The last report of the three Commissioners for winding up (this is a
misnomer) the affairs of the bankrupt Freedmen’s Bank, brought out
in response to a resolution of Congress, introduced by the Honorable
Nicholas Muller, of New York, is one of the most remarkable documents
ever given to the American people. It is remarkable as illustrating
the heartlessness of man; remarkable as illustrating the amount of
scoundrelism there is in our social and political organizations; and
remarkable for its exemplification of those trite sayings so common among
the slaves of the South before the war, and which I have placed at the
head of this article. “White man very unsartin.” “Nigger haint got no
friends, no how.”
I again approach this black chapter in the history of the great—perhaps I
should say once great—Republican party with feelings of sadness. Here, in
this remarkable report, we have man’s inhumanity to man portrayed in all
its darkest colors.
Just here let me pause for a moment to thank kind, generous-hearted Mr.
Muller for introducing the resolution which brought out the strange
chapter of scoundrelism contained in this remarkable report. And I do
this the more cheerfully because he is a Democrat and I am an old time
Republican, perhaps I should say Abolitionist, and had failed in three
attempts to get a Republican to introduce it.
Before proceeding to dissect this remarkable report, however, I propose
to say, as a matter of history, something in regard to the formation of
the plot concocted by, to use a vulgar phrase, Boss Shepherd and his Ring
to rob this bank for the earnings of the poor.
Even high-toned robbery has its vein of romance, and there was something
romantic in the early stages of the history of this gigantic robbery. One
cold, stormy November night, in the year 1871, my rooms were invaded,
and my reveries broken by a man I regarded as an intruder. He threw off
his wet coat, put his umbrella in the coal box, and I invited him to
take a seat. “I am here,” he said, “on a very important mission.” He was
considerably excited, and for some minutes spoke with a tremulous voice
and somewhat incoherently. At first I thought he was under the influence
of liquor, but I remembered that he was not given to the cup. I begged
him to concentrate his thoughts, and tell me in the fewest words possible
what he had to say.
“Mr. Adams,” he said, after pausing a moment, “I know you are a true
friend of the colored man.”
“Well, never mind that,” said I, “proceed with what you have to say.”
He did proceed, and disclosed to me the most monstrous plot for getting
possession of the money deposited in the Freedmen’s Bank, and that by
men who had been prominent Republicans and professing Christians. There
was something so monstrous, so heartless, and so at variance with the
laws which ordinarily govern human actions, as to create a doubt in my
mind of the truth of what he said. The name of this gentleman was John R.
Elvans, a member of the Examining Committee of the bank, who informed me
that he had protested, in the name of honesty and humanity, against the
contemplated robbery, and had resigned rather than have it appear that
he had countenanced so monstrous a wrong. (Just here I desire to put on
record this acknowledgment of Mr. Elvans’ honesty.)
The substance of the plot was that the six millions of hard earnings of
the slaves, constituting their lifetime savings, were to be got by the
conspirators on worthless securities, such as bogus paving company stock,
second mortgage bonds, and stock of the Seneca Sandstone Company, shares
of the Young Men’s Christian Association, and other stuff even more
worthless. He also insisted, with considerable emphasis, that the Seneca
Sandstone Ring had got complete control of the bank’s money.
In reply to a request that Mr. Elvans would give me the names of the
men prominent in so dastardly a conspiracy, he gave me those of A.
R. Shepherd, Hallett Kilbourn, William S. Huntington, Doctor John L.
Kidwell, Lewis Clephane, O. O. Howard, and D. L. Eaton. He also asserted
with some vehemence that the officers of the bank, professing Christians
and pretended friends of the negroes, were “deepest in the fraud.”
In order to be sure of my ground, and not to be misled, I requested Mr.
Elvans to get me a transcript from the books of the bank, of the loans
he had asserted had been made on those worthless securities. Two days
afterwards he brought me the desired transcript, which is now before me
in his own handwriting. The following is an exact copy of it:
1. “$20,000 Seneca Sandstone Quarry Company, at 90 cents, to
Dr. John L. Kidwell. Loan, $18,000.”
2. “Loan to M. G. Emery of $25,000, on corporation coupon
certificates, par value of $50,000.”
