Answer. I have detailed to the House all of Mr. Peyton's language and deportment upon that occasion, which I recollect; I do not know what Mr. Peyton's mɔtives were, and am, therefore, unwilling to express an opinion concerning them.

Second question by Committee. What was the question put to Mr. Whitney, and his answer thereto, to which you refer in your answer to the first interrogato. ry; and what was the vote of the committee, also referred to by you in your answer to the same inferrogatory; and will you now set them forth, to be received in connexion with, and as part of, your answer to said interrogatory?

Answer. I have incorporated the question, answer, and resolution, referred to, in my answer to the first interrogatory.

Question by Mr. BELL. When Mr. Peyton was called to order by the chairman of the committee, for the first remark made by him in reference to Mr. Whitney, did he not take his seat, and continue sitting until Mr. Whitney rose and commenced speaking?

Answer. I have fully answered this question in my answer to the first interrogatory.

Question by Mr. BELL. Did you occupy a position which enabled you to see the offensive look or scowl of the witness, R. M. Whitney, which he cast upon Mr. Peyton, if any, at the time of his handing his answer to the chairman'

Answer. I have heretofore stated that I did not.

Question by Mr. BELL. Did not Mr. Peyton complain that the witness, R. M. Whitney, had insulted him by his look at the time?

Answer. I have heretofore stated that I heard Mr. Peyton make this complaint.

Question by Mr. BELL. Have you, or any other persons, to your knowledge, had any conversation with the said R. M. Whitney, since the occurrence in the committee? If so, did he inform you then that he was alarmed, and that his fears had induced him to take the course which he has done in this matter? State all he said in relation to his fears, or the motives which induced his course upon this occasion.

Answer. I have had no conversation whatever with Mr. Whitney upon this subject, nor does it come with. in my knowledge that any other person has.

Question by Mr. BELL. Had or had not said witness, R. M. Whitney, refused to answer several questions put to him by Mr. Peyton, before the one alluded to, characterizing them as inquisitorial, which questions had been decided by the committee as proper to be propounded?

Answer. I have heretofore referred to the journal of the committee, as affirming this fact. Some of the questions which the witness refused to answer were decided by the committee to be proper; others were propoun led without objection being made, leaving the witness to answer or object, as he might think best.

Question by Mr. PEYTON. When did you first see the written statement of Mr. Fairfield, which he presented to this House, in answer to the first interrogatory propounded to him, or the substance of the same?

Answer. In the committee room, on the morning after you and Mr. Wise made your statements in the House.

Question by the Counsel. Did Mr. Wise at any time, and when and where, state what was his purpose in going around the table, and placing himself near the accused, as stated in your answer to the first interrogatory? If yea, what did he say was his purpose? And was the statement of Mr. Wise, as to his purpose in that movement, before or after the accused's testimony before the committee had been closed?

Answer. I do not remember seeing Mr. Wise go VOL. XIII.-117

[H. OF R.

around the table to the north end of it. I remember to have seen him there a second or two before he seized hold of Mr. Peyton. I did not hear him make any declaration of his purpose that night; his personal exertions that night were to prevent violence. The declaration of his purpose, as stated by himself, I never heard until after Mr. Whitney's card, giving an account of the transaction, appeared. I heard him state in the committee room substantially what he stated in the House, as to his purpose. I do not distinctly recollect his language up. on either occasion. I understood him to say, upon both occasions, that he had gone around the table, seeing Mr. Whitney with his right hand in his pocket; and, believing him to be armed with a deadly weapon, he intended to watch him, and if he drew, or attempted to draw, a weapon, so that the life of his friend was endangered, that Mr. Whitney should have died. In the House he said he wished not to be misunderstood or to be misrepresented; that if Mr. Whitney had drawn a weapon, it never should have done its execution.

Question by Mr. BELL. Do the accompanying interrogatories and answers contain all the evidence given by Chief Justice Taney, under the authority of the select committee of which you are chairman? And is not the copy of a letter, purporting to be from Chief Justice Taney to Reverdy Johnson, Esq., herewith furnished, a copy of a letter given in evidence by said Johnson?

Interrogatories propounded to Chief Justice Taney.

