The Portland daily press., 1899-04-15
The RID BOOK MAY GO IN
Evidence In Quay Trial
Indicates.

Philadelphia, April 14.-Persistent.
keen and brilliant argument between Dis
triot Attorney Rothermel on the one side,
Mefsrs. Watson, Shapley and Shields on
| the other, upon the admission of testi
mony which may 60 long way tt
establish the alleged guilt Of ex-United
States Senator Quay, was the feature Of
today's trial of that distinguished defend
ant and it eliminated In victory for the
proseotion. The "Red Book" found In
Cashier Hopkins's desk after his suicide
and upon the admission of which the
commonwealth so largely rests Its case,
was the shaft the district attorney aimed
at the defense. 10 pave the way for the
flnal effort to Introduce the book itself,
he presented expert testimony to prove
that the hook was necessarily a book OF
the bank as accounts in the books ad.
mittsd under the courts ruling would be
made intelli Rible by the "Red Book. "
Meyer Goldsmith, an expert accountant
was the witness upon which the common
wealth depended to accomplish its conten
ton. After four hours of examination
and cross examination. interspersed with
argument, this much was sworn to by the
witness:
Two accounts of upwards Of one
thousand In the regular books were In
complete and Inaccurate unless explained
by entries In the "Red Book" One was
an item for 81. tl9, entered in the in
dividual ledger to the credit of the person
who received it The witness was not
permitted to designate the person by
name. He found this itsm on the stub of
the cashiers book. but what II repre-
amined the calculations in the red book.
Here he found the amount entered and
indications that 1t had been paid by
the cashiers check on November 4th. 1897
Another item Of IS, $50. 10 he found in
the regular book dated May "a, 1894, and
found the same item In the red book
dated October 30, 1894. He stated there
were other entries in the red book which
explained transactions In the regular
book, but the two instances specified were
the only ones in which he could reach an
accurate conclusion as to their nature and
purpose.
Mr.. Goldsmith said that when he first
opensd the RED Book" he did not con-
slider 1t book of the bank, but when he
compared the calculations entered on its
pages with the transactions In the other
books he was forced to consider 1t a book
of the bank. He explained this by saying
that prior to 1891 calculal ions suoh as APP
peared in the "Red Book" were regularly
entered in the ledger, but since then the
"Red Book" had been substituted and
fulfilled and fixed the same results.
During the cross OF the
witness he testified to q page which was
missing. The defense repeatedly en-
deavored to get from him the statement
that there might have been figures and
dc hat xuhieh VyOntA ciaarlv
explain the entries on the other pages and
that the book as 1t now stands, Is unre-
liable. This was ruled out, following an
objection by the district attorney. This
would seem to indicate that when the
final effort to presens the book in evidence
comes tomorrow the defense will make
another determined opposition to 1t on
that ground, even II the court should de-
eide that with relation to the transactions
testified to 1t is n book of the bank.