The daily morning journal and courier., 1899-04-18
TRI.4L OF EX-SENATOR OU4T.
Damaging Testimony Given by Com
 monwcalth's Expert Accountant.

smith, the commonwealths expert ac- | countant, was on the stand all day in
 the trial of Senator Quay, making statements of facts that are apparently damaging to the defendants side of the case. Goldsmith is the main witness for the prosecution, and it is through him that all documentary evidence is to be presented. This witness has examined the wrecked Peoples banks books thor oughly and he came into court this
 morning With a number of typewriter sheets containing figures that he. gath cred from the various books, relating mainly to the deposit of the state treas urer and the account of Senator Quay He swore to the correctness of his work and then the district attorney formally offered the paper in evidence. This was objected to by the defense on the ground that such paper was not testimony. It was insisted that the books them selves should be placed before the wit ness and his statements uttered from what he saw entered in them. The judge decided in favor of the defense. Although the defense apparently gained this point, the paper was practically in evidence, Witness Goldsmith using it's contents in framing his answers to the district attorneys questions When the Quay lawyers objected to this they were met by the judges explanation that
 while the papers could not be used as sworn evidence, the witness might use them to refresh his memory. One effect of all this was to make it certain that the case will not now go to the jury
 there having been some doubt on this point up to the decision to admit all that Goldsmith might have to say. Just before the close of the days pro- ceedings there was another ruling by Judge Riddle in favor of the defense which may have an important bearing on the future of the case. The statute Of Limitations has been pleaded time and time again by Senator Quay's law yers as bar to much of the testimony presented by the common wealth. AS Senator Quay was indicted on November IT, 1898, the two years all lowed by the statutes for prosecution would extend back only to November IT, 1S96 On this basis MT. Watson has frequently urged Judge Riddle to ex- clude mention of transactions dating back to 1886, when MT. Quay was state treasurer. The court has uniformly held, in effect, that the statute of limit ation does not affect the evidence, but does affect the crime. The district at torney pointed out that he alleged the defendants guilt during the two years the law confined him to, and to prove this the corroborative evidence of the previous years should certainly be ad- mitted Judge Riddle decided against the commonwealth. He ruled that the evidence should be confined to the con spiracy alleged, and not relate to some other conspiracy.
 It is interesting to note that there was every indication that the judge was about to rule against MT. Quay, when Mir Watson. who has a suave, persua- sive style, got in another little speech, similar to several he had made during the day, and begged the court to con- slider the point that the prosecution had so far failed to show specific conspir- acy, and this should be done before it went into the general question of con- spiracy. The judge took this view and ruled accordingly. The lawyers for the defense claim that the decision practi- cally rules out the figures prior to Mo- vember 17, 1896. MT. Rothermel says it's effect will be to prevent him from of- fering much of the evidence he hoped to present.
 All day long MT Goldsmith read out figures taken from the bank books en- bracing the various settlement periods of six months each dating back to Oc- tober 31, 1893, showing the amount of the state deposit, the amount loaned to Senator Quay during each six months, the amount of interest allowed the state treasurer for that portion of the state deposit apparently not set aside for Senator Quay's use, the amount of in terest, if any, the senator paid on his loans, and the amount of money used to purchase stock for him.
 The deposit during the years mention ed ranged from $1200,000 to $400,000 Senator Quay's loans were shown to be as great as sS66. 900 in one period of six months. Occasionally, the witness said smaller and inadequate payments of interest by Senator Quay were shown, but generally there was nothing to in- dicate that he paid for the use of the banks money. While all these figures were going in, counsel for Senator Quay
 
 the monotonous routine of questions and answers This was i'll pursuance of an understanding that the defense ob- jected to every answer, that the objec- ton was overruled and an exception noted. This is for future use in a higher court, if necessary One MT. Shields felt constrained to enter an earnest protest against the witness be- ing permitted to place a mans liberty in jeopardy by making such monstrous statements, based merely on conjecture. There is no doubt that nearly all of the expert deductions and figures were ob- tained from the red book" about which so much has been said and against the introduction of which the Quay counsel made such vehement objection.