TO THE 
OF 
THE BANK OF THE UNITED STATES. 
Office of Discount and Dejiosi/e, 
Washington, Aug. 26, 1825. 
An address has recently been made to you by Mr. Roger C. 
Weightman, purporting to be a renewal of certain injurious char- 
ges, heretofore preferred against me before the Directors of the 
Parent Bank at Philadelphia. 
* Having in vain sought to convict me before that very respec- 
table body, and been discomfited in his obvious schemes, by my 
unqualified acquittal; he has with befitting modesty and decorum, 
arrayed the perverted conclusions of his solitary mind, against 
the unbiassed decision of the tribunal of his selection, and ap- 
peals thence to the Stockholders at large. 
In this reiterated attack, from a source so manifestly warped 
by prejudice, and emanating from feelings so flimsily disguised, 
I can have little to fear from a denunciation, in which the blind 
spleen of Mr. Weightman has associated me with so many dis- 
tinguished gentlemen: and I feel well assured, that I might safely 
rest my justification on the internal evidence afforded in his ad- 
dress. As, however, it becomes a public servant ever to exhibit 
himself prompt in maintaining his character beyond the reach of 
suspicion, I have deemed it respectful and proper to address you 
such concise vindication, as may comport with the accusation 
and the continual perversions of Mr. Weightman. 
Mr. Weightman defines at the threshold of his address, what 
he deems to be its proper limits; yet, with that happy forgetful- 
ness, which, on many occasions, he exhibits throughout his at- 
tack, has wandered at once into a new field of vituperation, and 
in an excursion of a dozen pages, has embodied all that a mind, 
not habituated to discriminate between facts and the fictions of 
unbridled passion, can distort to my prejudice. Unsupported as 
are these introductory charges by any tender of evidence, their 
grave import nevertheless entitles them to a passing notice, and 
constrains me to transgress that brevity with which the proper 
charges had been met. 
I am accused by Mr. W. with a violation of duty, in thwarting 
the views of the Parent Board of Directors, by twice arraying a 2 
party against their nominations for the Presidency of the Office 
here. That the charge is wholly an unfounded fabrication of Mr. 
W. is fully shown by the papers in the appendix, Nos. 1, 2 Sc 3.* 
It is moreover due to justice to state, and I here declare it as a 
positive fact, that none were more vehement and clamorous in 
opposing the first nomination, than the immediate friends of Mr. 
Weightmun. 
On this, as on all occasions, I suffered no feelings to intrude on 
me, incompatible with the instructions of the parent Board; but 
gave to these the promptest obedience. As Mr. W. well knows 
was my duty, I announced to the gentleman first nominated, the 
fact of his nomination; and gave him all the information within 
my reach, to enable him to designate such a direction as would 
ensure his election. (See my letter and the answer to it, in the 
appendix, Nos. 4 8c 5.) When this gentleman declined, and Mr. W. 
was nominated in his stead, my course towards him was the same. 
(See my letter in the appendix, No. 6.) In designating a direction, 
Mr. W. expected the votes of the directors from Georgetown, one 
of whom was my brother, to be given in his favour, which would 
have secured his election. I distinctly informed him that I believ- 
ed these gentlemen would incline to conform to the nomination of 
the parent Board; but that I had held no communication with 
them, and could consequently give no pledge. Notwithstanding 
my efforts in his behalf as to one of these, as shown in the papers 
above referred to, the votes of these directors decided the elec- 
tion against Mr. W., and hence he has marked me as a peculiar 
object for his resentment. 
As to the charge connected herewith, of opposing the election 
of any one, whose proper vigilance would develop my irregulari- 
ties, the above mentioned papers, and my previous correspon- 
dence and conversations with members of the parent Board on 
this subject, prove by what opposite considerations I was guided, 
and I can but express my contempt at the insinuation. The tes- 
timony adduced by Mr. W. at the late investigations of my con- 
duct, made it manifest throughout, that I needed no such cloak. 
My official deportment was ever open and undisguised: and free 
access was ever given to the inspection of all, at which there has 
been a cavil. My accusers were constrained to admit, that on 
these occasions I acted openly, as a man free from guile, and 
therefore unsuspicious of injury from others. But, turning 
thence to the picture which they exhibit of themselves, Mr. W.’s 
self-encomiastick feelings will scarce trace there any lineament of 
like candour and frankness. Their course was as secret as mine 
was open; and whilst in daily intercourse, their conduct was such 
as to excite no distrust on my part, for six or eight months, 
they were industriously pursuing their furtive labours, so as to 
•These papers are from all the directors voting1 against the nomination of 
Mr. W., excepting Mr. Wirt and Com. Rodgers, who are absent from this 
City. No one can for a moment admit the idea that 1 could attempt to influ- 
ence either of these latter gentlemen. 3 
give to my character every distortion of which it was susceptible. 
By their own confessions on record, Mr. W. and his two abettors 
were, during this extended period, in full possession of the mate- 
rial features of their accusations before the parent Board; yet, did 
they calmly and in silence suffer the accumulation of abuses, 
fraught, as is pretended, with the most dangerous consequences 
to the Institution, till on the eve of the election for President and 
Directors for this Office. They well knew that the evidence of 
the leading charges rested on such perishable foundation, that on- 
ly at the moment of occurrence could a certain explanation of them 
be given, and blanched at the preferring of charges, which had 
recoiled at once on themselves. It was only when, amid the 
multiplicity of such unregistered business, it might be expect- 
ed that every frail memorial of particular transactions must have 
passed from my mind, and could only subsist in such statements 
as they chose to exhibit, that they could hope to effect my convic- 
tion. On this subject, the report of the Directors of this Office, 
No. 8.* in the appendix, affords the fittest commentary, and I for- 
bear farther remark. 
Of the peculiar features with which Mr. W. presents himself 
in his last attack, I need only refer to the paper No. 7. in the 
appendix, showing the opinion of the Directors of this Office, on 
the first investigation of my conduct, embracing six of the seven 
reiterated charges; by which it appears that Mr. W. virtually 
abandoned five of them, and only inculpated me on the sixth, by 
a palpable perversion of the fundamental principles of justice, in 
relying solely on the evidence adduced by himself, and declining 
to read my defence, offered to the Board, and placed within his 
reach.f 
Against the charge of partiality in conducting the first investi- 
gation here, the Directors of this Office know how to defend them- 
selves; but I may be permitted to say that no one is more res- 
ponsible for it than Mr. W. himself. He preferred the accusa- 
tion, and the record will show how prominent and active he was 
in developing the evidence on every charge. It would have be- 
come his candour, too, to have admitted, that to his call for my 
personal examination, I readily assented, and promptly replied to 
his interrogatories, till my answers proving little satisfactory to 
his purpose, his sense of justice towards the accused, suddenly 
became offended, and he begged that all trace of his irregularity 
should be expunged from the record. At the second investiga- 
* This paper exhibits the “law opinion or argumentative statement” of Mr. 
Wirt, referred to by Mr. W, and which he has been so anxious to obtain. 
Having retained a copy of the document, I am happy in being able to grati- 
fy his wishes on the subject, 
t Mr. W. has seen fit to deny that my defence was offered to the Board; 
on what grounds he must decide. The fact is, it was offered to all present, 
Mr. W. included; and was severally read by all excepting Mr. W. and Major 
Miller, to both of whom I subsequently tendered it. 
Mr. W. has also chosen to omit any notice of the above mentioned paper, 
No. 7, for reasons best known to himself. 4 
tion, embracing the seventh charge in Mr. W.’a address, he 
was absent at Philadelphia, where he had gone to enforce his 
own conclusions on the parent Board, and to prefer this charge. 
The investigation was in fact, kept open till after the latest pe- 
riod when his brother, the second teller, had said he would cer- 
tainly return; but, on his continued absence, was then closed; and 
he ventures to pronounce my guilt on a cursory reading of the 
proceedings. 
I come now to the seven enumerated charges, some of which 
it is proper to remark, having arisen incidentally, from evidence 
elicited in the investigation, and being additional to the points of 
investigation directed by the parent Board, I had not the least in- 
terval to collect exculpatory testimony. The first of these, is in 
the following words: 
1. “Furnishing drafts, by the Cashier of this Office, to the Far- 
mers and Mechanics’ Bank of Georgetown, without premium, (of 
which bank his brother, Clem. Smith, Esq. is President.)” 
That the actual result of the transactions on which this charge 
is founded, has been wholly favourable to this Office,—in as much 
as it received an excess of Northern drafts beyond what was af- 
forded to that Bank without a premium, of more than S! 16,000 
in the transactions of fourteen months.—is clearly apparent, from 
the statement of Mr. W. and the evidence of the first book-keep- 
er, to which he refers.* That the transaction is equally unobjec- 
tionable on principle, I will render entirely apparent. 
