73e8942d96390f92None
Click image to open full size in new tab
WASHINGTON, August 16.-The Directory of the Bank of St. Louis has given notice for a meeting of the Stockhold ers ON the 15th September next, to take into consideration the propriety of continuing or closing the concerns of that institution. The Farmers' and Mechanics' Bank of Cincinnatisuppendied specie payments on
Click image to open full size in new tab
FROM THE FRANKFORT ARGUS. Bank of St. Lowe vs. Cols. James and R. M. Johnson. The Bank of St. Louis has again suspended specie payments, and among their reasons for so doing they set forth the following: " The Bank of St Louis, after a suspension of business for about twelve months, resumed operations on the third of March last, under the expectation on the part of the directors, of being able, if not to continue the operations of the bank successfully, at least to collect the debts due the bank, and pay the claims against it, more promptly than while in a state of suspension; the first object of the directors, therefore, was to acquire a fund on which to commence temporarily, until the bank could collect the debts due to it. This fund was raisedon the credit of individuals; which, together with the collections of debts, has enabled the bank to redeem upwards of fourteen thousand dollars of its bills issued, besides liquidating other claims amounting to about twelve thousand dollars. The receipts for debts due the bank during its last operations, have fallen short of what the directors had anticipated. Among these disappointments, the most prominent is the delinquency of the Colonels James and R. M. Johnson of Kentucky, in not paying the large sums of money (amounting to about fifty-six thousand dollars) lately awarded against them, The Colonel Johnsons had entered into the most honorable obligations to discharge the debt that should be found against them; and from the extraordinary assurances on the part of the colonel Johnsons, as well as from the legal obligations those gentlemen were under, the directors of the Bank of St. Louis placed a considerable degree of reliance on receiving a prompt payment of this debt; disappointed in every arrangement entered into by the colonel Johnsons, the only alternative left for the directors of the Bank of St. Louis to pursue, was to commence a suit at law on the award against them. This course has been taken, and the result will probably restore to the stockholders of the bank, the funds of which the institution has been so long unjustly deprived, and for the want of which, con-
Click image to open full size in new tab
state what amount of bills deposited on account of the government was in the Bank of Missouri at the time the suspension of cash payments took place. A. I was not expressly understood, if it was supposed that I said that the government funds in bank at the time of the suspension consisted of bills. Although a credit then stood on the books of the bank to the United States, the money corresponding with that credit was not actually in the bank. The amount due the government, as appeared on the books of the bank, was very near the amount allowed as a permanent deposite, which was payable six months after the bank ceased to be employed as an office of public deposite. Q. What sum did then remain in bank, of bills which had been entered to the credit of the U. States? A. A very small amount, perhaps about five thousand dollars. Q. When the arrangement was made with the Bank of Missouri, under which it was to retain a permanent deposite, what was the amount first understood it should se retain? A. One hundred and fifty thousand dollars. Q. Was there not an arrangement made with the Secretary of the Treasury by letters of August and Sept. 1819, by which the same moneys were to have been received by the government, or a considerable portion of them, as were received under the subsequent arrangement of March, 1820? And did not the bank fail to comply with the first arrangement alluded to? A. The letter of the bank of the 9th Aug. 1819, and the arrangement made by me, in March 1820, will answer that question. Whatever paper, under the first arrangement was not transferred, the Bank, of course, was accountable for, in cash. Q. Was not a part of the same paper which was to have been transferred under the first arrangement, afterwards received under the second, in a depreciated state? A. No. I believe that all the paper transferred to the government was of the same value at the time it was agreed to be transferred by letter of the 9th of August. Q. Was not a consideable part of the paper transferred under the arrangement contained in the letter of the 20th of March, 1820, greatly below par? A. It was. Q. What amount of it, as nearly as you can recollect, was below par? A. Something more than one hundred thousand dollars. Q. Did the Bank of Missouri ever receive an answer from the Secretary of the Treasury, to the following clause in a letter signed by Aug. Chouteau, President, and dated 9th August, 1819 viz: "As to the Bank of Edwardsville, the only one near us, we cannot give it our confidence. Their paper is received with distrust, even in their own neighbourhood, and passed from hand to hand as soon as possible. Owing to the intimate connection which it had with the Bank of St. Louis, which cannot pay its debts, and has entirely discontinued business, the capital stock of that bank has been taken for the most part, and is now owned by five or six individuals, some of them living out of the state, and the direction secured to such persons as they may choose to appoint. There are other objections, which we forbear to mention." A. I never saw any answer to this clause, & believe that none was ever received by this bank. Q. Was the opinion here expressed by the Bank of Missouri, concerning the Bank of Edwardsville, continued to be entertained by the former, for any length of time after the date of that letter, and how long? A. I cannot positively say, as to any other person but myself; but my impressions were changed, after I understood from common report, that the Bank of Edwardsville had determined to forfeit the stook of those persons who should not pay the requisitions of the bank. I understood that General Payne, of Kentucky, and others, were stockholders to a large amount, and I believed that they would fail to pay for the stock subscribed, if demanded in cash. This, I think, was my impreseion at the time, but it was derived merely froin report then prevailing. THOS. F. RIDDICK.
