104 THE FREEDMEN’S SAVINGS BANK
of the concern,” Creswell asserted that he himself
 was in the bank ‘one whole month’ and
“every summer for three or four years in order
to supervise.” “Mr. Leipold,” he conceded, “is
a very competent accountant. I believe that he
has faithfully and rigidly looked after the interests
 of the depositors, but he is the most disagreeable
 person with whom I have ever associated.
 His temper and manners are exceedingly
disagreeable and at times almost insupportable.’”’
Purvis stated that he and Creswell were not
expected to work but to “contribute our eminent
respectability,” yet he had spent as much as ten
days at the bank. “lI came here,” he said, “to
represent the colored people whose confidence I
have.” “I was there to watch him [Leipold]. I
will say that the colored people, the depositors,
looked mainly to me, for they had confidence in
me, to see that it was properly done, and they
used frequently to say to me, ‘If it were not for
you we would not get a dollar.” > As for Leipold,
Purvis said that he, in making such “a sneaking
assault”® was “guilty of an act of perfidy so
treacherous that there is no parallel in the scope
of my experience of bad men and bad acts.”
He had paid Leipold $500, “purely as a benefaction,”
 he said, on account of his “snivelling
whining about his poverty.” But he added:
“There was, however, a faithfulness in the discharge
 of his duties.” Purvis also objected to
Leipold’s smoking and put up a sign: “Gentlemen
 will not smoke in this room,” claiming, he
5 Bruce Report, pp. 80, 81.
8 That is, in complaining that Purvis and Creswell were doing no work.