Mr. Emery was mayor of the city at the time, and it is only right to
say here that the loan was a legitimate one, and ultimately paid, with
interest.
3. “Loan to H. K.” (which meant Hallett Kilbourn.) “on 300
shares of Metropolis Paving Company, $14,000. The par value of
stock $30,000, only $3,500 paid up.”
The stock of this concern of which Lewis Clephane was president, and at
the same time one of the Finance Committee of the Bank, was at the time
it was hypothecated utterly worthless. This Lewis Clephane was what we
shall call here, a high society Republican, and twenty years ago was
book-keeper for Doctor Guilmel Bailey, editor of the _National Era_, an
ultra anti-slavery journal. Mr. Clephane is now a man of wealth, lives
in a thirty thousand dollar house, pretentiously located on the corner
of 13th and K streets. How he got the money to build such an elegant
house, to ride in his carriage, and fare sumptuously every day, is not a
matter for so humble an individual as myself to inquire into. Washington
has its laws, socially, legally, and morally, and I have sometimes
thought that the bigger the thief the greater were his immunities. The
difference between the big thief, in Washington, and the little thief,
was beautifully illustrated a few weeks ago in the sentence of one of
our judges who sent a black man of the name of George Washington to the
Maryland penitentiary for six months, at hard labor, for stealing a
goat. Yes, for stealing a goat, commonly regarded as a public nuisance.
With so righteous a sentence, staring us in the face, who will dare say
justice is jobbed in this District?
As to the matter of Mr. Clephane’s wealth, so suddenly acquired, I can
safely leave that as a matter to be decided between his conscience and
himself. Enough of this. Let us return to Mr. Elvans’ transcript.
4. “Demand Note, of _Scharf_ Paving Company, collateral, 200
shares, of $100 each. (Worthless.) Loan, $3,000.”
This Scharf Paving Company was an offshoot of the rascally Metropolis
Paving Company, of which John O. Evans, Kilbourn, and other congenial
spirits, were the managers, and Lewis Clephane the president. And just
here I beg the innocent reader not to forget that during all this time
Lewis Clephane, the high society Republican, described above, was a
member of the Finance Committee of the Freedman’s Bank, made such,
because of his supposed friendship for the colored man.
5. “Loan to John L. Kidwell, apothecary, and President of the
Seneca Sandstone Company, 20 bonds of $500 each. Loan. $4,000,
at 10 per cent.”
These bonds were not worth the paper they were printed on.
GENERAL O. O. HOWARD, THE GREAT CHRISTIAN SOLDIER, COMES UPON THE STAGE
AS A SPECULATOR.
6. “Gen’l O. O. Howard, (late Vice-President of the Bank,) on
Lot 11, in Block 4, subdivision of Smith’s farm; also sundry
good and bad bonds as collateral. Loan, $24,000.”
To avoid argument, let us accept General O. O. Howard as a first-class
Christian and an accepted friend of the colored man and brother. But the
reader must not forget that, from the days of Adam, our great forefather,
down to the illustrious Babcock, temptation could be made too strong for
even the purest of Christians. And, too, there were crimes by which even
the angels fell. The six millions of dollars deposited in the Freedmen’s
Bank by the slaves just set free, after nearly two centuries of the most
abject bondage, proved Brother Howard’s Satan, tempting him on to commit
crime. The temptation was too strong for him, and he fell a victim to his
ambition for speculation, just as Satan, before him, had fallen under the
too great weight of another kind of temptation. Yes, the great, the good,
the Christian soldier fell a victim to his love of gain. Our Saviour
scourged the money-changers for a crime much less heinous, and he drove
them out of the Temple, too. It is in proof that this walking example
of Christian purity, this soldier of the Lord, resigned his position
as Vice-President of the Bank for the safe keeping of the freedmen’s
earnings, because the law debarred him from being a borrower, and three
days afterwards appeared at the counter of the bank and borrowed $24,000
of its money—that, too, for the vulgar purpose of speculating in corner
lots. General O. O. Howard still holds his position as a high society
Republican, and is an idol of the church.
