWARDS, such letters are to be found in the files of the sented to the House of Representativesby the Department." IIe has sometimes another deSpeaker, April 19, 1824. pository for them, in which the letter menCONCLUDED. tioned in my examination may also have been my letter to him of the 9th February, 1822 placed. It may have been addressed to him ch I would not venture to refer to, if 1 had without the addition of Secretary of the Treais answer to it,) I say, beg leave most which we have seen gravely insisted en cctfully to suggest, that it would be but an as giving hun a right to consider any letter of justice to present my publication of 1319, private paper,' though exclusively relating hich I declared I would be no longer resto matters of official duty. Or he may have ible for the bank of [Edwardsville] in any " considered not of a description to go on the whatever. This publication was confiles and thus may its absence from the ed in the St. Louis Enquirer, which I bcfiles," or its being lost or mislaid, be very nayou took at that time. It was also conturally accounted for, according to the practices of the Department. ed in a paper which I forwarded to you myAnd was enclosed, and referred to, in a The probability of this supposition is greatly from Col. Stephenson, the President of the strengthened by the following case lc, [and the Receiver also to you, which let. Between 1316 and the 31st December, 1819, e informed me, had been answered. Since he received important communications on the all of 1819, my connexion with that bank subject of the illicit introduction of a large entirely ceased. except that I am a stockber of American slaves into the United States, er in it, without, however, ever having borwhich strongly implicated one of his particular d one cent from it." friends. By a resolution of the House of Remy letter to Mr. Crawford, of 14th Februpresentatives, of the last mentioned date, he was 1822, I say to him, " I must, however, say, directed to lay before the House copies of such that as the information in the Treasury Decommunications as he had received since 1816, nent, relative to my original recommendaand such information as he possessed, in relation of the Bank of Edwardsville, has, for some to the illicit introduction of slaves into the Unipast, been distinctly understood, & freely ted States. But, notwithstanding this positive at this place, [Washington] I can but concall upon him, Eassert, and I challenge investiit somewhat unfortunate for me, that other gation, that he did withhold letters and informaunications in the Department, which ought tion upon this subject, implicating his friend. ve terminated all responsibility on my part, which ought to have been communicated to the not been equally known. That I was the louse, and some of which, he did not et en pere of the deposites being made there, in the mit to go on the files of the Department." Of instance I freely acknowledge. But, that conrse, it might be very truly said of them, equivocally declared, I would not be held that no such letters are to be found on the onsible for that or any other bank, in any files of the Department and that the officers whatever, after the fall of 1819 that you employed in it have no recollection of the renotified thereof in due time that the depoceipt them " for. having been deposited in have not been continued there, in consehis own private burean, those officers could Ice recommendation since that period; have no means of ascertaining the fact, and the that the bank was then in a good situation, 1 very motives for withholding their from the files I think, according to my present impreswould reuder fruitless all attempts to find fairly insist upon. And, if so, the partial swers" to them by an examination of the remation, now in circulation, at this place, is cords of the Department." And yet, there is alculated to do me that justice, which I no doubt of their living been received, and the I have a right to expect from your magstrongest probability that they were answered nity. It would, therefore, afford me great also. If the authority of the House of Repreure, I assure you, sir, that the whole of my sentatives was not sufficient obtain their prouct, in relation to that business, should be duction, the non-production of the letter of the lly known as to be no longer misunderReceiver at Edwardsville ought not to excite moment's surprize. e first of these letters was written five days But, it also appears that he, and his " officers e his report of the 14th February, 1822. of the Treasury Department,' have not been asecond bears the same date of the latter. ble to find a great number of other letters, and must both therefore, have been written evensome of his own official ones, when required e any charge of suppressions had been by other calls of the House; or, if they could or suggested. Of have been found, they were suppressed. d the existence of the Receiver's letter this, the documents furnished by himself afford denied, or the slighest intimation of quesbothabundant and conclusive proof. Many ing it, been given at the time it thus asstances might be stated. For the sake of brevid, I could, and would have proved every ty, I will allude few of them only. contained in my statement in regard to it, Several cases of this kind are presented by the at gentleman himself. But he is now dead correspondence with the Bank of Hurisville. Crawford knew this, before he made the I will refer tobut one of them. This is too conrt in question, dead men cannot CORclusive for any artifice to clude it and rect living ones. quires but a bare inspection of the documents b one can read the interrogatories that were themselves to be convinced of it. me, by the committee, and believe that In his letter L. No. 7, to the President of the Crawford was not well informed my tes Bank of Huntsville, dated the 30th July, 1819, by, before the date of his letter to the chairhe says, " You will perceive, by the contents of of the same committee, which was eleven MY LETTER OF THE 9th INSTANT, that later than my examination. From the the failure of the Nashville