The record-union., 1899-04-21
Counsel for the Defense Deciding to Intro
duce No Testimony.
A Request That the Case Be With
drawn From the Jury and a
Verdict of Not Guilty Rendered
Overruled by the Court-General
Opinion Among Those Who
Have Followed the Case That
Quay Will Be Acquitted.


PHILADELPHIA, April 2O.-The
case Of ex-United States Senator QUAY
was placed in the hands of the Jury
promptly at 3 o'clock this afternoon
and no verdict being reached by IL
O'Clock at night, the jury was locked
up until morning. There was no init
nation, other than mere rumor. as tC
! the attitude of the jury The general
| ly expressed opinion of those who have
followed the trial since it's beginning or
Monday of last week is that the verdict
will be an aequittal. Many, however
| look for a disa greement. There are
| but few who express the belief that q
verdict of guilty will be given.
To-day proceedings were confined en-
tirely to argument and the speeches by
counsel. the defense deciding to present
10 testimony.
Mr.. Watson began the day by re-
Questing that the case be Withdrawn
from the jury, and verdict of not
guilty rendered. He contended thai
the Commonwealth had utterly failed tc
make out case against Mr. Quay
Judge Biddle determined that the is
sues were those for a jury to decide
and he ruled that it be gone through in
the usual way.
Mr.. Shields here announced the de-
fense's intention to take no testimony
and under the rules of the court he
| thus obtained the privilege of making
but cele, the last, speech to the jury.
Disf1fct Attorney Rothernel spoke
for one hour. Mr.. Shields followed for
one hour and three-quarters, and Judge
Biddle charged the jury in nine min
utes.
The defense to-day opened it's part in
the proceedings by moving that the
court withdraw the case from the jury
and render a verdict of mot guilty" LII
support of this motion, David T. Wat
son made a long argument. He began
with the statement that early in the
trial the prosecution presented an offer
to produce evidence connecting NJ. S.
Quay with conspiracy alleged to have
been enteredginto with Cashier Hopkins
of the Peoples Bank and State Treas
urer B. ]. Haywood for the misuse of
State funds deposited in the Peoples
Bank.
Mr.. Watson argued that the District
Attorney had utterly failed to prove its
case, and moved that the court strik 2
from the record the statements produce
from the books of the bank, because
they failed to connect NJ. S. Quay with
conspiracy.
He also moved to strike out the ''red
book" on the same grounds, and the
same motion was made with reference
to the letter of July 81, 1896, from
Treasurer Haywood to President Nc
Manus of the bank, agreeing to loan
to r. r. Quay, and the minutes Of the
bank directors with regard thereto, the
ground being that this evidence relates
to a transaction with which NJ s. Quay
is not connected.
Another point raised was that Gold
smith, the commemorative chief wit
ness, is not an expert; that instead of
testifying to what the books disclosed,
he revealed the theory from differences
and party from outside information.
The crime charged, said Mr.. Watson.
is conspiracy, and curious to say there
is only one person indicted The Com
monwealth has utterly failed, he con-
tended, to connect the defendant with
the charges of conspiracy
In his argument Mr. Watson made
Tie pOllt llial lIft pIUSecullOH dUIIlII6Q
that not one cent of interest on State
funds had ever been paid to Mr. Quay.
He argued that while some of the testi-
mony offered may be evidence against
Hopkins and Haywood, it is certainly
not evidence against Mr.. Quay. The
Commonwealth has failed to show that
Mr.. Quay had anything to do with in
ducing Treasurer Haywood to deposit
State funds in the Peoples Bank
Coming to the loan of $4,000 to r.
r. Quay, Mr.. Watson pointed out that
this was a loan to another man, and
the Commonwealth has not proved that
Senator Quay even indorsed the note.
The attorney quoted the laws relating
to the duties of State Treasurer. and
said there was nothing to prevent him
from depositing money in his custody
wherever he pleased. The law pro-
hibits him from gaining profit by such
deposit, but it does not prohibit the de-
pository from gaining profit, as it is
expected that a bank accepts deposits
for that purpose.
District Attorney RothermeI, in reply
to Mr. Watson's argument, referred to
his offer of proof, and declared that the
Commonwealth has proved the con-
spracy completely within the line to
which the court limited it, namely, two
years, and dating November H. 1898.
He said the letters of Senator Quay to
Hopkins We're proof of the conspiracy,
as was also the fact that for the six
months ending October 81, 1897. SEN
ator Quay had received $1S5,O00 with
out interest.
Judge Biddle said there was present
ed to him first a demurrer to the indict-
ment: second. a demurrer to the evi-
dence AS to the first, he would say
nothing, as the question had already
been decided by a Judge of a Philadel-
phia court. Regarding the second de-
murrer, the Judge said he was not in a
position to discredit the testimony of
the Commonwealth, and he therefore
would allow the case to go to the jury
for them to decide.
There was buzz of conversation in
the court room over this decision ad-
verse to the defense, and then the Quay
lawyers got together for consultation.
At the conclusion of this talk Attorney
Shields gave notice that the defense
would offer no testimony whatever, and