Ar-/ 
 
 ]m) 
 
THE 
 
 MEMORIAL 
 
 REVERUY JOHnMn, 
 
 CITY OP BALTIMORE, 
 
 LEGISLATURE OF MARYLAND: 
 
 A P P EN D IX. 
 
 .» '■ 
 
 BALTIMORE: 
 
 PRINTED BY JOHN MURPHY, 
 
 1840 . 
 
THE 
 
 MEMORIAL OF REVERRY JOHNSON, 
 
 CITY OF BALTIMORE, 
 Respectfolly kepresen'ts: 
 
 That on or about the 3d of September, 1831, he became, at the 
 pressing solicitation of the then president of the. Bank of Mary¬ 
 land, one of the diActors of tl^Wnstitutiony and continued in that 
 situation until the failure of the bank, on the 22d of March, 1834, 
 
 In the summer succeeding that event, your memorialist, for^he 
 first time, in a life of almost unexampled professional activity, 
 involving innumerable engagements bringing him into associatipn 
 and conflict with almost all classes of society, and with seven 
 years of it passed, if not with usefulness, certainly without 
 blemish, in the legislative councils of Maryland, where he ne¬ 
 cessarily formed an immediate and intimate association with the 
 intelligence and virtue of the etate, found himself suddenly, and 
 in the absence of the least warning that such an attack was in 
 contemplation, publicly charged and under the imposing form,of 
 a solemn afiBrmation, with gross and fraudulent misconduct in his 
 connection with the bank, and with having been mainly instru¬ 
 mental in reducing it to the condition which caused the wide¬ 
 spread ruinwt followed upon its bankruptcy.' 
 
 It is not the purpose of this memorial to explain at large Ae 
 motives for this assault upon his reputation, nor tp enter upon an 
 argumentative defence of his character. He could, if the occa¬ 
 sion was a proper one, and hopes to have an opportunity of doing 
 it before your session terminates, demonstrate that in. the whole 
 , history of private libels no instance can be found of deeper and 
 grosser falsehood, of blacker and more fiendish malice. Upon 
 every opportunity which has been afiorded him, he fes never 
 
4 ■ • 
 
 failed in yindicating his integrity, and never can fail before, any 
 honest and intelligent tribunal, so long as truth and justice influ¬ 
 ence and govern human judgment. Nor is it his purpose to visit 
 with severe animadversion the memory of the nominal author of 
 the libel. Your memorialist has long since been persuaded that 
 he was but a mere instrument in the hands of another, controlled 
 by a power which he wanted the moral firmness to resist. Who 
 that other "was will appear in the sequel of this memorial. As 
 soon after this assault upon. him as it could be prepared, your 
 memorialist published a reply which he had the gratification of 
 knowing was esteemed by the intelligent.who read and understood 
 it a'conclusive defence of his character. It was followed, how¬ 
 ever, by a reiteration of the slander, in, a publication filled with 
 the most palpable inKerent incdfilfstencies, as well as with state¬ 
 ments manifestly in conflict with those of the original libel. To 
 thif also your memorialist lost no tinre in replying, notwithstand¬ 
 ing he was threatened by various anonymous communications that 
 afartHer vindication of himself would be attended by-popular 
 violence upon his property and person. 
 
 These menaces, however, he wholly disregarded, holding as 
 nothing life or property in comparison with character, and his 
 last and final-reply was issued from the press in Baltiiflore, in the 
 month of August, 1835. A few days after, true to these prophetic 
 •warnings, and whilst, fortunately perhaps for himself and family, 
 they and your memorialist were in this city, where he was brought 
 by professional duty, the popular outrages, as predicted, were 
 brought about, which so deeply stained the city of his home, and 
 for a time indicated the feebleness of the protec^ which the 
 constitution and tha laws, afforded the individual citizen. It is by 
 no means the wish or the design of your memorialist, in alluding 
 to these scenes, to drag from the oblivion in tvhich they are now 
 fortunately buried, events so fatal for a time to the fair fame of 
 a city, second to none in the general intelligence, virtue, enterprise 
 and patriotism of her population. They have long since been lost 
 in the glowing pride w^h which every citizen of Maryland and 
 of our sister states looks back to the triumph with which the con¬ 
 stitution of a free people, founded upon the deafest principles of 
 
justice and liberty, finally indemnified the • outraged. citizen . 
 against losses, which its power, if properly exercised, would have 
 prevented, ahd’eflectually also guarded, for the fpture, individual 
 rights against the recurrence of simitar calamities. ,• 
 
 At the period referred to, there were various suits pending in 
 Harford County Court, instituted by two of the trustees to whom 
 the assets of the bank had been conveyed,^against Thomas Elli- 
 cott, former president of the Union Bank, and his son Wm. M. 
 Ellicott, and others, having bee,n some time before removed to 
 , that court from the court in Baltimore, upon affidai^ts by the 
 defendants that in the latter place they would be unable to procure 
 a fair and impartial trial. The first of these cases, the one against 
 Thomas Ellicott to recover .||^000, received by him from the 
 Bank of Maryland in Octobeiviifes, for pretended services ren¬ 
 dered. its president, came on'Ifor trial in Harford Court, on or 
 about the 27th of A'ugust^'T SS S, and continued almost without%- 
 terruption-until‘th^i.3i&^^m|||uing month'df Oetoben Over 
 and over again .^ad M^^^ ^^ fedte Jia feptroversv, did yotir 
 memorialiStfaiia|pl;^coiTea^s, as cp®el for the^rustee3>'aftd 
 with-their consent, iivvain urgently solicit the defendants and,their 
 counsel to consent that that and alt the' other cases mi|htibe re¬ 
 manded to the city of Baltimore for, trial, where the same judges ' 
 necessarily would preside, less inconvenience he sustained, less' 
 expense incurred, and where, iu the then feeling of the people of 
 that place, as manifested in the outrages to which he has referred, 
 there could then have been no ground for supposing that the 
 defendants would not have had justice done them, whatever rea¬ 
 sons might, toe existed for the impression under which the re¬ 
 moval of the Mses had been originally procured. To your nae- 
 morialist such a change of the venue would have been anything 
 but desirable, if he had not felt a proud consciousness of innocence 
 of all the charges with which he had been assailed. 
 
 These cases necessarily involving an enquiry into the truth of 
 these charges, an examination of his whole connection with the 
 bank, and the comparative propriety of his participation and that 
 of the defendants in the causes which led toihe wretched and 
 unparalleled'bankruptcy of the institution—with a jury to be se- 
 
c 
 
 lected from a population apparently just heated into phrenzy 
 against your memorialist, with the‘startling and melancholy evi¬ 
 dences of supposed popular judgment in the very vicinity of the 
 location, where the trials were proposed to-be had, mth a portion 
 of the public press hurling from day to day the most burning 
 anathemas upon his head, with the various friends and creatures 
 of the defendants 'to stimulate and enforce every species of ca- 
 
 • lumny against him, it would have been not mere folly but madness 
 in your memorialist to have desired such a place for the investi¬ 
 gation, if'he had not only known the integrity of his own con¬ 
 duct but the entire absence, of even plausible grounds for the 
 impeachment of it. The trial of the first case, and of all the 
 others, was, however, as alread|||ited, had in Harfoyd, and in the 
 .one against Thomas Ellicott ^mcially, the' affairs of the bank 
 were most thoroughly iiiTCstigated, the defence conducted by the 
 a^est counsel, every charge itfhichkad been made then or since 
 against yourrmeihorialist, mos tj l |^ ^ karii ihed and elaborately 
 diseussed, and- the. ^su]^Waspth^^^%w^ihutes after leaving 
 their box, thfe jury,.as:fespectable M was eve^phvened, returned 
 a verdict against Thomas. Ellicott, for 1he'whole amount of the 
 plaintift’S* demand, being, twenty-five thousand dollars, with iii- 
 
 ' terest from October, 1833, the time he had improperly received 
 'it, and judgment was entered accordingly. From this judgment the 
 defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals, where he suffered 
 
 • it to be afiirmed without argument. Throughout this trial, so pa¬ 
 tiently, conducted, so elaborately argued, and in which, above all, 
 the defendant having, mainly, if not altogether, relied upou.tlie 
 ground that E. Poultney had in his private capaci^and, with his 
 mm. funds, paid him the twenty-five thousand '^ars, under a 
 written contract which gave him, Ellicott, as he .alleged, a lien 
 on certain Tennessee‘State, bonds, and notwithstanding he was 
 daily urged to call E. Poultney as a witness, who was constantly in 
 court, and prove by.him the asserted contract and all the charges 
 he had made against your memorialist, and although he was soli- 
 
 ■ cited to call also, as a witness, Wm. M. Ellicott, his son, or 
 Samuel Poultney, ostensible partners of Poultney, Ellicott and 
 Company, he could not be induced to bring either of them upon 
 
. ■ ' 7 
 
 the stand. In a few days after the verdict was renderedji the 
 jury, unsolicited and influenced alone hy a sense of justicc'to 
 slandered citizens, addressed a letter to your memorialist, dated 
 the 16th of Nov. 1835, to be found in tlie Appendix accompany¬ 
 ing this memorial, pp. 2 and 3, stating among other things, that they 
 took pleasure in saying, as an act of justice to him and the gen¬ 
 tlemen who had been.implicaited Avi.th him, in connexion with;tht» 
 affairs of the bank,.tliat they were “entirely convinced that-the 
 imputations against his conduct and that of the gentlemen referred 
 to, in reference to all tlie subjects of charge alluded to, were entirely 
 without foundation.^’ That “the great range of evidence allowed 
 in the case brought before them for their consideration every ione 
 of these topics, that they were napst elaborately discussed by coun¬ 
 sel, and-that the unanimous opinion they then gave him .“wets the 
 result of a most careful and deliberate consideration of the malterf’ 
 
 Although your memorialist was aware that in this opinion die 
 whole court fully concurred,, and that it mpt with the cordial, ap¬ 
 probation of the counsel whoVere associated with -him in the 
 trial, and of all the counsel of the defendant also, whose opinion 
 he had. an opportunity of ascertaining, he abstained from .pnr- 
 curing from 'any of them any written avowal of the fact bntilj for 
 the reasons stated in the correspondence, he deemed it-his duty 
 to procure it for the purpose of this memorial. Tt-will be found 
 in the Appendix, commencing on page 7. ■ : 
 
 At the same term of the court at ^hich the trial referred tb 
 was disposed of, certain criminal cases against William-M. 
 Ellicott, the .only son of T. Ellicott, and Evan Ppultney atid 
 Sam?l Poultne^ were also tried, and although they deeply mvolved . 
 the character of the parties,, and in these cases T. Ellicott would 
 have been a competent witness, and the facts recenfly. alleged'b-y 
 him in a pamphlet published the past year as then within his own 
 knowledge, and which he says it was never his ^intention-to 
 disclose” in any other way than by testimony, judidally ^^venf 
 would have been vitally important to hte son’s defencej he.veri- 
 
 ♦ Thomas EUicoU’s Pamphlet, Bank of Maryland Conspiracyi &c. pa^ 4. - 
 
tured not, although in court every day, to take the witness startd," 
 because he,knew a cross-esamihatiou awaited him, sure to have 
 stripped his falsehoods naked before court and jury. . : ' 
 
 None of the other civil cases against the parties in.question 
 were tried at that term—the one against Poultney, Ellicott & Co; 
 however, was disposed of at the March term of the same court, 
 d836, after a most elaborate investigation, involving again nearly 
 all the subjects of charge against your memorialist, and occupying 
 the court and jury from the 13th day of May to tlie 1.6th day of 
 June of that year. It terminated in a verdict for the plaintiffs 
 for “$34,300 without interest,” which the court afterwards, on 
 , their motion,- and upon full argument, set aside and ordered a 
 hew trial. Again, although his son’s fortune as well as charact^i', 
 as he, concedes in his pamphlet, was fatally involved, did he care¬ 
 fully abstain from heconiing a witness in his behalf. The mere 
 form of being called to tlie stand in that capacity was gone through, 
 he supposing, no doubt, that objection would, as .it might have 
 been, be made to his competency,-hecause of his interest as secur-. 
 ity for the-debts of the house, hut all objection was promptly 
 waived, and never afterwards did he venture to shew himself. 
 That this was the case will appear by a published and accurate 
 report of the trial herewith submitted, as well as by the letters of 
 Messrs. Price dnd Bradford,—Appendix, pp. 10,11, and 22 to 
 25, as by the one from A. Constable, Esq., one of the counsel of 
 the defendants-^pp. 29 to 32. 
 
 ' This last letter also discloses, what the circumstances would of 
 themselves ^necessarily establish, that Ellicott ■ was exceedingly 
 unwilling to he examined as! a witness, his hypoetical declara¬ 
 tion that it was his intention to disclose the facts asserted by him 
 in his pamphlet, in m“other way than by testimony judidally given," 
 to the contrary notwithstanding. 
 
 At this trial, Evan Poultney was at the last moment, (and then 
 only “by coercion” as admitted by General Maulsby, one of the 
 defendants’ counsel—^PAwler and Poultney’s Testimony, &c. p. 
 42,) examined by the defendants, and upon all the points upon 
 which the character of your memorialist had been assailed, and 
 was, of. course, subjected to a strict cross-examination. 
 
9 -. 
 
 What his testimony was, how it established the truth of) the 
 charges, or how it put beyond all doubt their Ihlsehoodj your 
 memorialist is willing to leave, for the present, to the judgment df 
 your honorable body, to be formed upon consideration aloUe of 
 the testimony itself, as extracted entire from the report referred 
 to, and herewith exhibited. . '))• '■ - 
 
 A certain Francis M. Fowler, who has'also figured largely in 
 the slanders upon your memorialist, an adventurer from Bristdlj 
 in England, by trade a loire-ioorker, twice a- bankrupt, and who 
 doubtless, “left his country for his country’s good,” was upon the 
 same occasion a witness for defendants, and his evidence, as 
 taken from the same report, is also now presented. Whathave been 
 the motives for his impotent malice towards your memorialist, 
 if no where else to be discovered, are to be clearly seen in the 
 character and result of the cross examination to which he, siib- 
 jected him. Even a cursory consideration of this evidence^ 
 whilst it proves the invaluable right, as a test of truth; and prbr 
 tection of innocence, of a cross examination in open court, will 
 demonstrate also the utter and shameful falsehood,of the assaults 
 with which your memorialist has so. long been persecuted, . Judg¬ 
 ments were obtained in all the otlier civil cases instituted . by ; the- 
 trustees, but one, and finally, after the books of PouUneiy, Ellicott 
 ^ Co. got into the hands of their trustees, and could be produced 
 in evidence upon the new trial of their case^ judgment was ren¬ 
 dered against them for the whole amount of the plaintiff’s'de¬ 
 mand, the books establishing, beyond all ytmtion, the vfter 
 groundlessness of the defence relied upon at the first trial. 
 What other matters were disclosed by those books, and to what 
 extent they likewise established the innocence of your memorial¬ 
 ist, and the tnce cause of the bank’s insolvency, he hopes to have 
 an opportunity of presenting to your honorable body through 
 your committee. 
 
 The Union Bank of Maryland, having obtained, whilst the pro¬ 
 ceedings before mentioned were going on, a judgment against: W. 
 M. Ellicott and Samuel Poultney, they issued an execution against 
 their persons,, which resulted in the imprisonment of W. M. 
 Ellicott, until the court in Harford had ordered a new trial 
 
.10 
 
 in the case referred to, and not until then, in his applying for 
 the benefit of the insolvent laws of ^the state. His discharge was 
 opposed hy that hank, and hy two of the trustees of the Bank 
 of Maryland, and with success, but finally, after the expiration 
 ■ of nearly two years from the date of the application and a 
 change in the organization of the board of Insolvent Commis¬ 
 sioners, and without inquiry, as it is believed, because the oppo¬ 
 sition was practically withdrawn, he obtained the relief he pray- 
 ' ed for. By the provisions of these laws, notwithstanding such a 
 discharge by the board of Commissioners, any creditor may file 
 allegations of fraud against the applicant, in the county court of 
 the county, upon which issues are to be framed and tried by a 
 juryj but this can only-be done vvithin two years from the date of 
 the applicant’s pelitioM, and not the date of the discharge. 
 
 These two years expired shortly after the decision of the com¬ 
 missioners, and all further opportunity of having the fairness of 
 his son’s conduct investigated by a jury in Baltimore was forever 
 gone, and then, for the first time, and after, also, even all general 
 recollection with, many, certainly accurate recollection, with the 
 public, of the disclosures and the results of the Harford trials 
 might well be supposed lost, T. Ellicott, during the last year, lor 
 the first time, makes the disclosures to be found in the pamphlet, 
 to which your memorialist has already adverted. 
 
