The colored American., 1903-04-25
own = ak


in the public press, pro and cen, anent
the affairs of the late capital Savings
Bank, of this city, and it's failure, that
The COlOred American, while not Civ
ing space to details, has endeavOred to
give the facts in the case as far as it
is possible. 1t does not believe in SEN
satiOnal journalism. It's columns
have been free from a partisan policy
The name of Mr. Henry e. Baker, one
Of our best known and most enterpris-
ing young men has figured very
largely in the affairs of the bank Our
representative called on him one even
ing this week to interview him, and to
make inquiry as to the statement of
Mr.. d. b. McCary, the late cashier.
Mr.. Baker reluctantly consented to
make a statement, but said:
while | have not heSitated to eX-
plain to my friends and others, as
they have asked me about it, just how,
in my opinion, the Capital Savings
Banks books came to show a claim
against ne to the extent as published
in the papers, | have perSiStently re-
fused to discuss the matter in the
newspapers. either directly or Indirect
ly though | have been repeatedly
asked by them to do So because | felt
that newspaper controversies not only
do not settle UitGI questions, but, as a
rule. generally do more harm than
good. And my only reason now for de-
parting from that rule is that my fur
ther silence in the presence of Mr..
McCarys published statement, might
be misconstrued by some and misused
by others.
Mr. McCary's letter, published in the
last issue of The CoIOred American
and the Record, quite surprised me,
not only by its mis-statement of facts,
but by its evident purpose to give the
impression that the alleged indebted
ness held against me by the Capital
Savings Bank, had been treated by me
as 4 bona tide obligation. He was
doubtless led to make this statement
by the somewhat sensational, and
partly erroneous melange spread
before the readers of the Record
in its issue of the Sd inst.
In that article the reporter for the
Record gave one version of the current
rumor concerning my alleged Obliga-
ton to the bank, stating, among other
things, that l had been asked to give
note to cover a large debit balance
in my bank account that the account
was a disputed account, and that the
loss of some of the books of the bank
rendered it impossible to get at the
trI2 condition of said account. In his
,
the late cashier of the bank, disputes
these statements to the extent of deny
ing that he had asked me to give the
note in question, and further that any
important books of the bank were lost
or misiaid. And here's where we lock
horns.
1t must be clear to every one, how
ever, that neither the denial nor the
affirmation of these facts by Mr. Nc
Cary or myself, can move matters one
single inch towards the settlement of
the far more important question as
to whether there is any actual money
consideration behind the note which
che bank receivers hold against me,
and therefore whether said note really
represents any part of the banks as
sets. Mr.. McCary knows that the note
was given merely as a temporary adj
Justment of a disputed account, and
that It was absolutely without con-
sICeraIlOn, and has no proper place
among the banks assets. He knows
tha. the account in which that alleged
debit balance was shown extended over
a period of 12 years to July, 1900
during which time, and up to December
1902, no mention was ever made to me
by him that the account showed any
such condition as that-there being
no reason for it. He knows that when