Referring to the examinations of the first book-keeper, and of 
the second teller, (the latter so active in the former accusations, 
and whom, by the way, Mr. W. sedulously avoids to mention as 
his brother,) as filed in the parent Bank; it will be seen that the 
general practice of this Office towards Banks and individuals, was 
to exchange Northern drafts for the like amount of the same 
funds received, and that alike whether demanded at the time of 
reception or subsequently; and the benefit of this transaction is 
apparent, in as much as it gave to this Office a present command 
of desirable funds, to be restored potentially at a subsequent pe- 
riod. Thus, a Bank having a Northern draft for 830,000 and de- 
siring to draw but for 85,000, would receive for the draft, from 
this Office, a draft of the latter amount, and leave the balance on 
deposite or receive it in current notes, with the understanding 
that farther Northern drafts at par, to the amount of this balance, 
would be given when required. What can be more consonant 
than this, with justice and fairness of dealing? And that this was 
strictly the principle of these transactions, is shown by the paper 
No. 9. in the appendix. Yet, Mr. W., with a perversion of rea- 
* It may be remarked farther, as to the benefit of these transactions, that 
the drafts obtained by the Farmers and Mechanics’ Bank of Georgetown, 
were generally on Baltimore; whilst those received from that Bank were 
almost invariably on New York. Thus, as the former were at but $ per cent, 
and the latter at i per cent, advance, a farther profit accrued to this Office. 5 
son, which the Stockholders will readily appreciate, pronounces 
the transaction a sale without premium. Desperate indeed must 
be the accuser that resorts to a charge of this character to estab- 
lish criminality. 
But as a part of this charge, I am accused of exchanging Nor- 
thern funds of this Office, payable at sight, for others due at a dis- 
tant day: and an instance is given in a note, of a discount made 
by me for the Farmers and Mechanics’ Bank of Georgetown, 
from which the Bank received Northern funds. That discount 
was made with the consent of the exchange committee, except 
ing Mr. W., who was not within reach: and he was afterwards 
told, that if he disapproved of it, the money should be returned. 
But as Mr. W. now only questions the other features of the 
transaction, they claim my principal notice. The facts of the 
transaction are these : That Bank applied to the Treasury for a 
Northern draft of g 10,000, which was readily accorded. To pro- 
vide funds in part pay for this draft, the above discount was obtain- 
ed at this Office, and the proceeds were placed to the credit of the 
Treasurer. On this the Bank was to receive the draft; but as it was 
desirable that it should be divided into two equal parts, and the 
Treasurer was averse to such practice, the draft was, by agree- 
ment, drawn in my favour; and in exchange, I gave the two drafts 
stated by Mr. W. So far from my influence being necessary for 
this transaction with the Treasury, it is notorious that it is of 
common occurrence, both with Banks and individuals, to obtain 
such accommodations. 
2. The second charge is in these words : “Loaning to the Far- 
mers and Mechanics’ Bank of Georgetown, the funds of this 
Office, without interest, and without the approbation or knowl- 
edge of this Office.” 
The record of proceedings, on file in the Bank of the United 
States, proves that the transactions alluded to, were within the 
exercise of a sound discretion. 
As regards the check for 18,000 dollars, which the Farmers 
and Mechanics’ Bank drew on this Office, the evidence of the 
Cashier of that Bank, of Col. Bomford and Major Wade, shows 
that the Bank had a claim on the Government, for 32,000 dollars, 
payable by a draft on New York, which was then due and expected 
to be realised immediately. Having occasion for a draft on New 
York for 18,000 dollars, the Cashier of that Bank negotiated 
with me for one, by assigning this claim on Government; and, 
as a further security to the Bank of the United States, he volun- 
tarily placed in my hands, northern drafts to the amount of 20,000 
dollars, and gave me a bona fide specie receipt for 18,000 dollars, 
to be used in the possible event of a failure to receive the funds 
from Government. In consequence of the absence, occasioned 
by sickness, of an United States officer, whose certificate was 
necessary to realize the claim on the Government, it was not 
paid so soon as expected; but the evidence of all parties agrees 
that payment was obtained in a short period, and the draft for 6 
32,000 dollars, placed in my hands for the full discharge of all 
the claims which this Office had against the Bank. Viewing this 
claim on the Government as the only security, a transaction so 
familiar to all conversant with banking transactions, I might on 
this safely rest my defence with unbiassed men. But, Mr. W. 
admitted that this Office never refused to discount northern bills 
offered by that Bank; and I was authorised by the Farmers and 
Mechanics’ Bank, to have those in my hands discounted, when- 
ever I thought lit. I could moreover realise the specie receipt 
at any moment, and the specie was thus as available as that 
in the mint is to the parent Bank; for it is well known that the 
Banks here consider these obligations as of the most sacred 
character, and have never failed to redeem them on demand. Far- 
ther, not only as regards the Farmers and Mechanics’ Bank, but 
other Banks here, they have been known to, and recognized by 
the direction of this Office as specie.* Considering then, either 
of these latter securities as money, that Bank, on the principle 
explained in my answer to the first charge, was entitled to a 
Northern draft without premium, in part of the balance of that 
kind of funds due to it. 
The other transaction proved, was briefly this: The Cashier of 
the Bank referred to, had given me a draft on Baltimore, to 
redeem balances of notes held by this Office;! and had I forwarded 
it, it had been promptly paid. The Cashier, however, gave me 
the option of receiving payment from the proceeds of the claim 
on Government before referred to, which being one-fourth per 
cent, more valuable than the draft on Baltimore, I consulted the 
interest of this Office by preferring them, and the amount was 
paid accordingly. So much for the charge of lending money 
without interest; as to which, Mr. W., with a happy forgetfulness 
of the evidence, has been pleased to style my defence an after- 
thought. 
And however singular it may seem, in the chill current of Mr. 
W.’s feelings, to speak of an extension of courtesy towards sister 
institutions, the stockholders will readily appreciate the advan- 
tage of cultivating a friendliness of feeling, and the justice of 
reciprocating favours, though flowing from “a little bank in this 
District, with a capital of half a million.” 
Another insinuation intruding under this charge, claims a brief 
attention. Mr. W. chooses to infer, from the certificate of my 
stock having been for years deposited in this Office, to meet any 
potential defalcation, that these loans have prevailed during an 
extended period. The fact justifies no such inference, and none 
other than that such has been the rectitude of my intentions to- 
wards the Bank of the United States and my securities, that I 
* It may be proper to say, that the practice has prevailed with this Office, 
up to the present day, to issue such receipts. 
f It may be proper to remark that this transaction explains one of those 
reductions stated by Mr. W. in his seventh charge, and which is there made 
the ground of crimination. 7 
desired to pledge the means promptly to repair any loss occurring 
through me, though at the expense of my fortune. The third 
charge is in these words:— 
3. “ Returning in his official weekly statements to the Bank of 
the United States, the obligation of the Farmers and Mechanics’ 
Bank of Georgetown, as notes of this Office.” 
Which is stated to have been fully proved by the first teller. 
This statement is wholly without foundation, and the nearest ap- 
proach to it in the evidence of that officer, is his reply to the in- 
terrogatory of Mr. W., that he would have counted them as notes. 
The obligations in question were in the hands of the first teller, 
and any return of them to the parent Bank must have been found- 
ed on his report. As to the largest of them, had it been in my 
possession, it would most probably have been returned as specie, 
on the principle relative to specie receipts, heretofore adverted to, 
or as Northern funds ; I having in my possession, the means to 
realize either. It would indeed transcend the power of any “in- 
genuity or legerdemain” of mine, to transform these obligations 
into notes of this Office: and the Stockholders will readily per- 
ceive that Mr. W. has assumed to himself a much easier under- 
taking, in preferring a charge, which admits of such immediate 
refutation, that all search for testimony, well known to be non- 
existent, is happily avoided. Were I disposed for recrimination, 
with as little labour as Mr. W. has incurred, though from the an- 
tithesis of cause; I might turn to the decalogue, and charge him 
with having herein borne false witness against his neighbour. 
4. The fourth charge is in these words: “Retaining in this Office, 
a check of Messrs. Walter and Clem. Smith, (brothers of the 
Cashier) on the Farmers and Mechanics’ Bank of Georgetown, 
as cash, and not sending it to that Bank for payment.” 
This, Mr. W. affects to consider principally important from 
the manner of explaining it, as contradicted by an affidavit of his 
brother, the second teller. What this affidavit may be, I know 
not; since it has never been exhibited here as the ground or evi- 
dence of any charge, so that it might be replied to, and I have no 
further evidence of its contents than the general assertion of Mr. 