 With every motive, as the aforegoing history establishes, to 
 make such disclosures before with his son’s fate, in fortune and 
 in fame, resting upon the establishment of the facts he proposes 
 to divulge with the reputation of E. Poultney, whose character 
 he avows himself to have held in the highest esteem, and over, 
 whose memory ostensibly he sheds sincere tears of regret, deeply 
 involved in the establishment of the same facts with the duty which 
 as trustee of the creditors should have impelled him to communi¬ 
 cate to them the true causes and extent of the bank’s failure and 
 their losses with the duty which he owed to the cause of truth and 
 justice, and to the reasonable desire of an anxious and sorely in¬ 
 jured community, to know the actual authors of their wrongs, all 
 pressing upon him to disclose whatever knowledge he possessed, 
 he awaits the termination of all the judicial controversies, sees 
 
11 
 
 his soil' placed beyond the reach of further judicial investigation, 
 sees the a’ssets of the bank, as he alleges, most improperly iad- 
 minisfered, the interests of the creditors most- shamefiillyisacri- 
 ficed, truth and right trampled upon, removes himself from the 
 reach of tlie justice of Maryland, becomes a fugitive from the 
 justice of its courts in which he was a judgment debtorfor $25,000 
 to the bank of which he had before been president, delays his ex¬ 
 position until the public might well be supposed to have forgotten 
 the triumphant defence with which your memorialist had met the 
 slanders against him, the evidence of his vindication tendered 
 him by an honest and able jury, approved by a pure and enlight¬ 
 ened court, sanctioned by elevated and able counsel, concurred 
 in by every by-stander of character and intelligence who had wit¬ 
 nessed his defence, and then, for the first time, w'ith an effronteiy 
 and a malice never before surpassed, issues from his hiding place 
 a publication filled with all the original libels, and with a disgust¬ 
 ing display of falsehood and of vengeance, which for the credit 
 of our common nature, your memorialist would fondly hope is no¬ 
 where else to be found. It is due to himself, to his family and 
 his friends, it is due to truth, it is due to the, motived impelling the 
 Legislature to the investigation in which they are aboutto engage,. 
 that your memorialist should lose no time in explaining the mo¬ 
 tives by which the individual referred to has been actuated; He 
 proceeds to do so as briefly as possible, anticipating that he will 
 hereafter be allowed the privilege of establishing all the Circum¬ 
 stances which will evidence the reasons for the attack. For a 
 long period before the failure of the Bank of Maryland and almost 
 during the whole time of Ellicott’s presidency of the Union Bank, 
 your memorialist was the confidential counsel of that bank, and , 
 the private counsel of the president. He continued in this rela¬ 
 tion to the bank up to the period of the removal of Ellicott as its 
 president, and has done so ever since, notwithstanding the slanders '■ 
 with which he has been assailed by Ellicott,-and that several of 
 the directors during his administration have ever since been in 
 the same capacity and had abundant opportunity of knowing 
 whether many of hi% charges were true. On the 28th of May, 
 1834, more than two months, it will be recollected, after the fail- 
 
12 
 
 uie of the Bank of Maryland that event having occurred'on the 
 22d of the preceding March your memorialist, in conjunction with 
 Charles Howard, Esq., of the city of Baltimore, was appointed 
 by the then secretary of the treasut}', the present chief justice of 
 the United States, agents of the department, “to examine and re¬ 
 port upon the accounts and condition of the Union Bank of Mary¬ 
 land,” This appointment was accepted, and Mr. Howard and 
 himself immediately commenced the discharge of its duties. 
 
 Up to this period, not the smallest indication had been given 
 by Ellicottof any want of confidence in your memorialist. On 
 the contrary, although, as he now unblushingly alleges, and with 
 a most shameful violation of all consistency of statement, your 
 memorialist had, on or before the period about to be referred to, 
 substantially avowed his determination, by perjury or subornation 
 of peijury, if either' should be found necessary, to prevent the 
 disclosure of the real nature of his connection with the Bank of 
 Maryland, and although about the same period Mr. David M. 
 Perme had told him that he too was resolved that his participa¬ 
 tion in the affairs of the bank should not he known, and that if 
 disclosed by Poultney, heand .your memorialist would “deny it 
 , and rest upon their characters for belief in opposition to his de-' 
 clarations,” and substantially also avowed his resolve to commit. 
 penury, to avoid the disclosure, and although he had, as he says 
 he had, detected both “in such duplicity that he had never before 
 thought'it possible that either of us could be guilty of"* we find him, 
 as appears by his own letter to the. then Secretary of the Trea¬ 
 sury, dated the 8th of October, 1833, and published in his pam¬ 
 phlet, pp. 88, 89, Tvlien speaking of Mr. Perine and your memori¬ 
 alist, telling the Secretary that “you, as well as myself, know 
 
 THAT THhY ARE INCAPABLE OP GIVINO AN IMPROPER COLOUR TO 
 MATTERS OF FACT.” So again in an answ'er to a bill in Chancery- 
 filed by some of the creditors of the bank, long after his ceasing 
 to be President of the Union Bank, and' now of record in that 
 court, he is found affirming, by way of accounting for his execut¬ 
 ing a deed of that date, that on the 5th of April, 1834, after, of 
 
 • Ellicott's Pamphlet, P)., 16, n, 13. 
 
IS ■ . 
 
 course,-the Bank of Maryland’s failurej he acted under the 
 professional advice of your memorialist, “m which at that time he • 
 placed such implicit confidence as induced him to submit himself-to 
 its guidance, without much consultation of his own independent 
 judgment?’’* So again on the 29.th of May, 1834, in a letter ad^ 
 dressed to Messrs. McMahon, Gill & Morris, and your memori- 
 alist^ and to be found in his pamphlet^ p. 106, where, in protestr 
 ing against a contemplated report of the alfairs of the hankihy. 
 his co-trustees, he is seen stating, as his first reason against:the 
 propriety of the publication, that he believes “it will have the 
 effect of exciting doubts and suspicions where none ought to exist, 
 highly prejudicial to the interest of the creditors of the bank, - 
 as well as numerous, honorable and correct men,” and among other 
 things, stating as .his second reason, that he deemed “it the duty 
 of the trustees, under the advice and direction of the legal advisers 
 and directors of the trust, (your memorialist being, one,) to first 
 fully investigate and decide, and if possible amicably settle before 
 any ex-parte statement is sent out to the world, which is calculat¬ 
 ed in his opinion to give ground for suspicions where no facts may 
 be found to sustain them.” So again, as the archives of the 
 Union Bank will establish, about the same periddj manifesting the. 
 most entire confidence in your memorialist, he requested him^a's 
 counsel of the Union Bank, to visit Philadelphia, to recover the- 
 proceeds of two drafts, amounting to $40,000, before then depo¬ 
 sited for collection by that bank with the Girard Bank of. Phifa- 
 delphia, and retained by the latter under a notice of claim-froin 
 the then President of the Union Bank of Tennessee-i-a duty 
 which your memorialist successfully performed, and paid over the 
 whole sum to the bank. The letter of Mr. McMahon, Appendix, 
 p. 20, will also show that this confidence in your memorialisti 
 and he writes with the best means of knowledge) was continued 
 by Ellicott long after the bankruptcy of the Bank of Maryland^ 
 and until about the time he wa^ discharged from the presidency of 
 the Union Bank. .■ 
 
 Your memorialist has before him a statement of Mr. J; 
 
 * See case in Ch.nncen of A. Rutr, et al, vs. Ellicofl, cl al, decreed in that courl, 23a 
 of May, 1836. i Gill and Jolin.s. 44S. 
 
14 
 
 Q. Hughlett, of Baltimore, then and ever since a director 
 ■ of the Union Bank, and a gentleman of unquestioned character 
 and intelligence, reduced to wi king recently after the facts oc¬ 
 curred, which equally proves that Ellicott’s confidence in Mr. 
 Ferine was not diminished. The statement is, that on the 14th 
 July, 1834, at the last meeting of the directors of the Union Bank, 
 
 prior to the change of its administration (the dismissal of Ellicott 
 as president) in answer to some remarks of MK Ferine, who was 
 one of the board, expressive of his regret, if during their associa¬ 
 tion he had' said any thing calculated to wound the feelings of either 
 of the board, or had lost their friendship, Ellicott remarked “that 
 if David Ferine alluded to him as being the person whose friend¬ 
 ship he had lost, he, Mr. E., could assure him such teas not the 
 case. That he, Mr. E., entertained for him the same degree of 
 FRIENDSHIP and CONFIDENCE that had alioays existed between them" 
 And finally upon this subject, your memorialist, should it become 
 necessary, will prove by the then, and now the cashier of the 
 Union Bank, Mr. Robert Mickle, by every living member of the 
 old board, by Mr. Charles Howard who acted with him in the in¬ 
 vestigation under the commission from the secretary of the treasury, 
 by the chief clerk of the Treasury Department, Mr. McClintock 
 Young, and by the secretary himself, the present chief justice of 
 the United States, that in all his professions and acts relating to 
 this memorialist, and upon all occasions up to the period of that 
 investigation in June, 1834, near three months after the failure of 
 the Bank of JkTaryZand, Ellicott evinced and expressed the high¬ 
 est opinion of the private character and incorruptible professional 
 integrity of your memorialist. 
 
 - Nor up to this time had Evan Foultney ever breathed a doubt 
 of the propriety of your memorialist’s conduct in his connexion 
 with the. Bank of Maryland. On the contrary, so late as the 8th 
 of May preceding, he had 'voluntarily executed in favor of your 
 memorialist, and J. Glenn, Esq. a conveyance of his privateEstate, 
 the more effectually to indemnify them for their responsibilities for 
 him and the Bank of Maryland, having before on the 82d of 
 March, the day prior to the announcement of the bank’s failure, 
 executed a similar deed for the same purpose, under the teritten 
 
'15 
 
 advice of T. Ellicott, given on that day, and published in his 
 pamphlet, p. 94, recommending,' ,among other things, the clos¬ 
 ing of the bank the following day, and “Evan Poultney to make 
 a deed of trust of his private estate to secure R. Johnson, John 
 Glenn.,!). M. Ferine^ Hugh McElderry and Evan TrEllicott, 
 against all loss on account of their liabiliHes for him, or for the 
 Bank of Maryland, inclusive of the orphans’ court deposites.’’ : 
 
 In the prosecution of the examination, however, with Mr. How¬ 
 ard, info the affairs of the Union Bank, they were informed-hy a 
 report of a committee of the board, that the bank had made a 
 loan of |450,000, upon six thousand shares of its own stock, and 
 that they held “the stock at par, as security for the debt which 
 appeared upon its books in the shape of a loan upon the stock of 
 the bank.” Being instructed by the secretary to satisfy themselves 
 by personal examination of the extent of the loans.of-the institu¬ 
 tion, and the character and possession of the securities upon which 
 they were made, Mr. Howard and your memorialist addressed a 
 letter to L. Tiernan, Esq. the chairman of the Committee, dated., 
 the 7th of June, in reference to the loan alluded to, of which the 
 following is an extract: “As it,is obviously .proper, and.will no 
 doubt be agreeable to the bank that all the facts reported by.us tp. 
 the Treasury Department shall have been examined into by 6ur^' 
 selves, Vie request to have exhibited to us the transfer book, and; 
 such others as show the . stock held by the bank as security to. 6e 
 actually in its possession.” On the 10th of the same month, - after 
 repeating the request, the examination was made, and then it. waa. 
 discovered by them, that some time in February or March preced¬ 
 ing, just the period required by the charter to give the priyilege. 
 of voting stock by the holder, and on the eve of the failure, of the 
 Bank of Maryland, the whole six thousand shares had been. mosf 
 manifestly, and to the great danger of the bank, fraudulently tram- 
 ferred into a multitude of names, collected for the most part front the 
 sttrrouiiding manufactories, under powers of attorney, given :to. 
 secure the loan by those in whose names tlie stock had antecer. 
 dently stood, amongst whom was your memorialist, who at the 
 time held one thousand of the shares, as is proved by the hooks 
 of that bank,' as well as by those of the Bank of Maryland, exclu¬ 
 sively for the use of the latter institution. 
 
16 
 
 ■ The design tof these transfers was most-obvious. An dectibn 
 for directors was under thecharter,to take place in July ofthat year. 
 Already had public dissatisfaction been most strongly manifest¬ 
 ed, in-relation to Ellicott’s administration of the bank. The parties 
 concerned .in this shamefully fraudulent evasion of the charter, no 
 doubt, then anticipated as inevitable tke failure of the Bank of 
 Maryland, and the certain increase of alarm-with the stockhold¬ 
 ers of the Union Bank. They were all of them, as appears by the 
 books of that bank, immensely indebted to it, a change of its ad¬ 
 ministration and thp dismissal of Ellicott as president, they knew, 
 would, in all human probability, be certain destruction to them, 
 and they resolved, even by the perpetration of a gross and palpa¬ 
 ble fraud upon the stockholders, and to the imminent hazard of 
 ■ (heir interests, to secure to him the government of the institution 
 by the division of the shares referred to, so as to give them, if 
 suffered to he voted, a commanding and certain influence in the 
 approaching election. To make their contrivance efiicacious— 
 past all doubt—at the same time of transferring the stock into the 
 'mass of names which was to increase their voting privilege, they 
 took from tkose persons powers of attorney in favor of Wm. M. 
 Ellicott, authorising him to re-transfer it, as their .attorney, to the 
 bank, and, as their .proxy, to vote it at the coming election of 
 directors. 
 
 Indignant at this fraud,—resolved to have no appearance even 
 of privity in its concoction,—determined to save the innoebnt 
 stockholders from its design,—to protect their rights and to se¬ 
 cure their interests, the moment he discovered it, your memorial¬ 
 ist, acting throughout in conjunction with Mr. Howard, demand¬ 
 ed of Ellicott, with serere animadversion upon the attempt, that 
 the . whole six thousand shares should be forthwith transferred 
 directly to the bank itself. This, however, to its full extent, he 
 was not able to accomplish, but he did compel him to make such 
 transfer of the shares which had .stood in the name of yopr me¬ 
 morialist, and of those which had been in the names of others 
 than Poultney, Ellicott & Co. These, being two thousand, he 
 refused.to have transferred, fondly hoping that he would be able - 
 
17 
 
 to vote them, and by that means, as he could have done, ,yet se¬ 
 cure his re-election. Your memorialist told him, however,-to his: 
 teeth, that he never should be permitted to consummate the fraud,- 
 and that he would take instant legal steps to prohibit it. This, 
 as the records of the Court of Appeals will show, was done by: 
 your memorialist, and others, and done successfully,-^tlie fraudu- 
 . lent intent of the transfers not even having been denied,butadmitted; 
 by a demurrer to,the bill. The voting of the shares was by de¬ 
 cree perpetually enjoined,» and the 14th or 15th of July, 1834^ 
 the election came on, and Ellicott, by an overwhelming vote; 
 was hurled from a situation he had dishonored, and driven from an: 
 institution he would most assuredly have bankrupted., From this, 
 date, and from this cause, his efforts to wreak his vengeance upon- 
 your memorialist have been constant and untiring,—every art to; 
 which malice could resort, every falsehood that a debased .'and: 
 depraved nature could invent, every stratagem that a relentless^ 
 vengeance could design, effectually to accomplish, if:'possible,5 
 the ruin of yokr memorialist, have from, that period to this, been 
 his exclusive employment. Knowing, as well ^ he knows hik 
 own existence, that your memorialist prizes his character./infi-; 
 nitely beyond all earthly possessions,—esteeming money.buti as. 
 duSf in the balance, when put in competition with his good name;^ 
 he has, by every species of artifice, most laboriously endeavored 
 to assail his reputation and to bring upon him public contumely 
 ani reproach. W^here the libeller is not known and your mer 
 morialist is h stranger, he feels that the effort may have been, to 
 some extent, successful; and he therefore hails the investigation 
 which your honorable body have ordered, as the means of enab¬ 
 ling him, and he trusts forever, to put down all the slanders with- 
 which he has been assailed, and to strip their chief author of the' 
 covering of falsehood with which he vainly hopes to conceal 
 his iniquity; As your memorialist has before stated, only, four 
 days after the date of Ellicott’s discharge from the presidency 
 of the Union Bank, the 18th of July, 1834, there, followed 
 a libellous attack upon him in a publication called “A .Brief 
 Exposition of Matters relating to the Bank of Maryland,” osten- 
 
 *Sec Camiibell & Voss vs. Poultncy, Ellicott & Co.'ei. ol.-S Gill & Johns. 94, 
 
 '.‘1 ' 
 
sibly prepared by Evan Poultney, but carrying upon its face, with 
 those who best know him, conclusive evidence that its real author 
 was Thomas Ellicott. To this ensued, and in rapid succession, 
 various similar slanders in a portion of the public press of the 
 day, and in more solemn form, until finally within the year just 
 passed, he issued the pamphlet so often referred to, and publish¬ 
 ed in connection with it the original attack. See p. 143. 
 
