4803. Bank of Edwardsville (Edwardsville, IL)

Bank Information

Episode Type
Run → Suspension → Unsure
Bank Type
state
Start Date
June 1, 1819
Location
Edwardsville, Illinois (38.811, -89.953)

Metadata

Model
gpt-5-mini
Short Digest
91dac5bb

Response Measures

Accommodated withdrawals, Full suspension, Books examined

Other: Primary sources indicate a run in 1819 with specie payments made; later the bank 'stopped payment' (~1820) after disputes about public deposits with the Treasury. Unclear from provided articles whether the stoppage was a permanent failure with a receiver assigned; hence episode_type chosen as run_suspension_unsure in notes below.

Description

Newspapers describe an 1819 run driven by attacks/accusations in the St. Louis Enquirer (rumors/mistrust). The bank redeemed large amounts in June 1819 without refusing specie. Later material (1824 commentary) states the bank stopped payment about two years after 1819 (i.e., ~1821), consistent with a suspension. I found no clear documentary evidence in these articles that the bank permanently closed or reopened, so I classify as run -> suspension but final outcome unsure. Corrected OCR ambiguities when extracting dates (run described in June 1819; suspension referenced as two years after 1819 → 1821).

Events (2)
1. June 1, 1819 Run
Cause
Rumor Or Misinformation
Cause Details
Repeated public attacks in the St. Louis Enquirer and related publications stirred distrust and produced heavy withdrawals in mid‑1819.
Measures
Bank redeemed over $23,000 of its own paper and paid specie; invited gentlemen to examine vaults and counts to demonstrate solvency.
Newspaper Excerpt
His attacks ... have had the effect of producing a run upon the bank, which has caused it to redeem upwards of $23,000 of its own paper without embarrassment or refusal to pay specie for one moment.
Source
newspapers
2. January 1, 1821* Suspension
Cause
Government Action
Cause Details
Controversy over public deposits and Treasury actions (withdrawal/transfer of public deposits and related official communications) appears to have contributed to the bank's later stoppage of payments circa 1821.
Newspaper Excerpt
The fact is, that it was not until two years after the letter of the president of the bank of Missouri, referred to, that the Edwardsville bank stopped payment.
Source
newspapers

Newspaper Articles (13)
1. June 5, 1819 Edwardsville Spectator Edwardsville, IL
Article from Edwardsville Spectator, June 5, 1819

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

COMMUNICATION. The editor of the St. Louis Enquirer, seeming determined to destroy the Bank of Edwardsville, probably because he has predicted much against it, has, in some measure, varied the form of his attack in the last number of that paper. Heretofore he has endeavored to excite a general distrust of the capacity of the bank to redeem its notes with specie, by trying to make the impression that it had no specie beyond, what was reported to the legislature in February last; and, with every appearance of triumph, he gave regular notice of draughts upon it for specie, which he evidently supposed would soon exhaust the $13,000," upon which he laid such stress. His attacks, with co-operation from other quarters, have had the effect of producing a run upon the bank, which has caused it to redeem upwards of $23,000 of its own paper without embarrassment or refusal to pay specie for one moment. Finding himself disappointed in his anticipations and predictions, he seems incredulous of the statement made in the Spectator of last week, showing that the bank, notwithstanding all the runs that had been made upon it still had in its vaults, in gold and silver, $18,517 56. It is presumed, however, that the editor of the Enquirer would not be disposed to question the veracity of so respectable a gentleman as his neighbor, ROBERT WASH, Esq. who, with other gentlemen, was invited to examine the bank on the 1st instant, and particularly to count the notes redeemed, and the gold and silver on hand-all of whom can satisfactorily-testify to a statement, more favorable, than that which was published in the Spectator, and which is as follows :-

2. May 7, 1824 Constitutional Whig Richmond, VA
Article from Constitutional Whig, May 7, 1824

Click image to open full size in new tab

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

3. May 14, 1824 The Virginian Lynchburg, VA
Article from The Virginian, May 14, 1824

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

September and he the difference between them in ember, and of the last day of December, that the nd that year, no one can doubt actually he same at Edwardsville suggested, Receiver withhold the deposites above in one 1 call be believed that he did, parti intess month distinguished by no circumstances receive to of i ular 50, equal to the rate ingle 852,716 the amount 8092, 98 annum, 60 per then inquire a little into Mr. the Craw pro Let us. of his having written, to improbabil liability ord, of, rather. into the great lly This of his gentleman not having united done in 80. himself the the Bank of Receiver and Preisdent of he had ice if Edwardsville. of As Receiver, orders to make his make to deposits Se positive that bank, and was bound to the 0 returns of his accounts of the Treasury As cretary to have monthly returns of monthly his duty President, amount of it was of the bank, and the trans he state deposites therein, registrally to be be public the Secretary Isit, then, withheld the mitted 10 that he should have without leved, contrary to his orders, some reason, deposites givento Mr. Craw ford for his having Receiver, or President, failed to either as done so? And, if he had that having this daty, is it credible negligent Mr. & perform would have been 419 regardless of inattentive Drawford to hisduty, and so have called interest, as not to ? be all account for such public conduct of the HIM 10 if further confirmation received But, having been written and strong in favor of letter's by Mr. Crawford too, were both wanting, may be de presumptions from the very guarded would and seem character & otic lived artificial to deny by the which receipt he of the letter, to the daily instructi 115 had been given deposites not any continue make the statement as Receiver 10 observed, that my the Re Let it be by Mr. Crawford, is had that received quoted informed me he directing him it deiver atter from the Secretary, Mr. Crawford continue the deposites." such directions were does not deny he that says, it appears, that Recei- no given, but to such letter, direction the WITH ever answer continue the deposites inner ver to See. From the peculiar not in being written, can but infer that, to admit of denial, from some cause or other, Mr. rawford willing, receipt of the letter, under the to give the directions of a direct contrired beingform or protext But that than such that directions I have Answer to I it cannot doubt. though but weregiven, to rely upon for this the fact. opinion If Mr. nothing Receiver's word for specially the the did not write to him the de on rawford of hishaving withheld factority position it for can 00 the supportion or other counted subject did, only in be some form that would at the Give Mr. such Crawford direction as he supposed produce was fact proper in confirmation corrective. Receivers. of my state Another of the two deposite ment, is that directed one to make their was undered had been Bank of Edwardsville, mader what in the elsewhere. But recollect to make I his do not know, not do I however pretext have heard ; probably, calculated to dis guise under ever to someone equally all the giving nons, the without real motive, arknowledge produced them. the receipt direc const of e will letter not, that I persuade myself, of my be state 11 it trilling cortoboration to the commit dered not made private tee ment. for that the it first was time; between but Mr. that, lawford in a and correspondence more than twelve months before I had my myself asserted examination the game by the facts committee, substantially to himself. do my which letter to would him not of the venture 9th its) February I say. to reft .. 10, leave most to me to I 1822 beg if had not respectfully his aut answer of justice to to suggest which that it would be but an of 1819, in present my would publication be no longer responsible way declared for the bank I of Edit mid-ville] in contained any This publication which I believe in whatever. the St. Louis Enquirer time. 11 was also contained took in a at paper that which enclosed I forwarded and referred to you And was Stephenson, the Pre myself in a letter from Col. the Receiver also sident 10, of the Bank, letter, [and he informed me, have my answered. to you. which Since the fill has of 1819. entirely been with that bank stockholder " however, commexion ceased. opt that an ever a having borrow