W. The Stockholders will observe, however, that from these 
charges being preferred on the eve of an election of Directors for 
this Office, and from the influence that they were apparently de- 
signed to exercise in the formation of the new Board, it was 
deemed important, as well to myself as others, that no delay 
should intervene in submitting the result of the investigation to 
the parent Board; on which account, I readily waived all the bene- 
fit of delay, and where positive evidence was not at hand, relied 
on probable explanations. This was one of those cases; and my 
defence, which Mr. W. perverts with his usual ingenuousness, 
was in these words: “The check of W. and C. bmith, which the 
second teller states was withheld several days, came into the 
Office, most firobably, after the weekly exchange had been made 
up.” No averse testimony being offered, I could only speak 8 
from my course of business. The statement now made by Mr. W. 
recalls to my memory, that at the time when I was about to send 
the check in for payment, my brothers placed in my hands some 
bills on Government, payable in Northern funds, with the privi- 
lege of paying the check from the proceeds. These being more 
valuable, I of course availed of the offer; and the bills being im- 
mediately paid, the check was retired in this manner. This fact 
is shown by the affidavit, No. 10. in the appendix. 
Growing out of this transaction, is the charge of having vio- 
lated the 15th rule of the parent Board, in permitting large dis- 
counts to be made in the sole names of W. and C. Smith, they 
being partners in trade. The nature of the connexion between 
these gentlemen was presumed to be as notorious to the members 
generally, of every Board of direction since the establishment of 
this Office, as it was to myself, and was not considered to come 
within the rule. Besides, that there was no attempt to conceal 
the fact, is evinced by this very check in their joint names, which 
has called forth such display of this gentleman’s vigilance. This, 
however, was not a solitary check in that shape, but for years, 
had been preceded by others similarly drawn, which, unless they 
had gone their regular course, had not escaped that lynx-eyed 
scrutiny of which we are now apprised. The fact is, that in one 
branch of business, W. and C. Smith were associated; though it 
was conducted by the former exclusively. But had Mr W., in 
the exercise of that zeal which shines forth so conspicuously on 
special occasions, been desirous of meriting of charity 
that he assumes as his due, he had only to refer to the records of 
the county, to find property, in the separate name of either, more 
than would secure all the responsibilities of both. Besides, if, by 
‘large discounts,’ he means the debts standing in their names, I 
can say that not one dollar was obtained for the use of either of 
them, nor did they owe one cent to this Office on their own ac- 
count; these debts originating in loans to others, which circum- 
stances have compelled them to assume. The liens foi their se- 
curity, as well as the nature of the debt, are known to such of the 
Directors as have thought the subject of sufficient interest for in- 
quiry; and the liens for no small part of the debt, are held depo- 
sited in this Office. 
5. The fifth charge is in these words: “Not sending to New-York 
for acceptance andpayment, a draft of Mr. W. or Mr. C. Smith, 
(the one drawer and the other endorser,) which had been dis- 
counted by the exchange Board of this Office, for the use of 
the Farmers and Mechanics’ Bank of Georgetown.” 
If Mr. W.’s course of conduct were guided by any settled prin- 
ciple, I might well express surprise at the reiteration of a charge 
so clearly defended, that the most desperate could find no room 
for a cavil. The draft in question, as shown by the evidence, 
was predicated on the supposed value of certain guilder bills 
drawn by Gen. W. Smith, and which were to be forwarded to his 
agent for sale, the drawee, simultaneously with the draft. It was 9 
however, understood that the Government would likely purchase 
these bills, before the maturity of the draft, at the New-York value, 
and pay in a draft on that city; which being more desirable to 
Gen. Smith, it was agreed when the draft was discounted by the 
Farmers and Mechanics’ Bank of Georgetown, that it should not 
be forwarded till the guilder bills, which were at the same time 
left with the Bank, had been offered to Government. W hen the 
draft was offered, by that Bank, for discount at this Office, the 
bills were also placed in my hands with a request, from all par- 
ties, to offer them to Government before forwarding the draft. 
Accordingly, on my offer of the bills to the Government, they 
were purchased, and the proceeds applied by me, as shown by 
the record, to the payment of the draft, before it could have, been 
realised by being forwarded to New-York. 
This draft having been retained here, at the request of all par- 
ties, as shown by the evidence ; Mr. W.’s statement of the law 
on this subject, is quite as unfortunate for him, as his statement 
of facts. 
The sixth and seventh charges are in these words: 
6. “Falsifying the official weekly returns of the state of this Of- 
fice, to the Bank of the United States, so far as regards the true 
amount of the notes of the Farmers and Mechanics’ Bank of 
Georgetown, on hand in possession of this Office.” 
7. “Falsifying the official weekly returns of the state of this Of- 
fice, to the Bank of the United States, so far as regards the ag- 
gregate amount of the District Bank Notes on hand.” 
These charges Mr. W., for the Stockholders, pronounces to be 
the most important: and with these, would he especially fortify 
himself in the stand he has assumed. On these, he has adduced 
some show of evidence, of which I am now for the first time 
apprised, and refers to other documents, filed by him at the Pa- 
rent Bank, the particulars of which he has not vouchsafed to 
afford to me. The former, coming in tangible shape, I promptly 
meet it; from the latter I will not shrink, when arrayed against 
me. 
The manner in which these charges are urged, may be deemed 
to require a more deliberate analysis; and the extent of their de- 
tails will justify me with the Stockholders for some prolixity. 
It was believed on the first investigation into my conduct, that 
no discrepancy existed in the aggregate amount, as stated in the 
seventh charge, no record being kept in this Office of their re- 
turns ; and my defence was made accordingly. The persever- 
ing efforts of Mr. W., whilst at Philadelphia, did, however, dis- 
cover some variances; and the instances of my friend, the Alex- 
andria Director alluded to by Mr. W., and perhaps, as he sug- 
gests, his letter effected the second investigation. The result 
however, as exhibited by the record, was so satisfactory to my- 
self, and afforded so little cause of gratulation to my enemies, 
that I had imagined they would scarcely be desirous of renewing 
the charge. 10 
As to the proof of these charges, it is seen by the record, that 
so far from the accumulation of three witnesses to the facts, the 
first book-keeper knew nothing but Avhat the second teller had told 
him : the evidence of the first teller was equally imperfect; and 
the second teller only knew that the amount of notes reported by 
the first teller, and uncounted by him, in six or eight cases during 
as many months, differed in the aggregate with the small sum in 
his hands, from what was reported by the Cashier. Thus, the 
Stockholders will readily perceive, that however open the second 
teller may be to such charge, my justification by no means neces- 
sarily impugns the accuracy of this Officer. It is sufficient that 
error existed with the first teller, and that his accuracy is not 
above question, I need but refer to the report of a committee of 
the parent Board, for considering the deficiency in his cash, made 
February, 1823. But Mr. W. has assumed to discredit my de- 
fence by the positive testimony of the first teller; as to which I 
have to say, that it appears to cost Mr. W. little scruple to as- 
cribe to me statements that I never made, and the first teller feels 
his security in denying them on oath. I never did state that ‘I 
frequently found the first teller in error, and requested him to re- 
count his packages—My words are precisely these: ‘I have on 
several occasions, required of the first teller, upon observing the 
amount of notes stated in the weekly return, as on hand, of vari- 
ous Banks; that they should be separately made up for exchange 
or payment, and when this was done, they were found to be wide- 
ly different from the sums stated.’ 
The evidence by which these grave charges admit of refuta- 
tion, is twofold : a direct and positive testimony, demonstrating 
my innocence by facts, and an indirect and circumstantial evi- 
dence, appealing with equal strength to the moral sense. 
Of the latter kind, Mr. W. himself suggests the argument, that 
no man, not utterly prostrate in character, ever jeopardises 
his reputation gratuitously ; and on this, for a time, will I main- 
tain myself. The record shows abundantly that I could have no 
possible object in betraying my trust, and none will believe that 
1 would recklessly rush on destruction. I had no interest in the 
Farmers and Mechanics’ Bank, and would derive no emolument 
from any dereliction of duty : the President was my brother, and, 
independently of his wide extended and unsullied reputation, 
could have no wish, whilst the prosperity of the Bank, exhibited 
in the evidence, left him no motive for involving me in any cov- 
ert conduct. But the course of guilt is ever secret and suspi- 
cious; whilst the testimony of all (well known to Mr. W., but in 
his address very candidly suppressed) shows that my deportment 
was always open and confiding. Unlike the furtive records of my 
adversaries, these returns now caviled at, were spread openly be- 
fore the officers, and an investigation courted; whereas, I had but 
myself to forward the documents, and thus easily put a seal on 
all inquiry. Or I had but to report only the aggregate of notes, and 
there was left nothing on which inquiry could rest. I stated in 11 
my defence to the parent Board, that the aggregate alone was 
called for by their regulations, and Mr. W. has vouchsafed to 
meet the assertion by an awkward exhibition of his humour. At 
the hazard of again eliciting his Attick pungency, I repeat my as- 
sertion, and here affirm, that as only such notes were currently 
received as were deemed good, and their aggregate amount was 
inconsiderable, it had mattered not, though all the notes on hand 
h ad been of a single Bank. But happily my character has no oc- 
casion to rest on this foundation: and I will presently exhibit such 
full and direct evidence as an unregistered and common transac- 
tion can possibly admit of, after being suffered to slumber for 
months. 
