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.