4. June 1, 1824 Edwardsville Spectator Edwardsville, IL
Article from Edwardsville Spectator, June 1, 1824

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

be turns of LI de osites therein, Is then the to depomitted of public to the he Secretary. should.have withheld without having lieved, that to his orders. reasoil, either sites to Mr. for his is given contrary had President, Crawford failed some would having this duty, done Receiver or to perform have been have if he that Mr. Crawford as not to And, credible public interest, conduct? of the for his the letter's him to an confirmation received by regardless called But, if further written, account and and strong of presump. Mr. both, eristic having been too, were wanting, may be derived artifice from by Crawford favor of and deny the retions very in guarded seem equally to which be would and that to continue of the the Receiver observed, ceipt the been given letter, to Let it be any Crawford, instructions that is, had make the deposites. as quoted informed by Mr. me he had direct- restatement, Receiver Secretary;, ceived ing my that him the a to does LETTER continue not from deny the the "it that deposites.' appears such directions Receiver that Mr. no Crawford given, but such.letter, he says, directing ever the written," were ANSWER to such deposites, manner was of continue From this peculiar being willing from of &c. infer that, not the receipt the to but admit denial the let- drec- some cause can or other, to contrived to or give pretext than ter, Mr. under some other to it. though that to rely the fact. if but tions have the of a nothing Receiver's direct Crawford word upon form for him for specially But tharsuch this opinion on tle M did not write to the deposits, subject Crawford of his satisfactorily having withheld accounted forbo dd, it can only be he (Mr. Crawford,) he supposed in the some supposition, form or would other, that produce give such the directionsas proper corrective. fact, in confirmation Receivers of my state- who Another is, that one of the make two their deposites in ment been directed to was ordered to make had the bank of Edwardsville, under what pretext, I do his not elsewhere. know, nor But, do however, I recollect under ever some to motive, have one, heard; probably, the real equally calculated directions, to disguise without produced acknowledging as the giving the receipt of of the letter that will not, I persuade myself, statement, be considered a trifling corroboration the committee for the them. It made to of my correspondence than first that time it was not but that, in private and myself, more between Mr. Crawford before my examination by sub. the Committee, twelve months 1 had asserted the same facts stantially In my letter to himself. would to him not of venture the 9th to February, refer "I beg to, 1822 (which not his I answer to it,) I say, that it if had most respectfully to suggest, to me, to preleave but an act of justice which I dewould be publication of 1819, in for sent my I would be no longer responsible any way whatclared the bank of publication Edwardsville] was in contained in the It was ever. St. Louis This Enquirer, which also contained 1 believe in you a paper took, was which at that I time. forwarded to you myself. a letter And from it Col. enclosed, and (the referred President to, in of the letter, Bank, he enformed [and Stephenson, Receiver also] to you, which the fall of 1819, the me, had been answered. that Since bas entirely ceased, my connexion that I am with a ockholder in it, without, from it." however, except ever having borrowed one cent letter to Mr. Crawford, of however, 14th FeIn my 1822, I say to him, "I must, the Treasubruary, that, as the information in recomsay, sir, relative to my original ry of the Bank of time past, been this mendation Department, some distinctly Edwardsville, has, understood, used, at for and freely understood, and freely it Washington] can but consider communica- someplace, unfortunate for me, that other have what in the Department, which ought to have terminated tions all responsibility on my part, the equally known. That I was not the deposites being made cause first instance, I freely be been of acknowledge. would there not But, in held that the I unequivocally declared, 1 in responsible for that, or any other bank, that any after the fall of 1819 you way thereof in due time; that not been continued sites were whatever, notified have there, since the in that conse- depo- peof my recommendation, goad quence that the bank was then in riod 1 may, I think, pre- if situation, and according to my And, impressions, tairly insist upon. information, now in that so, is not calculated to sani this the place, partial circulation, do me at which, I hope, 1 have a right therefore, to expect justice, your magnammity. It would, that from afford me great pleasure, I assure you, sir, that the whole of my conduct, in relation to be no business, should be so fully known as to longer misunderstood," The first of these letters was written five before his report of the 14th February, days The second bears the same date have of 1822. latter. They must both, therefore, the been written before any charge of suppressions had been made, or suggested. Had the existence of the Receiver's letter been denied, or the slighest intimation of questioning it, been given, at the time it was thus asserted, 1 could and would, have proved fact contained in my statement in regard every it by that gentleman himself. But he is now to dead. Mr. Crawford knew this, before he made the report in question-and dead men cannot contradict living ones, No one can read the interrogatories that were put to me, by the committee, and believe that Mr. Crawford was not well informed of my testimony, before the date of his letter to the of the same committee, which was later than my eleven chairman days examination. From the nature of the inquiries which he was then called to answer, they afforded as suitable as the one he has an upon occasion, Why, selected, then, for he long postponed it One thing is certain questioning my credibility. has

5. June 1, 1824 The Virginian Lynchburg, VA
Article from The Virginian, June 1, 1824

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

# CONTROVERSY BETWEEN # N. Edwards and W. H. Crawford. Address of the Secretary of the Treasury. [CONTINUED.] The accusation of having presented-con-tradictory statements of the amount of public moory, in the bank of Edwardsville, and of having transposed other statements from that bank, in the communications made by the Secretary to the House, and of having done so for the purpose of disguising the truth in relation to the deposites in that bank, with a view to their bearing on the charge connected with these supposed letters, is altogether without foundation. The bank statements of December and November, which are referred to, either formed part of, or accompanied, the letters, which they immediately follow in the printed papers; the first having been written on part of the same paper as the letter of the 7th January, 1820, to Mr. Edwards, and the latter having been enclosed in the letter of the 6th January, and both the letters and the statements having, when transmitted by Mr. Edwards, in his letter of the 16th February, been, it is believed, in the same order as that in which they appear in the documents. The Treasury statements, from which the balances in the bank of Edwardsville, at the end of the 2d, 3d, and 4th quarters of 1819, are quoted by Mr. Edwards, were prepared, by the Treasurer, from materials in his own possession and the Secretary had no more to do with the preparations of them, than Mr. Edwards himself. They were communicated as the statements of that officer. The cause why the statement for the 4th quarter of 1819, differs in amount from that rendered by the bank for the same period, is, that, in the former, the Treasurer, has deducted from the sum standing to his credit in that bank, the amount of two drafts which he had drawn on the bank, and which had not been paid at the time, when the bank statement was presented. The sum stated by the bank is, therefore, more than that stated by the Treasurer, by the amount of these drafts. This is more particularly shown in the accompanying note of the Treesurer, all of whose statements are prepared on the same principle, and have been always so prepared. It is considered unnecessary to dwell longer on this branch of the subject. That no such communications, as Mr. Edwards alleges, were made, is believed to be conclusively demonstrated and if so, no arts could have been resorted to for the purpose of concealing them. But, at every stage of this investigation, this remark naturally suggests itself; that even if both the communications alleged had actually been made, there was nothing in that fact for the Secretary to conceal; Mr. Edwards has stated, on oath, his opinion, that in the fall of 1819, the bank of Edwardsville was in as good a condition as any bank in which the public moneys were deposited; and, if so, what necessity was there for the Secretary to discontinue the deposites? Whether Mr. Edwards was, or was not, a director, and whether he did, or did not, choose to be responsible for a bank, if the bank were in a good condition, was a matter that ought to have had very little influence upon the conduct of the Secretary of the Treasury. In connection with this charge, it is to be remarked, that it is true that communications were made to the Secretary against the Edwardsville bank, and particularly in a letter from the president of the bank of Missouri, of the 8th August, 1818. But, as the receivers, both at Edwardsville and Kaskaskia, were instructed, by the Secretary's letter of the 31st of December, 1818, that, if any circumstance affecting the character of the Edwardsville bank, should come to their knowledge, they should communicate the same to the department, and as no such information was received from them, and as the bank continued to fulfil its engagements, there was no sufficient reason for discontinuing the arrangements which had been made with it. The fact is, that it was not until two years after the letter of the president of the bank of Missouri, referred to, that the Edwardsville bank stopped payment. But although this charge is considered as sufficiently answered, the only remaining circumstance presented by Mr. Edwards in his support shall also be noticed. He represents himself to have stated, in two letters written to him by the Secretary, in February, 1822, that he had made such a publication, that the Receiver had transmitted it, that the Receiver's letter containing it had been answered, and infers, from the Secretary's silence on the subject, an admission of the fact. That the Secretary did not reply to this, or to any of the other matters contained in those letters, resulted from his having declined any correspondence with Mr. Edwards on the subject to which they referred, in consequence of a menace which the first of them contained. This will be seen by the Secretary's answer, which, together with Mr. Edwards's letters, are herewith transmitted. The next principal accusation to be examined, relates to the Secretary's transactions with the bank of Missouri; and charges him with having, in the arrangements made with that bank, in regard to the public deposites, allowed it advantages for which it rendered no equivalent, and with having received from it uncurrent bank notes, which he was neither bound nor authorised.

