Omaha daily bee., 1897-06-22

tall and in closing said
ASKS FOR JUSTICE.
an one puts his hand in your pocket and
takes 500 he Is tackled by an officer rushed
on to prison speedily tried and the door OK
the penitentiary swings open to receive him.
Shall II be less criminal to take 5000 900
Shall we have one law for the poor and
friendless and another for the rich and in
huential2 What respect can n community
have for Itself that puu.shes those who steal
800 and let's 20 unwhipped Of justice those
who steal 5000 900? Does a crime merge into
virtue as the amount taken Increases?
The very paper used as the instrument OF this
crime cries out for even-handed justice In
this case. Here on its face is the motto OF
our state In whose sentiment we so much
delight, Equality before the law" Is it
to be only a sentiment or shall 1t be a guide
for our aCtiors2 You can not ClOthG crime
in the habiments OF respectability and make
1t a virtue. You can not surround criminal
with an air OF sentimentality and make him
moral hero a crime is a crime, where
soever, whcI soever and by whOmsocver COM
mitted Let it not be said that here there
is protection for the defauter because Of
his former wealth or political influence. Let
IT NOT be said that man can find immunity
from punishment here because of the high
class OF his crime or his former respecta-
bility. If you acquit for these reasons you
will lay low the majesty of the law by such
verdict. You will make her positive and
peremptory mandates the idle words Of
heretofore acknowledged authority. You Will
deprive her of that respect which she vol
unfairly commands from all good citizens
who love the peace and well being of their
beloved country.
Gentlemen this is not my case Ii Is the
peoples case 1t is your case. The eyes Of
this state are upon you, their anNieties are
with you, their voice calls to you for JUS
tice know you will obey your oath, your
duty. your conscience and their voice My
most fervent prayer to the God of all JUS
tice and truth is that you may so decide
this case as to preserve to yourselves while
you live the most delightful OF all reCol-
lections, that of acting justly, and to trane-
NIT to your children the most precious of
all inhertances, the memory of your
virtue"
NO CRIMINAL INTENT.
The county attorney was followed by T. ].
Mahoney for the defendant. In his opening
Mr.. Mahoney charged that the defendant
had never been accused formally, of en-
bezzling the proceeds of the warrant, but
throughout the whole case the state lad
proceeded along a line which involved the
disposition of the proceeds OF the warrant.
and he charged that this constituted II cause
OF action entirely different from the crime
charged against the defendant.
He read the warrant in question and called
the attention Of the jury TO the fact that
Bartley's signature on the warrant was fol-
lowed by the words state treasurer" in
Bartley's handwriting and he claimed that
this showed that there was no criminal in
tent in drawing the warrant
Mr. Mahoney asked the jury to not allow
it's prejudices to be played upon by the at
torneys for the state but to calmly pass
upon the facts presented for its cOnsidera-
tion and give the defendant the benefit of
any doubt which might be created by the
testimony.
The next stage Of Mr.. Mahoney's argu-
ment was devoted to an analysis of the tes-
timony. After commenting on the circum
stances Immediately surrounding the en-
terng up OF the proceeds of the warrant,
Mr.. Mahoney explained why the money de-
rived from this warrant was not credited to
the sinking fund or any other state fund by
referring to the letter of Attorney General
Hastings and saying that the addition of
the $3.50 101.75 to the sinking fund when
the fund was already carrying the amount
In the Capital National bank, would make
a double entry of the same amount. He
said this necessitated carr ying this money
in fund by itself and he said it was so
carried. He said If it appeared that he had
carried the money in a way that indicated
that he had not attempted to convert it then
there was no ground for a charge of en-
bezlement. He said it made no difference
whether this amount was included in set
tlement with his succecsor or whether he
was settled with his successor, he could
not be tried in this case on such charge.
CHECKED HIS OWN MONEY.
The main question, he declared was
whether BARLEY had treated the money as
his own as the money of the state. He
then commented on the entries in Bartleys
personal account in the Omaha National
bank, calling attention to the entries of de-
poSits other than the one of $3.50 t01 10, and
the entries of checks drawn against that
account. He argued from the standponl
that there was no proof that the checks
against this account, other than those intro
duced by the defense, had been drawn
or hn Cd hat,
there was nothing to show that these checks
had not been paid out of the money placed
In his personal account at other times than
when he deposited the proceeds of the war
rant
Commenting upon the transaction by
which the defense claimed Barley had
transferred $4,000 to the general fund
from his private funds and which the state
claims was never put in the general fund
Mr.. Mahoney referred to the account of
BARLEY as state treasurer with the First Ma
tional bank of Lincoln and showed the Jury
the entry of $4,000, and then essayed to
show that this money WAS accounted for by
checks on the Lincoln bank transferring a
similar account to various state repositories
He claimed that it was certain that by
this transaction the state got $50 900 of
Bartley's money, regardless of whether the
money In the Lincoln bank was treated as
the states money or his own.
Taking up the matter Of the Otoe county
bonds Mr.. Mahoney admitted that the books
showed that the purchase OF these bonds
was charged against the permanent school
fund, but he said the testimony showed
that the entries on the books OF the treas
urers office were made from the records
OF the Board of Educational Lands and
Funds, and not from any information given
by Bartey.
BARTLEY'S GREAT ANXIETY.
Taking up the transaction testified to by
Banker liarwood of the Lincoln First Ma
tional, Mr. Mahoney explained this transac-
tion by telling how anxious BARLEY was to
keep the SlSO,lOl.75 by itself, and separate
from the other funds of the state. He said
BARLEY had demanded that this be made
special deposit, and that he be given Sc
curity for the amount. He said the only
feeling actuating BARLEY at that time was
to keep the money safely. lie asserted
that the $4,000 for the Otoe county bonds
was paid out of this deposit, and the state
got that much of the money at that time
lie also claimed that the $4,000 of Saunders
county bonds were paid for from Bartley's
private funds, shown by the Testimony
of eX-Deputy Bartlett, and as shown by In,
checks which had not been admitted In
evidence.
In conclusion MIR, Mahoney asserted that
every cent Of money in the First National
OF Lincoln was state money, aud wherh-.
BARLEY had committed a crime by putting
II there had nothing to do with the case
when a settlement Is made between part