Article Text
of danger in continuing the deposites. It must be evident, therefore, either that the silence of this Receiver, as to my publication, is no evidence against its existence, or that it contained something "to conceal," or, at least, to render the propriety of continuing the deposites somewhat questionable.
The truth, however, is, that I have no where contended that the Receiver's letter rendered it Mr. Crawford's duty to discontinue the deposites, and the avowal of such an opinion is most erroneously imputed to me, in direct opposition to the explanation I have given, and my declared objects in referring to that letter. Neither in my publication of 1819, avowing my intention of retiring from the bank, nor in my correspondence with him in February, 1823, nor in my late communication to the House of Representatives, of the 6th April last, is any such idea suggested. In fact, owing to the responsibility, which I thought I had imposed upon myself, by recommending the bank as a depository of public money, I did not think myself at liberty to retire from it, until I had seen it through all the difficulties, and embarrassments, with which I found it struggling on my return from Congress, shortly after it had been authorized to receive the public money. These difficulties having been overcome, and the time arrived when I thought I could, with propriety, announce my intention of resigning, I made the publication which has been submitted to the committee; in which, after explicitly stating that "I was convinced if [the bank] could have nothing to fear from a comparison of its situation [as to solvency] with that of any other bank in the United States," I add, "notwithstanding I do verily believe, that neither the Government nor any individual is in danger of being intentionally imposed upon by the bank, so long as it continues under the control of its present directors, yet, intending to be absent from the state, and considering the disastrous pressure of the present times, the hostility which the bank has to encounter; and, particularly, the opposition of gentlemen in this state, high in office, who have been extremely anxious to get other banks into operation, with the aid of "foreign capital," as it is termed, I have determined to resign my seat in the directory, and to withdraw from all future responsibility, of any kind whatever, in relation to this, or any other bank, without making any further unsupported effort to retain any portion of the public deposites in this state; leaving it to the directors to maintain their credit by their own good conduct, and to the Secretary of the Treasury to judge for himself, upon the returns he requires, how far it may be prudent to trust them."
Although I believed at the time, that one of the papers in which my publication appeared was regularly sent to Mr. Crawford, yet, I enclosed to him a paper containing it; and that he might have as perfect control over the subject as possible. I prevailed upon Col. Benjamin Stephenson, the Receiver, and the President of the bank, who apprehended that ill consequences would result from my withdrawing from it, to write to the Secretary of the Treasury on the subject, and enclose to him one of my publications also: and I advised him, (the Receiver) in the mean time to withhold the deposites, until he could receive further orders from the Secretary.
In my correspondence with Mr. Crawford, in February, 1822, which is exhibited by himself, referring to my publication, and the situation of the bank at that time, I say in one of my letters, "this publication was contained in the St. Louis Enquirer, which I supposed you took at the time; it was also contained in a paper which I forwarded to you myself, and it was enclosed, referred to, and commented upon, in a letter of the President of the bank to you." In the other letter I say, "that I was the cause of the deposite being made there, in the first instance, I freely admit; but, that I unequivocally declared, that I would not be held responsible for that, or any other bank, in any way whatever, after the fall of 1819; that you were notified thereof in due time; that the deposites have not been continued there, in consequence of my recommendation, since that period; and that the bank was then in a good situation, I may, I think, according to my present impressions, fairly insist on.
In my oath, before the select committee, on the 13th Feb. 1823, which Mr. Crawford has thought proper to impeach, after having testified to Col. Stephenson's having written the letter in question, and enclosed my publication, &c. I add, "The bank continued to pay specie, notwithstanding the pressure, and in the Fall of that year, I expect, was in as good a situation as any bank in which the public money was then deposited.
In my late communication to the House of Representatives, of the 6th April last, I not only re-assert the same facts substantially, in regard to the situation of the bank, but, by its monthly return for Nov. 1819, have, unquestionably, proved them true to the fullest extent. And I expressly state in that communication, that, even "at the time of its failure, its resources were, I am well satisfied, more than amply sufficient to have secured its debt to the Government."
It is, therefore, inconceivable to me, upon what ground it has been assumed that, in referring to the Receiver's letter, my object was "to charge the Secretary with continuing the deposites, after he ought to have been alarmed for their safety," especially, while it is admitted that I spoke "in the most decided terms of the solvency and safety of the bank," at the time the letter was written.
It is true, I cannot consider it very prudent management in Mr. Crawford, to have continued it a depository of public money, after he had, as he says himself, "reason to apprehend a want of punctuality, or good faith on its part," especially, without enforcing a compliance with its stipulation to make those returns, which he considered necessary to ensure the fidelity of all the banks that were made depositories of the public money. The former is acknowledged in his communication to the committee, page 18; the latter appears by his letter to the President of the Bank of Edwardsville, of the 10th Nov. 1821; in which he states, that "no statement of the accounts between the Bank of Edwardsville, and the Treasurer of the United States, has been rendered to this Department, since that of the 31st January last." [See document 140, part 2, page 439.]
But, whatever may be my opinion of his sub-
