New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-01-08
ARGUMENTS IN QUAY CASE.
WEARING ON MOTION TO REMOVE THE
TRIAL FROM LOWER COURT.
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS HELD THAT FAIR
TRIAL COULD NOT BE SECUTED IN COUNTY
corRr-roRMER DIsTRICT-ATToRNEY IN
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. RESERVED

.,,.,. cor1p NOT BE SECUTED IN COUNTY
co,-Rr-roRMER DIsTRICT-ATToRNEY IN
opposrT1oN-DEcIsIoN RESERVED.
PHILADELPHIA Jan THE Quay case. which
Soa attracted the attention Of the public
Or several weeks past was argued before
,he state Supreme Court to-day. The defend
ants In the case are NJ s. Quay, United States
senator: his son. Richard r. Quay, and the ex-
state Treasurer Benjamin F. Haywood The
onarge under which they are indicted is that Of
.orsn,racv in the misuse Of state funds for their
oun benefit and profit The came before
+be Supreme Court today on the petition OF
,he attendants for a writ OF certiorari to re-
move the case from the Court of Quarter Ses-
slons of Philadelphia, to the Supreme Court
When court opened. MISUNDERSTANDING era
ram who has been retained by Mr.. Rothermel,
,be recently elected Dstrict-Attorney as special
counsel in the case. presented a motion asking
the dismissal Of the case, on the ground of In
,ufHciency Of fact IN the averments Of the petit
toners and want Of jurisdiction Of the Supreme
Court.
Chief Justice sterret who presided with the
mil court Of seven justices, informed Mr.. Ora
ham that his motion would be considered. after
argument he'd been heard on the petition of the
defendants for writ Of certiorari
Defendants' counsel were then informed that
The Court was ready to hear argument. David T.
Watson member OF the Pittsburg bar. who has
recently been associated with the counsel for
tho defence, made the argument in support Of
the petition.
FEAR OF NOT HAVING FAIR TRIAL.
He argued at length the point that the de-
PENDANTS asked the supervisory interference of
the higher court because of the apprehension
and suspicion that they could not have fair
and impartial trial before the Philadelphia
County Court He declared that the lower court
had overruled every application made for relief,
and that Judge Finletter. who occupied the
bench in the proceedings, had shown his par
tiality to the prosecution.
Furthermore the contention was made by Mr..
Watson that the body Of the people from which
jury would be drawn has become prejudiced
through newspaper publications. hence the ap-
prehension Of prejudiced jury and the fear OF
an unfair and partial trial. He made the direct
charge that the machinery Of the District-At-
torney's office and that Of the court had been
used for political purposes, with the ultimate OBJ
feet of defeating the reelection Of one OF the
defendants as a United States Senator.
To support his contention that the Court had
been unfair he quoted from the decision of
Judge Finletter in dismissing the demurrers
entered by defendants, In which the Judge
stated that the only effect of the demurrers
was to postpone and delay a final disposition of
the case" and that such motions served no
good purpose" He Furthermore argued that
Judge Finletter permitted the District-Attorney
20 alter an Indictment after It had passed from
the hands of the Grand Jury. The change which
ne alleges was allowed to be made was that of
altering the wording to make 1t read the
moneys of the Peoples Bank" instead Of the
moneys Of the State" originally appeared In
the Indictment. This permitted irregularity.
Mr. Watson claimed, was all sufficient TO show
the partiality Of the Court.
Another point raised by the attorney was that
Judge Finletter had dismissed the demurrer to
one Of the indictments which charged conspir-
acy on the part of Senator Quay with Cashier
John S Hopkins TO the money OF the Peo-
ple's Bank for the purchase Of stocks. No crime
was charged in this indictment, Mr.. watson
urged because the charter Of the bank grant
ed to il by the State permitted the bank TO
purchase stocks and bonds" No law had been
violated. counsel contended. by the acts charged
in this indictment.
WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE REMOVED.
x-District-Attorney Graham followed Mr..
Watson in speaking In opposition to the grant
Ing of the writ. Mr.. Graham argued that the
issuance Of writ of certiorari should be exer-
csed only in extraordinary and unusual cases,
and the Court to exercise interference with
lower court should be presented with most I'M
portant and conclusive reasons why such inter
ventiOn should ensue. If such writs were ire
Quently granted every case in which delay was
sought would be taken into the Supreme Court
70 obtain the desired delay.
The question before this court, said Mr.. era
ham was not that of the possibility OF fair or
unfair trial, but was whether wealth ana power
could defeat or defy the wheels of justice Not
a line in the petition Of the defendants merlted
the consideration Of this court, or would warrant
the interference prayed for in the petition. To
derr,op sfr fp lie
not made in good faith. but was filed with the
object Of delaying the proceedings MT Graham
stated that at the time the petition pre-
pared the cause for some of the complaints con-
tanned therein had been already removed. Two
Of the Judges attacked In the petition were
Judges Gordon and Finletter AT the time the
petition was prepared which averred partial
action on the part of these two members OF the
court Judge Gordon had retired from the bench
by resignation and Judge Finletter had rstired
from the Court of Quarter Sessions to his duties
IN the oyer and Terminer Court This case
was TO be tried by a judge whose unsullied repu-
tation had never been attacked, even by the
defendants, and therefore the cause OF fear of
prejudced trial did not exist
In reference to the averment or the petitioners
that the proceedings against the defendants had
been founded in malice and were the result or a
conspiracy against them Mr. Graham said that
no Information was presented by the petitioners
70 Justify such a serious allegation. he mad oc-
cupied the office of Distrct-Attorney, he said,
FOR eighteen years. and had never violated his
trust, and he had entertained no intention or
violating II at the end of this long term lie
would have violated his trust had he refused
10 prosecute the defendants, the evidence
which had been laid before him. Because the
defendants attorneys declared that their clients
were not guilty was sufficient reason why
the should be taken out Of the hands
OF an honorable Court Continuing. Mr.. era
ham said that these delaying proceedings were
brought so that 1.-The defendants. guilty as they
are, shall escape the consequences Of their GRIM
!naity"
Mr. Graham concluded his argument with the
citation OF laws and precedents to sustain his
contention that the case had not reached
stage in the lower court where the Supreme
Court could take upon itself the jurisdiction OF
the case
Rufus f. Shapley, OF counsel for the defence.
Followed Mr. Graham and combated the lat
ters arguments respecting the jurisdiction or