Bank, and its offire of the inquiries which he was then called cers, was, at that time, known to this Departto answer, they afforded suitable an OCment. It was then foreseen that the Bank of n, as the one he has selected, for questionHuntsville could not fail to be injuriously affecny credibility. Why, then, has he so long ted by that event, and by others of a similar naboned One thing is certain it never ture, which were then anticipated. I have been undertaken with greater hopes The reasons stated in MY LETTER ccess, than when it was supposed I should OF THE 9th INSTANT, in favor of the no opportunity ofdefending myself. prompt adoption, by the bank, of the measure will now submit to your honorable body a necessary to the transfer of the public money in remarks, to shew that the negative statethe possession of the bank, beyond the permats of Mr. Crawford, and his " officers of the nent deposite, remain unimpaired." sury Department," however confidently This letter of the 19th July, 1819, is also d upon by him for my total overthrow, are ferred to in letter L. No. 8, from the President onclusive for his purpose. of the Bank of Huntsville, dated September, bu have been informed by him, that, previ1819. Yet this same letter of the 9th instant, o the calls for his correspondence with the whose "relevancy to the subject matter of the banks, which were made the depositories call" admitsof no question, "was not to be found blic money, it had been usual to refer all on the files of the department," or it was purcalls to Mr. Jones, his chief clerk, but posely suppressed, for it has not been commuin these cases, another clerk had been senicated. d to collect the letters, &c. which were By an examination of the documents No. 66 d for. Why this change was made, at that and No. 119, it will be seen that more than cular juncture, (being wholly unaccounted half the correspondence with the Bank of Misy Mr. Crawford,) is left to conjecture. souri, though called for by a resolution of the Mr. Jones incompetent to the discharge of House, had been suppressed. The importance duty The very station he holds in the and very delicate import of a few of these letartment forbids such a supposition. Had he ters, will be noticed presently, in connexion ed himself unworthy of confidence? If so, with another subject. could not have retained his station and But, though there were two calls in this case, is acknowledged to be his stern, unyieldeither of which rendered it the duty of Mr. inflexible integrity, that no one could have Crawford to have transmitted all the corresosed him capable of a subserviency in any pondence; and though, in answering the second ir purpose. I confess I regnet that the call, be expressiy stated that he had transmitge was made ; for, had it not been, I canted "all the correspondence required by the reresist the belief, that I should have been solution, except two letters from the Receiver cd much of the labor of this vindication at St. Louis, which were of a confidential nawithout yielding to unavailing regrets, I ture," yet, your honorable body will find very t be content to take things as I find them. I, strong reasons to doubt the correctness of this efore, proceed to examine the testimony statement, and I shall be much surprized if the is offered against me. third call, with which he has so tardily comhis is substantially, 1st. That no such letplied, has been sufficient to draw from him all from the Receiver [as that mentioned in my the correspondence, even with the Bank of mination is to be found in the files of the DeMissouri. The emission of letters, addressed ment. 2. That the officers employed in it to the department, might be accounted for on 3 no recollection of the receipt of such a let the supposition that they might have miscarried. And 3. That the records of the DepartBut this a casualty to which the letters, or COt do not show that it was answered. pies of the letters, of the Secretary himself. supposing it to be true, that this letter canwhich should always remain in the department, be found "in the files of the Department, are not liable. They may, however, .someno means proves that it wasnot received by times disappear, as the letter of the Receiver Crawford. Edwardsville seems to have done. If not, il his not the first occasion on which I have a will be difficult to account for the absence of to regret that a letter by him could not be letter of the 30th July, 1819, which is presumd, when it became necessary for my deed to have been addressed by Mr. Crawford to ce. the Bank of Missouri, upon the authority of a inding myselfgrossly misrepresented in rereport of a committee of the Legislature of Mis on to a letter 1 had written to him, and besouri, at its session in 1822. determined to vindicate myself against the This was a committee appointed to examine nuationth were predicated upon it I wrote into the concerns of the Bank of Missouri in on the 5th Jan. 1821, requesting a CO. Mr. Crawford's letters to that Bank were subof it. In his reply, dated 10th January 1821, mitted to the inspection of the committee, and lays, " The letter which you have described the report. which T have the honor herewith to ours of the 5th inst. has been sought for in transmit, (11) contains extracts from several of Mr. Jones states that, according to the them, among which is one from his letter of 30th of his recollection, he considered it not of a July, 1819, of which enough appears to prove cription to go on the files, and that consethat it was embraced by the call, and ought to ntly it was not filed. If his recollection is have been communicated unless. indeed, it is rect, it accounts for the absence of the letter fabrication by the committee, for which no ima n the files, and it being lost or mislaid. My ginable motive can be perceived. er being thus disposed of, Mr. Crawford, in I have not time to dwell upon several curianswer, impliedly repeated one of the insinuous particulars that are disclosed by this report. ins above referred to. This was promptly beg leave, however, to refer, your honorable ed by and since then, have heard no
