Iowa County democrat. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1877-1938, 1891-11-20

Jul.
When the reading Of Mr. McFetridge's .
direct examination was concluded. Mr.. /
Stark took his position in the witness
stand and read the REORGANIZATION. .
This took up no new points, and dealt |
largely with the question of convenience
to the people of the state in having money /
deposited in various places and with the /
possibility of having invested the trust
funds for the benefit of the state while |
lying idle in banks
When Mr.. Stark had finished reading.
Mr.. Bashford announced that the state
wished to call MIR. Lindemar. Of the Bank |.
of Viroqua. in the case Of the State VS.. |
Harshaw. After answering the customary
questions concerning himself and his rea- |
lions with the Bank of Viroqua, Mr.. |
Lindeman testified that the books of the |
bank were destroyed by fire last Novem-
Der. According to the witness recollection |
there was deposit in the bank of $50, 900 |
of state funds that was reduced to ST, 900 |
in June 1889 This money had been on
deposit since McFetridge was treasurer. |
The witness had spoken to Gov. Rusk |.
about it when Harsnaw came into office
and was told that it would be left in the |
bank. There was no security given by !
the bank for this money. The interest on
it was paid to Chas. Schriber |
cashier of the First National bank of |
Oshkosh, at the request of either Rusk,
Schriber or Harshaw, witness did not re-
member which. In these certificates the
space for interest, which is filed out in |
ordinary cases, was left blank !
There was no particular reason
why it was so left Witness
did not think they were ever requested .
not to fill in the rate The certificates
were entered on the books the same as any .
others.
The cross examination was conducted
by Mr.. Felker. In the years during which
state money was in the bank the partners
in the concern were witness and Gov.
Rusk, With, IS thought at that time he
was worth S25 900, but could not estimate
how much Mr.. Rusk was worth. Cues
tions leading to this testimony were OBJ.
jected to as Irrelevant but the objection
was over-ruled.
At the conclusion of Mr. Lindemans
testimony the state introduced his deposit
ton in the McFetridge case.
Mr.. Lindeman had himself arranged
with Mr.. McFetridge to get the money
in 1882, but he had previously talked the
matter over with his partner, Gov.
Rusk. The deposition of Mr.. Hy Linde-
man, son of the former witness and ex-
cashier of the Bank of Viroqua, was also
read, but set forth nothing new.
Governor Rusk's deposition came next
1t dealt largely with his official
acts, including the inspection
of the treasurer's Office required
by law. He had never paid any attention
to the subject Of the receipt of interest by
the state treasurer; did not consider that
it was any of his business. He thought it
was good plan to have the money de
posted IN various places throughout the
state. The ia lure to invest trust funds of
the state for consi lerable periods of time
was the subject of many questions,
but in general Mr. Rusk denied that
he was in any way responsible
for such failure, if it existed, In reading
the much discussed statements regarding
the purchase of the Madison city bonds
were omitted as irrelevant.
The deposition of f. l. Baker, of the
Milwaukee National bank was read by
Mr.. Bashford. He testified that it was
customary for the Milwaukee banks in
which state money was deposited to decide
among themselves what rate of interest
they would allow. These rates varied
from 81 TO 81 per cent.
The next deposition was that of Frank
G. Bigelow, cashier of the First National
bank, of Milwaukee, and he told the same
old story. This is the bank in Milwaukee
on which Mr.. McFetridge was in the habit
of checking for current disbursements.
Mr.. O'Connor did not finish reading
until few minutes before 6 O'Clock, and
Judge Newman ordered court adjourned
until 10 o'clock this morning 1t will take
at least another day to read the deposi.
tions that have been taken. A few wit
nesses will be placed on the stand here
and then the attorneys will begin their
arguments
From present indications the case will
be prolonged well into next week. Very
likely four or FIVE days will be taken up by
the arguments. Judge Newman will then
probably withhold his decision until ne
has given the case careful consideration,
and an opinion can hardly be hoped for
in less than two or three weeks.