Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1891-06-27
MANY HOURS OF TALK
In the Argument of the Celebrated
Penn Bank Case Yesterday.
SPICY ASSERTIONS AND QUERIES.
A Turtle Greek Firm Runs Up Against Some
Financial SnagS.
YESTERDAY IN TIE VARIOUS COURTS


before Judges Ewing and White all yester-
day. The opening argument was made by
n. f. Patterson, who took up the thread
where H. A. Miller finished on Wednesday.
He enGeavored to show that in the interval
elapsing between the closing Wednesday,
Nav 25, and the reopening, Friday, May "a,
there were evidences of President Riddle
untrustworthiness of so remarkable char
acter as to render it impossible that he
should be longer continued in authority by
men of even the slightest caution.
In reference to the meeting of the Penn
Bank directors and a number of outside
prominent bankers on "Wednesday evening
after the closing of the bank, Mr.. Patterson
said: There werC present such men as A.
NJ. Byers, Charles a. Speer, and when Mr..
Riddle, as Mr. Byers subsequently testified,
was asked for statement, he produced one,
in which, among other assets mentioned,
were bills receivable to the amount of $685.
600; cash on hand, S1S7 900, and moneys
subject to check from other banks, $3.50, ,000
From this statement the outside bankers
could not discover that the institution was
in need of more than $780, 600 or $500, 600.
Needed for a Possible Contingency.
sIn spite of all this Mr.. Riddle asked for
S5OO,O or s6cO, O,0OO while only 100000
seemed necessary. Mr.. Riddle explained
that he might need it for possible con-
tingencv. The outside bankers advanced
S2S9. 600 and in making it required the in
dorsement of the individual directors as
security, and it was reluctantly given.
While only the interests OF 200 depositors
were at stake the directors took their ease,
-. but when they became indorsers their own
were involved and it was not until then
that they began the investigation.
"Thev explored the vaults. Instead of
there being 1858, 600 Of bills receivable, as
thew had been assured, they found but
S453, 900 bills receivable and not cent of
ready cash. nor were the bills receivable
considered of good character
The speaker said he confessed he could
- not see why the suspicious of the directors
were not aroused after hearing the state
ment of Mr.. Riddle and finding that he had
lied. Yet they opened the doors on Friday
with Mr. Riddle in full charge. If they
did not suspect anything wrong, he said, it
was simply marvellous
D. T Watson opened the case for the
directors He stated in opening that two
not guilty of negligence, yet
decisions as a bar or advantage to the
present proceedings. Perhaps" he said,
''it is equity to punish men who are bowed
with age, because years ago over a million
dollars was stolen by man in whom they
had for years placed their confidence. 1t is
easy TO see after the lapse of years where
mistakes were made or prevented. But the
law does not require that in 1888 or in May,
1884, the directors of the Penn Bank
should know William W. Riddle as they
know him now. They were not alone the
victims of the deception. The whole pub
lie was. Were they guilty of negligence in
not knowing Riddle 10 have thieved? The
entire public esteemed him. ''Why was it
that when the bookkeeper, the cashier, the
assistant teller of the institution knew for
months of the Presidents defalcation that
they die not give the information to the
directors p
An interruption by the Court.
Judge Ewing interrupted the speaker
with: "Mr. Watson, as matter of fact, if
you had been a director would not your
suspicious have been aroused by the Presi-
dent statements in the newspapers when
compared with the ones furnished the direc-
tors"
Mr.. Watson-Oh, Your Honor, 1 cannot
affirm with certainty that they would.
Judge Ewing-I am positive, sir, that
mine would.
A recess was here taken. At l o'clock
Mr.. Watson resumed his argument He re-
lated how Mr.. Riddle had worked for the
Penn Bank with devotion, till, through
his instrumentality alone, its deposits in
creased from S37 900 to 81, SOC, 900; how when
he was general bookkeeper he had reported
President Hopkins for making an overdraft;
how he reported director, Mr.. Hutchison,
Cor attempting to make one, and how he was
offered the Treasurership of the United
States.
Judge Ewing remarked that he did not
believe Mr.. Riddle had been offered the
honor and that he thought the report merely
a current one and not founded.
Mr. Watson continued with a recital of
how Nr. Riddle became Il proyerb of
strict honesty and, above all, of self-sacri-
1icing devotion toduty, and how any director
might accept his statements as true sir
Watson then took up the matter
relative to the fictitious accounts
kept by Mr. Riddle, and which was allowed
by the general bookkeeper. The entries in
these fictitious accounts, the speaker said,
''madc a difference in the banks standing of
about $500 600. To secure cash for the
counter at one visit of the auditing commit
tee, / am informed that Mr.. Reiber sent his
check u the WOrkingmen's Deposit Com
pany, got it cashed and then had plenty of
money to show. 1t was 10 wonder the COM
Tnittec was deceived, the money was there
before them. Every officer in the bank was
in collusion to deceive the directors
and auditing committee, and yet
were the directors or the commit
tee presumed to know this? We tried TO
get the oil of accounts Mr. Riddle. He
was in New York and despite all our efforts
We could not get them; otherwise we could
have saved money TO the bank.
When the Thefts Were Made.
'The thefts from the bank were made
from May 10 TO July /, 1883. Between those
dates the money went out and in that short
time how could the directors learn of it or
that the officers of the bank were all in
league to effect the robbery. Under the oil
resolution of 1880 not dollar was lost and
what is there in the resolution to let the
directors infer that Mr. Riddle would rob
the bank"
In regard to the overdrafts, the speaker
said they were regulated by an
ingenious individual ledger that
contained the entries also of
the fictitious accounts. Mr.. Watson pro-
duced the ledger and handed it to Judge
Ewing, remarking: 81 do not think you
will at first understand it. / have studied |
1t for year, and it is not yet clear"
In regard to the assertion that the sus-
picions of the directors should have been
aroused by the difference in the published
statements in the papers and those given to
the directors of the condition of the bank. |
the speaker said that there was no evidence |
that the attention of the directors had been |