It was fully shown by the tellers, in their examinations, that 
their reports were founded on the state of their accounts on Sa- 
turday, from 2 to half past 2 o’clock, whilst my report was made 
lip late on the next business day: during which interval, the state of 
these funds might, and frequently did, materially change its as- 
pect. The first of these officers admits, that on occasions the 
whole notes of a Bank have been paid away during this interval. 
The Cashier of the Farmers 8c Mechanics’ Bank, in his testimony 
on record, and paper No. 9. in the appendix, corroborates the 
fact: and farther shows, that on my peremptory demand to reduce 
his notes, he promptly met them before my return was made out, 
by actual payment or redemption with other funds. So far as 
these transactions were actual payments, the books of his Bank 
afford a registry of them, and he accordingly exhibits therefrom 
certain evidence as to two of the most important differences.— 
For the rest, he gives all the evidence that can possibly be adduc- 
ed, and all that, with impartial men, is requisite to repel a charge 
treasured up in silence so long as a certain explanation could be 
given, and only developed when all personal remembrance of it 
must necessarily be obliterated. He tells you, in language more 
comprehensive than the memoranda of my accusers, that he has 
on many occasions redeemed his notes in the interval between the 
reports of the tellers and my returns, in current funds, and that 
in direct remittances to myself, of which the tellers could have 
no account. To place this evidence beyond dispute, the books of. 
the first teller here exhibit corresponding reductions in District 
notes, on all those days when there is a discrepancy in the aggre- 
gate of my report. 
But Mr. W. has chosen to say, that “whilst the notes of the 
Farmers Sc Mechanics’ Bank were invariably reduced, those of 
other local Banks were as constantly increased.” The latter part 
of this statement is wholly untrue: and the Stockholders have only 
to refer to the instances of discrepancy stated by the tellers, on 
record, to satisfy themselves how little faith is to be given to any 
representations of Mr. W. In the single instance that he exhibits 
in his pamphlet, he has been adroit enough to select such a return 
as may comport with his assertion: but the record will show' that 
the amount of notes of other Banks was frequently reduced. It is 
true that as to the former Bank, the amount tvas never increased; 12 
but paper No. 9. and the testimony of the Cashier of that Bank, 
on record, prove that when the amount was swollen to such size 
as to attract the notice of the tellers, it was reduced by the Ca- 
shier, on my peremptory order: and it is a farther fact, on which 
the attack of my enemies may perhaps throw some light, that fre- 
quently these notes were reported to me at a larger sum than 
could be produced, and utterly disproportioned to their circula- 
tion. (See as to this point, the affidavit of the Cashier, filed in 
the record of the first investigation.*) It is worthy of notice too, 
that at the moment of suspension, when the funds were transfer- 
red to the first teller, he states that the notes of the Farmers and 
Mechanics’ Bank constituted but a moderate port on of the Dis- 
trict notes on hand. And it is a further fact, that since the inves- 
tigation, I have required accurate reports from the tellers, of the 
separate notes of each District Bank: and though the circulation 
of the Farmers 8c Mechanics’ Bank has not during this period 
decreased, the proportion of its notes on hand is generally smaller 
than those of tne other Banks. But the disingenuousness of Mr. 
W. has chosen carefully to conceal the fact, that on half the cases 
of aggregate discrepancy, the amount returned by me, has ex- 
ceeded the reports of the tellers. In only three cases, is the 
amount of difference so considerable as to sustain any imputation 
of sinister motives; and the rest will readily be referred to the 
explanations heretofore given. On these occasions, peculiar cir- 
cumstances have enabled me to give, as I trust, a satisfactory ex- 
planation. 
But Mr. W. has charged me with “mystifying” this business in 
my defence, by confounding the daily and weekly transactions of 
the tellers with me, and thus inferring that they estimated (not 
counted) the respective amounts of District notes on hand. 1 can 
only say, that I know of no such distinction as Mr. W. attempts 
to establish, either in actual practice or as shown by the evidence. 
The same cash, which, during five days, was indiscriminately mix- 
ed by both tellers, formed the basis of the first teller’s report: and 
when, in subsequent transactions, the whole amount of notes with 
both tellers invariably exhibited the same promiscuous mixture,! 
in which state, a present Director of this Office, and a very exten- 
sive Broker, declares his belief, that the separate amount of notes 
of each Bank could not be accurately ascertained; I felt justified in 
inferring that the proportion was estimated. It is obvious too, that 
on counting the separate notes of each Bank in a promiscuous 
bundle, and returning them again to the same, those of the differ- 
ent Banks would naturally, and without elaboration, be distinct; 
and bootless as would be the office of laboriously commingling 
* This affidavit shows particularly, that on two occasions, when, on my 
peremptory call, the Cashier came out promptly to redeem large amounts 
of notes reported by the first teller: he found on one occasion, none; and 
on another, so small a sum, that the teller declined to assort them. 
f See on this subject, the testimony of Mr. Seaton of the old Board, an£ 
of Messrs. Miller and Nicholls of the present Board of Directors. 13 
them again, the Stockholders will judge how likely I could attri- 
bute such extraordinary trouble to the first teller, in opposition to 
the testimony of both book-keepers, that he could not accomplish 
the ordinary routine of his duties, without their daily assistance. 
In more specifick illustration of this subject, I will now pro- 
ceed to exhibit a condensed abstract of eight of the weekly state- 
ments, of which the Bank of the United States sent on a list for 
examination, at the second inquiry made here. These show the 
discrepancies between the tellers’ returns and the Cashier’s week- 
ly statements, on dates from 19th June to 20th Nov. inclusive. 
The aggregates of District funds on hand, at all those periods, 
as reported by the tellers, are as follows : 
Of Farmers and Mechanics’ Bank of Georgetown, being an 
average of about $>6,300 on each return, - - $>50,248 15 
And of all the other Banks, (9 in number,) being 
an average of $11,300 per week, ... 91,048 05 
Total, $141,296 20 
Thus making, of Farmers Sc Mechanics’ Bank notes on hand, 
at those periods, about 36 per cent.; and of all the other Banks col- 
lectively, about 64 per cent. 
The aggregate returns of District funds on the same date, 
made by the Cashier, exhibit of the Farmers Sc Mechanics’ 
Bank, being an average of about $2,700 on each 
return, $21,018 76 
And of all other Banks, ----- 99,618 76 
Total, $120,637 52 
Thus making Farmers Sc Mechanics’ Bank notes on hand, at 
those periods, about 18 percent, and of all the other Banks, col- 
lectively, about 82 per cent. 
The circulation of the Farmers Sc Mechanics’ Bank is stated 
by a Treasury report in Jan. last, at $140,000, and relatively with 
that of all the other Banks, it is, as that sum is to about $700,000, 
the circulation of the whole of them, or 20 per cent. 
The statements of the Cashier, therefore, if the relative circu- 
lation of the Banks be any criterion by which to form a correct 
estimate on this subject, are nearly in conformity thereto—whilst 
the tellers’ returns exhibit the funds of the Farmers 8c Mechanics’ 
Bank, as nearly double its proportion. 
Turning to those reports separately, it appears that the tellers 
make an excess of District funds, beyond the return of the Cash- 
ier, on three different days, amounting in the aggregate to 
$24,045 :—And that on three other days, the aggregate returns 
of the Cashier exceeded those reports of the tellers, about $2,400. 
The books of the Bank, kept by the first teller, conclusively show 
a reduction of the District notes, on the days on which the state- 
ments were made out, equivalent to the former differences; and 14 
those reductions, as the statements themselves prove, were made, 
not from the Farmers and Mechanics’ only, but from most of tne 
other Banks, in considerable amounts, the declaration of Mr W. 
to the contrary, notwithstanding-, that “the amount of the notes of 
the Farmers St Mechanics’ Bank was invariably reduced, and the 
amounts of the notes of other local Banks as constantly increased.” 
I will now contrast those returns of the tellers with a view of 
the transactions with those same Banks, subsequent to the inqui- 
ry, (during which time the circulation of the Farmers and Mecha- 
nics’ Bank has not decreased) and predicated upon a course then 
adopted, which renders unnecessary any resort to estimates, or 
conjectural calculations upon this subject. This course is, to re- 
ceive those funds as usual; but no longer, as had been the practice, 
to pay them away at the counter. Instead of this, the notes of 
each Bank are kept separate and distinct, (not mixed as heretofore) 
so that the actual amount of each can always be readily seen; the 
amount being endorsed on each bundle—and Banks are required 
to take them up weekly. The tellers furnish to the book-keepers 
for the weekly returns, (made up without any agency of mine in 
these particulars,) the amount of notes of each Bank, severally : 
and the following is a condensed view of the aggregates of Dis- 
trict notes in all the weekly statements, (twenty-five in number,) 
commencing February 26th, and ending August 13th, 1825, in- 
clusive, viz: 
Of the Farmers Sc Mechanics’ Bank, being an average of less 
than Si,000 on each return, - - $24,585 32 
•\nd of all the other Banks, (9 in number,) 228,654 01 
S 253,239 33 
Thus making of Farmers Sc Mechanics’ Banknotes, an average 
of less than 10 per cent.—a poor figure, compared with its former 
exhibit hi the returns which have produced this chai'ge:—and of 
nine other Banks, upwards of 90 per cent. 