Click image to open full size in new tab
ilis deposited on account of the government was in the Bank of Missouri at the time the suspension of cash payments took place. A. I was not correctly understood, if it was supposed that i said that the government funds in bank at the time of the suspension consisted of bills. Although a credit then stood on the books of the bank to the U. States, the money corresponding with that credit was not actually in the bank. The amount due the government, as appeared on the books of the bank, was very near the amount allowed as a permanent deposite, which was payable six months after the bank ceased to be employed as an office of public deposite. Q. What sum did then remain in bank of bills winch had been entered to the credit of the United States? A. A very small amount, perhaps about five thousand dollars. Q. When the arrangement was made with the Bank of Missouri, under which it was to retain a permanent deposue, what was the amount first understood it should so retain? A. One hundred and fifty thousand dollars. Q. Was there not an arrangement made with the Secretary of the Treasury by letters of August and Sept. 1819, by which the same moneys were to have been received by the government, or a considerable portion of them, as were received under the subsequent arrangement of March, 1820? And did not the bank fail to comply with the first arrangement allud-ed to? A. The letter of the bank of the 9th of Aug. 1819, and the arrangement made by me, in March 1820, will answer that question. Whatever paper, under the fist arrangentent, was not transferred, the bank, of course, was accountable for, in cash. Q. Was not a part of the same paper which was to have been transtetted under the first arrangement, afterwards received under the second, in a depreciated state? A. No. I believe that all the paper transferred to the government was of tite same value at the time of the transfer, as it was at the time it was agreed to be transferred by letter of the 9th of August. Q. Was nor a considerable part of the paper trans-fened under the arrangement contained in the letter of the 20th of March, 1820, greatly below par? A. It was. Q. What amount of it, as nearly as you can recollect, was betow par ? A. Sometinng more than one hundred thousand doitars. Q. Did the Bank of Missouri ever receive an answer from the Secretary of the Treasury, to the following clause in a letter signed by Aug. Chouteau, President, and dated 9th August, 1819. voz: "As to the Bank of Edwardsville, the only one near us, we cannot give it our confidence. Their paper is received with distrust, even in their owa neighbourhood, and passed from hand to hand as soon as possible. Owing to the intimate connection which it had with the Bank of St. Louis, which cannot pay its debts,and has entirely discontinued business, the cap-tai stock of that bank has been taken for the most part and is now owned by five or six individuals, some of them living out of the state, aud the direction secur-ed to such persons as they may choose to appoint.-There are other objections, which we forbear to men-tion." A. I never saw any answer to this clause, and be-lieve that neae was ever received by this bauk. QWas the opinion here expressed by the Bank of Missouri, concerning the Bank of Edwardsville, continued to be entertained by the former, for any ie gth of time after the date of that letter, and how long? A. I cannot positively say, as to any other person but myself; bat my impressions were changed, after I understood, from common report, that the Back of Edwardsvilie had determined to forfeit the stock of those persons who should not pay the requisitions of the bank. I understood that General Payne, of Kentucky, and others, were stockholders to a large amount, and I believed that they would fail to pay for the stock subscribed, it demanded in cash. This, I think, was my impression at the time, but it was denved merely from report then prevailing. THOS. F. RIDDICK.