The Van Buren press., 1893-01-14

Three Well-knOwn Citizens OF WtacOnsin
who, Between Them, Pocketed Over
Halt Million Dollars In Interest ON
state Moneys while Holding tho ONCE
Of state Treasurer, Required, by DE.
ctsion of the state supreme Court, to
Disgorge.
MADISON, Wis, Jan. ia celebrated
case, indeed. is that just ended. when
the supreme court affirmed the decision
OF the circuit court, giving Judgment
against three state treasurers for $780,
OOO interest on public funds poclleted
by the trcasurers
The court was unanimous in the de-
cision.
The eases affected by the decision
are those against Richard Guenther,
present consul general to Mexico, who
was state treasurer from 1878 to 1881
inclusive; Edward c. McFetridge, from
1882 to 1856 inclusive, and Henry Il.
Harshaw. from 1857 to 1870.
According to the decision the state
is entitled to recover from each of the
three eX-state treasurers as follows:
From Richard Gusnther.......... IS $4,000 90
From Ward c, McFelriige .l ,65s Cd
From II. u. Harshaw. 1a9,83S w
Tosal',.... .,.....s...,..........s i'5,3 3D.
The bondsmen Of Henry b. llarshaw
are Philetus Sawyer Samuel NJ. Hay,
Robert Mcmillan, Joseph H. Porter,
Moses II Hooper, Charles B. Clark, Il. i.
Kellogg and Seymour Hollister.
The bondsmen of McFetridge are
John r. Smith, John s. Rowell. George
B. Congdon, S. p. X. Lewis, Il. l.. New
ton, Andrew Willard, +. NJ. Warren,
George Mertens, J. J. Gallilser, William
Stanley and Ephraim Mariner.
Senator Sawyer was chief bondsman
for Richard Guenther and both under
Guenther and llarshaw. Charles
Schriber, the cashier of Mr.. Sswycr's
bank, was financial adviser TO the
treasurer and collector Of the interest
moneys.
The suit against MeFetridge was
commenced by service of summons aud
complaint February ~, 1891. less than
two months after the Journal COM
mcnced the fight.
| The liarshaw case was commenced
| May II, 1891. In both cases the court
granted an order for the examination
for the defendants under the statute at
| the request Of the state, in order to dis
close the amount OF interest received.
so that the complaint of the state might
demand Judgment for the full amount.
Mr.. McFetrdge admitted the receipt
of large sums of money from the bank,
us ssgratuities," but refused to call it
interest or TO specify the amounts.
Later the statement of the amounts
was given. Mr.. Harsaw declared that
he had not loaned any funds or re-
ceived any interest when put upon the
stand for examination. Later when
Charles Schriber, his financial agent,
who had at first refused to testify, weak
ened under threat of proceedings for
contempt of court, and gave notice that
he should go on the stand and make q
clean breast OF the matter, Mr. Har-
shaw changed his mind and testified to
the arrangement for the loaning Of the
funds. but claimed that the interest re-
ceived was set aside as a fund out OF
which to pay possible losses, and de-
clared that if there was anything left
it belonged to him. 1t also developed
that he had drawn a large share of the
money from Mr.. Schriber, making a
blind of promissory notes. none OF
which were ever paid.
Shortly before the cases were to come
to trial Judge Siebecker declared that
certain things had come to his knowl.
edge which would prevent him from
giving them an impartial trial Judge
Newman of the Sixth circuit was called
on to preside at the trial, and the
cases were heard at Madison in Novem-
Der, 1891.
January IS, 1892, Judge Newman filed
his decision, giving judgment for the
state and supporting it by lengthy
opinion. The cases were appealed to
the supreme court and were renewed
and submitted to that tribunal on Au'