The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1891-07-22
Tna BARDSLEY CROWD.
Circumstantial Evidence Proves Wara
maker to Have Been One of Them.


maker to Have Been One of Them.
The indefinite Suspension of SEN
sence" in the case of John Bardsley,
the embezzling treasurer of Philadel-
phia, after his plea of guilty, is in keep
ing with the extraordinary lmpudence
which has characterized the operations
of the official ring involved in the rob
berry of the city and of the Keystone
and Spring Garden banks. There is
nothing in the statement made by
Bardsley to break the force OF the evil
dence which overwhelmed him into his
plea of guilty. 1t is for the most part
an attempt to exculpate the postmaster
general the assistant secretary OF the
treasury and the comptroller OF the
currency from completely in the Key
stone frauds by putting the entire Off
cial responsibility on the bank exam
i,ler, who, as Bardsley alleges. was
bribed to conceal the true condition OF
the bank. This is the implication of
the official theory advanced by Comp
troller Lacey, and the whole signlh-
canoe of Bardsley's statement is that it
adopts the lines already laid down by
Lacey.
The position which the implicated
federal officials have thus attempted to
assume is not tenable. Even if they
prove that Bank Examiner Drew was
bribed it does not relieve Comptroller
Lacey, who undoubtedly knew of the
condition of the bank, and who kept it
open after he had visited Philadelphia
and personally inspected it.
Bardsley admits that from Novem-
ber 1890, he was active in his efforts to
keep the bank from being closed in
compliance with the natio al banking
law, and he claims that his sole con-
nection with the postmaster-general in
the affair was in writing him letter
to secure his cooperation in naming
the receiver. The circumstantial evil
dence indicates that Mr.. Wanamaker
was not less active in doing everything
possible to prevent the execution of the
law requiring the closing Of the bank.
And at this point there is serious dis
crepancy between the statement of
Bardsley and that of Wananaker. The
former claims to have lost all the
money he embezzled from the city in
the bank failure. Though as long ago
as last November, according to his
story, he failed in his attempts to with
draw his deposits, it appears that Mr..
Wanamaker was more favored, for be-
ginning in December. after Bardsley
| had failed in Novem Der, he continued
withdrawing his firms deposits from
the bank until March, 1891, when, hav-
ing withdrawn everything, the bank
was closed by the comptroller's orders.
| Compare with the admissions of Wanna
maker this from the statement of
Bardsley:
Continuing Mr. Earisley said: "About No
| vember l. $780, notified the bank that on No
! vembcr 20, 1890, woald have to call on them
for 10000 to pay the state treasurer on No
! vember %. was not able to collect the $780,
/ OOO nor any part thereof, nor have been able
since to collect any Fart of the 1925, The
entire amount is still in the bank, or should be
there"
| This fixes November 26 as the date
beyond which Bardsley alleges that he
! was unable to withdraw his deposits,
yet it appears from Wanamaher's state
ment that it was only about this, time
that his ordinary business prudence
prompted him to begin his successful
attempt to withdraw, keeping the bank
open in the meantime for the receipt of
deposits from the uniformed public.
There is too much back of all this to
allow the success of the strenuous ef-
forts at suppression now being made.
Bardsley's accomplices may purchase
his silence at the price of prostituting
the courts to keep him out of the peni-
Tertiary after his plea of guilt4 but
when congress meets it's first duty will
be to take steps to uncover everything
that has been done by the Philadelphia
ring as far as it concerns the wreczing
of the Keystone and the official con-
duct of federal otficeholders. - St.
Louis Republic.