a THE FREEDMEN’S SAVINGS BANK
There had been, he stated, too much competition
with old and well established banks and too
rapid expansion which had resulted in too many
weak paying branches. Promising economy and
prudence in future management, he showed that
new depositors were protected from old debts of
the institution, while the best arrangement possible
 had been made for the old depositors. Hereafter,
 he stated, the constant drain of deposits to
Washington from all over the country would
cease, and investments would be made in the
vicinity of the branches. This last concession, he
explained, was in response to a widespread objection
 on the part of the depositors to the practice
 of sending in all deposits to Washington or
New York."
The trustees tried to begin reform by making
Stickney, the actuary, give bond as required by
law. It was found that he had held his position
for two years and had never made bond. At first,
it seems, he had not been asked to make bond,
and later, when requested to do so, he refused
on the ground that the business of the bank was
so involved that it was not safe for him to comply.
 Now when called before the trustees, who
suspected him of crooked practices, he again refused
 to give bond, and as Purvis, one of the
trustees, said: ‘Then Stickney commenced to
cry. That was pretty good evidence of his guilt
for we were not in a prayer meeting.”’*
13 Bruce Report, Appendix. For example, Rainey, a Negro congressman
 from South Carolina, complained that the South Carolina Negroes
had put half a million in the bank but that not a dollar had been loaned
in the state.—Cong. Record, March 3, 1875, p. 2262.
14 Bruce Report, p. 139, and the report of the committee; Douglas
Report, p. 76.

Qf