Unknown [Solomon Etting's remarks in the Bank of the United States vs. Etting case]
High-resolution images are available to schools and libraries via subscription to American History, 1493-1943. Check to see if your school or library already has a subscription. Or click here for more information. You may also order a pdf of the image from us here.
Gilder Lehrman Collection #: GLC03545.16 Author/Creator: Unknown Place Written: Baltimore, Maryland Type: Document Date: circa 1820 Pagination: 14 p. : docket ; 24 x 39.5 cm. Order a Copy
Extracts from a report of the conspiracy cases concerning Solomon Ettings, the Bank of United States, and James McCulloch, the cashier of the Baltimore branch of the Bank of the United States.
From the archive of Baltimore attorney Nathaniel Williams. In 1819, McCulloch, in collusion with other officials of the Bank of the United States, stole or misappropriated $3,497,700. In the settlement with the directors of the Bank of the United States, part of the security offered by McCulloch were endorsements by sixteen merchants of Baltimore, who individually bound themselves for $12,500 each. Among these merchants was Etting. Etting refused to pay his bond on the ground that he had endorsed without knowledge of McCulloch's thefts. Roger B. Taney served as Etting's lawyer. The case was decided against him.
Citation Guidelines for Online Resources
The copyright law of the United States (title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these specific conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be “used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research.” If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of “fair use,” that user may be liable for copyright infringement. This institution reserves the right to refuse to accept a copying order if, in its judgment, fulfillment of the order would involve violation of copyright law.