1. In the letter of R. M. Whitney to Mr. William J. Duane, then Secretary of the Treasury, bearing date 15th June, 1833, applying to be appointed agent of the Department, or of the deposite banks, when the public money should be removed from the Bank of the United States, he makes the following statement, to wit: "I have never spoken to the President upon this subject; but circumstances lead me to think that I should not be otherwise than perfectly acceptable to him. The only persons to whom I have mentioned the subject, connected with Government, are Messrs. Taney and Kendall; to the former gentleman a week since, at Baltimore, who replied in these words: I have always understood, and taken it for granted, that you were to have the situation when it is created.'" I wish you to state whether the above extract from said Whitney's letter is true, so far as relates to yourself.

2. Did you give said R. M. Whitney a letter of recommendation, or did you in any manner countenance or encourage him in applying for the agency referred to, or did you refuse to recommend or countenance him in that capacity, while you were at the head of the Treasury Department?

3. State whether you, as Secretary of the Treasury, approved or disapproved the plan or scheme, as set forth in letter exhibit A, Woodbury's report. What part, if any, did R. M. Whitney take in the success of that measure? Who originated it, so far as you know, and it would be proper for you to state? Did or did not Mr. Amos Kendall know of the existence of that project while he was acting as the agent of the Treasury in the summer of 1833? Did he approve or disapprove of the same, so far as you know?

4. Did you or did you not oppose the application made by Mr. R. M. Whitney to the Union Bank, or deposite bank at Baltimore, to join other banks in recommending him to the Secretary of the Treasury for the station referred to in exhibit A of Woodbury's report? 5. State what you know under the following resolution of the House of Representatives:

"Resolved, That a committee of nine members be appointed, whose duty it shall be to inquire whether the several banks employed for the deposite of the public money have all, or any of them, by joint or several con

tracf, employed an agent, to reside at the seat of Government, to transact their business with the Treasury Department; what is the character of the business which he is so employed to transact, and what compensation he receives; whether said agent, if there be one, has been employed at the request or through the procurement of the Treasury Department; whether the business of the Treasury Department with said banks is conducted through said agent; and whether, in the transaction of any business confided to said agent, he receives any compensation from the Treasury Department; and that said committee have power to send for persons and papers. Answer of R. B. Taney to the interrogatories propounded

to him.

1. To the first interrogatory I answer, that the state. ment in relation to myself, in the extract given in this interrogatory from the letter of R. M. Whitney to W. J. Duane, of June 15, 1833, is not correct. I recollect very well that, in the spring of that year, while the subject of removing the deposites from the Bank of the United States was under consideration, doubts were suggested whether the State banks would not be found incompetent to discharge the duties of fiscal agents, and to meet the necessities of commerce in the business of domestic exchange, by reason of their want of acquaintance with the ordinary operations of the Treasury Department, in the transfer and disbursements of the public money, and from the want of arrangement with one another, so as to accommodate the Government and the public; and that I then entertained and often expressed the opinion that the inconveniences would very probably be felt by the State banks, especially in the commencement of the business, but that they would be surmounted if the banks would choose to appoint an agent or agents, to reside at Washington, to communicate to them, from time to time, such information as they might stand in need of; and that I thought that the banks which might be selected as depositories, where large amounts of revenue were collected, and which would have large transfers and disbursements to make, would probably find it for their interest to have such an agent.

In conversing with the said Whitney, about the time above stated, upon this subject, he mentioned that he would like to be the agent for the banks, and that he thought he could make himself useful to them.

In reply, I stated that, from his knowledge of banks and exchange, I believed he would be able to render them valuable services; and that, from his qualifications, he might succeed in obtaining the appointment he spoke of, if the banks should find it necessary to have such an agent. This, I presume, is the conversation referred to in the letter of the said Whitney, mentioned in this interrogatory. It was, in substance, what I have above stated, and nothing more; and the statement in that letter is incorrect, and conveys the idea that I had in some way understood that such an agency was to be created by the Government, or required of the banks, and that said Whitney was to have it. I never heard or understood any such thing; and neither intended nor expected that the remarks made by me, in this casual conversation, were to be used or repeated by said Whitney for the purpose of promoting the wishes he had expressed. The use of my name in the letter referred to was with out my knowledge or approbation. I was at that time the Attorney General of the United States, and certainly did not mean to advise such an appointment, by the Executive or the Treasury Department, as is said in this interrogatory to have been suggested in the letter, nor to interfere, by advice or otherwise, with the deposite banks which the then Secretary might select, if he determined on the removal of the deposites.

2. To the second interrogatory I answer, that while I

(FEB. 18, 1837.

was at the head of the Treasury Department I never gave the said Whitney a letter of recommendation, nor in any manner countenanced or encouraged him in applying for the agency referred to. I do not recollect that he ever applied to me to recommend him in any such application to the banks, or to any one else, or to countenance him in that capacity, except as contained in my answer to the third interrogatory.

