The Indianapolis journal., 1895-10-20

ALBERT j. Beveridge Appeals to the
Hearts of the Jurors.


The closing speech for the defendant was
made by attorney Albert j. Beveridge He
began at 8 o'clock and spoke for an hour
and a quarter. His appeal for his client
was both pathetic and eloquent. His
opening remarks were in the nature of an
appeal for mercy ON behalf of the young
wife, The jury, he said, had 1t in its
power to bring desolation into her life, or
% permit her to walk hand in hand with
her husband through the unknown paths
Of the future. He referred to the mother
OF the defendant, on whose head the
horrors OF this life have already accum-
ulated- The verdict of the jury would
moan to her all there is left to live for.
or 1t would mean the opening grave of in
sanity's hideous night. The attorney went
on to define the meaning OF intent. Before
a man can intend to do a thing he must
understand what he intends to do. If a
man borrows money, believing he can pay
IT back and intending to pay il back. but
through misfortune does not. he commits
no crime. Guilty intent is absent.
Mr.. Beveridge went over the story of
the testimony and back TO the origin Of the
debt to the bank. The story. he said, was
an unspeakably sad one. The downfall OF
Theodore p. Haughey was pathetic, but ne
the convicts stripes are the wages OF his
sin The attorney preferred TO think of
him as one caught in the Niagara OF mis-
fortune. too weak and without power to
breast the current. The plea was that
Schuyler Haughey shall not be pulled into
the flood and swept to ruin for his fathers S
fault The son was but two years out of
school when he found himself working in
the glue factory with debt OF $4,000
hanging over the concern. He looked to
his father for all the business instructions
he ever received So when he stepped into
the glue business the method of obtaining
worthless paper was already deeply
beaten path When his father asked him
to secure accommodation paper he knew
that the thing had been done for years be-
fore He knew that his father. who was
was natural that Schuyler Haughey should
do what others had been doing for years.
1t must be clear. the attorney thought. 10
every honest man that at the beginning
Schuyler Haughey had not the imagination
the dream that he was committing an
offense. much less shaping his course for
the penitentiary. Alexander r. Spruance,
secretary and treasurer and director of
these corporations, got precisely the same
kind OF paper from precisely the same
kind of people in precisely the same way
for precisely the same purpose that
Schuyler Haughey got the paper. The gov
ernment showed that Alexander Spruance
had precisely the same knowledge of what
this paper was TO be used for and knew
il from He had additional knowledge that
Schuyler Haughey did not have-he knew
the exact amount OF the increasing IN
ton to Theodore p. Haughey and Schuyiof
Haughey was his fathers son.
And vet" proceeded the attorney, WHO
dares say that Alexander p. Spruance
should not have been indicted? Who dares
say that Alexander p. Spruance should not
Alexander p. Spruance is not an honest
man? No man dare say so, because he Is
an honest man. and yet the proposition OF
though Mr. Spruance did precisely the same
things and with more knowledge and less
reason. not being OF the blood Of Theodore
Schuyler Haughey should so. O monstrous
conciusioni Outraged logicl Shameful
proposition. Is justice thus partial?
Mr. Beveridge recalled the connection of
Louis c. Haughey with the two corpora
fions. For years he had done precisely the
same things with which schuyler Haughey
Is charged and yet he is not indicted But
Schuyler Haughey-why must he be made a
sacrifice: he. the younger son. who was In
school when this nesarious business begun;
the only remaining prop and support of his
aged mother. The attorney could not see
why the youngest son should be singled out
for ell the vengeance OK the prosecutor
the government had been writing the drama
OF shame, a travesty OF justice or comedy
es they d could m rtn not aane Sb d6ns nsc
arainsf Schuyler Haughey.
Mr.. Beveridge spoke OF the dereliction Of
the bank directors who failed 10 examine
All these transactions. Had they done their
duty all this would have been stopped years
before Schuyler Haughey was out OF school:
Theodore +. Haughey would have been saved
and the deposltors OF the Indianapolis Ma
tional Bank would never have lost a dollar.
Had the bank examiners, whom the law
provides for this very purpose. done their
. duty this great catastrophe would navs-
been withered ere it budded- Not one of the
hank examiners who failed 10 do his duty.
+ and not one OF the bank directors. who
. failed TO do his duty for years, Is singled
ont for prosecution. The attorney did not
say that they should be prosecuted, but he
did not think II was justice that the de-
4 fendant should suffer because the officers OF
the government and directors Of the bank
failed TO do their duty and stop this bank
lng business long before Schuyler Haughey
was out OF school
Mr. Reperidge said that the defense
knouinS it could trust an American Jury,
+ brought out the whole truth In the testl.
mony- II has shown that Schuyler Haughey
s Had only 10 do with $4,000 OF the $475.ool
{ ludebtedness, represented by paper given
4 - the bank OF all that Schuyler Hanghey
kod TO do with only 5000 came into his
>ookotnL and with this he stocked NJ hil