6. July 6, 1824 Constitutional Whig Richmond, VA
Article from Constitutional Whig, July 6, 1824

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

for some time, to written in part, was I should detained have from been the residence able from with the document hope that 1 wanted, about ten miles kept 2 of obtain of the Hon. a Mr. to which Rugg residence open 1 from sent the twice the para- prin1 had that time I graph procure Wheeling- preceding it. It was the intended last on page to but, have from pursued indispo- desired, the from the want not to be I referred to not to do so : and thereof. sition, ted subject and from my Address. farther anxiety at of consequence the document longer would, detained the of I concluded A. B. publications a copy in of it inade, delay, which and this had to have document have for the of such part to. 1 believe, the I enclosed it increased was alluded itself, ready, by forwarded. as occasioned 1 waiting sent on left the soine I think, Wheeling, copy mail before my opportu- the above inteu- was ori- as to was When of the earliest Mr. was, to avail additional defence nity notexpect of making reach to be an able Edwardsville, to make a that where would I estab- hoped tion til rinal Cook. could the myself documents defence; full On my and journey, I did unto find some of my I found my at of 1819, Edwardsville, my from this from the Bank that publication to [ lish cation the truth of in statements. of Illinois, intention Representa- publi- which wrote to city; re tire place after I transmitted my arrival the at House Edwarlsville, of another and, address had obtained to documents to transmit to when tives, and was prepared at my house-in the my it, Sergeant-at-A which 1 Arms had arrived adjourned, to get if if Congress in the National Intelligencer, accompa- the I transmit when did you put by office at a to A. the 1 did not put gentleman it to put it could. same into dress tending, Q. inserted Didyon post mail? and, if Wheeling? into so, the the original post of office your in my- dis- for it considerable I gave post it office being -and at a I expect he did from my arrival here in the to tance in self: time the for before its lodgings it was gentleman presented latter Congress. part about so, of the week Who was that one of the gentlemen not A. Q. It was some Istayed, but I do which the one. what day of your stay at Q. house Oe where him Wheeling, recollect from the the did you deliver have no it recollection to then except made as to A. I which I think and I it time of been about the 10th of the probable suppose calculation must have arrival here, should therefore, arrive or 1:2th month. then, that it be Q. latter part of the the week time ? I delivered arrive it before to of the put A. in time-and the I knew mail, from I that intended it could it should not arrive by that the Q. due Do course you finished of know mail. when the copy day but your Address A. I was do not know so the far particular as one was made, finished. was it that the copy, mail after it was originil was think sent on by the was first sent in the mail before the Wash And that Please sent. to read of January this address 20, in 1823, the Is signed that ington Q. Republican addressed to Gales & refer Seaton. in one of the dress, AB, publication and to communicated which you with your Adthe publications Address.) AB (page 62 of that the A. Q. Were it is. you messenger not just about from to leave the House Edwards c A. I about three days. ville Representatives when expect I arrived should have left it for of New the in you find, in your letter examination from the Seof of the the Treasury, to which you had with could possably refer, return from cretary office Orleans Q. Did Receiver, any which that Congress, conversar written Mr. tion Stephens after letter your he is the said letters to have of the 1820 ? first of November, respecting on 12th October, 1319, except and the 0th April, I did not. 4th of 1819, quarter Q. A. remindyou was deposite that of in the unwardsof the Bank of $50,000, Edwardsville, made he there and by Mr. ask Stephenson, you whether in in that you think conversation, it possible to the could have referred 20th of April, 1820 I did letter of At the the time of that he had conversation made after I think 12th of A. know what deposites to what amount. the letter October, not 1819, he may nor have referred to that the letter consequence The April, of it the possible 1st 1820, November, although of 1819, I the consider Receiver's was the letter letter letter of writ- No- of ten in 12th October prece.ling. Receiver to deposite last the mo- day the directs the in his hands the he should the Bank of in regard ney of that month, it contains in no express of order the same vember think have A letter Edwardsville; Cashier date but of was to I fature written deposites. by Mr. an Crawford enclosure, to and the the delivered paper that bank, with to the committee was being that have to me presented by the from cashier which of it the would and bank appear at as Edwardsville that both the enclosure, Receiver directed at Kaskaskia to make their future otherwise days. had been the Bank of Missouri, until letter of it appears by at ordered. that the to make his deposites sites 20th in April, And directed Receiver the Edwardsville the Presi- the in was specially Edwardsville Being of which the dent the Bank of the directed, of Bank, to he notice the may Cashier of have the supposed h information he letter !bound was to take suppose he must have in that rc#24 which it natural to the order all contained circumstances ceived concerning But these are kno viedge since the malosure. to my undertake what 10 way that conversation. which have letter come allu ded it was to, and the Receiver cannot referred Fe and January stance, to Q. in Do you know notwithstan that in ling in this the circum- Bank of bruary, he 1320, did make deposites Edwardsville? I was Congress recollection during the of A. 1 do not. of, and I have that no time concern- is his ing having time spoken known any all thing I know at on the subject deposite:

7. July 16, 1824 Constitutional Whig Richmond, VA
Article from Constitutional Whig, July 16, 1824

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

# TESTIMONY AND DOCUMENTS ON THE MEMORIAL OF ΝΙΝΙΑΝ EDWARDS, [CONTINUED.] But he did not, in fact "decline any corres- pondence with me on the subjects to which my letters referred," for, in answer to my first one, among other observations which he made in re- lation to those "subjects," he says, "I assure you, sir, it will afford me great pleasure to communi- cate to Congress all the information in the pos- session of the Department, concerning that Bank, your agency in bringing it into connec- tion with the Treasury, and the representations which were made against" &c. thereby mani- festing a disposition rather to shew that he had no desire to conceal and withhold the documents alluded to, than to deny their existence. Under these, and other circumstances men- tioned in my communication to the House of Representatives, it would be extraordinary, on the supposition that my publication and the Re- ceiver's letter had not been received, even if he had declined replying to my letter of February, 1822, that their existence should have remain- ed for a period of more than two years unques- tioned, and that even doubt upon the subject should have been for the first time suggested, "at the moment of my departure for a foreign country." But Mr. Crawford has, in his communication, attempted to avail himself of an additional ground to convict me of false swearing, in what he is pleased to call my "alledged expectation" that the letters referred to in my testimony as having passed between himself and Col. Ste- phenson, would have been communicated to the House, under one or other of the resolutions of February, 1822. "As the resolutions," says he, "under which it is alledged these letters should have been communicated, call only for the correspondence between certain banks and the Secretary, it is unnecessary to explain why, among the letters which were communicated, any correspon- dence between a 'Receiver' and the Secretary was not to be found! Nor is it easy to imagine how any one, informed of the tenor of those re- solutions, should have entertained the expecta- tion of seeing the letters in question among the papers which were transmitted." In order to a correct understanding of this part of the subject, it may be useful to advert to my testimony before the Committee. In this, after stating that I had prevailed upon "Col. Benjamin Stephenson, the Receiver, and the President of the Bank of Edwardsville, to write to the Secretary," &c. I say: "I was much surprised at not seeing this correspon- dence in the report, as well as one or more let- ters, which, I confidently believe, were written to the Secretary of the Treasury, in 1819, for the purpose of apprizing him of the situation of the Bank, at that time, and inducing him to for- bear to draw upon it, until it could relieve it- self from the pressure it was then encountering." Now, as, from my whole statement, in regard to this matter, it is evident that the subject mat- ter of the letter referred to in my testimony, related much more to the affairs of the Bank, than to the ordinary duties of the Receiver, it surely is not more extraordinary that I should have ex- pected to have seen this letter, or so much of it at least as related to the affairs of the Bank, "among the papers which were transmitted," than that Mr. Crawford himself should have transmitted a variety of letters from this same Receiver, under the resolutions referred to. But he has, in other instances, acted upon the very consideration which induced the "expec- tation" on my part, to which he now excepts; or why did he transmit his letter to the Receiv- er at St. Louis, of 19th January, 1822, (see doc- ument No. 119,) and state, in the report which it accompanied, that he had transmitted "all the additional returns and correspondence re- quired by the resolution, except two letters from the Receiver at St. Louis, which were of a con- fidential nature?" Nothing could have ren- dered it necessary to have communicated the first, or to have apologized for not transmitting the other, but the circumstance of their rela- ting, as the letter of Col. Stephenson did, to the affairs of the Bank. Having thus disposed of the amplification which he has given to his original charge, as contained in the report in question, I now re- turn to the latter, which is as follows: "The Hon. Mr. Edwards late a Senator from Illinois, having stated, on his examination be- fore a committee of the House, on the 13th Fe- bruary, 1823, that the late Receiver of Public Moneys at Edwardsville had, on his advice, and, in his presence, written a letter to the Secreta- ry, enclosing a copy of a publication which Mr. Edwards represents himself to have made, some time in the year 1819, announcing his intention of retiring from the directorship of the Bank of Edwardsville, and that he had advised the Re- ceiver to withhold his deposites from the Secre- tary; and that the Receiver afterwards informed him that he had received a letter from the Se- cretary deems it proper to state, that no such letter from the Receiver is to be found on the files of the Department; that the officers en- ployed in it have no recollection of the receipt of such a letter; and that, on an examination of the records of the Department, it appears that no answer to any such letter, directing the Receiver to continue the deposites, was ever written to him by the Secretary of the Trea- sury." Whatever different interpretations, ingenious and forced constructions might have given to this report, Mr. Crawford's elaborate commen- tary upon it must now carry conviction to every mind, that its real object was, at least, to create

