Old man Alvord was an unwilling witness. He could have told the Committee much more than he did of the connection between Stickney and Shepherd, Vandenburgh and Shepherd, John O. Evans, Lewis Clephane, and Hallett Kilbourn. Vandenburgh is a free and easy, good natured, open-handed man, and not naturally dishonest. And yet he was, during the reign of Mr. Shepherd and his Ring, a sample sheep, of which Clephane, Evans, Kilbourn, and Shepherd constituted the flock. He was associated with them in the paving business, and the very large amounts of money he was permitted to draw from the bank from time to time, and while Stickney had almost absolute control of its funds—nearly $200,000—convinces me that there was not only collusion, but that Vandenburgh was used as an instrument by his more designing confederates. These “Vandenburgh loans,” as they are called, are regarded as bad as any made by the bank. That Vandenburgh never could have used so large an amount of money in his own business, the Committee were satisfied. This, too, must be said, that Mr. Beverly Douglas was very decidedly of the opinion that Vandenburgh was “used by the master spirits of the ring to pull their chestnuts out of the fire.”

Stickney was responsible for these bad loans. They were made with his consent, perhaps not criminally. I have, however, given enough proof to convince the candid reader that he never should have been employed as an officer of the bank again.

THE SADDEST CHAPTER OF ALL.

I come now to the saddest and most melancholy chapter of this history of fraud. I refer to the report recently wrung from the commissioners in response to Mr. Muller’s resolution, introduced in Congress February 25th, 1878. This report, (Mis. Doc. 43, House of Representatives, 45th Congress, 2d Session,) is a very remarkable document, and merits to be extensively read and carefully studied. It is a remarkable document, as well for the force in which it illustrates the blighting power of money, the want of heart, soul, and conscience, even the better class of mankind is afflicted with at the present day, and, worst of all, that there is very little difference between the men, who, in 1870, deliberately plotted to rob the bank, and the men, who, in 1878, and under the disguise of law, make themselves and their friends the beneficiaries of what there is left.

The following passage is quoted from this remarkable report, to which the names of the three commissioners are attached. It reads like a bit of exquisite satire:

“In conclusion, permit us to say that we have no knowledge of any improper use of the funds of the company to which reference is made in the preamble of the resolution of the House of Representatives, except sums required for the payment of petty expenditures and expenses incurred by agents and deducted from their collections.”

This is a very singular statement to make to Congress, and is false on its face. Can it be possible that these commissioners were so deaf to public sentiment that they did not hear the criticisms made on their conduct in managing the affairs of the bank for the last three years? Do they not know that the atmosphere of Washington has been foul with scandals in regard to the relations between one of the commissioners and a well-known Washington lawyer, who was enriching himself at the expense of the washers and scrubbers, the very poor and the very ignorant? Do they not know that these suspicious relations have been the talk of the Washington bar for at least two years? Why, gentlemen commissioners, this report of yours is, of itself, the best proof that there was just cause for these scandals, if such you choose to call them.

I have shown that Creswell and Purvis were mere figureheads, who pocketed their salaries with heartless regularity, while Leipold did all the business, and was really the Board of Commissioners. I have also shown this man Leipold’s relations to Senator Howe, and his son-in-law, lawyer Enoch Totten. We have now only to turn and see what an extensive field lawyer Enoch Totten found for his legal services, and how splendidly he improved it. Here are some of his charges:

January20,1875,Fees, &c.,$22 00
March1,1875,Enoch Totten, Attorney34 00
March20,1875,” ”13 00
April7,1875,” ”12 00
April13,1875,” ”11 00
May10,1875,” ”23 00
May28,1875,” ”(fees)500 00
June25,1875,” ”(fees, &c.)58 00
September27,1875,” ”29 00
October6,1875,” ”17 00
November3,1875,” ”22 00
” ”(fees)500 00
December23,1875,” ”(fees)1,000 00
$2,241 00
March11,1876,Enoch Totten, Attorney$13 00
March28,1876,” ”(fees)1,500 00
April21,1876,” ”(costs)85 00
May5,1876,” ”69 00
May16,1876,” ”85 00
May23,1876,” ”85 00
June10,1876,” ”(fees)1,886 90
June30,1876,” ”22 00
July20,1876,” ”(fees & costs)49 00
Aug’st15,1876,Filing Bill in Equity14 00
Aug’st18,1876,Attorney’s Fees500 00
Nov’r22,1876,Attorney’s Fees1,000 00
Dec’r11,1876,Attorney’s Costs, &c.,30 00
Dec’r22,1876,Attorney’s Fees1,000 00
$6,338 90
Jan’ry10,1877,Enoch Totten,(costs)$16 35
Feb’ry9,1877,11 00
Feb’ry23,1877,(fees and costs)68 43
April5,1877,(legal service)500 00
April19,1877,(costs)12 00
May5,1877,(fees)500 00
May17,1877,(fees)25 00
May31,1877,(fees)150 00
June30,1877,(fees)10 00
July5,1877,(attorney’s fees)500 00
July13,1877,125 00
July19,1877,(attorney’s fees)60 00
Sept’r1,1877,” ”1,200 00
Sept’r15,1877,” ”1,409 53
Oct’br18,1877,Attorney25 00
Nov’br22,1877,Attorney30 00
Dec’br13,1877,(attorney’s fees)250 00
$4,821 21
Summary.
1875$2,241 00
18766,338 90
18774,821 21
Total$13,401 11