 ■ If the circumstances already disclosed by your memorialist 
 did not most abundantly demonstrate the character of the author 
 of all his wrongs, and his utter destitution of all claim to credit, 
 his proceedings during the last moments of his presidency of the 
 Union Bank^ and when he knew that his days of control there 
 were numbered, and just on the eve of expiring, would satisfy the 
 most sceptical. They are to be found in an extract from the re¬ 
 port of the Committee of Ways and Means of that bank, con¬ 
 sisting of Messrs. Charles Howard, Solomon EttiNg, James 
 Campbell, Robert P. Brows and W.m. F. Murdock, made to 
 the board the 15th of August, 1834, and in due course ratified. 
 A copy of the entire report is now before your memorialist, it 
 being a part of the evidence given in the case against T. Ellicott 
 ia Harford, and the extract is exhibited in the Appendix to this 
 memorial, pp. 41,42, 43,44, 45. The reader of the disclosures 
 contained in that paper will need no other facts to satisfy him of 
 the'disgusting nature of the man, who for a period now of more 
 than four years, has been incessantly making your memorialist the 
 constant object of his vindictive malice. 
 
 . Your memorialist, in conclusion, , feels, that he might proudly 
 repose upon a life spotless, until assailed from such a quarter— 
 upon the confidence and regard of the Judges and the Bar, not 
 only in this State, but beyond her limits, who have known him 
 almost from manhood to the present hour—to the equally constant 
 and sustaining esteem of the innumerable friends in every other 
 class of society which he continues to enjoy—to the intimate ' 
 knowledge: of his character possessed by very many of your 
 honorable body itself, and to his triumphant vindication in every ti-i- 
 bunaljvbefore whom his conduct has been investigated, without 
 the necessity of a further justification. Your honorable body. 
 
. 19 
 
 however, are no doubt aware, that during the last political can-* 
 vass in the city of Baltimore, the concerns of the bank were 
 a certain portion of that constituency made the subject of hnii 
 madversion, and a desire indicated for a further and legislative 
 investigation of the causes of its failure.' The candidates fo'f 
 popular favor on either side were understood to have pledged 
 themselves to obtain, if they could, such an examination;' and 
 doubtless, the step which you have already taken towards it, was 
 the result of that determination. • ■ 
 
 . As soon as your memorialist came to understand'this suppOSe'd 
 popular will, he felt it to be alike due to his own character^ and 
 to the wishes of a people with whom it will be his destiny ' as it 
 will be his pride during life to reside, that, so far from casting 
 obstacles in the tvay, he should himself, if from any cause'it was 
 not done by others, promptly solicit such an investigation, i "' 
 In pursuance of this determination, the correspondence to be 
 found in tlie Appendix between himself and others took-iplafeie 
 before, your honorable body convened, and this memorial tvduld 
 at an earlier day have been presentedj but for the pressufe'-' bf 
 professional engagements which he could not properly'disregiodi 
 and the belief that some one of the delegates from BaltimOrfe in 
 your honorable body would make the required movement^ #hfch', 
 
 ' un'der the circumstances of their situatio'n, it might be considered 
 indelicate in him to anticipate. As you will readily perceive,’the 
 inquiry is one in which your memorialist has a deep interestj aM 
 justice to him as a fellow citizen entities; him to expect that 
 he will be permitted to be present at all fhe examinations'6f'the 
 committee, that they will be conducted-in public, and that’he have 
 the. privilege of examining and cross-examining all the witn^es 
 whom it may be necessary to the cause of truth, unquestionably 
 the sole object of their creation, to have before your coihmitteef 
 It is equally apparent from the character of the charges relative 
 to the concerns of the bank, and vitally important to the purposes 
 of justice, that no witness should be examined except orally,- but 
 most especially, that there should be no other examination of any 
 of the parties whose criminations and recriminations have hereto¬ 
 fore filled the public ear, and-above all, that Thomas .Ellicott, if 
 
Eis testimony is deemed material, as it assuredly is, should in 
 person, and in person alone, and that publicly, apd under the 
 searching scrutiny of a cross-examination, be before the commit¬ 
 tee, where he can be confronted by the citizens he has assailed, 
 and the.untruth of his charges, if they are untrue, as your memo¬ 
 rialist in the sight of Heaven proclaims them, may be established, 
 out of his own mouth; that the ears, if there be any abused by his 
 falsehood, may be disabused by the power of truth. It is true, as 
 your memorialist has before stated, that Ellicott being a fugitive 
 from her justice, dares not venture into Maryland, and that with¬ 
 out the protection of your honorable body he might well dread 
 to put his foot upon her soil, but your memorialist supposes it to 
 be equally true that .coming under the requsitidn 0/ the Commit¬ 
 tee, he would be free from arrest in his journey here, during his 
 sojourn here, and until his return to Pennsylvania. 
 
 If, however, any reasonable doubt should be entertained upon 
 this question, he prays your honorable body to pass a law, as you 
 have the unquestionable power to do, expressly exempting him, 
 whilst in the state, from all trouble, and he also most respectfully 
 prays, if it should not be considered as clear that the power is 
 already vested in them, that your honorable body instruct your 
 . committee that their investigation into the affairs of the bank shall 
 be publicly made, and that your memorialist be allowed the right 
 of appearing before them in his own vindication, and of examin¬ 
 ing and cross-examining all the witnesses whom they may find it 
 necessary or important to the proper discharge of their duties to 
 sunamon before them, and he, as in duty bound, will pray, &c. 
 
 REVERDY JOHNSON. 
 
 Annapolii, Janmry, 1840. 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 MEMORIAL OF REYEROY JOHNSON, 
 
 legislature of Maryland, Dceember Session, 1833, 
 
 From the Baltimore Gazette and Daily Mverlker, edited, by 
 William Gwynn, Friday afternoon, Dec. 18, 1835. 
 
 “We have much pleasure in publishing the following corres¬ 
 pondence—particularly the letter of the respectable jurors,'vvho 
 so patienOy and attentively investigated the affairs connected with 
 the failure of the Bank of Maryland, during the long trial at 
 Bel-Air. We have the pleasure of knowing several of. theih 
 personally, and the character of them all, which is such as to 
 give a high value to their strong, after such an investigation, may 
 we not say, conclusive testimony, in regard to the imputations 
 against our estimable fellow citizens named in the letter of the 
 jurors .”—Editor Gazette. ^ ■ 
 
 Annapolis, I2thDecember, 1836. ’ 
 Editor OF THE Gazette: . ' 
 
 Sir: You will oblige me by publishing the subjoined corres¬ 
 pondence. It was not my purpose to make it public until the 
 Reporter could prepare his report of the case in Harford county, 
 to which it relates; but his present engagements are such, and 
 the, work itself will be so voluminous, that it may be two or three 
 months before he can get it ready for the press.. In the meanr 
 
3 
 
 time, as I understand that misrepresentations are majking in regard 
 to the sentiments of the jury upon the matters to which their 
 letter refers, .1 deem it alike due to them and the purpose they 
 had in writing the letter, as well as to myself, that it should be 
 at once presented to the public. . 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 • Your obd’t serv’t, 
 
 REVERDY JOHNSON. 
 
 No. 2. 
 
 Bel-dir, Harford county, JVov. 16, 1835. 
 
 To Reverdy Johkson: 
 
 Sir: The undersigned, the jury lately empannelled to try the 
 case in this county court, of the President and Directors of the 
 Bank of Maryland, use of Ellicott, Morris and Gill, Trustees of 
 the Bank of Mar}'land, against Thomas Ellicott, having heard all 
 the evidence offered on either side, and most attentively consi¬ 
 dered it, and also the arguments of counsel, the whole occupying 
 oiir time from the 27th of August to the 31st of October last, 
 feke great pleasure in stating to you, as an act of justice due to 
 you, and the gentlemen who have been implicated with ypu, in 
 connection with the affairs of the Bank of Maryfand, that we are 
 entirely convinced that the imputations against your conduct, and 
 that of. the gentlemen referred to,' in reference to all the subjects 
 of charge. alluded to,were entirely without foundation. The 
 great range of evidence allowed in the case, brought before us- 
 for our consideration every one of those topics, and they were all 
 most elaborately discussed by counsel; and the unanimous opinion 
 yve.now give you in relation to them is the result of a most careful 
 and deliberate consideration of the matter. We beg leave also 
 to , add that we have no doubt that the day is near at hand when 
 this will he the sentiment of every correct man in the community. 
 
 ^ I All the prejudices heretofore existing against you, we are satis¬ 
 fied, if.not-already dissipated, will soon be removed; and that the 
 character of yourself, and that of Messrs. Glenn, Ferine; E. T. 
 Ellicott and M'Elderry, will stand altogether discharged of the 
 
cruelly assailed. 
 
 We remain, with great regard, sir, ■ • • 
 
 Your obedient servants, ■ . ^ ^ ■ 
 
 • JAMES PANNEL, Eoremort. ■ 
 HENRY WEBSTER, 
 
 WM. M. MAYNADIER, 
 
 JACOB minnick; 
 
 WM. B. STEPHENSON, 
 CLEMENT BUTLER, 
 
 - GEORGE RIGDON, 
 
 JAMES RUFF, 
 
 GEORGE AMOS, Jr. ■ 
 
 WM. B. MONTGOMERY, . 
 WILLIAM CHESNEY, . . 
 
 CHRISTOPHER C. ROUSE.: 
 
 No. 3. . . ' ' . 
 
 Baltimore, 2Gthjyov. 1835. 
 
 Gentlemen, 
 
 I acknowledge with sincere thanks for the kindness, which 
 induced its communication, the receipt of your letter of the: 164: 
 instant. That I should be able completely to vindicate the integ¬ 
 rity of my character from the foul aspersions that have been cast 
 upon it since the failure of the Bank of Maryland, before, any. 
 tribunal not so lost to all sense of justice as to condemn unheard,; 
 I have never for a moment doubted. A consciousness of innp^ 
 cencehas supported me throughout the persecutions to, which 1 
 have been'subjected, and induced-me never for a-moment to, 
 falter, in the conviction that the day was “near at hand” when, 
 the acts of the libeller would be harmless, and my reputation 
 would stand spotless in the estimation of every individual, whose 
 good opinion an honest man should be solicitous to obtain'. 
 
 R'he voluntary tender of your judgment, gentlemen, is of ines¬ 
 timable value to me and my friends. Until you were empannelled 
 in the case to which your letter refers, I had not the pleasure of 
 being personally acquainted with either of you, and unless I have 
 
beea misiofomed, the efforts to poison the public mind, so untir¬ 
 ingly made for months before, had with sonte of you, as was the 
 case with, many other correct men amongst us, been so far suc¬ 
 cessful as to produce an impression more or less prejudicial to 
 mysdf and the gentlemen named in your letter. Everything, 
 however, which our enemies have alleged against us, was, as you 
 have stated, most thoroughly investigated, and under their super¬ 
 intendence—opportunity was affbrded them (and as you know, 
 they were and over again, and most anxiously too, called upon 
 by me to avail themselves of it,) to appear in person upon the 
 witness stand, and makegood their charges, hut the call was in vain. 
 The' risk of a public examination it was prudent not to hazard, 
 and it' was resolutely avoided. Prom such a course, but one 
 inference can be drawn. The result of the whole enquiry your 
 letter discloses. 
 
 I trust it will, as soon as it becomes known, satisfy public 
 opinion in relation to the gentlemen you refer to and myself, and 
 especially that it will convince the whole community in which 
 we reside,'how deep and foul is the stain upon their otherwise 
 proud and noble city, of hanng suffered, and that too in part in 
 Open day, and that day the Sabbath, the dwellings of unoffending 
 but slandered citizens^ to be razed to the ground; their property 
 earnings of years of unceasing labor, to'be scattered to the winds, 
 or taken avvay by the felon, and their wives and children cast 
 houseless upon the world. What has been our fate may, and will, 
 if such injuries pass unredfessed, be the ordinary result of popu¬ 
 lar excitement, no matter how caused, and no man will be safe an 
 hour. But I am satisfied that every well wisher of our city views 
 with unmingled Teprobation the scenes of August last,'and enter¬ 
 tains a deep solicitude to do all that can be done to redress the 
 past, and to guard against like calamities for the future. . 
 
 Unless this is accomplished, our laws are a dead letter, our 
 institutions a mockery, society w'ill resolve itself into its original 
 elehlents, and each man should and'must prepare himself to be 
 the defender of his own rights and the avenger of his own wrongs. 
 I have however, gentlemen, no melancholy forebodings of such a 
 state of things. On the contrary, I feel assured. that such out- 
 
5 
 
 rages as we have recently witnessed will i never , again loccui’ 
 amongst us. I am satisfied that the law is, and will-be, triumphant, 
 and that the rights of the citizen, in person and in;property,.are 
 now as secure in Baltimore as in any other city in the. world.: 
 
 I have of course shown your letter to Messrs. Ferine, Glenn^ 
 McEldery and E. T. Ellicott, and I need hardly ^ay that they 
 cordially unite with me in the thanks with which its receipt is 
 acknowledged. , 
 
 I have the honor to he „ ,■ 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 REVERDY JQMjNfSON. 
 
 To James Pannbll, Esq. and his brother jurors. 
 
 No. 4. 
 
 Annapolis, I8th December, 1839. 
 Mr Dear SIll^ ; , , . 
 
 I mentioned to you yesterday, that it was ray purpose to-ask 
 the Legislature to institute an enquiry into my conduct relative to 
 the Bank of Maryland. With those who remember the circtun- 
 stances developed in the trial of the cases in Harford ^County 
 Court, which grew out of the failure of the bank, and the result 
 of these trials, especially the one against Thomas Ellicott, any 
 other enquiry into the causes of the bank’s insolvencyiwill, of 
 course, be considered wholly uncalled for. But the events of 
 those trials are now, in a great measure, forgotten, and the, foul 
 slanders with which I was previously assailed have, in conse,- 
 quence of it, been again revived—and, if possible, with increased 
 malignancy'. I feel that I owe-it to myself, my i family, ,'aind 
 friends to make another effort to expose the utter falsehood, oj 
 the charges, and to vindicate my character, infinitely deai-er to 
 me than life itself. During all these persecutions,, it .is ti'ue,! 
 have been enabled proudly to defy the libeller, and to retain,, 
 even, indeed,.to enhance, tlie good opinion of my friends., }No 
 one knows this better than yourself, and the judges who were 
 associated with you, in sitting in judgment in tlie cases alluded 
 to, and that at every step of their progress my integrity and in¬ 
 nocence of all misconduct, was fully and conclusively demon- 
 
6 
 
 stfated. This opinion, however freely expressed in your inter¬ 
 course in society^ I have always, until now, deferred asking you 
 to State in'writing.' I feel, however, that as all probability is at 
 this day at' an end, that the propriety of my conduct in relation 
 tO‘the bank can ever be brought again judicially-before you, 
 tani at liberty, and with perfect delicacy, to solicit now at yoiir 
 hands an expression of that opinion, to be used in the presenta¬ 
 tion of the memorial I have in contemplation. It is impossible 
 for me to be assured in advance, whether the investigation I shall 
 ask will be ordered, and I therefore desire to do all I can accom¬ 
 plish withouf it, to spread upon the journals of the Legislature of 
 my native state all tlie proof I can obtain of the integrity of my 
 conduct. You will remember, no doubt, that the jury who gave 
 the verdict in the case against T.'Ellicott, in favor of the plaintiffs, 
 unanimously tendered me a letter wholly exculpating me and the 
 gentlemen who have been slandered with me, from all blame in 
 relation to the bank, and in as strong terras as they could adopt. 
 The iiienibers of this jury have been, I am sure, long known to 
 you, .being, for the most'part, your friends and neighbors, and each 
 of them citizens of the same county of which you are a native. I 
 b'eg you, therefore, to say in reply;—First, Whether you did 
 not preside at the cases in Harford to which I refer, .and if in one 
 of them, particularly the one against T. Ellicott, the whole man¬ 
 agement of the- bank, and my participation in it, was not most 
 laboriously and patiently examined into by court and jury, with 
 the assistance of most able counsel on the part of the defendant; 
 and if at the conclusion, and at every step of its progress, you 
 had the smallest doubt of the honesty of my conduct, or of the 
 cruel injustice to which I had been subjected.? 
 