These weekly statements exhibit the aggregates, during the 
same period, of funds of the » 
Bank of Washington, $25,259 07, or about 10 per cent. 
•Patriotic Bank, 31,047 12, or „ 13 „ 
Potomac Bank, 20,800 43, or „ 8 „ 
Metropolis Bank, 11,190 79, or „ 4£ „ 
These Banks are referred to, because Mr. W. charges me with 
subducting from the Farmers 8c Mechanics’ Bank, and adding to 
their respective amounts. 
It will be seen above, that the average amount of funds of two 
of the above mentioned Banks, exceed that of the Farmers Sc Me- 
chanics’ Bank (one of them, considerably), and of the others, one 
is nearly equal. 
Let us see how those several Banks are represented to have 
been reported by those same tellers, on the eight first mentioned 
statements, out of which has grown this charge. 15 
The aggregates of notes, as by them reported, are, of the 
Farmers Sc Mechanics’ Bank, S 50,248 15, or about 36 per cent. 
Bank of Washington, - 5,959 93, or „ 4 „ 
Patriotic Bank, - 7,906 91, or „ „ 
Potomac Bank, ... 7,385 00, or „ 5* „ 
Metropolis Bank, - - 1,744 60, or „ „ 
Comment on this striking contrast would seem unnecessary. 
Considering, then, the excessive disproportion contained in the 
tellers’ reports of Farmers Sc Mechanics’ Bank notes, compared 
with the circulation, as has been shown; considering the manner 
in which the notes of the District Banks were heretofore kept, 
(commingled together) and paid away at the counter as wanted, 
when it was apparently next to impossible that the exact amount 
of each Bank could be precisely ascertained; considering, too, the 
the established inaccuracy of the first teller; does there not then 
appear sufficient grounds for doubts as to the accuracy of the dis- 
criminations of the notes of the different Banks, as made by the 
tellers: and therefore, why I should have endeavoured to appor- 
tion (Mr. W. says equalize) them, more in conformity to what I 
supposed to be the fact, and to the known circulation? But I am 
not under the necessity of relying upon this view of the case. 
There fortunately yet remains to be enforced, a fact calculated 
to reconcile in some measure, and that no inconsiderable one, the 
differences between the tellers’ returns and my weekly statements; 
and this I now reiterate, though at the hazard of its being de- 
nounced by Mr. W. as an after-thought. In truth, it is such,—it 
not having occurred to me in the brief time required on my part, 
pending the two investigations;—but it is not the less true on that 
account, and is susceptible of proof. It is simply this:—It not 
unfrequently occurred, as 1 have above, in part, adverted to, that 
between the period (Saturday) on which the tellers made up their 
reports, and the next business day (Monday), on which the weekly 
returns were made up, funds were forwarded to me, or placed in 
my hands by different Banks, to redeem their notes. In such 
case, the amount so received would doubtless be deducted by me 
from the amounts reported by the tellers, and, if paid in notes of 
other District Banks, added to the sums reported by the tellers 
against such Bank or Banks: or, if in other funds, the report 
would be modified according to their character. Thus, on all the 
days when there appears a difference between the aggregate, as 
reported by the tellers, and the vveekly returns, there were in the 
intervals between making up the reports of the tellers and the re- 
turns on the next business days, actual reductions of District 
funds, as appears by the first teller’s books, to the amount of such 
differences. As is before stated, these reductions were made oc- 
casionally in favour of most of the Banks; whilst at other times, 
the amounts of their notes were increased—and doubtless for the 
same reasons suggested above. 
I deem it an act of justice to myself here to state the result of 
the several investigations on the charges now reiterated by Mr. 16 
W. To the first six charges, the opinions of all the Directors of 
this Office present, (and of J. Tayloe, Esq. who, though detained 
from the Board by sickness, read all the evidence,) is exhibited 
in paper No, 7. in the appendix. The paper No. 11. gives the 
sentiments of another member; and it may be added, that the At- 
torney General, Mr. Wirt, being then necessarily absent in Balti- 
more, read the record, and, in a letter to the parent Bank, con- 
curred in the resolutions contained in No. 7. Several of those 
v hose names are given, independently of Mr. W., were supposed 
to have entered on the investigation with prejudices of my culpa- 
bility; yet, when the testimony was closed, he alone held me guilty 
of a single charge, and with what sense of justice, the paper No. 
7. shows. On the second investigation, the sentiments of the 
Board here, were unanimous in my favour, as shown by No. 8. in 
the appendix. The papers No. 12. in the appendix, show how 
cordially the same view was adopted by the Parent Board, and 
how fully I was restored to the confidence of that respectable body. 
Having now accomplished my reply to these charges, in such 
hasty manner as a brief interval and my official engagements have 
allowed, I may be permitted a brief comment on the spirit of this 
last attack.* Where argument has been wanting, I have been as- 
tiled with bitter invective; and for the confidence that has been 
. vised in me by all with whom I have been associated in busi- 
ir s, I have been denounced as an “artful Cashier,” acting by 
“si intrigues and covert insinuations,” Argument should pro- 
perly be met by argument; and had Mr. W. thought fit to fortify 
himself in this way, I would scorn to travel from his track. But, 
in he conscious want of all legitimate foundation for his attack, 
he . s rested his case in a degree on strength of character, and 
wo 1 bear me down by this sovereignty of his word, who, barring 
any degeneracy and immorality” on this occasion, “can say, and 
ch; '! nge the world for a contradiction, that he has in every other 
transaction of his life, evinced the strictest regard to truth, jus- 
tice and humanity.” It has been my happiness, in a long course 
of public service, to have invariably conciliated the confidence and 
consideration of my employers; and till the present occasion, I 
am unconscious of creating a single enemy. So that my charac- 
ter is in no degree inferior to Mr. W.’s estimate of his own. But, 
though properly my justification should have no connexion with 
the character of Mr. W., and I do not seek to defend myself by 
assailing my accuser, yet, the course which he has assumed, ren- 
ders it not impertinent that I should, in this case, question the 
weight of character which he adduces to support his charge, and 
insinuate a doubt whether there do not exist many men who know 
* The operative motives I leave it to the Stockholders to analyze: but I 
may be permitted to say, when Mr. W. pronounces that ‘the action deter- 
mines the motive,’ that, on the same principle, the preferring of charges 
disproved to the entire satisfaction of two unbiassed boards of directors, de- 
termines the motive of my accuser. 17 
him, who would doubt, that, if upon the investigation, it had turn- 
ed out that he had been misled by “fallacious appearances,” he 
would have yielded with “alacrity and fileasure to the convictions 
resulting from the, evidence” in my favour. The best evidence of 
his feelings in this respect, is his own work—the book that he has 
written. And the response of those who best know him and his 
feelings, will more probably be, that, as to my acquittal, no cir- 
cumstance did give, or could have given, him less fileasure. If, in 
this depreciated estimate of Mr. W.’s character, I be wrong, I am 
at least not singular in my views; and, if I mistake not, the records 
of our Circuit Court may exhibit some evidence of a former ques- 
tion of Mr. W.’s “truth, justice, and humanity.” But, with not 
a tythe of the measure that has been meted to me, I forbear on 
this ungrateful theme: and with a few parting words, will bring 
to a close this extended vindication, into which I have been re- 
luctantly led. 
In the responsible station that has been confided to me, I am 
fully aware how important it is to maintain a character beyond 
the reach of suspicion; and next to the consciousness of integrity, 
I esteem the confidence of my employers above all other conside- 
rations. On the present occasion, I feel happy in the security 
that public sentiment is so justly ordered, that one’s reputation, 
hardly earned by the devotion of a life to business, is not to be 
sported with and dissipated by every idle breath of calumny. 
The toil of one’s life were indeed worse than in vain, if any con- 
sequent estimation in the community, served but to render him 
more pervious to the attacks of those to whose hopes he may be 
an obstacle; and more enviable far would be a career of obscurity 
and unprofitableness. But society properly regards the tried fide- 
lity of any of its members, as its own property: defends it from 
the rude assaults of the designing, to which it becomes more ob- 
vious; and withdraws its countenance only where it is proved to 
have forfeited protection. If, then, the ample testimonials of the 
fidelity and zeal with which I have heretofore pursued your inte- 
rests, would give me any merit in your estimation, I may still 
claim the solace of your unwavering confidence under every at- 
tack, till my accusers can satisfy your judgments of my unfaith- 
fulness; and beyond this I would ask nothing at your hands. 
RICHARD SMITH 
P. S. In the hurry of preparing for the press the preceding 
sheets, I omitted to name the highly respectable and honourable 
gentlemen who composed the Committee of Inquiry of the parent 
Board, and this was entirely overlooked in the first impression. 