I now come to that great modern statesman, Christian, friend of the
church, and defender of the illustrious U. S. Grant, and the still more
illustrious Babcock, the personification of the late Board of Public
Works, and all the crimes it was heir to. It was not to be expected that
a gentleman of so much goodness of heart, so wise, modest, and retiring;
a gentleman whose heart yearned every hour of the day to do generous
acts for the benefit of his fellow-men—who went to bed of a night
contemplating the amount of good he could do for mankind in general and
Washington in particular; whose disinterestedness caused him to forget
himself entirely—a man, I assert here without fear of contradiction,
who, by his own unaided exertions, had raised himself from the position
of an humble plumber and gas-fitter—thankful for a job, no matter how
small—to the high position of a governor, a modern statesman, a friend of
humanity, and an adviser of the President. Here let me say, as a lover
of truth and justice, that a great deal has been said about the fall
of this great modern statesman, and very little about his rise. To us
the rise is the most important part of it, and for the very reason that
it repeats the story of Whittington and his cat, thrice Lord Mayor of
London, to say nothing of honest Sancho Panza and his government of the
island of Barritario. But comparisons between governors are odious, as
Mrs. Malliprop said.
Just here I confess, as a lover of the truth of history, to have erred
and strayed from my subject. My object was to show you that Alexander R.
Shepherd (according to Mr. Elvans,) was one of the original conspirators
for robbing the Freedmen’s Bank! This is sad, but it is true. He appears
in Mr. John R. Elvans’ transcript, as follows:
7. “Loan to A. R. S.” (Alexander R. Shepherd) “of $15,000, on
lots 5 and 6, square 452.”
I was informed on good authority that these lots, on which Mr. A. R.
Shepherd borrowed fifteen thousand dollars, were not worth half the
amount. This gentleman’s future operations with the bank were conducted
on a more magnificent scale, but in the names of other persons. As Mr.
Beverly Douglas said during his investigation into the affairs of the
bank, it was marvelous to see how many of other peoples’ fingers Mr.
Shepherd had used to pull the Freedmen’s Bank chestnuts for him. I had
hoped that the solemn and impressive death of that other great modern
statesman and benefactor of mankind, William Marcy Tweed, would have had
a good effect on the moral and religious status of our late governor. But
recent events convince me that the solemn and impressive warning remains
unheeded.
Here again we have another Christian statesman, of high standing in the
Republican church, who wants the Freedmen’s money—doubtless for a pious
purpose.
8. “Henry D. Cooke, (chairman of the Finance Committee,) loan
of $10,000 on 400 shares of stock of the Young Men’s Christian
Association.”
It is due to Mr. Cooke to say that this sum was afterwards paid.
Doubtless his intentions were good when he borrowed the money. Naturally
a well-meaning man, he fell a victim to bad association.
9. “P. T. Langley’s note, endorsed by D. L. Eaton, actuary of
the bank. Loan, $500, no security.”
This completes the transcript brought me from the books of the bank, in
November, 1871. I need hardly tell the reader that the gentlemen whose
names appear as original conspirators to rob the bank were Republicans of
high standing in the party, and professed friends of the colored man.
It will also be observed that they initiated the robbery, by getting the
money on worthless securities, and with two or three additions of men of
the same stamp, in politics as well as religion, continued it to the very
end.
Fully satisfied that what Mr. Elvans had told me was true—satisfied also
of the existence of a conspiracy to steal the funds of the bank—the next
question was, as to how the disaster, sure to result from it, could be
averted. I laid Mr. Elvans’ statement before several leading Republicans,
in and outside of Congress, and appealed to them to assist me in rescuing
the bank and its money from this combination of robbers. I use very
plain language in treating of this very black crime—one which should
sink the Republican party so far out of sight that it would never again
have an existence. Must I confess here that I appealed to Republicans in
vain? Some of them had for years been shedding tears over the sorrows
of the slave; but, like Pomeroy, of Kansas, they had borrowed the newly
emancipated slave’s money, and it had sealed their lips and withered
their consciences.