3. To the third interrogatory I answer, that the paper marked A, in the Secretary's report, was presented to me by the said Whitney, who solicited at the same time the appointment mentioned. I refused the application, upon the ground that it contemplated an appointment by the Department which the Executive had no right to make; and so informed him as soon as I looked at the paper. Disapproving the plan or scheme on this ground, I bestowed no thought on what he called in that paper "preliminary observations," which I read over very hastily. I know of no part that the said Whitney took in the said measure, further than that he brought the paper to me, and solicited the appointment as above stated; and had, as I was informed, applied to the banks for this recommendation. And, as to the part of the interrogatory which relates to Amos Kendall, I beg leave, respectfully, to refer the committee to the instructions given to him while W. J. Duane was Secretary of the Treasury, and to the report afterwards made by Amos Kendall to the Department; all of which are on the public files, and were, I think, communicated to the Senate, and printed, when I was in the Department. I have never seen these papers since I left the Treasury, and it is impossible for me to speak of their contents from memory. If any such plan as that described in the paper A was then in existence, and known to Amos Kendall while acting as agent of the Treasury, it will, I presume, appear in these public papers; and I know of no plans on this subject, then in existence, or known to him, beyond what are disclosed in the instructions given to him by the Treasury Department, and his official report to the Department, before referred to.

4. To the fourth interrogatory I answer, that when the application of the said Whitney to the deposite bank in Baltimore, to join in the recommendation marked A, was pending before the bank, and some days before it was presented to me by said Whitney, I received a private letter from an officer of the bank, informing me of the application by said Whitney, and requesting to know whether it was done by him with my knowledge and concurrence. I answered the letter, saying that I had no knowledge of the application, and had given it no countenance or encouragement, and that I had no intention of appointing an agent. It is more than three years since this letter was written. I kept no copy of it, and speak of its contents from memory; but I believe the above was the substance of its contents. Unless such a letter be deemed opposition to the recommendation by the bank, I made none. It was not intended as opposition, but as an answer to inquiry; for it was perfectly indifferent to me whether the bank joined in recommendation or not, as that circumstance would not have changed the decision, nor have produced any difficulty.

5. To the last and general interrogatory I answer, that while I was Secretary of the Treasury none of the deposite banks ever had, to my knowledge, any agent residing at the seat of Government. I never understood, in any way, or supposed, that any of them had any such agent. All their business with the Department was transacted by letters from their own officers, directed to the Secretary of the Treasury; or by sending, as some of them occasionally did, their own officers to Washington, to have personal interviews with the Secretary. I have no knowledge, therefore, of the matters mentioned

FEB. 20, 1837.]

[H. of R.

Copy of Mr. Taney's letter referred to in answer fourth. "[Private.]

WASHINGTON, Oct. 22, 1833.

"MY DEAR SIR: I have only a moment to say to you that Whitney's proposition is entirely unauthorized by me, and that I have no concern whatever with it; and, moreover, if all the selected banks were to recommend it, I would not appoint such an agent at this time, nor until I have more time to examine into its propriety: certainly there will be none until Congress decide what measures are to follow the removal of the deposites; and if one should even be selected, I am not committed to appoint Mr. Whitney. I am perfectly at large for a lection.

"Very truly, yours,

"R. B. TANEY. "[Address private.] THOS. ELLICOTT, Esq., Baltimore."

[COPY.]

"[Private.] WASHINGTON, Oct. 24, 1833. "MY DEAR SIR: Although the time for closing the mail is almost at hand, I hope I have yet time to thank you for your friendly letter, and to assure you that I perfectly agree with you in the opinions you express about the reported appointment. My private letter to Mr. El licott has, I hope, been shown to you, and will remove any suspicion that I could have countenanced the plan. In the first place, there is no law authorizing the establishment of such a bureau; and it would be the grossest and most indefensible usurpation of power if I presumed to make such an appointment. I never for a moment have dreamed of committing such a folly. Yet the imposing form of the papers given to Mr. Ellicott, coupled with the publication in the Standard, was well calculated to create the apprehension that I was participating in this wild scheme. But if I had authority, even by act of Congress, (and nothing short of an act of Congress would authorize it,) to establish such a bureau in my Department, rest assured it would not be given to the person you name. I believe he has been much wronged; but it is one of my fixed theories in politics that a man must not only be qualified for the office he fills, but the public, who have an interest in it, must be satisfied of his fitness, or at least must not have made up their minds against him; and whatever may be the qualities of the person in question, his appointment to that office would, under existing circumstances, be received, I am sure, with one general universal feeling of disapprobation, by friends and foes; and, rely on it, I will never mortify my friends by such a usurpation of power, nor by such an injudicious appointment, where I have a lawful right to fill an office. The whole proceeding has been the indiscreet act of the party himself, and wholly unauthorized by me.