They were, General Cadwallader, Chairman, John Sergeant, 
Manuel Eyre, Cadwallader Evans, Samuel Wetherill, E. J. 
Dupont, and the President of the Bank, N. Biddle, Esq. ex-offi- 
clo, a member. • R- S. APPENDIX. 
<No. 1.) 
The charges exhibited by Roger C. Weightman in his pam- 
phlet against the Cashier of the Office at Washington, of acting 
with duplicity towards him in regard to the election of President 
of that Office, and combining with a party to defeat the wishes of 
the parent Board at Philadelphia, as indicated in the list of Direc- 
tors sent on to the Cashier in Jan. 1824, I consider as made with- 
out the least foundation in truth; he having as I verily believe, 
taken no part in said election—nor did I ever hear of any combi- 
nation among the Directors, to defeat the election of said 
Weightman. 
On the evening preceding the election, Thos. Swann handed 
me in Alexandria, a written notice from the Cashier, to meet at 
the Bank on the following morning, for the purpose of organiz- 
ing a Board. When I got to the Bank, I found several of the 
members there; but do not recollect having any conversation on 
the subject of the election of President, until we had assembled up 
stairs at the Board, where one of R. C. Weightman’s friends sta- 
ted to me, that he, (Weightman) had been placed at the head 
of the list by the parent .Board, with a view that he might be 
elected President; and he hoped that the Board would conform to 
their wishes. I told him I should vote for my neighbour Swann; 
that I considered the right of appointing a President of the Of- 
fice, as belonging to the Board of the Office, and that I felt it my 
duty to exercise my own judgment. And I do most solemnly de- 
clare, that I never heard of, or entered into any combination whate- 
ver, to defeat the election of Roger C. Weightman. The result of 
the balloting showed that a majority thought Thomas Swann 
the most suitable man for President; and I farther declare that 
from a diligent attendance at the Office, and a minute attention 
to the course of the business, I am abundantly convinced that the 
selection which we made, was the best one for the interest of the 
Stockholders. 
MORDECAI MILLER. 
Alexandria, 22d August, 1825. 
(No. 2.) 
Being requested to state whether the Cashier of the Office of 
Discount and Deposite, Washington, made any application to me 20 
for my vote as a Director of that Office, at the election of Presi- 
dent, in Jan. 1824; I have no hesitation in saying that he never 
did, directly or indirectly, at any time, make any application to 
me on the subject,—nor did there exist, to my knowledge, any 
kind of understanding or combination among the Directors with 
regard to any individual as President. 
WILLIAM LAIRD. 
Georgetown, 23d August, 1825. 
(No. 3.) 
In a pamphlet recently published by R. C. Weightman, respect- 
ing the official conduct of Richard Smith, Cashier of the U. S. 
Branch Bank, Washington, an attempt is made to implicate me, 
(being one of those who did not vote for Mr. Weightman) as 
combined with the Cashier and a party, to defeat the wishes of the 
parent Board, in the selection of a President for that Office. 
The charge, as I understand it, embraces both nominations, as 
made by the Board. It is true as to neither; as will be seen by 
the following statement of facts, unless, indeed, it can be shown 
That the exercise of an undoubted right to vote in such case, ac- 
cording to the best dictates of the judgment, is a combination. 
In December, 1823, Mr. Graham resigned the Presidency of 
that Office, and Mr Swann was elected by the Board here, to fill 
the vacancy. I was then absent in New York. Returning home- 
ward early in January, I spent a day in Philadelphia, and at the 
same lodgings met with a gentleman from Baltimore, then a Di- 
rector of the parent Board. From him I first understood the re- 
signation and election above mentioned. He observed that the 
election of Mr. Swann was, of course, only for the remainder of 
his predecessor’s term, and was not to be understood as limiting 
the parent Board in the exercise of their accustomed right of de- 
signating its preference. That they highly esteemed and respect- 
ed Mr. Swann: but that his professional pursuits interfered with 
a due attention to the duties of the Office.—That it was impor- 
tant to have in it a President, who, besides other requisite quali- 
fications, could and would devote much of his time to its duties. 
He took occasion to speak in high terms of approbation of the 
Cashier, whose sentiments, he remarked, on the importance of 
having an efficient officer in that station, were well known, and 
coincided fully with those he expressed. He finally stated that 
the subject was then under consideration; that a gentleman, (nam- 
ing him) the one referred to by Mr. Weightman, had been recom- 
mended; that it was desirable to have as much light as possible 
on the subject, and that any information which I might be ena- 
bled to give concerning this gentleman, would be acceptable.— 
This was unhesitatingly given, and in terms decidedly favourable. 
He was, in a few days after, nominated. Of this, I was informed 21 
soon after my return, by the Cashier. He mentioned that he had 
already had some communication with this gentleman on the sub- 
ject; that he did not appear to manifest much solicitude concern- 
ing it, and had not yet decided to accept: that it appeared to 
be unfavourably received in Washington. He expressed no wish 
whatever, as to the vote which I might give on the election; nor 
took any part whatever, so far as ever came to my knowledge, in 
opposition. 
This gentleman finally declined to accept, and Mr. Weightman 
was designated in his place. Of this, I was informed by the Ca- 
shier, and of Mr. Weightman’s hope that I would vote for him. 
He expressed his own wish that I would do so; it being in confor- 
mity with the designation of the parent Board. He expressed his 
high regard for Mr. Swann: but that from their relative situations 
and pursuits, he considered that Mr. W. would be enabled to de- 
vote more of his time to the duties of the office, and thus render 
more efficient services. 
I replied that I had recently understood Mr. Swann intended to 
remove to Washington, and to decline his Virginia practice; and 
that if he did so, the only objection to him, and prominent claim 
to preference on the part of Mr. W. would be removed. That with- 
out reference to their respective pretensions otherwise, which 
were, according to my mind, decidedly in favour of Mr. Swann,— 
he was besides, the present incumbent; and that (unless evident- 
ly to the interest of the Bank, which I did not conceive it to be 
in this case) I could not consent to vote him out, to make room 
for his opponent. That to Mr. Weightman personally, I had no 
objection. We had always been on good terms; and that were 
the cases of the two gentlemen reversed, I might probably vote 
for Mr. Weightman. 
I expressed my regret that I should in this case dissent from 
the views of the parent Board; but, that the right being given by 
the charter, I must now exercise it according to my best judg- 
ment, and the circumstances before us. He continued to press 
the subject, but I did not yield—and he parted from me dissatis- 
fied. His influence therefore, so far as attempted with me, was 
in favour of Mr. W. and the nomination, and not against it. I 
did not see him again until the day of election, and then had no 
conversation with him on the subject. Neither had I communica- 
tion, directly or indirectly, with any member of the Board whate- 
ver—except at the instant of going into the Directors’ room, just 
preceding the election. I then asked Mr. Wirt, if he knew whe- 
ther Mr. Swann had decided on removing to Washington. He 
said that he would put the question to him, openly before the 
Board. He did so : the answer of Mr. Swann was affirmatively; 
but that some little time must necessarily elapse, before he could 
satisfactorily complete his arrangements to do so. 
The election, as is known, resulted in favour of Mr. Swann. 
The division of the Board was so, that had my vote, or that ot 
either of the other Directors who voted for Mr. Swann, been given 22 
to Mr. Weightman, he would have had the same opportunity of 
closing the election in his own favour, as Mr. Swann finally did— 
but not until, after numerous ballotings, there seemed to remain 
no alternative. I have had no reason since to doubt that this re- 
result was entirely consonant with the true interests of the Bank. 
W. SMITH. 
• Georgetown, August 25th, 1825. 
This day, appeared before me, (a Magistrate for the County of 
Washington) Walter Smith, and made oath on the Holy Evan- 
gels of Almighty God, that the facts above stated by him, are 
true. 
THOS. CORCORAN. 
(No. 4.) 
Office of Bank U. States, ( 
Washington, Jan. 20, 1824.' 
Dear Sir: In Mr. Biddle’s letter to me, (which I showed you on 
Saturday last,) I am directed “to ascertain whether your election 
would take place under the proposed arrangement; and if any 
difficulty exist, to report the nature of it, and the means of re- 
moving it.” From the disposition manifested by those of our 
Directors, who are eligible; I believe that this difficulty does ex- 
ist, and that the only remedy will be a total change of the Board, 
or a change so far as will ensure a majority in your favour. With 
this view, I have to request your assistance in preparing a list to 
be submitted to the President and Directors of the Bank of the 
U. States ; and as the election must be made on the 27th inst., as 
little delay should take place as possible. 
I am, Sir, very respectfully, 
Your obedient servant, 
R. SMITH, Cashier. 
Sam. H. Smith, Esq. 
(No. 5.) 
Sidney, Jan. 20, 1824. 