8. July 16, 1824 Constitutional Whig Richmond, VA
Article from Constitutional Whig, July 16, 1824

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA, FRIDAY, JULY 16, 1824. could this "list" have been intended? And what you will immediately deposite in the Bank of else could have induced him to send it to the Edwardsville whatever sum may be in your Receiver at Edwardsville? hands on the 30th instant, (November, 1819,) Further corroboration of his having received You will, after the deposite herethe letter in question, is furnished by the cirin directed, make your deposites in the Bank cumstances of his having, on the same day that Missouri, until otherwise directed." Who, let he wrote to the Receiver at Edwardsville, writme ask, could have inferred, from the letter aten on the same subject to both the Receiver at Dove, that these directions has been given to Kaskaskia, and the Cashier of the Bank of Edthose Receivers, or to either of them And can wardsville, giving to the former-partienlar init be denied that this enclosure ought to have struct about making his deposites; and enbeen communicated, for the sake of truth, if closing 3 the latter a copy of a letter that he nothing more? represen s himself to have written to both these But let us see how this case stands in other Receivers from which it appears that heordered respects. If he did not send such a letter, and them to deposite all the public moneys which give such instructions to those Receivers, he they should receive, after the last day of the made a direct and positive misrepresentation to month in which he wrote-n in the Bank of lie Bank for which no adequate motive cau Edwardsville, but in the Bank of Missouri, unbe perceived. But if, as he himself asseris, he til otherwise directed. (See No. 6.) did give such instructions, it shows most clearly Considering the circumstances disclosed by that he did intend to suspend the making of deMr. Crawford, in regard to the withholding of posites in that Bank, and accounts much more the deposites by those two Receivers; it is not satisfactorily than he has done in his communito be presumed that either of them would have cation to you for his letter of the 20th April, been guilty of any unnecessary delay in ma1820, which directs the deposites to be continuking the deposites after the receipt of his letters ed with a degree of particularity that would to them of the 1st November, 1819; and, if these scarcely have been thought necessary, if there letters, which purport to have been written at had been no reason to suppose it had been his that time, were promptly transmitted by mail, intention to discontinue them. according to their respective destinations, it is asBut he has appealed to the want of any inexplicable that the Receiver at Edwardsville, signable motive for the concealment of any of who resided within about two bundred yards of the foregoing facts, as proof that none was inthe bank, of which he was also the President, tended. I take no issue with him upon his moshould not have deposited "the whole of the motives or intentions. I may, however, be perney in his possession on the 30th November, mitted to say, that the pertinacity with which, before the 31st December and, that the Re. in opposition to all the proofs I have exhibited, ceiver at Kaskaskia should not have made his he still endeavors to hold me responsible for the deposite January following. Mr. CrawBank of Edwardsville, after the Fall of 1819, ford admits that the former did not receive his renders it probable that he might not have been letter till sometime in the month of December, willing to let me escape from reponsibility at but at what time in that month, is not stated, that time. Overwhelmed, as he was, with renor how the fact was ascertained, or is ascerpresentations against the Bank, my withdrawal tainable, (see his communication page 6.) Such from it may confirmed his fears, and rendelays as must have intervened between the dered him reluctant to disclose any circumdate and receipt of those letters, at a season of stance that was calculated to devolve upon him the year when the mail is liable to so little oban increased responsibility for events then apstruction, affordsmatterofspeculation in which, prehended, and since realized. for the present, I forbear to indulge. Having received a communication through But I would ask, what, but the letter of the the committee, that contains a reference to a Receiver at Edwardsville of the 12th of Octoconversation that I am represented to have had ber, could have startled Mr. Crawford into all with Mr. Campbell, of Ohio, on the day of my this hurry of writing, and sudden change of the departure from the city, in March last, I feel place of deposite; and, at the same time, account myself authorized to give the following explanations for the subsequent hesitation that seems to be fairly inferrible from those otherwise unaccountravelling through Kentucky last summer, I table delays? As that letter was well calculareceived, at Russelsville, in that state, a conted to produce such results, and nothing elseap fidential communication from Virginia, warnpears to account for them, it cannot be unreaing me that I was to be attacked at the then sonable to refer them to that cause. succeeding session of Congress, and that GoHe attempts, to avoid the inference of his havvernor Coles, of Illinois, was expected to coing received this letter, and my publication, by operate it, and advising me strongly to come stating "that if they had been known to him on to Washington a week or two before the they would naturally have been alluded to on meeting of Congress, for the purpose of preparsuch an occasion" as that of writing to these ing for a defence. These intimations coming Receivers: in other words, that the receipt of from a source that I knew to be entitled t the them would have been acknowledged by him. highest respect, did not think it prudent to But he admits the receipt of the letters of Mr. disregard them; and, not expecting to return to Stephenson, and the Receiver at Kaskaskia of Illinois for some time thereafter, I wrote to the the 18th September, 1819, and attaches much Hon. Daniel P. Cook on the subject, in conimportance to them in his communication yet sequence of which, a correspondence took place though it would have been just as "natural' between him and Gov. Coles, in which, I bethat he should have alluded to them, as to the lieve, the latter disavowed the correctness of letter of the Receiver of the 12th October, he the information as it related to him. I refer to silent as to either of them, as he is to the this correspondence with the less reluctance latter, or as he was to that part of the letter of because Gov. Coles, whose character is well the President of the Bank of Missouri, of the known here, can establish it 9th August, 1819, which gives such an alarming Being thus warned, I endeavored to prepare account of the Bank of Edwardsville. His for the threatened attack, and came on to not having noticed the letter in question in any Congress with a determination to do nothing unof his subsequent communications, therefore, necessarily to provoke it, but to meet it, whatefurnishes no evidence to rebut the strong prever it might be, with firmness, whenever it sumption, that I have relied upon, to prove should be made. I, however, never once susthat he must have received it. pected any thing like the insinuation contained Let us then briefly inquire, whether his letin Mr. Crawford's report, and though may ter of the 1st November could have been writhave written as much more than has been supten on the grounds upon which it professes to posed, preparatory for an anticipated attack have been written. yet it is most certain that not one word of it reHe professes to havebeen induced to write it, lated to the subject of the report. This I had from an inspection and examination of the neither anticipated, heard of, or seen, till about monthly accounts of those Receivers, and comone hour before my intended departure, on the mences it in the following words. viz Upon day after it was communicated to the House. referring to your monthly accounts, it appears It then took me by such perfect surprize, that that you have retained all the money which I neither knew, nor could decide, what was best has been received by you since the month of to be done with it, and I left the city without August last." Now, a moment's reflection is all ever having mentioned the subject, as well that can be necessary to convince you that can recollect. to any person or persons, except there could not have been at Washington, three members of the House of Representatives, on the 1st November, more than one monthof whom Mr. Campbell, of Ohio, was one. ly account of moneys received after the I met with him on the morning I left the city, month of August preceding. And, if he had reand my impression is, that he introduced the ally referred to their monthly accounts, he would subject, and seemed to have no doubt that the have perceived that the Receiver at Kaskaskia report was intended as an attack upon me. In had retained, in his hands, all the money rethe course of the conversation with him, I alluceived by him after the 18th May, and the Reded to the confidential information above referrceiver at Edwardsville had made no deposite ed to, probably spoke of what I had prepared, since the 1st day of the preceding July-cirand intended to have donc, in any event that cumstances, which it is extremely improbable might have rendered it necessary to have dehe would have overlooked, or neglected to adfended myself, at an earlier period, and regretvert to in his letter, unless, indeed, there was ted that I could not have been permitted to get some peculiarity in these cases that defies all off in peace. It is idle to insinuate that my skill in guessing, which rendered it more exanswer to the report could have been written cusable in these officers to have retained one before my departure from this place. The latpart of the public money than another. ter could not be answered till it existed, and, But, if something more than meets the eye after it was known to me, I did not remain here was not intended, why was his letter to the long enough for any such purpose. Besides, a Bank of Edwardsville, of 1st November, 1819, letter which I wrote to Mr. Campbell, on my together with its enclosure on the subject of journey, (towards whom I had nomotive for conthose very deposites, suppressed? Their omiscealment, will show that my communication was sion concealed a fact which affords a very then not only not written, but that I did not exstrong presumption that he had received the pect to employ more than three hours in replyletter of the Receiver at Edwardsville of the ing to the report. One thing is certain, that 12th October; andi is rendered less probable no man could have been less disposed than mythat they were withheld through inadvertence self to be the aggressor, in any controversy or forgetfulness, from the circumstance of my whatever, at that time; and, if I had not consihaving called his attention to the subject by my dered the report as intended and calculated to correspondence with him in February, 1822, fix an indelible blot upon my reputation, which just about the time he made the report that I knew I did not deserve, nothing would have ought to have contained them. been heard fromme, in regard to Mr. Crawford. This letter, though at last brought out upon The anxiety which the Committee manifest. the third call upon Mr. Crawford for his and must so naturally feel, to get through with correspondence with the Banks, and accompathis investigation, and my continued indisposinying the report that was intended to affect me tion rendering it impossible to proceed with my so injuriously, is still given in such a manner, replication to Mr. Crawford's communication asnot only to conceal the true state of the case, as 1 had intended, so as to finish it within the but to produce an impression directly contime which 1 could reasonably hope to prevail trary to the fact, by mitting to communiupon the committee to wait, i feel myself comcate its enclosure, which 15 so referred to as pelled to postpone, to a future occasion, which necessarily to make it a part of the letter and will not be neglected, a full answer to all his remarks, and, at present, to content myself with impression would probably never have been

