The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-04-21

ment; second. demurrer TO the evidence
AS to the first he would say nothing, as
no was not in position to discredlt tho
testimony offered by the comm ,v~ealth
and he would therefore allow the case 10
60 to the Jury for them TO decide
There was a huzs OF conversation In the
court room over this decision adverse TO
the defense and then the Quay lawyers got
together for a consultation. AT the con
clusion OF this whispered talk Attorney
Shields made an announcement that the
defense would offer no testMsony what
ever and would at once proceed TO address
the jury. In order TO save time Mr.,
Shields offered TO waive the right TO make
the opening speech N the district attor-
ney agreed he said he would allow the
district attorney TO 30 right on with his
speech and he would follow. MI this was
agreeable to the parties concerned and Mr..
Ro,herrel at once started, In 4 calm, quiet
manner his attempt to convince the jury
that he was establishing the guilt OF sena-
tor QUAY.
The district attorney, IN opening. re-
viewed the charges against Mr., Quay and
read the law on the subject. The crime,
he said. was that Of conspiracy. and being
born in secrecy was therefore difficult to
prove. II must Invariably be proved by
The acts OF the conspira, ors, as IL IS al
most impossible 10 get The statement of
on, of the conspirators, owing to the TO-
lstton Of Mr.. Quay politically TO State
Treasurer Haywood He Indicated that
II the state treasurer received interest
from tho rsshier and Mr.. Quay the in
terest on 100000 from tho chief, the nat
ural inference Is that these mc1 have en-
tered into = conspiracy. There might be
no direct evidence. he said but there
should be no doubt thar tho conspiracy
war conceived and carried out.
Mr. Rothermcl read Mr.. Quay's letter
TO Cashier Hopkins directing the purchase
Of 900 shares ~ Metropolitan stock; Thls,
he argued, was unlawful because the pur-
chase was made with sank money and no
interest wss charged lie supposed by tho
evidence that the State deposit during the
six months ending October 81, 1897 ranged
from S5250Dn 10 over $500 600 anA that
other loans were made to Mr.. Quay with
out interest. The check OF Hopkins to
Treasurer Haywood for $3.50 was de-
stroyed, Mr. Rothermel said the banks
books showed this amount was the 10 torest
on 100000 for the use of MIR Quay. The
red book" nc designated as unintelligihio
in Itself but, connected with tho other
books OF the bank, he asserted tina 1t was
the key 10 the proof of tho charges He
went over certain entries sworn TO by Mr.
Goldsmith, his expert 10 disclose tho fast
that the defendant and Haywood were
paid State deposits by Cashier Hopkins.
The entries IN the red book" were eluci-
dated To the Jury and their connection with
Senator Quay's account and transactions
explained. The district attorney laid great
stress on the fact that tho red book
came into existence In 1891 concdent with
the passage OF the law creating state bank
examiners, from whom ne argued, Hop
kins was to keep the Illicit transactions
secret,
He called the jury's attention TO The
memorandum paper found in Cashier Hop
kns desk, which he claimed indicated
that the loan appropriated by Hopkins to
pay Interest on State funds to Haywood,
and was therefore further circumstantisl
proof OF the conspiracy. The district At
torncy, concluding. referred to the reso.
lutfg OF he board of directors on August
~, 1896. authorizing o loan of 800 1pj,
alleged TO he Endorsed by MIR. Quay, pro-.
yided a certain letter could be Obtained
He then read the Haywood letter 10
President McMsnes OF the bank indlcat-
ing that 100000 of State money would 30
deposited In the bank If r r Quay was
loaned a similar amount aud that It would
not be removed until the loan was paid
After a short recess a. s. Shields began
his argument TO the Jury.
At the outset he took up the fact that
the case of the prosecution was built on
the testimony OF three OF the experts and
quoted an opinion OF the supreme court
that he tendency is to call experts TO tes-
tify to ready made opinions.
This ho declared was n prophecy COW
ering the case in remarkable way. Mr..
Shields dwell on cX-judge Gordon's COM
ncctlon with the prosecution and de-
nounced his actions in unmeasured terms.
/ II argued that the political conspiracy
/ against Mr. Quay was begun when Judge
! Gordon got from the receivers OF the
! hrf4 100 4
| in the dead cashiers private desk and
kept them in his possession for months,
/ He went over the improper use made OF
these documents IN fnrtherance of his po-
itical ambition and his hatred of Senator
Quay.
Mr.. Shields denounced the photograph
I ing of the letters and the exhibition OF
/ those photographs TO Democratic National
! Committeeman Guffey and John Wanna
1 maker as proof positive OF the conspiracy
| for the undolng OF Senator Quay.
| The speaker took up the bill of indict-
ment which ne said charged the misuse
of public funds and dared any member OF
the jury in defiance of his conscience 10
render a decision against the defendant.
| He turned TO the letters Of Quay to Hop
kins. which, he said, all explained them
eeives. They represented ordinary bust
ness transactions and he pointed out that
whenever Quay wrote Hopkins to buy
stock or make payments on his account
the books showed that the senator had
ampe money IN the bank In his own name
TO cover the transactions
Mr.. Shields took w the plum tree tele-
gram an1 directed his most whitening sal .
casm against the su allness Of zoe mind
of The men VINO would use this document
against public man IN view Of the TACT
that Senator Quay had more than $50 ,0U0
OF his own money on deposit and $4,000
OF this was used as margin in the tranaac-
ton,
Taking the regular books OF the Peopis's
bank. Sir Shields said Il was In eYidenet
that Senator Quay never knew OF line
OF their contents. lie further said the
prosecutions own expert had been forced
TO admit that the books contained fictitious
figures and fictitious accounts. Mr.. Shields
argued that this decision destroyed tho
value Of the books as testimony against
Senator Quay. Expert Goldsnith's testi-
mony was denounced as false, and coun
sci exclaimed dramatically that Ponnsyl-
yania was compelled to witness the spec
tacle OF this man being put forward 70
despoil her escutcheop and destroy ne
honor" II this WAS not political CON