Dear Sir: Having previously to the receipt of your letter of 
this day, addressed a letter to the President of the Bank of the 
U. S., tendering my declension of the Presidency of their Office 
at this place, for reasons which I have assigned to him ; it is 
unnecessary for me to see you further on the occasion. Had I 
adopted a contrary determination, I could not, on grounds which 23 
might, perhaps, have been imputed as personal, have taken the 
step you invite in behalf of the Bank of the U. S. 
I am, respectfully, 
(Signed) S. H. SMITH. 
R. Smith, Esq. 
(No. 6.—Extract.) 
Office of Bank U. States, 
Washington, Jan. 25, 1824. 
Sir : Your letter of 23d inst. is received; and, as directed, Mr. 
Weightman has been apprised of the determination of the com- 
mittee on the Officers.—He is under the impression that Mr. 
Swann will still be brought forward as a candidate for the Presi- 
dency; and that in order to secure the election to himself, it will 
be necessary to introduce two new members. With this view he 
names Elias B. Caldwell and Edward DeKraft, Stockholders, and 
Major Samuel Miller of the Marine Corps, and Gen. Philip 
Stewart, formerly a Director. Mr. Weightman is particularly 
desirous of having Mr. DeKraft appointed—and will be satisfied 
if Mr. DeKraft and any one of the other gentlemen be elected; and 
my own impression is, that with this accession of force, he will 
command a majority of the votes; but the inclemency of the wea- 
ther prevents my ascertaining with precision, by a personal inter- 
view with some of the members. Thus constituted, the Board 
will consist of 11 members; but next year it may be reduced to 
9, or even 7, and still retain all its efficiency. 
I am, Sir, very respectfully, 
Your obedient servant, 
R. SMITH, Cashier. 
Nicholas Biddle, Esq. Pres. Bank U. S. 
(No. 7.) 
Extract from the Record of the first Investigation. 
The Board having now completed their investigation into the 
conduct of Richard Smith, Cashier of this Office, it is moved by 
Com. Rodgers, that the Board do adopt the following resolutions: 
Resolved, as the opinion of this Board, that the investigation 
made into the conduct of their Cashier, Richard Smith, has not 
impaired the confidence which this Board has always felt in him; 
but has tended to confirm the opinion which they have always 
entertained of him, that he was a faithful, attentive, and most 
valuable Officer. 
Resolved, therefore, that it be most earnestly recommended to 
the parent Board, that the said Richard Smith be forthwith rein* 24 
stated in the duties of his Office, and that the reinstatement be so 
made as to inspire a belief on his part, that he is fully and en- 
tirely restored to the confidence of the said parent Board. 
Upon these resolutions .the votes were— 
Ayes. ’ Nay. 
JNO. RODGERS, R. C. WEIGHTMAN. 
M. MILLER, 
P. STEWART, 
T. SWANN, 
JNO. TAYLOE. 
#Major S. Miller (with the permission of the Board) declines 
giving a vote on Com. Rodgers’ resolution, in consequence of not 
having seen the statement or explanation of the Cashier, in rela- 
tion to the weekly returns to the parent Board. 
R. C. Weightman states, that not having seen or read the expla- 
nation of the Cashier, he is therefore compelled to state as his impres- 
sion, from the facts before him, that it has been pjoved that the Cash- 
ier has altered the statements of the notes of the Farmers and Me- 
chanics' Bank, as reported by the tellers to him; and that therefore, 
it uppears to him, that these statements were purposely so altered, 
Ctc. etc. He therefore votes in the negative, to all the resolutions of 
Com. Rodgers. 
(No. 8.) 
The Board of Directors of the Office of Discount and Depo- 
site, of the Bank of the United States at Washington, having 
complied with the request of the parent Bank, in examining the 
testimony in relation to the discrepancies between the reports of 
the Cashier, and of the first and second tellers, as to the District 
notes, which, from time to time, have passed through this Office, 
and having now reported this evidence, presume that it is within 
the scope of the duties expected from them, to express their 
opinion on the subject. Under this impression, they beg leave to 
observe that the charges against the Cashier, rest chiefly if not 
solely on the evidence of the first and second tellers of this Office: 
and in relation to them, as well as to all other witnesses, the first 
inquiry is, whether their conduct has been such as to command 
the confidence of the tribunal which is to decide upon the case.— 
According to their own statement, they saw the Cashier for six 
months together, continually imposing upon the parent Bank, 
false returns upon the subject of the notes of the District Banks; 
yet they said not one word upon the subject, either to the Presi- 
dent and Directors of this Board, or to the President and Direc- 
tors of the parent Bank. According to their own showing, 
therefore, they are guilty of the concealment of this alleged 
crime, and are, upon their own confessions, unfaithful Officers— 25 
false to that honour and fidelity, which, as Officers, they had 
pledged to this Board. If this concealment had been through 
tenderness to the Cashier, this breach of official duty might have 
found some apology in the humanity of the motive. But if this 
had been the motive, their first act would have been to have advised 
the Cashier of his danger, and to have put him on his guard. 
Indeed, if their conduct had been directed by the ordinary can- 
dour which prevails among honest men, it seems to this Board, 
that the only course which would naturally have presented itself 
to them, would have been, to have gone to the Cashier, on the 
discovery of the first difference in their statements on this sub- 
ject, to have suggested the fact to him, and to have asked for his 
explanations. If on such a suggestion, he should give such ex- 
planations as were not satisfactory to them, it would then have 
become their duty to have brought the subject to the notice of 
the President and Directors of this Board:—And if still dissatis- 
fied with the decision, to have carried the information openly to 
the parent Board. Instead, however, of pursuing this candid 
and open course, it appears that the first teller in the month of 
May, 1824, began to keep a secret account of the transactions in 
question, and the structure of the book exhibited by him on the 
occasion, is worthy of notice. The first item on every page is, 
“ the Farmers and Mechanics’ Bank of Georgetown,”—under 
which, on every page, is a line left blank to receive the balance to 
be communicated to him by the second teller. Thus, upon their 
own confession, we have a confederacy established between tho 
first and second tellers to keep this secret account, and it was 
thus secretly kept, as far as this Board or the parent Board are 
concerned. The Cashier, on the contrary, perfectly unaware and 
unsuspicious of any such movement, continually made his state- 
ments openly and publicly: they were seen by all the officers of 
the Bank who chose to see them, and by these tellers, among 
others, as they admit. The course of the Cashier was that of 
conscious innocence, and is utterly irreconcileable with that of 
conscious guilt. No man conscious of guilt, possessing a parti- 
cle of common sense, ever opened himself to immediate and in- 
evitable detection, by a manner so perfectly frank and unguarded. 
So that on the one hand, we have the Cashier pursuing this open 
and honourable course, fearless and unsuspicious of danger; 
on the other hand, we have these two tellers, holding their secret 
conferences, keeping their secret accounts, and hoarding up 
there misprisions of alleged official guilt, until the very crisis of 
a new election of officers: and at the last moment, when such a 
disclosure could be made, with the hope of producing an imme- 
diate effect in the designation of those officers, making that disclo- 
sure, or causing it to be made in a manner so private, that it was 
owing only to the justice and honour of the parent Board, that 
an opportunity has been afforded to the accused, to wake his de- 
fence before the injury was irretrievable. 26 
Under these circumstances, this Board has no hesitation in 
saying, that if the discrepancies in the statements now forwarded, 
were wholly irreconcileable upon grounds honourable to both 
parties, they could much easier believe those of the two tellers 
to have been incorrect, than those of the Cashier. But it seems 
to this Board, that there is no necessity for any such painful con- 
clusion. Those discrepancies may be reconciled on grounds 
acquitting all parties of intentional misstatement. 
The very fluctuating nature of the subject of these calculations 
at the different times at which these different officers made then- 
accounts, goes very far to furnish a solution of the difficulty.— 
The single instance of the discrepancy of ten thousand dollars, 
on the 3d of July, now so satisfactorily explained to this whole 
Board, shows how little reliance is to be placed on any conclu,- 
sion drawn from a comparison of these statements. The dif- 
ficulty, nay impossibility, of an accurate discrimination of the 
different Banks to which the notes belonged, from the practice of 
counting them in bundles intermixed as they were, is fully ex- 
plained by the evidence, and readily accounts for much more of 
this discrepancy. 
Again, it will be observed from the book exhibited by the first 
teller, that of the sums which go to make the aggregate of the 
tellers’ account, much the largest items are presented by the first 
teller: so that the accuracy of this aggregate depends princi- 
pally on the accuracy of the first teller: and how far his accu- 
racy is a fit ground for the condemnation or even suspicion of 
such an officer as Mr. Smith has ever proved himself to be, the 
report of the Committee of the 21st January, 1823, herewith pre- 
sented, will fully satisfy the parent Board. 
With relation to the alleged partiality of the Cashier to the 
Farmers and Mechanics’ Bank of Georgetown, the fact depends 
again, on the accuracy of these tellers. This Board has the 
most perfect confidence that the statement of the Cashier is cor- 
rect; and if there were a difference in the extent of the dealings 
between that Bank and this Office, it has been already explained 
to the satisfaction of this Board, how that difference arose, and 
that it resulted from the greater power which that Bank pos- 
sessed to promote the convenience of this, by the supply of such 
funds as were most essential to it. 