 Secondly, Whether you were not acquainted with the jury 
 who tried that cause, and if in intelligence and character you ever 
 knew a better jury empannelled in that court? 
 
 ' T feel, my dear sir, that you may be under the impression that 
 I am unnecessarily sensitive, ■ after the triumphant vindication I 
 have already had of my reputation, concerning the late resurrec- 
 ’ tiou^of the slanders. I certainly should be, if I was known to 
 every one as well as lata to you, and to your brother judges, my 
 
n 
 
 brethren of the. bar, or ttie other numerous friends whb have, 
 throughout my persecutions, so constantly and ardently sustained 
 me. But, to many honest men in this state and in our sister states, 
 I am, in a great degree, unknown—indeed, may be known only by 
 the slanders, which have been with such unequalled industry 
 circulated against me, far and wide. An honest name is all I 
 expect to leave my children when I am no more, and is by them 
 and by myself, esteemed immeasurably more valuable than any 
 other legacy I could possibly bequeath them. ' Receiving no 
 other inheritance from my own father, and from infancy taught 
 by him its inestimable worth, I am resolved to leave nothing 
 undone to enable me to transmit it unimpaired to my own des^ 
 cendants. Your answer, in the course of this week, will greatly 
 oblige me. Your friend and obedient servant, • 
 
 REVERDY JOHNSON. : 
 
 Judge Archeb,. Annapolis. 
 
 Annapolis, Dec. 1 9th, 1839. 
 
 Dear Sir; 
 
 I presided in all the trials referred'to by you in Harford 
 County Court, in these, and more particularly in the case of the 
 Trustees of the Bank against Ellicott,.eviderice was adduced and 
 . witnesses fully examined, by able counsel on each side, in relation 
 to the management of the Bank of Maryland and your participa^ 
 tion in it; The investigation was laborious and' patient. -' . The 
 jury were intelligent and highly respectable. The foreman,of 
 the jury is now, and was before that period. Chief Judge Of the 
 Orphans’ Court of that county, a man ;.of high character and 
 standing, and from his business habits and the ,chara.cter of his 
 mind, as well qualified to form a correct judgment upon the facts 
 as any man in the state or elsewhere; . i , ■5' 
 
 I was aware the jury had tendered to you'ihe egression'of 
 their opinion in reference to your participation in the. cbncefjis of 
 the Bank of Maryland; in that opinion I fully coincidej'and-hi 
 conclusion would observe, that no part of the eiddence.adduced 
 or the circumstances disclosed at these triailsjof any of them. 
 
induced me to entertain a doubt of your honesty, fair character 
 or integrity. 
 
 I am truly, &c. 
 
 STEVENSON ARCHER. 
 
 No. 6. 
 
 My Dear Sir: 
 
 Baltimore, 1st January, 1840. 
 
 It being now almost impossible that my conduct in relation to 
 the concerns of the Bank of Maryland, can ever be again judi; 
 cially before you, I feel myself at liberty to ask you, whether, in 
 the examination in Harford County Court before yourself and 
 your brother judges, in the case of the Bank as. T. Ellicott, the 
 entire management of the institution whilst I was a direetor, and 
 Subsequent to its failure, was not most fully investigated, and if, 
 from first to last, you entertained the smallest question of the 
 absolute integrity of my conduct. You will remember, no doubt, 
 that the jury who tried the cause referred to, aiid who were most 
 of; them strangers to me^ until they were empannelled, addressed 
 me a letter immediately upon its termination, expressing their 
 confidence in my character, and in the characters of the other 
 gentlemen, who had been calumniated with me, concerning their 
 participation in the concerns of the bank, and you had most abun¬ 
 dant means of knowing the patient dilligence with whieh their 
 duties, in the case were discharged, and their own claims to 
 respectability and intelligence. You also, I am proud to be 
 assured from very long, association with you whilst at the bar, 
 and since your elevatton to the bench, know how utterly ineapa- 
 ble.I am of doing an act in the least degree dishonorable, much 
 less dishonest, and niay therefore think that I, am uneccessarily 
 providing myself\vith the means of further vindicating my repu¬ 
 tation. If, however, you knew, as well as I do, the deep and 
 hitter malignity of my enemies, and the easy virtue ofhired slan¬ 
 derer, you would not be surprised at my placing myself in the 
 best attitude to resist their assaults, and, will, therefore, I hope. 
 
readily excuse the trouble which a reply to this xommuttication 
 may cause you. , , r 
 
 Yours, with great regard, ■ : ; 
 
 REVERDY JOHNSON; 
 
 His Honor Judge Magkudee. 
 
 N. B. A similar- letter was addressed by the writer, to Judge 
 Purviance. 
 
 No. 7. 
 
 Baltimore, 3d January, 1840. 
 
 Dear Sir; 
 
 We have received your note under date of yesterday, and feel 
 ourselves now fully at liberty to reply to it. Having often'here¬ 
 tofore interchanged with each other sentiments in jelation. to 
 yourself and to your conduct in the concerns of the Bankhof 
 Maryland, as well during the trial to which yOu refei-j as eince, 
 and entertaining, as we both do now, and always did, but one opinion 
 upon the sulyect, we have deemed it unnecessary to address! to 
 you separate letters, and have, therefore, adopted this mOdeiof 
 sending you a joint communication. During the trial of thje case 
 of the Bank of Maryland vs. Thomas Ellicott, the entire ^manage¬ 
 ment of that institution, whilst you were a director, and subSef 
 quent to its failure, was most fully investigated in Harford CpUhty 
 Court before our brother judge and ourselves,iand from firstijo 
 last:we never entertained the smallest questiori of the absoliite 
 integrity of your conduct. , We recollect ,the fact; that the'ijury' 
 who tried the cause referred to, addressed a'letfer to you jmnieT 
 diateljr upon, or very soon after its termination, expressingjtheir 
 confidence in your character. We witnessed their. patient dilir 
 gence in the discharge of their duties, and althoughiwe'wetonhpt 
 personally acquainted with all of them, yet vye well remember 
 having understood that they were distinguished for their ^peQtr 
 ability and intelligence—us much so, we believe, as any gehtiemeU 
 in Harford county. .b i v ; ; 
 
 We cannot refuse an answer to; your call for an-expression^qf 
 our opinion, and should do injustice to our own feelings, and as 
 
10 
 
 Vi^e'believe, to the cause of truth also,-were we not to say, as we 
 unhesitatingly do, that we regard you as utterly incapable of doing 
 an act in the least degree dishonorable. We might add that we 
 believe you incapable of even thinking of doing a dishonorable, 
 much less a dishonest act. ' ’ . . " ^ 
 
 : . With sincere respect and esteem, 
 
 We remain cordially your Iriends,. 
 
 R. B. MAGRUDER,. 
 
 J. PURVIANCE. 
 
 To Reverdy Johnson, Esq. 
 
 No. 8. 
 
 ' - Hagerstown, ^prilUth,18Sd. 
 
 My dear Johnson: 
 
 ' i A'friend sent me ^ by the last mail, a voluminous pamphlet 
 fentitled^ t'Bahk of Maryland Conspiracy, as developed in'the 
 report to the creditors, by Thos. Ellicott, Trustee of said bank,^’ 
 tewhich ‘yourself and dtliers are-villified in- the coarsest terms, 
 and i write thus early, to advise you to let it pass without any 
 s(&rt bf ntrtice.: I have read it carefully through, and find it a 
 iieavy,‘ 'pointless, and most malevolent production, cphtaining 
 statements and assumptions which bo intelligent man will or can 
 ‘ i 
 
 7 ‘{The charges of this man and his coadjutors against yom and 
 others'. Were all tried in court, before juries of their own selec- 
 tiow, ^he investigations -continued without intermission Tpr- three 
 mobthsi'and'Were conducted by able.and experienced counsel; 
 BOthihg'Was omitted on either side which talent and diligence 
 ' 00 ^-eupply; the' result was, a series-of verdicts against them; 
 ambiintingin the aggregate to half a million, while the most they 
 honld iWevaihupOn any jory to -say in their behalf was, that they 
 Were-iiot ahogether qualified for the penitentiary; and even this 
 TOrfjct,- as"! thought‘at'the‘time,and still think, was a little more 
 distihgttished-for its charity than' its justice. . . ■ -1 • •;' i ‘ ■ 
 
 One of the oddest conceits in this book is the following sentence 
 bhipage'd: -‘^It wasmeveri my intention,” says the writer, “to dis- 
 bloee in'-tfiny-Cihef-way than by testimony judicially given, many 
 
u 
 
 of the facts which will be exhibited in^ this report.” NoWj Mn 
 Ellicott was present at all the Harford trials—was a competent 
 witness in every case except the one suit against himself. He 
 heard your speech in which , you- scourged him naked for three 
 whole days, until even his adversaries were moved ttf cdinpas- 
 sionate him; what he now states, if true, he:khew then,•■ andilie 
 knew also that testimony such as he now proffers to’thelpublib; 
 would be all important to his own son; then arraigned for felony; 
 he heard his own counsel, Mr. JYelson[ slate to the jUry thcUvihe 
 charges made against you and the other gentlemm implicat^^ with 
 you, were without any foundation; and yet, with all these.ipbwer^ 
 ful inducements to a full disclosure ol his knowledgeiiif:Ke'haii 
 any knowledge which he might dare to disclose, he:thought U'hest 
 not to be a witness. You could not call him oir the stand; and 
 make Mm your witness, because’ you intended! to impfeachi hii 
 statements. Your object was to cross-examine hiin, andvout'ibf' 
 his own mouth to discredit his testimony. * This he.iwell Icnew; 
 and the trials were suffered to proceed, and his friehdd to-';take 
 their chances, without one good word from him.- ■ And ’nbwtiiat 
 this late day, be comes out with a book, the publication .of which 
 he would fain justify upon the ground that he had-no, opportunity 
 of disclosing his facts “judicially.”- :' vi.u 
 
 I saw him hanging and moping about the court house duriiiig 
 the progress of these trials, like a troubled ghost on. the wforig 
 side of Styx. I saw his head bowed down, lower andiower; as 
 the multiplied villanies of himself and his son, were day by. day 
 brought to light. And I thought if any man had gotten enough of 
 the Bank of Maryland it was Thos. Ellicott. He is one ofitho^ 
 singular beings who love controversy even when theybave the 
 worst of it, but in the position in-which things now are,, it .would 
 be a positive disparagement of the character and standing which 
 you hold in the community, and of which any man in the uahon 
 might be proud, to essay one word of defence against calumnies 
 coming from such a source. I hope you will not think of-it. - 
 Your friend, sincerely, . x 
 
 WILLIAM PRICE;. 
 
12 
 
 ; / - . : . No.9.: , 
 
 . , ^.nmpolis, 16th December, 18S9. 
 
 My Dear Sib: 
 
 : The slanders heaped upon my name, recently after the failure 
 of the Bank of Maryland, were revived during the present year, 
 and, if possible, with increased venom. Besides the unblushing 
 calumnies'of a portion of the press of the state, Thomas Ellicott 
 published a pamphlet, which doubtless you have seen, charging 
 me with every species of misconduct, and mainly upon the autho¬ 
 rity of himself alone, in relation to the bank, both before and after 
 its bankruptcy... Delaying bis attack until the lapse of years after 
 that event, and after the trial of the suit against himself in Harford 
 County Court, instituted by his co-trusteesj Messrs^ Morris and 
 Gillj when all the transactions of the bank were disclosed and 
 passed upon by the Jury, after a laborious examination of many 
 wbeks, had been forgotten, he anticipated, and perhaps with the 
 unthinking, to some extent anticipated right, that his publication 
 might gratify his motive. With those who are aware that in the 
 trial referred .to, my conduct was triumphantly vindicated, not 
 only in the opinion of the jury, but of the court- and bar, who 
 witnessed the investigation, and especially with those who know 
 that all his assumed disclosures, if true, he knew then, and knew 
 them to be all important to the protection of his own. son, charged 
 criminally and civilly with frauds upon the bank, and trembling 
 for the result of each, and finally convicted in the civil case, and 
 that he dared not take the witness stand, and state the contents 
 ofhis:pamphlet;—rsuch a publication, from such a source, rotten 
 by his own shewing, to the core, can do me no possible prejudice. 
 So long a time, however, has elapsed, that these things, if even 
 known to all, paay have escaped the recollection of many. It is 
 my .purpose to obtain, if I can, at the coming session of our Legis¬ 
 lature, another investigation of my conduct in relation to the bank, 
 and I desire to accompany my petition with all the proof in tlie 
 first instance I can obtain, to show how utterly unfounded are the 
 charges against me, and especially so, as I have no assurance in 
 
13 
 
 advauce, that the Legislature will esteem it,a matter within the 
 sphere of their'functions. May I hope, therefore, that you will 
 oblige me by giving me, at yoiir first leisure, an answer.to tK6 
 following enquiries, and directing it to me at this'place. ' ■ 
 
 First. 'Were you not counsel with mein the trial'of the qaseih' 
 Harford County Court, of the Bank of Maryland,-use ofMi^'srs; 
 Morris and Gill, against ThomasEllicott? / v- 
 
 Second. Whether in that trial the entire management tif itlie 
 bank from the period E. Poultney became its President, to the. 
 time of its failure, and every particular of my connection with;its 
 concerns, was not most laboriously examined into by the com&el- 
 on both sides, and passed upon by the jury? . • 
 
 Third. Whether throughout, I did not earnestly solicitj-at'sdl' 
 times when any objection was made to the scope of the enquiry^' 
 that it might be as unlimited as was supposed by any pne;t()>be!‘ 
 
 . material to a full and complete investigation of the whole^ of myv. 
 conduct, during my association with the bank and its management,, 
 either direct or indirecfi'and ; 
 
 Fourth and lastly.’ Whether, at any period during: that in^esti^ 
 gation, or since, you entertained the smallest doubt of the eiitire; 
 integrity of my conduct, and on the contrary did not end. your/ 
 duties in the case, with the fullest conviction that my ruin had- 
 been attempted by every species of artifice, regardless of all ihef ' 
 restraints of moral honesty, which malice could resort-tO, ahd‘ 
 especially whether you were not satisfied that .T.Ellicott hitoselfi' 
 who now is reviving the fiendish effort, was not the master spirit 
 of the conspiracy.^ ‘ ^ 
 
 Sincerely, your friend,' ' ; ‘ ‘ '5 
 
 REVERDY JOHNSGN^^* 
 F. S. Key, Esq. Washington. ‘ 
 
14 
 
 No. 10. 
 
 Deaa Sie; Washington, December 19, 1839. 
 
 I received your letter last night with some surprise, for I did 
 not suppose, after the result of the trials in Harford, that you 
 would he again annoyed about the Bank of Maryland. 
 
 To the enquiries you'make of me, I can readily answer: 
 
 To the 1st—That I was employed as one of the counsel with 
 you hy Messrs. Morris and Gill, two of the. Trustees of the Bank 
 of Maryland, against Thomas Ellicott. 
 
 2dly—That in that trial the history of the bank, from its origin 
 to' its end, was fully developed, and particularly all its trans¬ 
 actions with which you were in any manner concerned or con-, 
 nected, were fully examined, and the charges which E. Poultr 
 liey’s publications had made against you were fully investigated 
 before the jury. 
 
 3dly—That you did, throughout the whole trial, invite and" 
 promote the most unlimited range of enquiry into your whole 
 conduct during your connexion with the bank, and, 
 
 4thly—That that investigation resulted in a most perfect vin¬ 
 dication of your conduct from all the charges and insinuations 
 made against you, and left me without doubt as to your integrity 
 and the falsehood and malice of your accusers. Such has been 
 my conviction ever since, and is now. I left the court after 
 making my own argument to the jury, having been detained with 
 great inconvenience much longer than I expected, and conse¬ 
 quently was not there when the argument was closed and the 
 verdict rendered. But after the evidence was all taken, there 
 seemed to me to be but one opinion, among those who beard it, 
 as to its effect upon you—that it left no imputation upon your 
 integrity. I am sure that I did not hear then, nor since, a con¬ 
 trary opinion from any one. 
 