9. July 20, 1824 Constitutional Whig Richmond, VA
Article from Constitutional Whig, July 20, 1824

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

of the account United such States, it, but itein should has in only But, kind. but only removes, of the on Receiver same diminish, agement dilemma. did an appears the the extent, to correct, the nonsible earlier does It paint not to place Bank him of in right Missouri of geIf as and the that his stated, secure to of the bank, creta contract not, neral deposite chartcrof with transfer, to with him Bank the same was United United indis- be that, by the and that his right, contract it the follows Bank obliga that of he tion, the before as in from bank. of creet to it on the the the States possessed [States,14 impose withdraw permitting another this servationaceretary under Andit the could inferred proper which, had he be it was in from Bank kind, notes of Missour credit that of the deposited United been, at it would seem when contract for communication should for months, because with deposited the the to dischard time the they that were a custom- it pro- the bethey States, were bond good in might notes, be however, good at the date justify the this ground nawise ultimate that, from on loss the will uncurrent be rided came house Lond. they due, had been and irregular the conjectures proceed- upon susupon no States, to process of the by the would of every on his with part, integrity the practice specifically at war and with countries. principle ing, paperso tained Secretarynited receive which allow with be the and public prudence funds; first and of principaperations fiscal this and other of Comindine the was, In rulations the British against the Lord public by funds, a suborin brought of House of Melville, ement pri- but not chareg for the permitting loss or their waste had mismated deposited similar, in them Secretary all respects, in of dinate for officer, in who 2 manner the American difference, that by the this sustained It was vate to Treasur Government banks, operation with of only no denounc- loss the the the British malversation of Mr. event, Trotter. which was "I am ap- of this and not the of Commons. the reflection public practice, ed before the Mr. House Whithreautions four at Lord of the Melville's report palled less (said than thirty passed through sir, the millions no having upwards Why, of eight bankers, hands of his private allowed cannotbut to have through nogligenthension." had and states, been nearly in seven the the millions same channel. criminality more I is deserv- of passed think that severest this repremental adrocate of truth, ing of the Pitt, the warm forced, and by misapplication of sense of Lord Mr. Melville, that was this permitted contrary to was law, not though to be confess money, the state, the erasure Privy to the without public actual was constrained loss to from to the advise list to his of admirjustified;" of Connscllors; his friend's the and name confired this expressed, between the sublimity the tender- of his ing his friendship, and (said that have magnanime not ness of "I to confess, am not that I I will not (man) patriotism. a bitter the pang. feelings of private report of the was known to in ex- my friendship." erase this advice from my bosom which Commitee was framWhen the only I the gave evidence the advice at Edwardsville represented effect, was, and ist, ed, that Receiver a to that intentiaddress, own solemn to the of1819, declaration ouncing directorship my of the the on of Edwardsville. my my publication withdrawing fr from the Upon this "that evidence there was he Bank of thought fit to admit, such advice, the same as doubt Mr. Receiver, they represents against the same arrote on the time, no committee and to Receiver the Edwards gave evidence, and, this subject at discrepancy of this fact de"that the For The second to the apparent reason. the the admission of the second- the as credible, is of the at first, least, seems as to probability is advice there ny, no Secretary." of first-indeed, Committee, establish Receiver, that not the weakened probability by the the same remark person was the of the would Bank inasmuch as Money and President Receiver he "it of Public is s hardly Secretary probable, that that he as hich could he was not repose Presiadvise the in the Bank of relation he might is yet confidence dent. Even dissuaded in this excessive double interest confidence, in the it former held not have clear, that, exceeded as his that which operation he of a very capacity greatly under the as he did in the latter, he was give such information motive, which could direct motive to And, upon this not exist, the Sefaithful (see his of such the daclaration me of communicate. as cretary the insuring Committee information. actually the declare relied, These communication remarks reply, by apply which page swear- with the all equal force would to seem to accuse evidence that the Committee "that there is subject no of this advice that to Receiver ing falsely, Secretary. wrote on I asserted, the to the upon Secretary, oath, and 1 feel the write confess, that saw the Receiver publication ; and 1 reflection, that as no close inconsiderable my falsified distress by the at Committee, and the at least in as regard credible one my to a oath fact is probable which my in itself, oath is suffered to estabthe Receiver, lish. As to the famous letter doubt that from it was written if from now be no Secretary; or, despatched call to the the testimony, the and technical there objections not be to disposed to propriety act upon of Com- it, from, almittee lowing nough should may further be scen time to for establish show producing, the the fact; in due and, satis- this enough to if they are not testimony Committee to do, that, fied I ask of the the fact. summon It must be witnesses admitted, after than my- obhad I had no power to I could do no more but litself voluntary was summoned, affidavits, and that The I question of tain for doing this much. by the Secrethis letter's on a the time appearing having to depend been received of comparative the probabilitary, timate of the opposing weights I have relied, and of the ties of the fac denial, on which it is proper to examine This min- will ritely, Secretary's found the to character he very of equivocal. that denial. assert. that

10. July 23, 1824 Richmond Enquirer Richmond, VA
Article from Richmond Enquirer, July 23, 1824

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

country. his communicaMr. Crawford has, himself in of an additionBut attempted 10 convict avail me of my false alleged swearing, in what he is letters himself as having have been tation" tion, al ground that pleased the passed to call referred between to in communi- my testi- and mony Stephenson under one or other cated to of February, the resolutions, 1822. As the letters which it is call only and the Col. resolutions communicated, alleged House, would these banks says for should he, the " corres- of under have Se- the is unnecessary to cretary, the it letters which between were Receip Nor to Secretary was not to one, be informed of and any Correspondence been pondence the between imagine certain how any communicated, explain found. should why, have the tenor of of letters entertained the is it easy in question the those expectation among regulations, the papers seeing of which this were order transmitted." to a correct understanding be useful to advert In In of the subject, before it may the Committee. upon to my that I had the Receiver, this, Col. Benjamin Bank of part after testimony stating Stephenson, prevailed Edwardsville, " the President of the &c.c I say and to the Secretary," seeing this corressurprised at not as well one or were pondence was which, in the I report, confidently of the believe, to write much Treasury, of more the inletters, written to the Secretary of apprizing him and in situation 1819, for of the the forbear purpose Bank, to at draw that time, upon it, it until was dueing him to from the pressure whole it could encountering." relieve itself Now, this as, matter, from my it is evithen in regard to matter of the letter more redent statement, that the subject testimony related the much ordinary ferred affairs to in my of the Bank, than surely to is not more to to the the Receiver, it have expected the extraordinary duties of this that letter, I should or so much Bank, of it " at among least have as related seen to the affairs were transmitted" of than avariety that the papers selfshould have Receiver, under from this same But be has, in Mr. of resolutions letters C. which referred to. the t transmitted very consideration my other part, the instances, acted the upon " expectation" why on did he which induced excepts or St. Louis; which letter to the No. January, 1822. which in the report all the of transmit to 19th his he now (see Receiver document additional accompanied, at 119,) rethat and state, be had correspondence transmitted required from the by Receiver the except which were have a rendered at Nothing ammunicated the nature?" turns solution, St. and Louis, have two letters could of transmitting confidential first, the or necessary apologized to circumstance for not of their relating, other, to have but the of Col. Stephenson did, to affairs of the thus dispused of charge. he has given in question, as which Having the letter Bank. report to his original the amplifications I : now the rein which is as a to Hon. Mr. his Illinois, of the House, on of contained turn from before The the committee latter, the having Edwards stated, late on Receiver follows late examination, the Senator vice, Pub- 13th the February, a 1323, at Edwardsville that the written had, a letter on his ad to Moneys his presence, of a publication in enclosing a copy himself to Edwards 1819, and, Secretary, lic which Mr. time in represents the year from the announc- director- have ing made, bis some intention Bank of of retiring Edwardsville, withhold and his that de- he ship of the the Receiver to could receive had posites advised from the Troin Bank the until Secretary he him and that that further orders afterwards informed Secretary, the Receiver received a letter from the the deposites; the the from that directing Secretary he had his deems to continue it proper Receiver to is state, to be the that found offi- no such the letter files of the have no exam- of the cera on employed in letter; it and that, Department, on an it fsuch a of the letter, that no answer to the the Receiver to by the different interpretations, receipt appears ination recting was Treasury." ever of written the records to him continue any such Secretary deposites, ingenious di- to of Whatever constructions might elaborate and this report, forced Mr. must now Crawford's carry conviction at mentary upon it its real object was, of the mind, that truth have my given state- com- least, to a suspicion of the Receiver's create in regard to the in my testimony, the letter " afterwards he had received to a continue the and that written to every ment, of his both having him mentioned letter from informed commentary, the deposites." Secre- having me to tary directing well as the intended alleges The report circumstances itself, as which and he are has impeached such invalidate the latter by the denying former, the Receiver. that he ever between gave instructions facts, to then, fairly at issue us, are The 1st, Whether the Receiver did write me, the letter alluded to he ? " afterwards informed from the Secretary, that 2d, be Whether had directing received him to a continue letter the the de- 6th posites As August, to the 1819, first. Mr. It appears, Crawford most emphatically that addressed on then reof letter to the Receiver, why he had not hands in quiring him the to public state, moneysin with the his instructions bank, in and alleging that the excuse be no longer (See could from the deposited Department, the conformity public any money." whatever that No. the there 1.) Re- for retaining It is difficult have to believe, neglected either to answer Crawford this ceiver would or that Mr. peremptory letter, tolerated such a disrespectful stated adomission. would have circumstances The latter, however, which render has should it wholly have occurred. dirional such neglect hav improbable He that represents any the Receiver as

