The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-06-10
NOT WITH
A HOW|TzER
Can the State Get Any
Material Evidence
Before
THE STEVENS JURY.
Pierce Buffers Wall Of
Objections Impreg-
nable.
NOTHING GETS THROUGH.
Anderson Tells the Court
It's Becoming a
Farce.
NOTHING GETS THROUGH.

Judge Lewis and Jury spent thA
better part of yesterday in watching
County Attorney Anderson trying To
introduce some evidence in the case OF
Congressman Frederick G. Stevens
who, as president of the Minnesota
Savings bank, is indicted for convert
ing $4,000 Of the funds of the institu-
ton to his own use in violation of the
banking law. When night came the
prosecuting attorney hadn't accom-
plished any headway and seems will
in to give up.
AS matter Of fact, there was but
little evidence which County Attorney
Anderson presented that was taken
ccgn1zance Of by the court The i'm
preston has gone forth that Congress-
man Stevens and his attorneys were
Wa1vlng all technicalities, and were
only interested in a speedy trial and
an acquittal by the jury, which. ac-
cord1ng to the statements of the de-
fendant and his legal defenders, was d
foregone conclusion. This might have
been the case, Tuesday. during the Sc
lection of jury, but, to a person not
we'll versed in the laws of evidence and
lacking judicial mind, it was appar-
ent, yesterday, that there were no per-
t1nent questions asked any OF the wit
nesses, which would throw light on
Mr.. Stevens connection with the bank.
that were not opposed by the attorney
for the defense. The arguments adj
Vanced by Pierce Butler who repre-
sents Mr.. Stevens, were that there was
no objection to the introduction If
ioI,
under the laws of evidence but. for
some reason, the county attorney AMI
the attorney for the defense had Diff
erent views as to what was the best
evidence, and how it should be pre-
sented to the court and the jury.
A peculiar feature of the trial was
that two of the witnesses called by the
state to prove that Mr.. Stevens was an
officer of the Minnesota Savings bank
had their attorneys present and. on
the advice of these gentlemen, refused
to answer questions on the ground
that it might lead to discriminating
themselves. This position taken by
the two witnesses and the ruling of the
court, that they could not take ad-
vantage of the question of privilege
and need not answer if it would tend tn
crlmlnate them, left County Attorney
anderson without any pegs to hang
the allegations in the indictment on.
TWO hours the county attorney spent
in vain effort to prove by William
r. Blckel, Alfred S. Kittson, Edward
+. He1nlein and Jacob Hammer that
Mr.. Stevens was trustee of the Min
nesota Savings bank, and, as such. had
participated in meetings Of the board
OF trustees of the institution A book
min
the bank, purporting to contain the
minutes of the meetings of the board Of
trustees for the past seven years was
used by the prosecuting attorney 10
prove that Mr. Stevens was trustee
and officer of the bank and had AZ
meetings shown by said records. taken
part in the deliberations of the tr,1s-
tees. The defense, however fought
against the testimony Of the witnesses
who were not afraid of eliminating
themselves and would talk. being al
lowed to testify that Mr.. Stevens was
a trustee of the bank. Mr.. Butler held
that the witnesses drew their own con-
clusions as to this allegation. and, be-
fore they were allowed to answer put
them through a cross-examination
which brought out the fact that on
their own personal knowledge they
were not certain that he was a trustee
of the bank.
When it came to the offer of the
minute book by the state there was
another argument. Mr. Butler objected
again. The book, he said, was not in
the handwriting of Mr.. Stevens, and
there was no evidence to show that
1t had not been written up since the
indictment had been returned. There
was no evidence to show that Mr..
Stevens had ever seen the book and
no proof that the purported writing
had not been copied from other pa
pers.
Mr. Anderson contended that it was
a book of the bank kept in the bank,
and as such was competent evidence
and presumed to be a true record. Just
the same as a ledger or other bookssof
the bank were. Mr.. Butler insisted
that he knew of no law which made q
book competent evidence. The law
was that the entries must be original
ones and the oath of somebody must
support the books.
The court announced that he was in
clined to the opinion that the state
should present stronger evidence than
MI. Anderson had introduced to sup
port his offer.
This ruling of the judge led up TO
the sensational feature of the days pro-
ceedings. County Attorney Anderson
informed the court that the state could
go no farther. as the only men who
coJ-ld tell as to the minutes Of the
board Of trustees, aside from the testi-
mony OF Heinlein and Hammer, were
William F. Bickel and A S. xittson
Both of these gentlemen had refused
to answer questions on the ground that
it might tend to criminate them
selves. In this they had been upheld
by tbs ruling of the court. The only
ott.~< witnesses who might be called
to prove the fact that the defendant
was trustee of the bank, were John
ContinS = ON Fourth Page.