 The charges against you had been made in publications of E. 
 Poultney; but from some circumstances occurring during the 
 trial, and others stated to me at the time, I then believed, and 
 still believe, that the chief author of those charges was Thomas 
 Ellicott . I am youi-S; truly and respectfully, 
 
 F. S. KEY. 
 
.Snrmpolis, IQth December, 1839. • 
 
 Dear McMahon; 
 
 I mentioned to you some months since, my determination to 
 apply to the Legislature at its a'pproaching session, to investigate 
 the causes of the failure of the Bank of Maryland, and espe- . 
 cially to enquire into my conduct during my connection with that 
 institution. The reasons for this course you are aware are the 
 continuing slanders with which I have been assailed, hot only 
 during the year 1835, but in the present year. Every vile epi¬ 
 thet which the language affords has been recently heaped upon 
 my name, hy hired libellers, by the parties to the frauds upon the. 
 bank, or by the abandoned demagogue, who, knowing no moral 
 restraint, willingly tramples upon private character, in the proscr 
 cution of his selfish ends. I know, and I am rejoicfed to know, 
 that all the good and the virtuous of the political party in our 
 state with whom, as they know, I stand honestly in opposition", 
 did as indignantly reprobate the course pursued by a portion Of 
 the press towards me, as the warmest friend I have: Nor could 
 it have been otherwise. The conflicts of party, in times of high 
 excitement, are always to be lamented, but they would become 
 intolerable, absolutely degrading, if individual slanders were made 
 the weapons of the warfare. The high minded and honorable, 
 on either side, will therefore always be found united in sternly 
 discountenancing unmerited assaults upon private reputation. ■ As 
 it is possible the Legislature may deem my application irrelevant 
 to their duties, I desire to accompany it with all the evidence I 
 can, without their aid obtain, of the perfect integrity of my whole 
 course in connection with the bank, that it may remain perma¬ 
 nently recorded in the archives of my native state in vmdjcatidh 
 of my honor, should it so happen that hereaffer, when the cir¬ 
 cumstances . may be supposed to have been forgotten, some vile 
 libeller may seek to revive the foul slandqrs which I have had to 
 encounter. 
 
 It is in your power to assist me in accomplishing my purpose. 
 Associated with me for many years in the Legislature of our 
 
16 
 
 state, and at the hair, and ever living upon the closest terms of 
 private friendship, you have had the fullest opportunities of esti¬ 
 mating my character, and will, I know,' cheerfully bear witness 
 that I would infinitely prefer death to dishonor, and that an act 
 of fraud no consideration under heaven could induce me to com¬ 
 mit. Your employment too with me as counsel of the Trustees 
 of the Bank of Maryland, immediately after its insolvency, under 
 the appointment of Judges Dorsey and Archer, acting in virtue 
 of the power vested in them for that purpose, by the deed of 
 trust of the directors, and the necessary investigation which, as 
 counsel, you were compelled to make into the situation of the 
 bank, and the causes leading to its bankruptcy—^your intimate 
 acquaintance with my course in relation to the trust and all the 
 controversies connected with it—with the history of the several 
 trials and the disclosures of every kind growing out of them, 
 give you the power to speak ivith an influence, which, to an 
 honest heart, must be irresistible. I beg you, therefore, to say 
 in reply, 
 
 First—Whether you have seen at any moment, or upon any 
 occasion, the slightest ground even for suspecting that my integ¬ 
 rity had failed me in any particular, during my connection with 
 the bank, either before or since its insolvency? 
 
 Second—Whether in the trials at Harford I did not evince the 
 most ardent desire that the examination into the concerns pf the 
 bank, and my share in them particularly, should be as unli¬ 
 mited as the court could he induced to allow, and whether, in 
 truth, every matter calculated to elucidate the causes of the 
 bank’s failure, whether furnished by its books of accounts, or 
 parol evidence, was not disclosed? ' 
 
 , Third—If you have read the pamphlet published this year by 
 Thomas ■ Ellicott, whether the facts stated by him, implicat¬ 
 ing my character, particularly those alleged to have been known 
 to himself alone, would not have been vitally material to the de¬ 
 fence of his only son, as well in the criminal, as the civil proceed¬ 
 ings under which he was tried? 
 
 Fourth—Whether from the period when you became one of the 
 counsel and advisers of the trust, as before stated,; up to the time 
 
17 
 
 when the late Even Poultney made his first publication against 
 myself, and others, you were not often in consultation, with 
 T. Ellicott concerning the atfairsof the bank, and if you ever 
 heard him during that period express the slightest doubt of my 
 integrity, but on the contrary, if he did not, to alk appearance, 
 repose implicit confidence in me," not only as one of the counsel 
 of the trust, but as the counsel of the Union Bank of Maryland, 
 of which he was then the president? And, finally-«-Whether ,he 
 was not desirous that you and I should decide between the Union 
 Bank and his co-trustees of the Bank of Maryland, the proper 
 mode of settling the accounts of the two banks, and I did not 
 positively refuse to participate in any way in such settlement, as 
 , an adviser of the trust or • otherwise, because I miglit have an 
 interes* in the result of such settlement'' ' 'v,.;; 
 
 If you can give me your answer in the course of to-day, or 
 to-morrow, you will much oblige me., The trouble it may give 
 you I am sure you will readily excuse my imposing, because of 
 the circumstances to which I allude in the commencement of this 
 letter. ‘ ,i 
 
 Sincerely, your friend, . 
 
 REVERDY JOHNSON. . 
 
 J. y. L. McMahon, Esq. 
 
 No. 12. 
 
 . Baltimore, Dee. 22d, 1839. 
 Hear Sir: . 
 
 I have the pleasure of acknowledging the receipt of yours of 
 the 19th instant. 
 
 The wanton assaults which have been made upon your cha¬ 
 racter entitle you to the statement of any facts within my 
 knowledge, which may tend in any degree to the vindication of, 
 your honor; and under any circumstances, such facts would be 
 freely communicated as an act of duty on my part. But believ¬ 
 ing, as I always have believed, that in your unfortunate^ connec¬ 
 tion with the Bank of Maryland, there never, was the slightest 
 foundation for any charge aflecting your integrity, and having 
 witnessed during the continuance of a long and intimate acquain- 
 
18 
 
 tance with you, your strict adherence to truth and honor under 
 all circumstances,—I do tlot, in complying with your request, 
 merely perform a cold act of duty, but render the ready, tribute of 
 the heart. However circumstances ’ may have in some degree 
 estranged us, I trust I shall never fail to do justice to your 
 character and your talents. 
 
 . To your first inquiry I answer, (as I hava already stated,) that 
 I never saw at any time, or on any occasion, the slightest foun¬ 
 dation for any charge affecting your integrity, in any of your 
 transactions in connection with the Bank of Maryland or its 
 affairs, either before or after its failure. And I may add, that 
 having from the moment of my appointment as one of the advisers 
 pf the trust created by said bank, the fullest opportunities of ob¬ 
 serving closely all your conduct in relation to the affairs of the 
 bank, after that period, instead of witnessing in it at any period, 
 any thing indicating that there was dishonor in the past, or that 
 you desired by means of your power as adviser or otherwise, to 
 screen or shut out from public view any part of the transactions 
 of the bank, or of yourself, or any individual connected with it, 
 I saw in your every act nothing but the most ardent desire to 
 drag to light every fact connected with the transactions of that 
 institution, and the determination to vindicate your honor from 
 the moment it was assailed, only by the most open exposure of 
 your whole conduct. 
 
 To your second inquiry, I answer, that in all the trials at Har¬ 
 ford, and in all our preliminary examinations and'conferences; 
 you did manifest the most ardent desire that every feet touching 
 the administration of the bank, or the causes of its failure, or the 
 conduet of any of the parties connected with it, should be brought 
 to light; and that you again and again, both in court and out of 
 court, expressed the most earnest wish that the widest scope 
 should be given to the examination, in the progress of the trials. 
 It is proper also to state, that the various suits instituted by the 
 Trustees, and removed to Harford, to wit; the cases against 
 Thomas Ellieott, Evan Poultney, Poultney, Ellicott & Co. and 
 Philip Poultney, had all been removed to that county upon the 
 suggestion of the respective defendants, supported by affidavits 
 
19 
 
 that they could not have a fair and impartial trial in this city: 
 and that they were there pending for trial, at the period when the 
 wanton outrages upon your property, and'that of others, were . 
 perpetrated by a mob; that the trial of the first of these cases was 
 commenced in a few days after the occurrence of those outrages; 
 that at the very commencement of this case, with your concur¬ 
 rence, nay, at your instance, I submitted in open court, to the 
 counsel of the defendants, the proposition to bring back all the 
 cases for trial to this city, where ev^ry fact touching the admin¬ 
 istration of the bank, and the conduct of all the parties connected 
 with it, could he exhibited to the vievv of this community, where 
 most interest was felt in the inquiry—^where every facility could be 
 given to the fullest examination, and where, in the face of the out¬ 
 rages just committed, they could not have any reason to apprehend 
 injustice to themselves; and this proposition, thus made, was by 
 them declined. The same proposition vvas'in like manner after¬ 
 wards submitted in other cases, and again declined. It was my 
 misfortune to be prevented, by severe indisposition, from being 
 present at .the whole of the trial of Thomas Ellicott’s case, .and 
 also from taking part in the first trial of the case against Poultney, 
 Ellicott & Co., but.I know that at your desire; on every occasion 
 when I was present, the widest range was given to the inquiry; 
 that no objection was ever interposed by you to evidence of any 
 kind, and that in fact you inviCed, nay challenged, by your words 
 and manner, the proof of every fact which could in any , degree 
 affect you, and waived every objection to its relevancy. All the 
 .books of the bank were not only submitted out Of court and before 
 the trials, to the fullest inspection of the parties and their counsel; 
 but also to the closest scrutiny in open court, during trials which 
 continued for months. Not an objection to evidence was inters 
 posed, nor any piece of evidence withheld on the-part of the 
 trustees, of which I have any knowledge; and T may. add; also, 
 that repeated efiorts were made by us, but without success, to 
 procure the .production, by the adverse party, of the books of 
 Poultney, Ellicott & Co., and that I personally know you.were 
 extremely desirous that Mr. Thomas Ellicott should be examined 
 as a witness. During a part of . the trials ! was, (as I have already 
 
stated,) confined to my chamber by severe indisposition, and 
 cannot, therefore state, from personal knowledge, all that occurred 
 during the trial; but ! know that all the books and papers of the 
 bank were submitted to the most rigid scrutiny by all parties, 
 and their counsel, during trials which extended over months; that 
 the whole character and course of the investigation on both sides 
 was such as not only to justify but also to require the proof of 
 every fact which could tend in the slightest degree to exhibit the 
 true causes of the failure of the bank, and the relative responsi¬ 
 bilities of any of the parties connected with it; and that it was 
 certainly universally understood that all the proof which could be 
 obtained, had been offered,' of every fact tending to illustrate 
 these. , 
 
 • To your third inquiry, I answer, that I have read the pamphlet 
 of Mr. Thomas Ellicott, referred to by you, and that the facts 
 there stated by him implicating your character, and particularly 
 those alleged to have been known to himself alone, were vitally 
 material to the defence of his «on, both in the civil and criminal 
 cases, and not only so, but that they would have been of the 
 Utmost importance in all the cases in establishing the charges 
 ■which were insinuated against yourself and others. I cannot 
 imagine any facts which would have been more material, or would 
 have exercised a more controlling influence in the decision of the 
 cases, if they had been proved and believed. 
 
 To your fourth inquiry, I answer, that from the moment I 
 became an adviser of the trust, and until the publication of Evan 
 Poultney.’s pamphlet, I had frequent conversations with Mr. Thos. 
 Ellicott relative to the affairs of the bank, and that during that 
 period I never heard him express the slightest distrust or doubt 
 of your integrity, but on the contrary, had always reason to 
 believe from all he said or didj that he had the most unbounded 
 confidence in your integrity, and the utmost confidence in you as 
 one. of the counsel of the trust, although during that interval we 
 differed wdth him as to the propriety of the publication of an 
 immediate report by the trustees, and also, as to the course of 
 proceeding on the claim against himself. 
 
 To your last inquiry, I ansrver, that he was desirous that you 
 
and myself should investigate and adjust the accounts between the 
 Union Bank and the Bank of Maryland, and that you did decline 
 to participate in it for the reasons stated in your inquiry. 
 
 I have thus, I believe, answered fully all youR inquiries; and it 
 only remains forme to add that if there are any other facts within 
 my knowledge which you may deem essential to your defence, it 
 will give me pleasure to communicate them. 
 
 JTours, respectfully, 
 
 ' JOHN y. L. McMAHON. 
 
 No. 13. 
 
 Baltimore, 4th Janxiary, 1840. 
 
 My Dear Sir; 
 
 It is my purpose to obtain, if practicable, an examination by 
 the Legislature into my conduct, during'my connexion with the 
 Bank of Maryland, about which, as you know, I have been so 
 vilely traduced since the summer of 1834. As you were asso¬ 
 ciated with me in the trial of the civil cases in Harford, involving 
 the affairs of the bank, and especially the one against Thomas 
 Ellicott, in which its whole management, and the causes of its 
 failure were enquired into, you will oblige me by answering as 
 soon as you can, these questions; 
 
 First—Were you counsel with me In the cases referred to? 
 
 Second—Were not the affairs of the bank, whilst I was one- of 
 ■its directors, fully investigated, particularly in the case against 
 T. Ellicott, and every charge made against me by the prior pub¬ 
 lications of the late Evan Poultney, enquired into not only with 
 the aid of all the lights furnished by the hooks of the bank, those 
 of the Union Bank of Maryland, and those of Poultney, Ellicott 
 & Co. and Philip Poultney & Co., hirt with the assistance of all 
 oral evidence the defendants thought it advisable to produce, and 
 in the result, had you the slightest doubt of the complete integ¬ 
 rity of my conduct, or of the great and persecuting injustice to ' 
 which I had been subjected? 
 
 Third—In these trials, did I not most anxiously solicit the 
 widest scope of examination, especially into all matters touching 
 the charges against myself, and constantly challenge the closest 
 
scrutiny into my conduct, as well before as subsequent to the 
 failure of the bank?^ 
 
 Fourth—If you have read the pamphlet published the past 
 year, by T. Elli^ott, will you say whether the matters he charges 
 against me, particularly those alleged by him to have been within 
 his exclusive knowledge, would not have been vitally important 
 in the defence of his son as well in the criminal as the civil cases 
 against him, and do you not recollect that in the trial of the civil 
 case against his son, I waived all objection to his father’s compe¬ 
 tency as a witness, and solicited the defendants’ counsel to bring 
 him upon the stand; and can you, therefore, imagine any reason 
 for the failure to examine him, but a dread upon his part of being 
 subjected to that surest of all tests for detecting falsehood in a 
 witness, a cross-examination in open court? 
 
 Your reply, at as early a period during the next week as you 
 can give it, directed to me at Annapolis, where I go on Monday, 
 will, oblige Your friend, 
 
 REVERDY iOHNSON. 
 
 A. W. Bradford, Esq. Baltimore. 
 
 No. 14. 
 
 Baltimore, 10th January, 1840. 
 
 To Reverdy Johnson, Esq. 
 
 Bear Sir: I have received your favor of the 4th instant, in 
 which you state that it is your purpose to obtain, if practicable, 
 an examination by the Legislature into your conduct during your 
 connection with the Bank of Maryland, and in which you make 
 of me certain inquiries touching the proceedings in Harford County 
 Court, in certain suits in that court in 1835 and 6, involving the 
 affairs of that bank, and wherein I was counsel. 
 
 I will proceed to answer these interrogatories in the order in 
 which you propose them. ' 
 
 To the First—I answer that I was one of the counsel engaged 
 with you in the trial of the case of the Bank of Maryland against 
 Thomas Ellicott, and also in the case of the Bank of Maryland 
 against^oultney, Ellicott & Co. and present, I believe, during 
 the whole time of the trial of each of them. 
 
23 
 
 . Second—In the trial of those cases, and particularly in the case 
 of Thomas Ellicolt, a large proportion of the time employed was 
 devoted to an investigation of your connection with the Bank of 
 Maryland; indeed the truth or falsehood of the publication then 
 lately made by the late president of that bank, in which yourself 
 and others were implicated as partners in that institution, seemed 
 to be the issue to which most of the testimony was,directed. 
 