I appealed to a member of Grant’s cabinet. He had previously professed
friendship for the negro. He glanced over Mr. Elvans’ black list of
loans, smiled, and handed it back, saying, the names were those of highly
honorable gentlemen, who would not do a dishonest act. He intimated,
also, that Mr. Elvans was bent on creating a sensation. This cabinet
minister, as was afterwards proven, was connected with the most prominent
of these conspirators in real estate and other speculations. In plain
language, this gang of Republican knaves were all powerful at court, at
that time. Grant, himself, was their friend, associate, and partner in
Seneca sandstone and other speculations. Indeed it is only the truth to
say of Grant that such was the force of his democratic instincts that he
never had any real, honest sympathy with the negro, to say nothing of his
contempt for poor men of whatever color. It was Grant’s native dislike of
the negro and the abolitionist alike, that led him into his unfortunate
quarrel with Mr. Sumner. That quarrel initiated the independent
Republicans, and it also initiated the disintegration of the Republican
party.
I associate the robbery of this bank with the Republican party, because,
as I said before, the robbers were all Republicans of high standing
in the church; and the chosen leaders of the party looked on with
indifference while the robbery was going on, and continued to look on
with indifference until the bank closed its doors in bankruptcy.
Then for the first time the cry of shame went up, but not from the
leaders of the Republican party. Their energies were given to protect the
robbers, to stifle investigation, and to slander the men fearless enough
to expose the hideous conspiracy.
Here we were brought face to face with the fact that the Republican
party had abandoned its principles, had abandoned truth and justice—even
humanity itself—and in the future would depend on dollars and cents for
its strength. Its political morality strongly resembled the Democratic
party as it was twenty years ago, when slavery was its Political
Fetish—when it had a Jew banker at one end of it and a prize fighter at
the other.
Again we were brought face to face with the fact that the Republican
party and its professed leaders had reached that very high standard
of modern civilization, when a bank for the savings of the wages of
the poor could be made part of a system of robbery, the robbers being
encouraged and recognized by the administration and society. To be even
more explicit, it was the first time in the history of felony that the
workmen and workwomen, the scrubbers and washers, the orphans and widows
of the poorest and most ignorant classes in the city of Washington, were
unwittingly made to cash obligations issued by an organized gang of
thieves and plunderers.
May I ask the reader to go back with me to the time Mr. John R. Elvans
made his statement. Finding there was no other way of stopping the
robbery or exposing the crime but through the press, I had recourse to
that. My first articles, as is very well known, appeared in the _Savannah
Morning News_. The _New York Sun_, on being assured of the correctness
of my statements, afterwards came to the rescue and did good service
in making the hideous crime public. The appearance of these articles
created great excitement in Washington, as well they might. Denials came
thick and fast, the robbers and their friends—and they were numerous
and strong—asserted that the bank was in a perfectly sound condition,
that its management was above suspicion. Of course the author of the
articles was denounced as a libeler, and threatened with vengeance. The
officers of the bank, without distinction of color or previous condition
of servitude, were declared to be Republicans in good standing, and very
high-toned gentlemen. I had heard something very similar to this before.
There was a weak and somewhat dyspeptic Democratic journal, called the
_Patriot_, published in Washington at that time, and to the columns of
which Montgomery Blair and other patriots contributed. The managing
editor of this paper was a Mr. Harris, an experienced journalist, who
appreciated the value of truth to a properly-conducted newspaper. This
gentleman intensified the excitement then prevailing, by republishing, in
a somewhat modified form, two of the articles from the _Savannah Morning
News_. For this great offense he not only lost his place, but the paper
made two of the most abject and cowardly apologies journalism has any
account of. The chiefs of the gang forced these abject apologies from the
managers of the _Patriot_ by threatening castigation and libel suits.
It is hardly necessary to say here that subsequent developments have
shown the black chapter of that robbery to have been ten times blacker
than I had painted it. The villainy unearthed by Mr. Beverly Douglas’
committee, three years ago, stands to-day the blackest crime in our
criminal history. That committee, in its clear and able report, gave
us the names of the prominent actors in that great crime; and yet the
finger of justice has not touched one of them. Strange as it may seem
to the ordinary thinker, these men, so well known at this day, and who
committed the meanest theft history has any account of, stand as high in
the Republican church to-day as they did when General Grant was the great
high priest of the party.