Click image to open full size in new tab
Article Text
teller at the time, drew $1,050 on forged notes, and
Wilson, the late cashier, indorsed two of them.
The bank loaned $33,000 to the Young Men's Chris-
tian Joint Stock Company. The Young Men's Christian
Association owns about $15,000 worth of the stock out
of $200,000 worth issued for the building, which, with
the exception above stated, was held by different par-
ties. A mortgage, or deed of trust, was given to secure
the loan on the property of the Young Men's Christian
Association. At the time the loan was made it was
supposed to be good, and it would have been good if
the title had been good. This was the testimony of
G. W. Stickney, who succeeded Colonel Eaton as
actuary.
C. B Purvis gave the following testimony:-
Q. Do you know anything of a transaction between
Stickney and a man named Boyle? A. After Jay
Cooke & Co. failed we had in our bank $650,000 of cur-
rency sixes and other bonds, amounting altogether to
over $800,000; to meet the run made upon us we had
to sell our bonds; the trustees met every two or three
days and authorized the executive officers of the bank,
the president, with his actuary, to sell bonds, $100,000
or so, at a time; the president went to New York to
sell some of the bonds, and, it seems, without any
authority whatever, Mr. Stickney sent Mr. Boyle to
Baltimore to selt some of the bonds; this I have only
got from our inspector, Mr. Sperry; it was hard to sell
these bonds because they were of $1,000 denomination;
if they had been $100 bonds we could have sold
them readily; afterward my father asked me in
regard to a loan to Boyle, and I told him
that we had never made any such loan; on
inquiring into it I found that Mr. Stickney, even
when we were in such a state in the bank that we had
sold every bond except $500, simply on the pretext
that Boyle had done the bank good service had loaned
him $21,000, on which we had no security; on the
strength of that I called the trustees together for the
purpose of asking them to remove Mr. Stickney from
the trusteeship, which he had acquired under the law
of June, 1870; I there mentioned the matter,
and Mr. Leipold contradicted my statement that
Stickney had loaned the money in the way
I have mentioned, but he made this extraordi-
nary statement, that Mr. Boyle had sold bonds
for the bank at different times, and that every time he
had retained some of the money, so that in the aggre-
gate he owed the bank the amount of $21,000, and that
then, to cover up the transaction, Stickney took this
note from him, but put it in the shape of a loan.
Boyle has never rendered any account to the bank of
the amount of bonds that were put into his hands by
Stickney. Of that transaction, however, none of the
bank officers proper except Stickney had any knowl-
edge.
Q. This note of Boyle's, according to Mr. Leipold's
statement, was given by Boyle to the bank? A. Yes.
Q. And Stickney took security for it on a house and
lot? A. I believe he afterward got security on a whole
row of unfinished houses, which houses were encum-
bered by various kinds of liens, and which houses have
been sold since and purchased by Mr. Stickney; the
bank never realized a dollar out of that $21,000 loan
and never will.
Q. Was there not another loan made on representa-
tions of Mr. Alexander R. Shepherd? A. It appears in
the report of the Commissioners that Mr. Vandenburgh
owes a large amount; these loans never came directly
before the Board of Trustees, or, at least, a very few of
them did; the Actuary, in reading his report to the
Board, would say, "City securities (naming the class),
so much invested;" some members of the Finance
committee, including Moses Kelly, the Sinking Fund
Commissioner, were very earnest in the defence of
these securities, and Mr. Kelly invested largely in that
kind of security for his own bank-the National Bank
of the Metropolis; I was very much opposed to it,
as I was opposed to everything connected with the
Board of Public Works; Mr. Stickney stayed at
my house, and, talking with me one day, he said
he had never done a wrong thing in the bank
except letting Vandenburgh have a large sum of money
one night; I asked him how much; I think he said
$30,000; that perfectiy astonished me, so I "went into"
him and questioned him very closely, thinking that I
would have occasion to recollect it and use it:
he said that Vandenburgh came to him wanting
some money to pay off his hands that
night, and that Shepherd said "Vandenburgh's
accounts are approved;" (this was on Saturday night);
"I will pay you on Monday if you let him have the
money;" Stickney said that he would let him have the
money, and he did let him have it; afterward he went
day after day to see Mr. Shepherd and could not see
bim; when he did see him Mr. Shepherd was
more forcible than polite, and told him that he
was in a damned hurry to get that money; subse-
quently Mr. Shepherd said to him, "If you do business
in that kind of a loose way you are a damned fool,"
and that he told the truth; this is what Mr. Stickney
says about the matter, and I presume he is to be be-
lieved on that point.
Q. Who is the solicitor of the Commission? A. Mr.
Enoch Totten; although Mr. Leipold's name appears
on the docket as associated with him in these bank
cases, he never appears in the courts in these suits.
Q. Then he and Totten are associated professionally?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did not Mr. Totten make a collection for the bank
and offer to Mr. Leipold half of his fee? A. I can only
answer that in this way:-Mr. Sperry came and told
me that Mr. Leipold came to him and said, "Totten
has offered me so much money (I think $700, or half of
what he received), had I better take it?" "No," said
Sperry "you must not take it;" Leipold came to him
subsequently and said that ne did not take it, but after
that his name appears with Totten's; Sperry can swear
to these facts; the only hesitation I have in making
this statement is that Leipold is rather a vindictive
man and as Mr. Sperry is a very poor man Leipold
might remove him; in fact he has been wanting to re-
move him ever since he told him about this offer.
It further appears that Leipold sought to buy the
bauk books of depositors, after the bank's failure, at a
nominal figure and practise as an attorney. He stated
to Purvis that he could then make more money than
the salary he received as commissioner. As the settle-
ment of the affairs of the institution is practically in the
hands of Mr. Leopold, an effort is being made to have
him removed, and hence the proposition in the House
yesterday, offered by Mr. Bradford, a member of the
Investigating Committee, requiring and authorizing the
Secretary of the Treasury to appoint, without unneces-
sary delay, a good and competent man to take charge
of and wind up the affairs of the Freedmen's Savings
and Trust Company. During the existence of the
Freedmen's Bank from $50,000,000 to $60,000,000
passed through the principal bank and its branches,
The committee say the failure was from bad manage-
ment, and the frauds began at the commencement and
continued to the end.
# UNFOUNDED CHARGES AGAINST THE DOOR-
KEEPER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
Charges of arson against Colonel Fitzhugh, door-
keeper of the House of Representatives, are revived both
privately and in print. Two indictments were found
against him in Kentucky in 1871, alleging arson, but
