The record-union., 1899-04-13

Wnlle the admission OF the DOCKS Hhy
prove serious blow to the defendant.
The latter, accompanied by his son,
Richard, reached the courtroom ten
minutes before the opening, and before
any of his counsel He gave no visible
sign that he was at all disturbed by
the question about to be determined by
the court
Judge Biddle took his seat promptly
at 10 O'Clock, and District Attorney,
Rotherme1 began his replyto Mr.. Wat
son, urging the admission of the books
of the bank. His. first point was that
all manner of criminal charges are es-
tablished and proven by oircumstantial
evidence, the crime of conspiracy being
frequently proven m this way.
Mr.. Rother1nel bore strongly on the
continued payment of interest on the
Commonwealth deposit in the Peoples
Bank to Senator Quay. He offered to
provs by letters and kilograms that Mr..
Quay was borrowing money from the
bank for the purchase Of stocks, and
that he paid NO interest on these
moneys This continued loaning of
money, Mr.. Rothermel contended, was
in furtherance of the conspiracy be-
tween Cashier Hopkins, State Treasurer
Haywood and Senator Quay.
He first took up the period for six
months ending October, 1897, when the
TCommonwealth's deposits varied from
S525, 900 to $565,000. During this time
he said Mr.. Quay had a loan of $780,
Goo and paid no interest. He proposed
to show by the writing in one of the
books the now famous red book" that
Hopkins had carefully computed inter
est on the deposit not used by Quay
which interest was divided into three
parts, two of which were deposited re-
spectivelys to the credit of Haywood
and Quay, the remaining part going, it
was alleged, to c. H. Mckee of Pitts
burg. He proposed to show the very
scheme, he said, which was adopted 20
conceal the operation from the other
clerks of the bank.
Following fhis he quoted a number
of opinions on the subject of conspiring
and the manner in which it may be
proved He combatted the contention
of the defense that the statute Of linai-
tations barred much of the matter
charged against Quay, quoting the Su-
preme Court to show that a chain of
circumstances and transactions extend
ing back Indefinitely might be used to
secure a conviction, notwithstanding
the statute limiting the prosecution
from the acts committed within two
years.
Mr.. Rothermel said he would show
that on October 1, 1897, Mr. Quay was
indebted to the bank as indorser for his
son in the. sum of 100000, and how
that debt was created. He would show
that the Board Of Directors agreed to
discount that note provided a certain
letter was obtained from State Treas
urer Haywood, guaranteeing the deposit
of an equal amount. Mr. Rothermel
said he would prove Mr. Haywood re-
ceived interest on that S10o,0OO.
On the question of the books not be-
ing competent evidence because entries
in them involving Senator Quay were
made by third parties, Mr.. Rothermel
maintained that all such entries made
contemporaneous with the acts to which
they related can be admitted as cir
cumstantial evidence. All the entries
We're made by clerks under the direction
of Cashier Hopkins, and were, therefore.
practically made by him from figures
entered by Hopkins in the red book. -
Hopkins acted, Mr.. Rotherncl said, vir-
tually under the direction and check of
Senator Quay, and the books of the
bank, therefore, become, for the pur-
pese of proof of conspiracy, the books
of Quay himself.
Mr.. Watson, of Quay'S counsel, replied
briefly to the District Attorneys argu-
ment, in the main, reiterating his propo-
sitions of yesterday. Books followed by
the evidence Of individuals, Mr.. Wat
son admitted ARE allowa BILE as evidence.
but books in themselves are not proper
testimony. If money was paid by any
man to Quay, put the man on the stand
and let him say So. but the acts and
declarations of third parties must be
debarred. If Hopkins was guilty. try
him and convict him, but don't try
Quay and convict for Hopkins crime.
The testimony of a co-conspirator is
necessary, he contended, to convict a
man of the charge of conspiracy. Books
are not co-conspirators. All the entries.
he said, constitute evidence Of what
Hopkins did. not what Quay did. Proof
of conspiracy between the various
State Treasurers from 1856 to 1898 and
Hopkins was not proof of crime COM
mitted by Quay, and could not be urged
as such.
Judge Biddle, in his opinion, said that
the Commonwealth had the right to de-
pcsN money in bank. and that it then
ceased to be money of the Common
wealth, and the bank may loan it TO
whom it pleases. IF that was the
case he continued, mo crime has been
committed. If, he said, the Common
wealth can once show that Mr.. Quay
from his political influence was able to
induce the Commonwealth to make a
deposit in the Peoples Bank under the
condition that it was a deposit made to
allow ham to use as collateral and to re-
celve interest on it, then it is a differ
ent matter. To use phrase, it was a
deposit with a string tied to IT,
In regard to the admission Of the
DOCKS of bank, it is true that no bank
can make person a debtor simply by
entering an amount in the banks books
On the other hand he continued, sup
pose man is depositor in a bank. and
the records of his bank book shows he
IS credited with certain money and
draws checks against it and all the