11. July 23, 1824 Richmond Enquirer Richmond, VA
Article from Richmond Enquirer, July 23, 1824

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

countin; for is delay assign made the as a deposites. reason not having that theretofore might with thereby previous have instructions situation been litheulty of complying of the then to presents ed. an intimates account apprehen an as ; declares without such further deposites, might think to as the of the whole things, give, structions future the make bank on prospects a full disclosure Secretary and, among other of circum- Gov. at to in of the case ;" the publication to of am happy to say, letter itself. on which, Edwards, course expressly stances I he states, herewith is disposed that of transinitied, the can Lockwood, be shows All Esq. file the by the original of draft Samuel D. at Edwardsville. in of Public thereon in the an the late Receiver, purporting 1819, of Receiver dead writing with the office of endorsement eighteen Moneys, months.) Crawford (who has in hand Oct., been that anletter about was sent to Mr. copy is hereto nexed, the (see q2d No. October, last 1819, referred ten to, the of the letter Crawford, and ceiver again writes five hundred the the On date which an 2.)! to attested Mr. Edwardsville, days dollars states. after Re of twelve the Bank of the the capitalstoc been paid into the it my bank duty to inform of you of my of the in that having that' last letter, circumstance, suggestions thousand of I ferl in consequence since between letter.- date some No. of the S.) The myself, first fact is in therefore issue estabthe 2d, viz: " That the letter from As to be had a continue the lished. formed (See Mr. Crawford me and received to Receiver state- de- the in- for Secretary, directing admitted, him that my it must be me all responsible it does not this information, it had not given to me, would have posites," the ment truth of render circumstance even if and, that might have been havbeen as this Crawford's true. But so the fact letter of Mr. to the Receiver request in actually written 1819, expressly a saying the I receipt of will, mediately after Bank of Edwards you deposite in the in your this that ing weakened, November letter, money posses- corville, the the whole 30th of inst.," the must sufficiently This letter, my the it is letter true, of does the not Receiver I imposed of October, 1819, nor to prove it to roborate an sion 12th answer on to testimony. obligation have circumstances profess be to upon so. the be myself any are certainly strong of to But there show, That it was written inconsequence on 1st, Receiver's letter. been written have the 2d, grounds That it upon could which not have it professes to that, written. It is worthy of remark by As to the the difficulty" not having Receiver as an Crawford is so that the in been noticing first. excuse for suggested particular made diffi- the in the deposites, Mr. of obviating the culty, that it is had almost then received the however, acquires from belief pointing question. This that out he the means impossible to great resist letter another addi- in in belief, irresistible strength, enclosed if not Mr. Crawford document Receiver, of the among letter 1819. to It will be urged by the in reasons the deposites, the ber, tional, strongest which the to make perceived. further 1st that, Receiver Novem- instruc- the for declining Edwardsville, without apprehenthe Secretary, the hostility sions the Bank of danger of Missouri, to and citizens that the hands, drafts or of tions is;" Bank and from of his apprehensions might it. fall from into were their his of influence, St. Lon- of Secretary who, under their when of " to iosist upon well, notes would would be answer of harassing them equally that and it distressing althe purpose presumable Crawford, the bank." Iti that Mr. for the those apprehensions disposed persons Missouri specie, merely for lay these had checked the Bank banks, of transmitted towards who was also his conduct letter to the Bank Receiver, of Edwardsville, list of the is headed a document President (who its in alinded to, other which received by the the the of of which would be to the letter bank notes of Missouri, according dated 3th August, President 5.) For what been in(See this list" have the 1819." Bank could of No that bank, could have other induced possitended ble purpose ? And it to what the else Receiver at Edwards? corroboration of his the Further question, is furnished same letter of his having, on cumstances ville the him to send in Receiver having the at by Edwards- received day cir- the that he wrote to the game subject to both of ville, written Kaskaskia, on the and the Cashier forof at Edwardsville, Bank instructions about a mer and enclosing to the to the Receiver particular giving himself latter making to the copy have his deposites that he represents from which to he ordered them to should appears which they in after not in the bank of ceive, of all written it the letter public that both the moneys last these day Receivers, of the Edwardsville, month otherwise deposite which but re- dihe the wrote- Bank of Missouri, until in rected. (See No. 6.) circumstances disclosed by of Considering Crawford, the in regard two to the Receivers withholding it the Mr. deposites by those that either of them would in not to be presumed guilty of any unnecessary delay of his have been after the receipt the of the 1st to to which purport and, letters making them deposites letters, November, promptly 1819; have res if written these at that time, were to their transmitted been by mail, it according is inexplicable that within the pective destinationa, Edwardsville. who resided of Receiver at yards of the deabout two hundred President, should bank, not his have which poshe was also the whole of the money in before the 31st session posited December on the the 50th ; and, November," that the Receiver at

