104 THE FREEDMEN’S SAVINGS BANK 
of the concern,” Creswell asserted that he him- 
self 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 in- 
terests of the depositors, but he is the most dis- 
agreeable person with whom I have ever asso- 
ciated. 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 bene- 
faction,” he said, on account of his “snivelling 
whining about his poverty.” But he added: 
“There was, however, a faithfulness in the dis- 
charge of his duties.” Purvis also objected to 
Leipold’s smoking and put up a sign: “Gentle- 
men 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.