 This course was permitted by the court, with the consent of 
 counsel, with the view, as they, I think, declared, of satisfying as 
 far as possible the anxiety in the public mind, at that time highly 
 excited in relation to the bank’s failure and the causes which led. 
 to it. As soon as such permission was given, every circumstance 
 that could by possibility throw light upon that transaction, or 
 could tend to the proof or refutation of the charges contained in 
 the publication above mentioned, seemed to be pressed into the 
 cause by. the respective parties. The pamphlet itself lay con¬ 
 stantly upon the trial table, and by far the greater number of the 
 witnesses produced, were examined chiefty in relation to its con¬ 
 tents. The. trial occupied upwards of two months, during which 
 time, if my memory serves me, upwardsof one hundred witnesses 
 were summoned, and the most of them examined; the books of 
 the Bank of Maryland, of the Union Bank of Maryland, of Evan 
 Poultney, (banker,) and of Poultney,- Ellicott & Co., were prbT 
 duced in evidence, and open, during the whole of the trial to the 
 inspection of either party, and if any thing was omitted, calcu¬ 
 lated to expose the true history of the bank’s failure, it could 
 only have been, as I feel assured, because it was not known nor 
 suspected by the parties or their counsel, or because it was not 
 deemed by them advisable to produce it. The result of thisiex^ 
 amination, so far as your conduct or connection with tl^e Bank of 
 Maryland was concerned, convinced me as I believe it did nine- 
 tenths of all unprejudiced hearers, that there was nothing in that 
 conductor connection calculated to cast the slightest suspicion 
 upon either your honesty or your honor. 
 
 . This opinion I have frequently heretofore expressed, and can 
 have no hesitation in here repeating it. 
 
 Third—During the trial of both the civil suits above mentioned, 
 
'24 
 
 you repeatedly invited the:strictesl scrutiny into all your dealings 
 or transactions with the Bank of Maryland or its officers, at all 
 times. You constantly avowed your readiness to waive all legal 
 objections to the admissibility of any evidence the defendants 
 might think proper to produce, and'did waive them, I believe, in' 
 all instances where any such objections suggested themselves. 
 In the suit against Thomas Ellicott, which was the first of any 
 of the cases tried, you might easily have prevented the introduc¬ 
 tion of any of the matters treated of in the pamphlet referred to, 
 they were alt wholly foreign to the issue there joined. The suit 
 .was instituted in the name of the bank for the use of the trustees, 
 to recover from the defendant the sum of $25,000, alleged to 
 have been paid to him by the late president of that bank without 
 consideration; the case therefore was in strictness confined to the 
 very simple inquiry of whether this money was paid to him, and 
 paid without any services rendered for it; and yet, as I have 
 already stated, the greater part of the testimony ranged entirely 
 without the scope of this inquiry, to which course, as calculated 
 fully to develope the character of your, transactions with the bank, 
 you not merely assented, but seemed earnestly and anxiously to 
 solicit 
 
 Fourth—I have read the greater part of the pamphlet lately 
 published by Thomas Ellicott, to which you refer in your fourth 
 interrogatory. He there details some matters, which, if true, 
 would certainly have been important, if produced as testimony on 
 the trial of the suits against his son—they were not, however, 
 .then produced, and are, for the first time, to my knowledge, dis¬ 
 closed by Mr. Ellicott in his late publication. He was present 
 during, I believe, the whole or most of the time of the trial of 
 the cases against his son, and if he then possessed such know¬ 
 ledge, I think your inference, is correct that he must only have 
 withheld it because he was afraid to submit it to the scrutiny of 
 a cross-examination. I am the more inclined to adopt this 
 conclusion, from the recollection of the fact, that in the course of 
 the trial of the civil suit against Poultney, Ellicott & Co., Thos. 
 Ellicott was once called as. a witness to the stand, and although 
 you insisted that he was not competent, you yet expressly waived 
 
25 
 
 all objections upon that score and SMOied anxious that the defen-r 
 dants should examine him. ' . ■ - • 
 
 The hour of adjournment having just then arrived, his exami-S 
 nation was deferred, and upon the opening of the court the next, 
 morning we all of course expected him asthe firet witnes^uponi 
 the stand; but from some cause, to which, of course, we. wfere 
 not privy, the defendants declined calling him, nor was he ever i 
 afterwards examined or called during the progress of the cause.^ 
 The surprise which this course was at the . time calculated to: 
 excite, would*certainly have been much enhanced, had;anyionei 
 supposed that he was possessed of the information \vhich he, hast 
 lately published. 
 
 'I believe I have answered your several questions, and should 
 have done so without any delay, but that I have been prevented, 
 by several days absence from the city. . / 
 
 I am, with great respect, ' ,. tii ’:,t 
 
 Yours, truly, 
 
 A. W. BRADFORD: 
 
 No. 15. 
 
 . . Annapolis, 28th Die. 1839." 
 
 MYDE.iftSlR: 
 
 You will oblige me by replying to the inquiries of this letter 
 at your earliest convenience. I feel no delicacy in calling upon’ 
 you, as you in the fullest manner expressed your opinion' upon: 
 the floor of tiie House of Delegates, in the discussion of tfaei 
 Indemnity Bill, that my honor was not in the smallest paWicular ' 
 implicated in the circumstances which led to the faildreiof thW' 
 Bank of Maryland. This testimony in my behalf; should havej 
 been considered the more conclusive,-and in triith absolutely :dc-’ 
 cisive, when it was known that you had had, as counsel inithC’ 
 cases in Harford County Court, the fullest opportunity of ascer¬ 
 taining every particular of my conduct in relation to thednstitdtidn, 
 both before and subsequent to its bankruptcy. Nothwithstanding 
 however your testimonial—the unanimous opinion of sin intellii-* 
 gent jury, tendered me upon all the charges with wHicH lhad’ 
 been assailed, and the well understood concurrence of eachi'Of 
 
the three judges who presided at the trial's, and of every intelli¬ 
 gent and correct man who was privy to the disclosures then made 
 I have, as you know, been assailed again in the course of the 
 present year, by a portion of the press of the state, and by T. 
 Ellicott, one of the defendants in the cases alluded to, with a 
 vindictive maliciousness, and hardened falsehood never surpassed 
 in the history of private .slanders. It is my. design, if I can ac¬ 
 complish it, to have the Legislature to make an investigation 
 into my conduct, and with that view, I purpose memorializing 
 them at their coming session. It is possible, howeter, that they 
 may,be of the opinion that the subject, at this late period, is not 
 a proper one for legislative inquiry, and it is therefore my wish 
 to accompany my application with all the authentic proof I can 
 obtain, of . the perfect integrity of my whole connection with the 
 bank. You Avill please therefore inform me if you wdre not one 
 of the counsel in all the cases in Harford County Court arising 
 out of the failure of the Bank of Maiyland, except the one against 
 Thomas Ellicott, and as such, if you did not fully inform your¬ 
 self of all the facts that the books of the bank divulged, the oral 
 evidence disclosed, or the parties concerned cotnmunicated; and 
 if in the end, with these , lights before you, you entertained the 
 remotest doubt of the absolute integrity of my conduct? 
 
 You will, further state,,(if you, have read the recent pamphlet 
 of Thomas Ellicott,) whether the matters he alleges against me 
 as resting alone in his own knowledge, would not have been all 
 important to the defence of his son, as well in tlie criminal as in 
 the.civil suits instituted against him, and if so, why it was that 
 TJiomas Ellicott waS; not called as a witness, his competency to 
 testify being clear in the criminal cases, and all objection to his 
 testimony, on that accoiHjt, being, as the printed report of the 
 civil case shews, expressly waived by me as one of the counsel 
 of the plaintiffs? 
 
 . independent of your voluntary declaration in the House of 
 Delegates, to which I have referred, I should have had no hesita¬ 
 tion in addressing you this letter, because I should have felt 
 assured, that from your intimate knowledge of my character, 
 acquired during pur association as members of the senate of 
 Maryland, and from the many years we have been professionally 
 
27 
 
 brought together in the courts of the state, you must have known 
 that I would have abhorred the perpetration of fraud, and shrunk 
 with horror from the smallest dishonor. Let me have your answer 
 as soon as possible. ■ 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 REVERDY. JOHNSON, i 
 
 John Nelson, Esq. 
 
 No. 16. > , 
 
 Baitimore, Dee. 28thy 18S9. 
 My Dear Sir; ; 
 
 I avail myself of the earliest moment, in reply to, your noteiof 
 this morning, to say, that as one of the counsel engaged in the 
 trial of the Bank of Maryland cases in Harford County Court,.! 
 investigated as thoroughly as 1 was capable, the circumstances 
 connected with.the operations and failure of that institution; and 
 that nothing was disclosed in the course of that investigation cal¬ 
 culated, in the slightest degree, to impair my confidence in your 
 probity or honor. , , 
 
 This declaration I lelt it to he due to the parties implicated; tb 
 make to the jurylof Harford county,' whilst vindicating; Messrs. 
 Poultney and Ellicott; I repeated it when resisting the-passive of 
 the Indemnity Bill, at the bar of the House of Delegates, and 
 have since, upon all suitable occasions, reiterated and enforced it. 
 
 I have read Mr. Ellicott’s pamphlet, hut in the relation in which 
 I stand to the parties involved in the controversy to which it 
 refers, I do not think it proper that I should reply to your'secbnd 
 inquiry. ’ 
 
 I regret that circumstances should, in yotir judgment render it 
 necessary that you should publicly recur to this subject, but:! 
 take pleasure in assuring you that in your connection with the 
 operations of the unfortunate institution which has already pro¬ 
 duced so much excitement, I have perceived nothing to weaken 
 those sentiments of respect and regard, wich a long period of 
 unrestrained intercourse in the senate and at the bar has inspired; 
 
 1 am, with the highest consideration^ ; ' 
 
 My dear sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 JOHN NELSON. 
 
 Reverdy Johnson, Esq. - ’ 
 
28 
 
 . : N.o.n. 
 
 Annapolis, 16th Dee, IS39. 
 
 Dear Sir: 
 
 As you were one of ’the counsel for the defendants, in the civil 
 and criminal cases tried some years since in Harford County 
 Court, growing out of the failure of the Bank of Maryland, and 
 took an active part in their management, you will oblige me hy 
 stating in reply, whether in those cases, especially in the one 
 against Thomas Ellicott, the management of the bank during the 
 period I was one of the directors, was not most fully examined 
 into, arid if at the close of the investigation, or since, you did or 
 have entertained the least doubt of the perfect integrity of my 
 conduct. 
 
 You have, I suppose, seen a pamphlet published in the present 
 year, by Ellicott, in which the charges against me are revived, 
 and if possible with increased malignity, and I will thank you to 
 say whether the facts stated by him, as within hiS own knowledge 
 peculiarly, w'ould not have been all important, not only m the 
 defence of the criminal prosecution against his son, but in the civil 
 suit instituted against him by the trustees, and if so, why it was 
 that Ellicott, who, as you will remember, was present throughout 
 all.the trials, was not examined on the son’s behalf?, I will thank 
 you also to state, whether in the case against T. Ellicott, I threw any 
 impediment in the way of the most enlarged inquiry into every 
 part , of my conduct connected with the bank, or whether I did 
 not on the contrary, earnestly solicit the most thorough scrutiny? 
 These are matters upon which, as you know, I have never here¬ 
 tofore conversed with you, hut I am sure I am right in supposing 
 that your opinion concurs with the opinion of every honest man 
 who witnessed the proceedings referred to. I should like to have 
 your reply as early as you can possibly give it to me, as I desire 
 to present it, with letters from all the counsel who were engaged 
 in the cases, except one, and the, reason for that exception you 
 will readily understand, in connection with a memorial I purpose 
 laying before the Legislature at the commencement of its next 
 session. Very respectfully, your obd’t serv’t, 
 
 . > . r . ‘ REVERDY JOHNSON. 
 
 Albert Constable, Esq. 
 
No. 18 . 
 
 Dear Sir: Rockland, 23d Dec. 
 
 Your letter of the 16th inst. did not reach me until the 21st,'in 
 consequence of not being directed to Perryville, and under the 
 expectation of finding a copy of- the pamphlet of Mr. Thomhs 
 Ellicott, referred to in your letter, but which in the removal'of 
 my library and papers to the country has been mislaid or lost, I 
 delayed an answer until to day. - '\- 
 
 When I received a copy of this publication during last spring, 
 
 I very cursorily looked over some portions of it, I did not think 
 it necessary to read it regularly through, as I felt convinced, that 
 after having been engaged in court for more than three months, ia 
 the investigation of the matters it professed to examine and dis^ 
 cuss, and devoted considerable attention to ’them out of court', 
 wUh the full benefit of the views and suggestions of Mr. Ellicott', 
 his pamphlet would not shed any additional light on the subject; 
 
 I cannot, therefore, from a want of knowledge of the contents of 
 the pamphlet of Mr. Ellicott, express an opinion upon the subject 
 of your inquiry as to “whether the facts stated by him,' as of: his 
 OWh knowledge peculiarly, would not have been all important' 
 hot only in the defence of the criminal prosecution against liis son' 
 but in the civil suit instituted against him by the trustees, ariddf 
 so, why he was not examined in his son’s behalf?” , ^ 
 
 I can, however, say, that I was not aware of Mr. Ellicott’s 
 being an important witness in any of the cases growing out of the 
 failure of the Bank of Maryland. The criminal prosecution ref 
 ferred to by you was virtually decided in favor of the defendants . 
 upon a demurrer to the indictment, the court, adopting the doc- , 
 trine of the New York and Massachusetts cases, having held that 
 the alleged offence of conspiracy was merged in the execution 'df 
 the object of the conspiracy. And as to the dvil case, I find,' by 
 reference to my notes, made during the trial, which lasted irdm 
 the 13th of May to the 16th of June, that on the 24th of Itfay, 
 the defendants proposed to examine Mr. Thomas Ellicott aa a 
 witness on their behalf, but the plaintiffs objected, on the ground 
 that Mr. Ellicott, by having conveyed his property in trust to se¬ 
 cure the payment of certain liabilities of defendants, of which 
 
30 
 
 plaintiif’s claim was alleged to be ope, was interested in the result 
 of the controversy, and thereby rendered 'an incompetent witness, 
 as his evidence, if permitted to go to the jury, would operate to re¬ 
 lieve his own property in the ratio that it might reduce the verdict. 
 After this question had been discussed by counsel on both sides and 
 before an opinion was intimated by the court, the plaintiff’s counsel,, 
 adopting a suggestion from the bench, waived all objection to the 
 e-^amination of Mr. Ellioott. The court then adjourned until the 
 next morning, when the defendants proceeded with their case, by 
 : the examination of Mr. . George Pitzhugh, jr. So that I do not 
 find in any part of the notes taken during the trial that Mr. Elli- 
 GOtt was examined. Why we declined to examine him, if such 
 rvas the fact, after your objection to his evidence was withdrawn, 
 !■ am unable at this remote period, to state. I think it very proba¬ 
 ble, however, that we concluded to ofTer otlier evidence of the 
 fact or facts, Mr. Ellicott was called to prove, and that we did 
 so upon, the suggestion ,of Mr. Ellicott, who, I know' was very 
 reluctant to testify in any of these cases, standing in the relation 
 that he did to the parties. In making these remarks I do not 
 wish to be understood as positively stating that Mr. Ellicott was 
 . not examined in this case, he may have testified .without my noting 
 it; hut I am confident that if he had been examined and proved 
 any fact of importance, I should have made some minute of it, 
 as it was my habit throughout the trials to take full notes of all 
 the evidence, which are now before me,‘apparently regular and 
 perfect. ' 
 
 ■•In answer to your inquiries as to “whether during the trial of 
 the suits grov\’ing out of the failure of the Bank of Maryland, and 
 especially in the one against Thomas Ellicott, you threw any 
 impediment in the tvay of the most enlarged inquiries into every 
 part of your conduct, connected with the bank, or did not, on the 
 contrary, urgently solicit the most thorough scrutiny, and whether 
 the management of the bank, during the period you were'one of 
 .the directors, was not most fully examined into, and if, at the 
 close of the investigation, or since, I did, or have entertained, 
 the least doubt of the perfect integrity of your conduct?” I must 
 state that in the trial of the suit-by the trustees agaiqst Mr. Thomas 
 Ellicott, the management of the Bank of Maryland and the con- 
 