'Again thanking you for your kind letter, I am, very truly, your friend and obedient servant,

"TO REVERDY JOHNSON, Esq."

"R. B. TANEY.

Answer by Mr. GARLAND. The paper read, I believe to be a true copy of the evidence of the honorable R. B. Taney, recorded in the journal of the committee. Such a letter has been filed to-day with the evidence of Mr. Reverdy Johnson, as I am informed. The copy read is in the handwriting of the clerk of the committee, and I presume is a true copy of the letter filed.

Question by the Counsel. Was the accused in any way apprized of the intention of the committee to examine Chief Justice Taney, or Mr. Ellicott, or Mr. Johnson, on any matters touching his credit or character; and was be present, or notified to be present, at their examina

Answer. Mr. Whitney was not apprized by the committee, within my knowledge, that the production of the private letters was required of Mr. Ellicott or Mr. Johnson, nor has he been informed of the contents of said letters. These particular letters were never required by the committee; they were produced, if I am not mistaken, under a general requisition of the committee for all correspondence touching the subjects of inquiry directed by the House. I do not recollect any vote of the committee as to these identical letters. Mr. Whitney was never apprized, within my knowledge, that these letters were to be required. I do not recollect that he ever asked any information about them, or that the committee ever gave him any. I do not know that Judge Taney was apprized that these letters had been required or produced.

A motion was made that the House adjourn. Prior bar of the House, as before, by the Sergeant-at-arms; to its being put, Mr. Whitney was conducted from the And then the House adjourned.

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 20.

The reading of the journal of proceedings of Saturday occupied upwards of an hour; after which, the House resumed the investigation of the

CASE OF R. M. WHITNEY.

Question by Counsel. Please to state under what order or requisition the private letters were called for by requisition. And when the letters were presented to the committee, and give the contents of such order or the committee by the witnesses, was any vote or opin ion taken or expressed by the committee as to the use of the said letters; and was the writer of these letters, when under examination by the committee, apprized by the committee that his private letters relating to the subject as to which he was under examination would be, or had been, required by the committee; or was the accused apprized of the order or requisition under which said private letters were called for?

Answer. On the 20th day of January, a series of interrogatories, to be propounded to different witnesses at a distance, whose personal attendance it was thought difficult to procure, was agreed upon by the committee. This series, embracing thirty-six interrogatories, will be found in the journal, a copy of which accompanies this answer, in these words:

[These interrogatories will all be found in the journal of the select committee; the first seven, being essential to a correct understanding of this part of the case, were as follows:

1st. Copies of all papers, letters, orders, resolutions, or memoranda, in books or otherwise, going to show

that the banks of deposite of the public money, of which they, respectively, are officers, have, by contract, joint or several, employed an agent at the seat of Government to transact their business with the Treasury De partment.

24. Copies of all contracts made with any and every such agent.

3d. Copies of all the correspondence which may have been carried on between said banks, or any of their offi cers, and said agent or agents, either before or since the formation of contracts with the Treasury Department, touching the deposites of the public money; and, also, copies of all accepted or rejected contracts proposed by said agent or agents, at any time.

4th. Copies of all correspondence, papers, memoranda, &c., tending to show "the character of the business which said agent or agents is (or are) so employed to transact," whether of a date anterior or subsequent to the creation of such agency or the execution of said contracts.

5th. Copies of all correspondence, books, letters, papers, memoranda, &c., going to show the amount of the compensation of said agent or agents, at this and at all antecedent periods; and when, how, and by whom paid, and for what services.

6th. Copies of all papers, correspondence, &c., going to show whether said agent or agents has or have been employed at the request or through the procurement of the Treasury Department, or any officer thereof.

7th. Copies of all correspondence, &c., calculated to show whether said agent or agents have been employed at the request, or through the procurement, advice, or consent, of the Treasury Department, or any officer thereof.]

