I come now to the saddest and most melancholy chapter of this history
of fraud. I refer to the report recently wrung from the commissioners
in response to Mr. Muller’s resolution, introduced in Congress February
25th, 1878. This report, (Mis. Doc. 43, House of Representatives, 45th
Congress, 2d Session,) is a very remarkable document, and merits to be
extensively read and carefully studied. It is a remarkable document, as
well for the force in which it illustrates the blighting power of money,
the want of heart, soul, and conscience, even the better class of mankind
is afflicted with at the present day, and, worst of all, that there
is very little difference between the men, who, in 1870, deliberately
plotted to rob the bank, and the men, who, in 1878, and under the
disguise of law, make themselves and their friends the beneficiaries of
what there is left.
The following passage is quoted from this remarkable report, to which the
names of the three commissioners are attached. It reads like a bit of
exquisite satire:
“In conclusion, permit us to say that we have no knowledge of
any improper use of the funds of the company to which reference
is made in the preamble of the resolution of the House of
Representatives, except sums required for the payment of petty
expenditures and expenses incurred by agents and deducted from
their collections.”
This is a very singular statement to make to Congress, and is false on
its face. Can it be possible that these commissioners were so deaf to
public sentiment that they did not hear the criticisms made on their
conduct in managing the affairs of the bank for the last three years?
Do they not know that the atmosphere of Washington has been foul with
scandals in regard to the relations between one of the commissioners and
a well-known Washington lawyer, who was enriching himself at the expense
of the washers and scrubbers, the very poor and the very ignorant? Do
they not know that these suspicious relations have been the talk of the
Washington bar for at least two years? Why, gentlemen commissioners, this
report of yours is, of itself, the best proof that there was just cause
for these scandals, if such you choose to call them.
I have shown that Creswell and Purvis were mere figureheads, who pocketed
their salaries with heartless regularity, while Leipold did all the
business, and was really the Board of Commissioners. I have also shown
this man Leipold’s relations to Senator Howe, and his son-in-law, lawyer
Enoch Totten. We have now only to turn and see what an extensive field
lawyer Enoch Totten found for his legal services, and how splendidly he
improved it. Here are some of his charges:
January 20, 1875, Fees, &c., $22 00
March 1, 1875, Enoch Totten, Attorney 34 00
March 20, 1875, ” ” 13 00
April 7, 1875, ” ” 12 00
April 13, 1875, ” ” 11 00
May 10, 1875, ” ” 23 00
May 28, 1875, ” ” (fees) 500 00
June 25, 1875, ” ” (fees, &c.) 58 00
September 27, 1875, ” ” 29 00
October 6, 1875, ” ” 17 00
November 3, 1875, ” ” 22 00
” ” ” (fees) 500 00
December 23, 1875, ” ” (fees) 1,000 00
----------
$2,241 00
==========
March 11, 1876, Enoch Totten, Attorney $13 00
March 28, 1876, ” ” (fees) 1,500 00
April 21, 1876, ” ” (costs) 85 00
May 5, 1876, ” ” 69 00
May 16, 1876, ” ” 85 00
May 23, 1876, ” ” 85 00
June 10, 1876, ” ” (fees) 1,886 90
June 30, 1876, ” ” 22 00
July 20, 1876, ” ” (fees & costs) 49 00
Aug’st 15, 1876, Filing Bill in Equity 14 00
Aug’st 18, 1876, Attorney’s Fees 500 00
Nov’r 22, 1876, Attorney’s Fees 1,000 00
Dec’r 11, 1876, Attorney’s Costs, &c., 30 00
Dec’r 22, 1876, Attorney’s Fees 1,000 00
----------
$6,338 90
==========
Jan’ry 10, 1877, Enoch Totten, (costs) $16 35
Feb’ry 9, 1877, ” 11 00
Feb’ry 23, 1877, ” (fees and costs) 68 43
April 5, 1877, ” (legal service) 500 00
April 19, 1877, ” (costs) 12 00
May 5, 1877, ” (fees) 500 00
May 17, 1877, ” (fees) 25 00
May 31, 1877, ” (fees) 150 00
June 30, 1877, ” (fees) 10 00
July 5, 1877, ” (attorney’s fees) 500 00
July 13, 1877, ” 125 00
July 19, 1877, ” (attorney’s fees) 60 00
Sept’r 1, 1877, ” ” ” 1,200 00
Sept’r 15, 1877, ” ” ” 1,409 53
Oct’br 18, 1877, ” Attorney 25 00
Nov’br 22, 1877, ” Attorney 30 00
Dec’br 13, 1877, ” (attorney’s fees) 250 00
----------
$4,821 21
==========
_Summary._
1875 $2,241 00
1876 6,338 90
1877 4,821 21
----------
Total $13,401 11
==========
The sad story of greed recorded in the above account of fees is so well
told as to render comment by me unnecessary. And yet the above is by no
means all lawyer Enoch Totten got of the money of the washers and the
scrubbers, the very poor and the very ignorant. He can afford to ride in
his coach; and I hope he can sleep at night with the self-satisfaction
that he has been just and generous to the poor freedmen who had been so
cruelly robbed, and had pocketed only what was right of their money.
Not very long since, Mr. Frederick Douglas said there were men in
Washington, living in palaces, and riding in their coaches, who were
prominent in robbing his people of their hard earnings. Mr. Douglas never
told a greater truth. I envy no man destined to carry a guilty conscience
through the world with him.
To turn to this lawyer Totten, he may be eminent as a lawyer, but I never
heard of it. Nor have I ever heard that his reputation at the Washington
Bar was such as to entitle him to excessive fees.[2] I have heard of
Attorney-at-Law Totten, in connection with the “Beaufort and Texas Prize
Claim,” which, in the language of District Attorney Wells, was one of the
very worst frauds invented to get nearly a million dollars out of the
Treasury of the United States.
I am assured that the legal services rendered by Mr. Totten, were of
a very simple and commonplace kind; and that there are at least fifty
members of the Washington Bar, as good and perhaps better lawyers than
Mr. Totten, who would have gladly performed the service for one-sixth of
the amount charged.
You have in the above a faint glimpse of the ways and means by which the
money of these poor, plundered people is disappearing. And yet these
well paid Commissioners, who have proven themselves so recreant to this
trust, tell us with a coolness that challenges our credulity, that they
have “no knowledge of any improper use of the funds of the company to
which reference is made in the preamble of the resolution of the House
of Representatives.” How very innocent these Commissioners are. Their
innocence is only equalled by Mr. Attorney-at-Law Totten’s great respect
for the money of his clients, the washers and the scrubbers, the very
poor and the very ignorant. It was Sheridan, I believe, who said that if
he wanted to find a first-class scoundrel, heartless and soulless, he
would search for him in the legal profession. Had he lived in this age of
Christian statesmen he certainly would have improved on that.