The Madison daily leader. [volume] (Madison, S.D.) 1890-current, 1893-01-11
The Wisconsin Supreme Court De.
cides the Celebrated Interest
Cases.
It Holds That the Treasurers Must
Return the Money Received as
Interest.
The Decision Puts Over Half a Mil.
lion Dollars Into the State
Treasury.

case indeed was that which has just
ended, when the supreme court affirmed
the decision of the circuit court giving
judgment against three Republican
treasurers for $525, 900, interest on public
funds pocketed by the treasurers.
Scandal upon scandal has grown out
of the case, involving the names of men
of national reputation. 1t was in this
case in which Congressman LaFollette,
the young Republican leader, charged
publicly over bis own signature, United
States Senator Sawyer with offering him
money to influence Judge Sebecker, the
judge before whom the case was tried.
The court is unanimous in the decision.
The cases affected by the decision are
those against Richard Guenther, present
consul general to Mexico, who was state
treasurer from 1878 to 1881 inclusive;
Edward G. McFetridge, from 1889 to
1886 inclusive, and Henry B. Harshaw
from 1887 to lS90f
According to the decision the state is
entitled to recover from each of the
three ex-state treasurers az follows:
Richard Guenther, $1SS,000.
Edward c. McFetridge, $s07, ,652.6
FL. q. Harshaw. $12y, $3.50.
Total, $515, ,35l.56.
The Bondsmen.
The bondsmen of Henry B. Harshaw
are p. Sawyer, Samuel NJ. Hay, Robert
Mcmillan, Joseph FL. Porter, Moses
Hooper, Charles B. Clark, r. B. Kellogg
and 8. Hollister.
The bondsmen of McFetridge are
John T. Smith, John s. Rowell, George
FL. Congdon, S. P. K. Lewis, T. L:
Newton, Andrew Millard, F. M. War
rem, George Herlens, J. J. Galliker,
William Stanley and Ephraim Mariner.
Senator Sawyer was chief bondsman
for Richard Guenther, and both under
auenther and Harshaw Charles
Schriber, the cashier of Mr.. Sawyer's
bank, was financial adviser to the
treasurer and collector of the interest
moneys.
History Of the Cases.
The suit against McFetridge was COM
menced by, Service of summons and COM
plant Freb. "a, 1891.
The Harshaw suit was commenced
May 2S. In both cases the court grant
ed an order for the request of the state
for an order to disclose the amountinter-
est so that the complaint of the state
might demand judgment for the full
amount.
McFetridge admitted the receipt of
large sums of money from the banks, as
''gratuities," but refused to call it in
10. fha rAo lat
the statement of the amounts was given.
Mr.. Harshaw declared that he had
not loaned any funds or received any
interest when put upon the stand for
examination. Later, when Charles
Schriber, his financial agent, who had
at first refused to testify, weakened
under threat OF proceedings for con.
tempt of court, and gave notice that he
should go on the stand and made a
clean breast of the matter. Mr.. Har.
shaw changed his mind and testified to
the arrangement for the loaning oi
the funds, but claimed that the
interest received was set aside as a fund
out of which to pay possible losses, and
declared that if there was anything lef,
it belonged to him. 1t also developed
that he had drawn a large share of the
money from Mr.. Schriber, making q
blind of promissory notes, none oi
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
court, was called on to preside at the
trial, and the cases were heard in Mad.
ison in November, 1901. Jan. 1S 1899
Judge Newman fled nis decision giving
judgment for the state and supporting
1t by a lengthy opinion. The cases were
appealed to the fupreme court and were
argued and submitted to that tribunal
- in August last.
CrPmaEpd by Rnhhara.