31 
 
 dition of Its affairs, not only during tlie period that you were a 
 director, but antecedently, was examined as thoroughly as either 
 party desired. The widest imaginable range was allowed tp 
 both parties, who, I regret to say, in utter disregard of all fte 
 rules regulating the admissibility of evidence, offered testimony, 
 both oral and documentary, of every matter and thing, whether 
 relevant or not, relating to the affairs of the bank and the conduct 
 of its dfficei-s, which they thought, calculated to prejudice the ad¬ 
 versary or benefit themselves in thf meio of the public. For six' 
 weeks of the time consumed by this trial, the issue tiiade up 
 by the pleadings and submitted to the jury, was entirely over¬ 
 looked, and an investigation indulged, not only in regard to the 
 condition of the accounts and assets of the Bank of Maryland,' and 
 the conduct of its directors, whether official or otherwise, and of ’ 
 every one who had any supposed connection with tlie bank, blit 
 as to the character of the connection, and the conduct of alh'its 
 numerous branches or agencies established at New York, Wheel¬ 
 ing, Cincinnati, Louisville, Little Rock, Elkton, Baltimore and 
 elsewhere. And all the transactions that either party desired} Of 
 the Union Bank of Maryland, the Susquehanna Bank, the Mary¬ 
 land Savings Institution, the General Insurance Company and 
 the Union Bank of the state of Tennessee, with the Bank of Mary¬ 
 land, its president, Mr. Evan Poultney or any of its directore, 
 and tlie transactions of Poultney, Ellicott & Co. with the Unioh 
 Bank of Maryland and various other matters relating to the man¬ 
 agement of that hank during the period of Mr. Thomas Ellicptt’s 
 presidency, and especially the facts and conclusions of an'elabb- . 
 rate report of a committee of the directors of that bank,'made 
 after his connection with it had terminated, were canvassed; And 
 all the circumstances attending the execution of the deed of trust 
 of the assets and effects of the Bank of Maryland to Mr. Thomas 
 Ellicott, and of the private estate of Mr. Poultney to tinsteM’, 
 were also gone into, with a great variety of other subjects’ tfiatl 
 cannot now recall to mind. And during.the examinatioh.bf ^1 
 these collateral issues all the testimony offered by either party, 
 whether legally admissible or not, was heard-by the jury, and.as 
 I supposed noth a perfect understanding on both sides that it could 
 
not tend to enlighten them as to the matters they were to deter¬ 
 mine, and vyould'ultimately be excluded from their consideration 
 by. the court, but as facts and circumstances, calculated to place 
 all the parties in a proper light before the public, in order that 
 they might judge who was really responsible for the failure of 
 the Bank of Maryland. ' - 
 
 You mhde no attempt that I am aware of, to interpose any ob¬ 
 stacle to this unexampled latitude of inquiry, on the contrary, it 
 , seemed to me that you were too desirous for it, while we, know- 
 ■ ing it to be wholly unprecedented and illegal, and extremely oner¬ 
 ous in the way of costs and expenses on the defendant, made seve¬ 
 ral attempts at various stages to arrest it. In this particular I am 
 corroborated by the remarks of the court, as written out at the 
 time by our reporter, and now before me, on a motion of my 
 colleague, Z. Collins Lee, Esq., to stay the interminable flood of 
 impertinent testimony, and I might also refer to the notes that I 
 filed with the clerk in support of a motion that I made in this case, 
 on behalf of the defendant, that the costs of all witnesses who 
 were examined merely as to collateral matters, not pertinent to 
 the issue, might not be taxed. 
 
 .. I havej probably, gone more into detail than was necessary, in 
 answering some parts of your inquiries, but the examination of 
 the witnesses on behalf of defendant, in the case alluded to, hav¬ 
 ing devolved almost entirely on me, and thus rendered me very 
 familiar with tlie various matters investigated, I have preferred a 
 reference to the most prominent of these, instead of the expression 
 of an opinion relative .to the character and scope of the evidence. 
 
 Your course throughout these trials, so far as it came under 
 my observation, exhibited an extraordinary degree of confidence 
 in the purity of your motives and conduct, and fearlessness of a 
 successful attack upon them from any quarter, and my deliberate 
 conviction “at the close of the investigation” was, and still is, that 
 nothing transpired, implicating in the slightest degree, either your 
 ‘integrity or your honor. • 
 
 I am, &c., very respectfully, 
 
 - Your obedient servant, 
 
 . ; • . ALBERT CONSTABLE. 
 
 Revsrdt Johnson, Esq. 
 
33 
 
 No. 19. 
 
 .Snnapolw, 20th Dec. 1839. 
 
 Dear Sib: 
 
 • You have witnessed during the present year, reiterated with 
 increased bitterness, the foul charges with which I was assailed 
 recently after the failure of the Bank of Maryland. Notwith* 
 standing the full exculpation of all the . jurors who have had , to 
 examine into the affairs of the Bank, and my connection with 
 them, the concurrence in opinion of my. integrity of .the Judges 
 who presided at the trials, and of all the counsel who were^en- 
 gaged on either side of the cases, as well as. of every hpnest and 
 intelligent man who'witnessed their disclosures, I have been again 
 most vilely traduced, and with a savage fierceness almost without 
 example. • Availing themselves of the lapse of time which ;has 
 intervened since these investigations, and of the supposed forget^ 
 fulness of the result, as far as I was concerned, the parties; to .thp 
 original slanders, or their hired agents, have again sought tq.ppv 
 son the public mind and to strip me of what I value more than’thg. 
 world’s worth, my character. It is ray purpose to bring tbe sub¬ 
 ject in some shape or other, before tbe Legislature during its ap¬ 
 proaching session, and to get from them if I can, another .enquiry 
 which, if possible, shall forever silence the tongues of the mis- , 
 creants who are hurling again their base accusations at my head. 
 
 I desire however to accompany my application with what proof 
 I may be able to obtain of the character and termination of the 
 examinations which have already been made, and I therefore hope 
 to be excused for addressing you this communication. ;; 
 
 You were one of the counsel in the case of the Bank a^inst 
 Thomas Ellicott, which was tried in Harford, and took an active • 
 part in his defence. You will oblige me by saying, if in that case 
 the whole concerns of the Bank were not most thoroughly inves¬ 
 tigated, and every part of my alleged participation in all the dcts 
 charged to have led to its bankruptcy, and in those,which subset 
 quently occurred, which were supposed to have; operated 'to the 
 prejudice of its creditors. ; 
 
 Second.—Whether so far from evidencing any desire to limit 
 the scope of the enquiry, I was not throughout, exceedingly soli- 
 
34 
 
 citous to have it as full and perfect as it could be made either by 
 the aid of the books of the bank, or othenvise, and for that pur¬ 
 pose, if I did not waive all objections which I might have raised 
 to the evidence introduced on the part of the defendant^ 
 
 ; Third.—At the termination of that trial, whether you had the 
 least doubt of the perfect integrity of the whole of my conduct 
 during my connection with the bank, or of the foul injustice that 
 had been done me upon the subject 
 Fourth.—If you have read the pamphlet published in this year 
 by Thomas Ellicott, the defendant in the case referred to, whether 
 all the charges contained in it were not embraced in the trial of 
 that case^ and most triumphantly met by me. And finally, what 
 reason could have influenced Ellicott, if the facts stated by him 
 in that publication were true, or believed'by him to be true, not 
 to' have disclosed them as a winess in the civil or criminal 
 cases against bis son W. M. Ellicott, tried in the same court, 
 which, as you know, involved his fortune and his character. 
 -Your answer in the course of the coming week will oblige me. 
 
 Yours, with regard, 
 
 REYERDY JOHNSON. 
 
 Z. CojiLiNs Lee, Eso. 
 
 BaUitnore, Jmmry 4th, 1840. 
 
 Dear Sib; . 
 
 Your letter of the 20th December from Annapolis, was for¬ 
 warded to me at Washington, and has only been received here 
 within the last day or two, and I now talre the earliest occasion 
 to reply to it 
 
 My answers are desired to the following questions: 
 
 .1st “Whether in the case of the Bank of Maryland,-against 
 Thomas Ellicott, the whole concerns of the Bank were not most 
 thoroughly investigated, and every part of (your) my alleged 
 participation in all the acts charged to him, and to its bankruptcy, 
 and in those which subsequently occurred, and which were sup¬ 
 posed 4o have operated to the prejudice of its creditors.^” 
 
35 
 
 3d. “Whether so far from emcing aoy desire to limit the 
 scope of enquiry, (you) I was not throughout exceedingly, solici¬ 
 tous to have it as full and perfect as it could be made, eithersby 
 the aid of the books of the Bank , of Maryland, or otherwisej- 
 and for that purpose if I (you) did not waive all objections, .that 
 might have been raised to the evidence introduced on the part,of 
 the defendant?” „:,jv , 
 
 3d. “At the termination of that trial whether I had the least 
 doubt of the absolute integrity of the whole of my (your), con¬ 
 duct during my (your) connexion with the bank, or of the foul 
 injustice that had been done me (you) upon the subject?” • .;:r4 
 
 ,4th. “If I had read the pamphlet published in this year, (1839) 
 by Thomas Ellicott, the defendant in the case referred; to,* 
 whether'all the charges contained in it were not embraced in;the 
 trial of that case, and most triumphantly met by me; (you.)',ahd 
 finally, what reason could have influenced Ellicott, if the facts-^ 
 stated by him in that publication were true, or believed by him to 
 be true, not to have disclosed them as a witness in the- civil and 
 criminal cases against'his son Wm. M. Ellicott, tried in 4he 
 same-court which I knew involved his fortune and character?!?. -- 
 .1 shall proceed to give my answers to the above interrogatoi- 
 ries in the order in which you propound them. ■ 
 
 To the 1st answer,—I was one of the counsel engaged on-'the 
 part of the respective defendants, in what are called the Bank.-of 
 Maryland cases, tried at Bel-Air in 1836, and was not parfiou- 
 larly retained by Mr. Thomas Ellicott in his case, to which;ypii 
 refer, (though) I acted as one of his counsel.. ■ . / ' 
 
 My attendance at court during the trial of this case, and rthe 
 others, both civil and criminal, was very constant, and L particu 
 pated in the various stages of the proceedings-and arguments at 
 the bar, and especially in the cases against Mr. Evan Poultney;*.’ 
 
 I do not recollect taking a very active part in the case »». Mf. 
 Thomas Ellicott; General Jones, and Mr. Nelson, were .1 think, 
 the leading and active counsel, and argued it on the merits.-ij uh ‘'\ 
 At that trial, as also in the trial of the prosecutions,against;Att 
 Evan Poultney, the President of the bank, the door wasithtowii .. 
 open on both sides, to the fullest and luost thorough investigation 
 
36 
 
 into th^ causes of the failure of the Bank of Maryland, and the 
 charges and allegations advanced by both parties. 
 
 Your participation in the acts charged to Mr. Thomas Ellicott’s 
 agency, and in the transaction subsequent to the failure of the 
 bank, was examined elaborately and without limit or reserve, in¬ 
 somuch, that the time occupied by the trials, and the mass of 
 documentary and oral testimony exhibited, was unprecedented 
 and certainly without a parallel in the annals of courts of justice 
 in this country; I know of but one exception any where, and 
 that was the celebrated trial of Queen Caroline in England, be¬ 
 fore the House of.Lords, which occupied, I believe, six months. 
 
 The Bel-Air cases, including the case you particularly refer 
 to, were more fully tried, (rules of evidence having been relaxed 
 or abrogated for the purpose) than any others within my profes¬ 
 sional experience and knowledge. 
 
 To the second answer,—The books of the Bank of Maryland 
 were produced at these trials, and the Cashier, (Mr. Wilson) 
 who had the custody of them, was also examined. 
 
 The counsel of Messrs. Ellicott and Poultney had access to 
 these books, while they continued there under the charge of Mr. 
 Wilson. 
 
 You interposed no obstacle to their thorough perusal and 
 examination, but seemed desirous to bring them fully before the 
 court and jury. Indeed, objections were waived by the counsel 
 on both sides, as to the admissibility of evidence, and the court, 
 by consent of counsel, permitted this course of proceeding, for 
 the purpose of promoting the investigation; and the counsel re¬ 
 presenting the defendants were most anxious to develope the ut¬ 
 most, either of accusation or defence, which the hooks of the 
 banfc might disclose, because we believed that our clients would 
 be vindicated by them, from all the charges of fraud and pecula¬ 
 tion which they were invoked to prove. 
 
 For. myself, I never for a moment supposed, that tlie failure of 
 tlie bank had been occasioned by the embezzlement of its funds, 
 or any spoliation^ comniitted on it by its agents or managers; and 
 the trials referred to at their close, abundantly sustained this opin¬ 
 ion, and accounted for its bankruptcy without imputing or fixing 
 
37 
 
 upon its.president or directors ; the. slightest taint of fraudiprcper 
 culation; its failure was mainly attributable,v.as .,the b,oofe^nd 
 other evidence proved to, my satisfaction at least, to tlie. enlarged 
 circulation of its paper and responsibilities, and .the. appropriar 
 tion of its available- means to the purchase of its. own Stock};at 
 prices greatly beyond its real and marketable valuer afcf a-jtime 
 when the greatest foresight and prudence was requireddpf.curtail 
 and guard its operations. ■ .1 . 
 
 I repeat, therefore, that the general wish and -effort, on ; both 
 sides, in the trial you refer to, was to enlarge the field; of ien- 
 quiry, and, make the investigation as searching as possible,-fordhe 
 reasons I have stated. \ 
 
 To the third answer,—have already stated the opinion-lthen,- 
 and now entertain, which vyas, drat there had, been. noifra'ud.iGbni- 
 mitted' by the president and directors of the Bank of,-Ma]^laiifl, 
 nor had its funds been embezzled and applied to their indiyidu^ 
 use orlbenefit, but that the books showed-and accounted/oriJfee 
 dissipation of its means and'.deposites, without imputing ;pny 
 fraud or malversation in office, to those chafged with its .control 
 and. direction. - ^ 
 
 At the termination of those trials, I had, no questionrofthdin- 
 tegrity of your conduct, and your vindication from; thecharges , 
 preferred against you, and my intercourse with you since.that;dine, 
 though ^ited and of a professional character, has convinced me 
 that you were incapable of the. dishonorable actions chargedito 
 you, and that the.greatest injustice has been done you in this re-, 
 spect. . ■ : . 'i . , 
 
 I deem it, however, due to justice, and you will not, I hope, 
 consider it out of place here to add~ that the late President of the 
 Bank of Maryland, Mr. Evan Poultuey, was knOwri to me- frdin 
 personal intercourse, as an aniiable and benevolent man, possess¬ 
 ing a sanguine and somewhat ardent temperament, and easily 
 dazzled by the brilliant but evanescent visions of the future. /My 
 opinion formed also of him during and at the close of ,tbe,;trial.s, 
 satisfied me that he had undertaken a task, in the m.anagement of 
 the Bank of Maryland and, its agencies, Jar, beyond bisiporggr 
 land financial experience j but never .was there less guilt and tad** 
 
 8 
 
combined, than in his short career £^t the head of ^ that 
 institution. Fraud and peculation, though charged alike against 
 him and his associates, never to my mind were sustained by proof; 
 on the contrary,.the books of the bank—the ruined fortune of the 
 accused, and the general body of testimony adduced then 'arid 
 sinbe, have, not in the remotest degree, established the truth of 
 one single charge affecting his integrity and honesty. This ‘ opin¬ 
 ion of Mr. Poultney, long entertained and often expressed by me, 
 I mrist be pardoned now for repeating here. 
 
 : Over his grave and memory, nothing that I or others may now 
 say, either in censure or praise, can avail to him—but it is due to 
 the occasion and to justice, that I should thus bear testimony to 
 •his^character, so far as it came under niiy observation. 
 
 • ' Tb the fourth, and last ariswer.^I have read the pamphlet of 
 Thomas Ellicott, published within the past year; all ot most'of 
 the matters, according to my present recollection, embraced in 
 this pkinphlet, were brought before the court at the trial of his 
 case; and. you then met and repelled the allegations and charges 
 Satisfactorily, which were brought against you at that trial, but 
 my recollection is not distinct as to the particular import or ex¬ 
 tent of them. I am ignorant of Mr. Ellicott’s reasons Tor not 
 disclosing'at that trial, all the facts within his knowledge, and 
 which-are now made known in his pamphlet. ■ 
 
 ' The above answers, hurriedly given, are as full as^y recol¬ 
 lection will permit, and I hope, though delayed from the press of 
 engagements, will be in time for your purpose. 
 
 I am with regard. 
 
 Yours, &c. . 
 
 - Z. COLLINS LEE. 
 
 R. JppssoN,Esq. 
 
 No. 21. 
 
 iSnmpolis, 9tk Janiiar^, l840. 
 
