Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1898-11-29

PROPOSITIONS UNDER ADVISE
MENIT But GIVES NO INTIMA-
TON AS TO WHEN A DECISION
WILL BID RENDERED-QUAY'S
ATTORNEYS HOLD THAT THE
MONEY QUAY BORROWED DID
NOT BELONG TO THE STATE, BUT
TO THE BANK, AND THAT ALL
TRANSACTIONS WEIRD LEiITI-
MATE.
Philadelphia, Pa, November Is
United States Senator Quay, his son.
Richard r. Quay, and Former State
Treasurer Haywood did not plead to-
day TO the five indictments charging
them with conspiracy and the unlawful
use of the State funds in the Peoples
Bank. They did not even appear in
court, but their lawyers, Rufus f. Shap-
ley and A. S. L. Shields. went before
Judge Finletter and presented demur-
rers to four of the indictments and
motion to Quash the fifth.
Upon conclusion of the arguments of
Messrs. Shapley and Shields and the
reply of District Attorney Graham. the
court took the papers under advise
ment He did not intimate when he
would announce his decision on the
motions presented.
There was a lengthy argument and
the court reserved it's decision. Should
this, when announced, be unfavorable
TO the defendants, they will be arraign-
ed to plead and the date of trial will
be definitely fixed
The chief point in the argument for
the defense appeared to be that when
State money was deposited in a bank,
it ceased to be State money and be-
| came the personal property of the bank.
It was admitted that the funds were
deposited in the Peoples Bank as al
legged, but it was contended If bur-
glar had stolen that money he would
have taken the banks money and not
| that of the State. This simile was
used to prove that If the defendants
| borrowed the money they secured the
banks money and not the States.
This point on general principle was
| considered by the district attorney, but
he declared that the intent is the vital
| thing in otherwise lawful acts. and
cited several cases to demonstrate it.
The second chief point urged by the
defense was that the indictments did
not show the means used TO carry out
the alleged conspiracy.
| When the proceedings opened the
court room was packed and many
| would-be spectators were turned away.
District Attorney Graham made the
| simple announcement that the COM
| monwealth was ready TO go on with
the case. Mr.. Shapley promptly arose
| and submitted the demurrers, follow
| ing with his argument thereupon. He
| began by saying it was through no
| fault of the district attorney that the
| indictments were faulty. conceding
| that they were carefully drawn. He
| argued that it was the fault Of the
| case. He declared that there was no
| averment that the commonwealth of
| Pennsylvania or the Peoples Bank had
| ever been defrauded out Of a single dol
| lar, or that it had ever entered into
| the mind Of anybody TO defraud either
| the State or the bank. He continued
| that there was no act that was an I'M
lawful act, and stated that there was
no allegation Of an intention to de-
fraud the Peoples Bank. He could
not even see any pretense that an un-
lawful act had been done He ar
gued that Senator Quay mas the same
right TO borrow money and purchase
stocks as any one else. giving proper
security and on his personal standing.
Hence he advocated that there could
be no conspiracy to do what there is z
legal right to do.
Mr. Graham began his reply by tax
ing up this Contention. He said the
question was whether the grand jury
was right in finding the bill which IL
is sought 10 quash. The defense had
argued that the loaning Of money on
the part Of Haywood was a statuary
offence. The warrant Of arrest did not
charge him with this specific crime.
Mr. Graham explained the laws upon
indictments as framed He declared
that it was not question Of principal.
bur on notice and that Haywood had
ample notice Of the charges against
him from the magistrates return. He
explained how the counts in indict-
ments were prepared and cited several
cases TO sustain his opinion Of the
legality Of the Indictment 50 far as the
specific charge went.
The bill charging Senator Quay with
conspiring with John S. Hopkins,
cashier Of the Peoples Bank, to unlaw-
fully buy and sell stock through him,
(Hopkins), was next taken up. Mr..
Graham cited the act Of assembly pro-
hibiting the cashier Of a bank from
specializing In stocks He charged
that ouay's stock dealings with Hop
kins with a full knowledge Of his (Hog-
kinssb position as cashier.
The man who IL the custodian Of
other peoples money should not be
subject to the temptations Of the stock
market, and II was to protect deposit
tors that the Law was passed, and that
law Is applicable to this case
He declared that Hopkins's deals in
stocks we're for Quay's benefit either
in whole or part.
After going over the most important
parts Of Mr. Shapley's Arguments Nr.
Graham asked that the motion to
szet ke sfrf1, -