Finally, this Board begs leave to state that their confidence in 
Richard Smith, the late Cashier of this Office, is undiminished. 
The promptitude with which he surrendered the keys of the 
vaults, at the very instant that his suspension was announced to 
him, and without the opportunity of a moment to make any 
change in the existing state of things, connected with the further 
fact, that every dollar and cent of the public money was there 
found safely deposited, is decisive of his integrity. It is not pre- 
tended by his accusers, that the Bank has ever lost one cent of 
money during his administration; a fact almost unparalleled in 
Banking operations; and one decisive of his judgment and as- 27 
siduity, as well as of his integrity. And this Board takes pleasure 
in the avowal of its opinion, whatever may be the result of this 
inquiry, that no institution ever possessed a more pure and valua- 
ble Officer. 
By order of the Board, 
THOMAS SWANN, President. ’ 
(No. 9.) 
Certificate of the Cashier of the Farmers and Mechanics' Bank of 
Georgetown. 
I certify, that in obtaining Northern funds from the Office of 
Discount and Deposite, the principle was invariable, that I should 
be entitled to receive them to an amount, not exceeding what I 
had previously deposited, payable at sight; and whenever I re- 
ceived drafts to an amount beyond this, the Cashier uniformly 
charged a premium*. In this practice he was most rigid, and on 
several occasions, insisted on a premium, when I considered that 
there was a balance of such funds in favour of the Farmers 8c 
Mechanics’ Bank. 
When Northern drafts were discounted for this Bank by the 
Office, I was never entitled therefor, to other Northern funds; and 
if at any time I did receive the proceeds in this shape, it was in- 
variably on the principle, of there being a balance of such funds 
due this Bank on former transactions. 
Having examined the statement in Mr. Weightman’s pamphlet, 
as to the discrepancies in the reports of the Cashier of the Office, 
and also the books of this Bank; I find payments nearly correspond- 
ing with those differences on the 3d July and 20th November, 
1824, made to reduce the balance due at those times, from the 
Bank to the Office: and I was in the habit also, of retiring our 
notes with Branch notes, and other funds, of which no record is 
kept. I well recollect that I was sometimes pressingly called on 
(by letter and otherwise) by the Cashier, at the end of the week, 
to reduce our balance, and that I generally made arrangements to 
comply with this call, without delay. 
In those transactions, the payments and exchanges, were almost 
always made through the Cashier himself. 
J. I. STULL, Cashier. 
i August 23f/, 1825. 
(No. 10.) 
Having a remittance to make to the North, in November last, 
of 85000, I purchased from the Branch Bank a draft for that 
amount, paying therefor the check of W. and C. Smith on the 28 
Farmers 8c Mechanics’ Bank for $5,012 50. At the same time, 
W. Smith was in treaty for the sale of exchange to the Govern- 
ment, which was effected to the amount of $14,250; and the 
Cashier of the Branch Bank was authorised to, and did receive 
the amount. He, at this time, had given to him the option of 
retiring the above check of W. and C. Smith from the amount; 
which he accordingly did, (preferring that course) and paid over 
the balance to me. 
C. SMITH. 
Sworn to, before me, this 25th day of August, 1825. 
THOS. CORCORAN. 
(No. 11.) 
Washington, January 27, 1825. 
Dear Sir : I have this morning read your explanations of those 
points of the investigation, on which I had any doubts of the 
propriety of your official conduct, and being satisfied that you 
have been guilty of nothing which you believed injurious to the 
trust confided to you by the Bank of the United States, I deem it 
an act of justice to make to you, this spontaneous expression of 
my opinion, and to add to it, (what I have heretofore stated to the 
President of the Bank himself,) an assurance of the high opinion 
I have always entertained of your pre-eminent capasity, and of 
the assiduity with which you have discharged the duties of your 
arduous Office. I deem it the more incumbent on me to afford 
you this proof of my sentiments, as my official connection with 
the Bank, will very soon cease, and especially in consequence of 
the misapprehension of part of a remark which the runner of the 
Office heard me use, in reference to you, some months ago, in 
conversation. 
While I freely express to you, these my sincere sentiments in re- 
gard to your official character and conduct, I think it due to can- 
dour and to justice, to say that I do not censure the second teller for 
the disclosures he made to Mr. R. C. Weightman; but that I 
think it was his duty, witnessing what he honestly, though erro- 
neously, considered a breach of your trust, to communicate the 
facts to a Director of the Bank: and there was none so proper— 
at least so natural—for him to address himself to, as his brother 
who was both a Director and a large Stockholder. The second 
teller is a man of strict honour himself; and withall so very pre- 
cise, as you know, in his own duties, that it is not surprising he 
should attach great importance to circumstances apparently im- 
proper, but trivial or unexceptionable when explained. 
I sincerely hope, sir, that the parent Board will, on an exam- 
ination of the explanations you have given, acquit you as I do, of 29 
all intentional dereliction of duty, and promptly restore you to its 
confidence, and to the discharge of your functions. Not doubt- 
ing that they will do so, I trust that what has passed will be so 
far buried in oblivion, as not to be suffered to destroy that har- 
mony which has heretofore subsisted among the Officers of the 
Bank. 
I remain, very truly, 
Your friend and servant, 
W. W. SEATON. 
I have, preferred writing my sentiments fully in this wray, to 
voting on the naked resolutions offered by Com. Rodgers, yester- 
day; and you are at liberty to use this letter, if you think it of 
any value to you. 
(No. 12.) 
Bank of the United States, Feb. 15, 1825. 
Sir: I have great satisfaction in apprizing you, that you will 
receive through the Cashier’s Department, an official communi- 
cation of a resolution this day adopted by the Board, directing 
you to resume your functions as Cashier. You will accordingly, 
on the receipt of this letter, recommence the exercise of your 
duties. 
As a proof of the unabated confidence of the Board, you will 
also receive a copy of the proceedings relative to the affairs of the 
Bank of Columbia.* The transmission of these, has been delayed 
by the investigation which has just closed. You will proceed 
without delay, to submit the subject to Mr. Crawford: and if the 
proposal meets his approbation, it can at once be carried into 
effect. 
Very respectfully, 
Yours, 
(Signed) N. BIDDLE, Prest. 
Richard Smith, Esq. Cash. Off. 
Dis. &. Dep. Washington, Col. 
At a meeting of the President and Directors of the Bank of the 
United States, on the 15th of February, 1825, the following Re- 
port and Resolution were unanimously adopted:— 
The Committee to whom were referred, on the 1st instant, cer- 
tain documents from the Office at Washington, containing the 
* It may be proper to state, that this passage refers to certain resolutions 
of the parent Board, presenting to me, in conjunction with the Treasury, 
which was to pay an equal part, $1,000, as a mark of the approbation of that 
Board: and farther, allowing me an extra Clerk, at the salary of $1,000 per 
annum, to assist in managing the claims of the Bank U. S. and of the Trea- 
sury, against the Bank of Columbia. 30 
proceedings of that Board, in the investigation of the conduct of 
the Cashier of that Office, and other evidence relative thereto, 
REPORT: That they have carefully examined the documents 
referred to them; that they have also had several interviews with 
two of the Directors of the Office at Washington, and with Mr. 
Graham, the late President of the Office, from whom they have 
derived various explanations of the testimony, and much original 
information; and that finding one point not sufficiently developed, 
they caused a re-examination to be had of the Officers at Wash- 
ington, in the presence of the Board of that Office, and the evi- 
dence reported. From these sources, the Committee are in pos- 
session of such facts as enable them to form a distinct opinion of 
the several charges exhibited against the Cashier. These char- 
ges, with the testimony by which they were respectively support- 
ed and explained, the Committee forbear to enumerate, because 
they could not be advantageously- condensed within the proper 
limits of a report; and because the whole testimony being annex- 
ed to this report itself, will necessarily come before the Board. 
The Committee therefore confine themselves to the expression of 
their deliberate opinion, after a full and diligent investigation of 
the whole case; and present, as the result of that investigation, 
the following resolution, which they recommend to the adoption 
of the Board:— 
Resolved, That the investigation of the conduct of Richard 
Smith, Esq. Cashier of the Office at Washington, which was di- 
rected by this Board on the 18th ulto., having disclosed no cir- 
cumstance calculated to weaken the confidence of the Board in 
the ability and integrity of that officer, the order of suspension 
passed on that day, is hereby revoked; and the said Richard 
Smith, Esq. is authorised and directed to resume the exercise of 
his duties as Cashier. 
Extract from the minutes. 
(Signed) J. ANDREWS, Asst. Cashr. ERRATA. 
Page 7, last line, for “averse” read adverse. 
5, 16, line 30, for “this sovereignty” read the sovereignty.