12. August 31, 1824 Edwardsville Spectator Edwardsville, IL
Article from Edwardsville Spectator, August 31, 1824

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

t is allegeu call only for e communicated, certain banks and the Secredence it between is unnecessary to explain communicated, why, among any which Receiver' correspondence not to be found. of the tary, the letters between were a Nor entertained is and it tenor easy the Secretary imagine was how any one, should informed have of to those resolutions, the letters transmit- in quested." tion the expectation among the papers of seeing which were this to a correct understanding useful to of advert In order the subject, it may be Committeee. In part of testimony before the prevailed upon to my stating that 1 had Receiver, and this, " Col. President after Benjamin of Stephenson, the Bank &c. of the Edwardsville, I say was to write the surprized to the Secretary," at not seeing well as this one correspon- or more dence much in the report, as believe, were which, I of the Treasury, of the letters, Secretary confidently in situa- 1819, written to the of apprizing him and inducing tion for the of purpose the Bank, at that time, it, until it could him to forbear to draw upon it was then encountering." relieve itself from Now, the this as, pressure from matter, my it whole is evident state- to ment, the in suject regard matter to of the much letter more referred to the affairs in my of Receiver, the Bank, it'surely than to is the not more to that of the testimony, that 1 should related have expected ordinary least extraor- duties as have redinary seen this the letter, affairs or so of much the Bank, of it at than " among that Mr. the papers lated to which himself were should transmitted," have transmitted Receiver, un- a Crawford variety of letters from referred this same to. But he consi- has, der the resolutions instances, acted upon " expectation" the very on in other which induced the or my part, to higletter to the deration which he now excepts: Receiver why St. he of 13th January, 1822, (see which it Louis, and state, in the report "all did No. 119,) transmit be had transmitted document requir- the accompanied, that and correspondence from the additional the resolution, retorns except two were letters of is confidened by of St. Louis, which have readered it Receiver nature 2" Nothing communicated could the first, or tiai necessary to have for not transmitting the have apologized of their relating. of the to as hole, the letter but the of circumstance Col. Stephenson did, to the aifairs thus Bank. disposed of the amplifications charge, as Having he has given to his original I now rewhich contained which in the report in is question, as follows : turn to the latter, Mr. Edwards, late a Senator before from Illinois, " The having Him. stated, the House, on his OH examination the 15th Public Fearne Mo. a that the lute his advice, and, 1823, Edwardsville had, on Secretary, any, neys committee of Receiver of Ed- en- in at written a letter to the which Mr. a copy a have made, some wards represents his closing his presence, of himself announcing publication to intention time Ed- of in the year 1819, directorship of the Bank Receiver of wardsville, retiring to withhold from his and the deposites that he orders had from from adviser the the Bank the Secretary until him he could receive further afterwards informed that the !eiter from the Secre. that he had him to continue state, the deposites that no such directing and received Receiver proper to the the files Secretary, of letter the tery deems it is to be found on in it have no from the Receiver that the officers employed such a Department; the receipt of records of the recollection that, on an of examination that no of answer the to any letter such the and appears continue was letter, Department, directing it the written Receiver to him to by the Secretary of the interpretations, have deposites, Treasury." different ever might inge- giWhatever and forced constructions Crawford's elaborate nions ven to this report, Mr. must now carry convic- at commentary upon mind, it that its real object truth was, of my tion to to every create a suspicion to of the the Receiver's haand of his having letter from the mony, least, ving statement, written both the in received letter regard mentioned afterwards a in informed my testi- Secretary me that he directing had him well to continue as the the commentary, deposites." to The report itself, as which are intended impeached alleges circumstances the former, and lie he has ever gave such invalidate latter by denying that the instructions The facts, to then, the Receiver fairly at issue between us, are: 1st. Whether the Receiver did write the letter alluded to he ? "afterwards informed the Secre- me, that 2d. he Whether had received a letter continue from the depotary, directing him to of sites? to the first. It appears, CrawFord that addressed on the 6th a As 1819, Mr. emphatically letter August, Receiver, most had not then re- in to the him to state, why be in his hands quiring deposited the public moneys with the instructions the " bank, in conformity and alleging that there from the no Department, longer be any excuse whatever for retaining could the public money. (See No. 1.) to believe, that the Receiver It is have neglected to would have ry letter, such or a disrespectful additional lerated would discult that Mr. stated Crawford answerthis omission. perempto. circum- The tostances latter, however, which render has should it wholly have improbable occurred. that any such neglect Receiver as having been He represents of great remissness the before, in regard and to says making that guilty his deposites (the Receiver) for months must have with discovered him for that He rehe, the Secretary was dissatisfied in his hands. taining the public seware money that every subsequent

13. August 31, 1824 Edwardsville Spectator Edwardsville, IL
Article from Edwardsville Spectator, August 31, 1824

Click image to open full size in new tab

Article Text

which, for reason signsa that the made difficulty deposites, of com been created, might therebu with prerevious plying instructions; of the then situation as bank; intimates declares an sents of the an account prospects; apprehensions deposites, unwillingness without ry to might is future such think to instructions fit make whole to give, further circumstances as on the a Secreta- rull dis- ex- of closure of the other things, of states, the case; and, that among the publication transmitted, pressly Gov. Edwards, the course herewith he is I am disposed happy to to pur say, All of which, original draft shows sue" can of the be letter established itself, on by file the Esq. in the Receiver office with an of of D. Lockwoo rasville, writing Samuel Moneys, a E the hand Public the late thereon. (who in purporting has been dead that of eighteen montas) Mr Crawford in about the letter 1819. was (of sent which to an attested copy ten On days October. is annexed, see No. 1819, 2.) of the the date letter after hereto the 22d October, last referred to, to Mr. writes Crawagain Receiver twelve thousand ford, five the hundred and statest Edwardsville, flars that of the capital having of stock been my of the into Bank the of bank. since duly the to inform date you of paid letter. I feel it my consequence pl of the The first fact in last the suggestions 3) in made myself, in that issue let- is (See Mr. No Crawford and As inf. rmed had the to him therefore be ter. some ween to the established. 2d. iz. received That the letter Receiver from continue directing Secretary; it the be that must admitted, deposites," a! all not me does render statement of this information, my responsible and, that for it the had might truth not have been been true. weak- given But 10 me. circumstance even ifit would Crawford's have having as this fact of Mr. Receiver "I request the written that 1819, a of you letter this will, expressly letter, to the immediately the deposite saying, whole after the receipt of Edwardsville, on the 30th of in the the inst. Bank money must in your sufficiently prossession does corroborate not profess my castimony. letter, if is true. letter of the Re I of the upon myself But any there have prove it to be to ceiver o This be aD imposed answer 12th to the October, so. 1819, show, obliga- are nor been of the Receiver's not ion er 1st, ainly to That strong it was circumstances letter; written in consequence written is n o have been written. I 2d. the Thank grounds could upon which have it professes worthy of remark As to the first. the "ifficulty" excuse sug for in noticing as an Mr. rested hat, by the Receiver, the deposites, having made particular in pointing diffinot Crawford the is means so of obvisting impossible that to reculty, ng out the that belief it is that almos! he had then received if not Mr. ist he This letter belief, in question. however, irresistible acquires strength Craw great dditional, from another document ter which to the Receiver. loses in his le 1819. It will be ord if the ene 1st November. among the strongest declining rea- of perceived, that, by the Receiver in the for Bank the forther ons o Edwardsville, make urged deposites, without Secretary, were instruc- his ap- the from the to it, from citizens prehensions hostility ions of St. of the of Louis;" danger Bank of of and Missouri, the his Secretary appre- and pensions fall that into the their under drafts hands, their or influence, those of would night hen persons merely notes be disposed who, would for the answer to purpose insist bank." them upon of It is harrass equally specie, preumable yell, ng and distressing that it was the Crawlord, to allay these (who appre- had ensions, hecked the that Bank Mr. of banks,) Missouri transmit- for its towards other Receiver, who was the President in his letter to of the Bank conduct ed Iso document the alluded of notes Ed- to, wardsville, the A list of bank the which is would headed be received " by letter the Bank of the of