 .•Dear'Sie: ' 
 
 •' T purpose preseritirig to our State Legislature, at its present 
 ■geS'sion, a memorial, in relation to my alleged wrongful participa¬ 
 tion in the management of the Bank of Maryland, arid desife to 
 
accompany it with the evidenpe I may have of the great illjustibie 
 which hasj for so many years, iheen' done me, concerning ithatiiiwi 
 StitUtion.' ■; - i'.if. 0> 
 
 You were the Reporter I obtained to report : the icaselbf'the ; 
 Trustees of the Bank vs. T. Ellicott, tried in Harford CputityVini 
 the summer and fall of 1835, and witnessed all the discldsures^f 
 the trial, and necessarily gave them the closest attention.'nrYdu i 
 were an entire stranger to'.me personally,;.until:a ifeiyf:gayff,>- 
 before the trial commenced,—as yoii vvere, I believe, to'allAher; 
 parties whose conduct had been impeached in relation;to ihei 
 affairs of the bank, and, of course, listened to . the investigation 
 with perfect freedom from prejudice or partiality; wiU 'you'iddi 
 me the favor then, to state, and as I am sure you will^dof wilKy. 
 entire frankness, whether from the beginning of the'*&vestigation, 
 to'its end, you saw any thing which, in your opinion; justifiedithev 
 charges with which I had been previously assailed,: or hroughtS^x 
 question at all, my claims to integrity and honor.? You also satr;i 
 how truly solicitous I was throughout, that the examinatibnkshouldT 
 be as full and searching as possible, and with'what promptness® : 
 wai ved all objections to evidence of any description calculated'itoii 
 develope the concerns of the bank, or to criminate or defend fanyi' 
 of the parties who had had the slightest partioipatipn 'in ’theinj ' 
 Your reply, and by the return mail, if possible, willtgreatlyr 
 oblige, me. Direct to me, at this place. 
 
 Yours, with respect and regard; ’ , ■ 
 
 REVERDY JOHNSON; rt. 
 
 John Ago, Esq. Washington. 
 
 No. 22. •'-i-;;- 
 
 Everham Lodge, Washington, Jan'y'H, 1840. 
 Dear Sib: ; < 
 
 Your letter, which bears the date of the 9th instant;. oMy 
 reached me in the evening of yesterday; In reference to the iin-. 
 pressions made on my mind during ihy attendance at the trials at. 
 Harford county, in 1835, in the case of the trustees oY flie Baik; 
 of’Marylaiid vs. T. EllicOtt and others,’ you propoutid to methe.i 
 following question: ' ' ' ■ '’ ' v.' 'r'S’Wrrv 
 
40 
 
 “Will you do me the favor to state whetlief from the beginning- 
 of that investigation to its end, you saw any thing which in yohr 
 opinion justified the charges with which I had been previously 
 assailed^ or brought in question at all my claims to integrity and 
 honor?”:-- - ■!(: 
 
 r.'Most emphatically I answer,— certainly not. I was an attentive 
 listener to the evidence throughout, and had submitted it to my 
 ■own judgmentl before it went to the Jury, and I came ‘to the con¬ 
 clusion,that the charges against you of a “wrongful participation 
 indhe management of the Bank of Maryland,” &c. had not been, 
 sustained in any one point, and.that nothing had transpired in the 
 course of the trials which involved, in the least degree, your claims 
 to ihtegrityand honor. The liberality and promptness with which 
 you admitted*'all “evidence of any description calculated to de- 
 velbpe the concerns of the bank,” proved that you were solicitous 
 throughout,, “that the examination should be as fuil and search- 
 ing-ias ^ssible.”! I have never hesitated, when an opinion was 
 required.of me, to declare my conviction that you had been’cause- ; 
 lesslyj if not maliciously, slandered, and that the result of the 
 legal; investigation at Harford, to every intelligent and'unpreju¬ 
 diced inind,-would be to establish your character on a moral ele-. 
 vation still higher than that, high as it was, which it had previously 
 cebupied. ; 
 
 If I could add to the strength of these asseverations by a ,further 
 expenditure of words, I would willingly say more. But as a 
 candid and direct expression of my opinion is all you require, I 
 hope that what 1 have already said is sufficiently full and satis¬ 
 factory. • I am, dear sir, yours. 
 
 With respect and esteem, 
 
 i, , :* JOHK AGO. 
 
 Reveudy Johnson, Esq. 
 
 yN.' Bi: The memorialist,-more than a year since, received a 
 letter from Mr. Moore; now deceased, and for many years one of 
 the reporters for the Globe of Washington, of the same character 
 and 1 douched in-the ‘ strongest terms, and expressing a similar 
 opinion^ but he haS; mislaid it Mr. M^.ms employed.by-the de-. . 
 fendants to report the Harford cases, and ms there during the 
 entire trial of the case against T. Ellicott. 
 
“Extraa of Report of Cormittee of Union Bank, Mg. 15, jlSSis. 
 
 , “There is another subject of much importancej which the com^ 
 mittee deem it to be due to themselves to bring distinctly befor^ 
 the notice of the board. It is with much regret that they do spi 
 as it may appear invidious in them to cast a censure upon Aeir 
 predecessors in the administration of the bank. But it must,be 
 recollected, that the late change in the^direction wasprpduped bj, 
 the conviction which the stockholders.entertained that theirinfer:; 
 estshadnot been promoted by the course , which the bank had 
 pursued. And the board must be aware that many of them,ex-, 
 pected that a rise in the price of the stock, and a restoration,of 
 the bank to the confidence of the public would speedily follpw^a 
 change in its government. The.committee ha,ve already sppTken 
 of .some of the embarrassments which will, they fear, .preyenfc 
 these hopes from being soon realized, and if the stockholder 
 should institute an enquiry into the causes of the disapppiptment^ 
 they may experience, the present board of directors must; hpld, 
 themselves prepared to give an account of their stewardship. Epr 
 all the acts done by them, they will he prepared to answer, but 
 the responsibility of those performed by others, they cannot .:b,e' 
 expected to assume. r ? j 
 
 The hoard are aware, that on the list of stock loans, the,house 
 of Poultney, Ellicott & Go. stand debtors to the amount of 
 $142,600. The whole of this immense loan has been’placed, 
 beyond the control of the hoard until the month of January me^Y 
 by acts of which the committee must express their disapprohatiptLi 
 These loans had been made, and from time to time renewed, by 
 the president and cashier under the special authority of a resoIuT 
 tion of the board of the 18th November, 1830; which resolution 
 was at the request of these officers repealed 'on the 3d July, -1834, 
 (See minute book, page 426.) , 
 
 On the 8th July, one of the notes of Poultney, Ellicott &. <Go,' 
 for $75,000 became due, and appears to ha'^e been renewed fpr 
 six months from that date. On the same day, tyvo.othefnptesiof 
 the same house, one for $37,500,. due 3—6 August,; and pnp-fpi^ 
 
42 
 
 f30,000, due 5—8 August, appear to have been taken up by the 
 substitution for them of two notes for similar amounts, dated 8th 
 Juiy, 1834, at six months. When these discounts were made, 
 there ivas standing upon the minutes, unrepealed ■ the following 
 resolution, adopted by the board on the 19th December, 1833, 
 viz:' 
 
 ’ ’ “Resolved,- that this board Will not, hereafter, discount any 
 paper which has a longer period to run than three ihonths frdm 
 Ihe tirtse of discounting the same; and that this rule remain, until 
 rescinded by the board.” (page 332, minute book.) 
 
 Tbe committee would infer from these transactions, that their 
 import could not have come to the knowledge of the board, and 
 lhat thei'e-wa's, by deliberate design, an intention to deceive the 
 board’by getting them past without observation. Room for this 
 suspicion, the committee tliihk is afforded by the very singular 
 dhcl; that two of these notes should have been renewed nearly a 
 tnoUth bkore they became due, and after the regular day of elec¬ 
 tion had been postponed; and also at a time when it Was almost 
 riertainly ascertained that the diVection and .goyernntent of the 
 bade was about to be changed. The committee caiinot but say 
 Aat neither the president nor the board had any right, six days 
 before the election of directors, thus to trammel their, successors, 
 and lock up for so long a period, any part of the funds of the bank 
 by’renewing notes which had still so long to run before maturity. 
 
 A transaction of the same character will be found alluded to 
 in the Resolution of this Board, of the 19th July, 1834, which 
 will he found in the Minute Book; page 442: The notes men¬ 
 tioned in that Resolution as being in the hands of the Discount 
 Glerk, to renew others due in tliis and the next month have been 
 returned to the parties; but the Committee understand, that these 
 parties claim as a matter of right to have the notes renewed, on 
 the ground that the notes returned to them were in faCt agreed to 
 be discounted in anticipation, by the late Board of Directors. 
 This claim is denied by the Resolution above mentioned of the 
 19th July. 
 
 ' Connected with the subject of the liahilities of the house of 
 Poultney, Ellicott & Co. is another transaction wbich the Com¬ 
 mittee feel constrained to notice, as by it the security held by the 
 
43 
 
 bank for a loan was much diminished. On tiie minutes of thte 
 17th, April,.1834, page 376, is the following, yiz: , 7 • .; .V. ^.ri 
 “The.hoard agreed to receivejas a.substitute for the Baltimore 
 City stock, now held as a securityv for Thomas Elljcotl’s potej' 
 for |25,765 37, a certificate of. deposite of Poultney, ElUcott<& 
 Co.”',., , 
 
 On that day the board held, among other notes discounted tfor 
 the use of Thos. Ellicott, one for $25,765 37, dated iMarch'-Sth^ 
 1834, and due the 7—10 April, 1834; as security for this'riofe^ 
 the bank held-two certificates of City five per cent.’sto'ckj'for 
 $12,500 each. On the 17th April, agreeably to the above minuiyi 
 the certificates of City Stock were delivered-up to Mr. 'Ellicott, 
 who placed in the hands of the Cashier, with the sanctidh of the 
 Finance Committee, J: I. Cohen, Jr.'& Brother’s check dn the 
 Bank of Maryland, endorsed, by Poultney, Ellicott & ,Go. for 
 $39,142 69, this being deemed by the Committee a sufficient 
 security for the time; it being understood that the certificate iof 
 Poultney, Ellicott & Co. would be given in a few days, so as-to 
 agree with the minute of the board. There w'ere. several;other 
 checks of the Cohens on the Bank of Maryland, placed in the’ 
 hands of the Cashier about the same time; but as he understood 
 these other checks to be left with him merely for safe keepin^j 
 they were not entered in the Security Book. ' | 
 
 On the 28th April (minute hook, page 377) the board agreed 
 to loan to Mr. Ellicott a further sum of $25,000, upon ample se- 
 cutities, which were referred to the Finance committee. Ohfhe 
 29th April, by direction of Mr. Ellicott, the cashier:delivered 
 the checks of J. I. Cohen, Jr. & Brothers,-to William M. Ellicott;. 
 who thereupon delivered to the cashier the tw'O following cerli- ■ 
 ficates of deposite, issued by Poultney, Ellicott & Co. in favor of 
 Evan Poultney, and according to the .recollection of the cashier, 
 by him (Evan Poultney) endorsed, viz:- 
 
 No. 956, dated January 4th, 1834, for $50,000;, ' ' 
 
 “ 957, “ “ 4th, 1834, for $50,000, . 
 
 And on the 30th April, two notes dratvn by Wnt. M. Eliicptt^ 
 and, endorsed by Thomas Ellicott, one for $16,000, dtie July;2d, 
 the other for $9,000, due July 6th—both dated April 30th,-1834; 
 were discounted by the Finance committee', under the minute of' 
 
the 28th Api-il, and entered to the credit of William M. Ellicott 
 These notes were upon the security of one of the above described 
 certificates of Poultney, Ellicott & Co. for $50,000,—the other 
 certificate for $50,000 being held as the substitute for the city 
 five per cent, stock. 
 
 ' On the 25th of June, the certificate, No. 956, for $50,000, was 
 withdrawn by Mr. Ellicott, without any authority appearing for 
 the act, and 347 shares of Union Bank of Maryland stock sub¬ 
 stituted, amounting, at $75 per share, to $26,025, which are now 
 held as security for Thomas Ellicott’s note of $25,765 37, origin¬ 
 ally discounted on city stock. 
 
 On the 5th of July, the certificate. No. 957, for $50,000, was 
 withdrawn, and a certificate of which the following is an exact 
 copy, was substituted in its place, viz: 
 
 ■J 
 
 Real estate, conveyed-to trustees^ as collateral security. 
 
 o- 
 
 1 
 
 $^5,000. Certificate of Deposite. No. 1053. 
 
 o'3 
 
 * 
 
 Banking House of Poultney, Ellicott & Co. 
 
 || 
 
 
 ' ■ . Baltimore. Jan. 4//t, 1834. 
 
 
 ;! 
 
 Evan Poultney has this day deposited in this bank. 
 
 M 
 
 
 tw'enty-'five thousand dollars, -— cents, which sum 
 
 
 
 with interest at the rate of six per cent, per annum, 
 
 § § 
 
 6 
 
 will be paid to his order twelve mouths after demand. 
 
 
 
 POULTNEY, ELLICOTT & CO. 
 
 'TaJ, Wm. H. Morgan. 
 
 0 Co 
 
 The above is endorsed by Evan Poultney and Wm. M. Ellicott, 
 arid is now held as security for the two notes of Wm. M. Ellicott 
 for $16,000 and $9,000. The original notes became due, and 
 were renewed by the board as follows, viz: 
 
 ' July 2d, Note for $16,000, due November 2 —5. 
 
 “ 5th, “ “ $9,000, “ “ 5—8. ' 
 
 To the notice of the demand on the face of the certificate, the 
 signature of Poultney, Ellicott & Co. had been omitted to be 
 affixed until after the certificate came under the contrdf of the 
 present board, by whose direction the signature was obtained. 
 
 From the above statements it must be inferred that Mr. Ellicott 
 could not be otherwise than cognizant of the transactions between 
 Evan Poultney, and Poultney, Ellicott & Co., and that he used 
 
the certificates of special depbsite of Evan' Ponltney, and Poult-' 
 ney, EUicott & Co. for his ofrn private convenience in this bank, 
 as collaterals for his discounts. 
 
 When the committee reflect upon themature of this transaction, 
 and connect it with the fact known to the public, that Evan 
 Poultney, on the 4th January last, could not have been properly 
 in circumstances to authorise him to make such a deposite as 
 would entitle him to these certificates; when also, it is known 
 that the demand for payment was not made until the day after the, 
 failure of the Bank of Maryland, after an assignment of all Evan 
 Poultney’s effects to trustees; when moreover, the holder at that 
 time is unknown, and no facts appear to'the committee'to shew 
 when the certificate came into the hands of Wm. M. Ellicott; 
 when the pre-exisflng lai^e liabilities of Poultney, Ellicott & Co. 
 to this ba^ are considered; the lapse of time after the resolution 
 of the Iltb April, before the certificate was deposited with the 
 Union-Bank; above all, when it is considered that this paper having 
 eight months to run, giving the chances of failure to the payers, was 
 substituted for a good substantial security in City Stock, capable 
 at any moment of being converted into funds, the Committee cannot 
 refrain from the expression of their belief that this reprehensible 
 transaction by the President of the Bank, was accomplished-by ft 
 decepHon on the Board; and that the dreumstanees belonging to if 
 could never have come to their knowledge. The minute of the 17tb 
 of April, does not express the character of the certificate to be 
 deposited, but it could scarcely have contemplated a certificate 
 ■in favor of such a payee, nor payable at so remote a period. 
 
 If loss should eventually arise upon this transaction, it vrill be 
 a grave subject of enquiry to ascertain who are liable for the 
 consequences of such an invasion of the rights of the stock¬ 
 holders.” 
 
 , Signed, 
 
 August I5tk, 1834. 
 
 CHARLES HOWARD, 
 SOLOMON ETTING, 
 JAMES CAMPBELL, 
 ROBERT P. BROWN, 
 WM. F. MURDOCK, 
 
 9 
 
 Committee 
 Union Bank 
 of Maryland. 
 
The following is the letter from Mr. Moore, the Reporter 
 employed by the defendants in the Harford cases referred to as 
 mislaid, in a note to the one from Mr. Agg—{d%»pg«dia!, pp. 39 
 
 Dear Sm: 
 
 Washington., Saturday morning/ 
 
 I had no idea of the length of your speech until I had progress¬ 
 ed some way, but as I am blessed with the faculty of persever¬ 
 ance, I T\-ill redeem my pledge. I am going to the country for a 
 few days, where I shall be able to write without interruption, 
 
 ' and will report progress to you on my return. I have written 
 upwards of one hundred pages:—the w'hole will make between 
 three and four hundred pages, and, unless my judgment deceives 
 me, the •perusal of it mill forever set at rest all cavilling or dmiht 
 about the complete innocence of the gentlemen implicated with your¬ 
 self in the most absurd and unfounded charges ever insinuated 
 against men, whose only fault was misplaced friendship and over . 
 confidence. It is more and more important, as I proceed, and 
 based, as every argument is, upon oral and documentary testi¬ 
 mony of the highest character; every line carries conviction with 
 it. If I find that I am unable to proceed as fast as you desire on 
 my return,! will suspend my attendance'on Congress for a week. 
 
 W. ELWYN MOORE. 
 
 To Revebdy Johnson, Esq.