A copy of which interrogatories was furnished Mr. John

son, among others. The interrogatories under which I suppose he thought it his duty to produce the letter in question are numbered in the series from three to seven, inclusive. I find, however, on examining the journal of the committee, that, on the 13th instant, the question (a copy of which is herewith filed) was proposed by Mr. Peyton to be propounded to the witness, by the consent of the committee, one member objecting. This interrogatory was also forwarded to Mr. Johnson; he, however, did not transmit any answers to the committee; but, on Saturday morning last, appeared in person to give his testimony. At the time he announced himself, the committee was not in session, but the members were in attendance upon the House, where the present examination was going on. I told Mr. John son that the committee was not in session, and could not then take his examination; but I would try to get them together, and take his examination in the course of the day. He said his attendance was very inconvenient, and he was anxious to retire as speedily as he could. I then conducted him into the committee room, placed before him the resolution of the House organizing the committee, and directing its inquiries, and told him he could do as many other witnesses had done-write out

his answers to the interrogatories which had been propounded, looking to the resolution of the House as his guide. He wrote out his testimony, which was left with the clerk of the committee, and filed the letter in question with it. The committee was not in session at any time during his examination. I had no knowledge

whatever that such a letter was in existence, until I was informed that Mr. Johnson had filed it. I have no knowledge that any member informed Mr. Johnson whether it was proper or not to produce said paper. Copy of additional question propounded to Mr. Reverdy Johnson, on Monday, February 13.

"37. Did R. B. Taney give R. M. Whitney a letter

[FEB. 20, 1837.

of recommendation, or did he in any manner countenance or encourage him in applying for the agency referred to, or did he refuse to recommend or countenance him in that capacity, while he was at the head of the Treasury Department? Do you know of any corre spondence on the subject, of Mr. Taney, with any one? If yea, state its contents or file copies of the same. State fully all you may know on that subject."

Question by the Counsel. Who moved the resolution and framed the interrogatories mentioned in your preceding answer? Among such interrogatories, (having reference to R. M. Whitney,) is not the 29th in these terms, to wit: "29. At the time he was so designated, were you acquainted with him personally; and was he favorably known to you either for capacity or integrity?" Do you know of any other answers being returned to said interrogatory, except the following, extracted from your journal by your clerk, certified by him?

"W. D. Lewis's answer to the 29th interrogatory. With Mr. Whitney, the agent employed by the Girard Bank, I have been personally acquainted for many years; and he has always been favorably known to me for capacity and integrity.

"Thomas C. Rockhill's (Girard Bank) answer to the 29th interrogatory. Deponent has known him for about twenty years; has transacted a great deal of business with him for years back; always found him à good mer. chant, correct and upright in his transactions, and he is favorably known to deponent, both for capacity and integrity.

"T. M. Bryan's (Girard Bank) answer to the 29th interrogatory. Deponent has known him for many years, and he was favorably known to deponent, both for capacity and integrity.

"A Stevenson's (President of Moyamensing Bank) answer to the 29th interrogatory. Deponent knew him well when he resided in Philadelphia, and was favorably known to deponent, as a gentleman and a merchant, both for capacity and integrity.

"P. Reilly's (Moyamensing Bank) answer to the 28th interrogatory. Deponent was acquainted with him some years ago; and did not entertain a favorable opinion of him, either for capacity or integrity. He would not then have trusted his private affairs with him. This opinion was founded on general rumor, which might have been true or false, and not upon any particular knowledge of deponent.

"R. White's (Manhattan Company) answer to 29th interrogatory. I was previously acquainted with Mr. Whitney, and considered him well qualified for the of fice of agent to the banks at Washington.

"Mechanics' Bank, New York, (29th interrogatory.) At the time Mr. Whitney was selected on the part of this bank, I was not acquainted with him personally; but, from the impression made upon us for capacity and qualifications from respectable sources, we were of

course favorable to such selection.

"The Mechanics' Bank also states, in another place, (answer 14th.) Mr. Reuben M. Whitney, having been represented to us as a person of great experience and practical knowledge of financial matters, was selected by the Mechanics' Bank as its agent or correspondent at the seat of Government, to furnish us with such general information in regard to the deposite banks, domestic exchange, &c., as might be deemed official.

"COMMITTEE Room, February 20, 1837.

"In answer to the call of Mr. Whitney's counsel, I have examined the depositions sent by the different banks, and extracted every thing I can find relating to

Mr. Whitney's character, which will be found above. "SAMUEL HAMILTON, Clerk to Mr. Garland's Committee."