112 THE FREEDMEN’S SAVINGS BANK
Upon no one of the originators and trustees of the
bank did so great responsibility rest as upon John W.
Alvord, but yet he permitted all the misdoings described
in this report to go on from year to year without any
vigorous protest or effort to correct them, and, so far from
giving warnings to those who had so trusted the concern
through his persuasion, he helped to keep up the delusion
by praising it, enlarging upon its benefits, giving assur-
ances of its stability and soliciting increase of depositors
and deposits.
The Bruce Committee which reported on April
2, 1880, went over much of the same ground and
arrived at similar conclusions. Additional evi-
dence was found in regard to the negligence and
misconduct of the trustees and more details
about doubtful loans were brought out. The
committee declared that the administration of
the three commissioners was too expensive, and
it recommended that all the business be turned
over to the Comptroller of the Currency, a
recommendation which was followed a year
later.
The debate that followed the introduction of
each measure aimed at settling the affairs of the
bank showed that the members of Congress felt
that they as a body were partly responsible for
the failure of the bank. Bradford, of Alabama,
stating that the government was to some extent
responsible for the Negro’s faith in the bank
maintained that Congress ought not to shirk its
duty to the depositors. He also asserted that the
corrupt administration of the bank was only a
18 The report of this committee is Senate Report, No. 440, 46 Cong.,
2 Sess. It contains eleven pages of committee report, 319 pages of testi-
mony by 21 witnesses, and 17 pages of documents. The reports of the
Douglas and the Bruce committees are the best sources of information
in regard to the Freedmen’s Savings Bank.