The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-04-21
MIR ROTHERMEL's ADDRESS.


vince the jury he had established The guilt
of Senator Quay
MR. ROTHERMEL'S ADDRESS.
The district attorney, in opening, reviewed
the charges against Mr.. Quay and read the
law on the subject. The crime, he said, was
that of conspiracy, and being born in Sc
crecy was, therefore, difficult 20 prove. III
must invariably be proved by the acts of the
conspirators as 1t is almost impossible to get
the statement Of one OF the consprators.
Coming to the relation of Mr.. Quay polit-
ically TO State Treasurer Haywood, he indi-
Gated that If the state treasurer received in
terest from the cashier and Mr.. Quay the
interest on 100000 from the cashier, the
natural inference is that these men had en-
tered into a conspiracy. There might be no
direct evidence. he continued. but there
should be no doubt that a conspiracy was
conceived and carried out.
Mr.. Rothermel read Mr. Quay's letter to
Cashier Hopkins, directing the purchase Of
800 shares Of Metropolitan stock. This. he
argued. was unlawful. because the purchase
was made with bank money and no interest
was charged. He showed by the evidence
that the State deposit during the six months
ending Oct. 81, 1897, ranged from $4,000 TO
over 100000 and that other loans were made
Hopkins to Treasurer Haywood for $l.5l9
was discussed. Mr.. Rothermel said the
banks books showed this amount was the
interest state funds, less 20 per cent. for
the bank, and less interest on 900 for the
use of Mr.. Quay.
THE red book he designated unin-
telligable in itself. but connected with the
other books of the bank. he asserted that
it was the key to the proof Of the charges.
He went over certain entries sworn to by
Meyer Goldsmith, the expert, to disclose
the fact that The defendant and Haywood
were paid interest state desposits by
Cashier Hopkins. The entries in the red
book" were elucidated to the jury, and their
connection with Senator Quay's account,
and transactions explained. The district at
tocney laid great stress upon the fact that
the red book came into existence in 1891,
coincident with the passage of the law ere
ating state bank examiners. from whom,
he argued, Hopkins would wish to keep his
Illicit transactions secret. He called the
jury's attention to the memorandum paper
found in Cashier Hopkinss desk which, he
claimed indicated interest on call loans ap-
propriated by Hopkins to pay interest on
state funds to Haywood, and was. there
fore, further circumstantial proof of the
conspiracy The district attorney, in con-
cluding. referred to the resolution of the
board of directors, Aug. 3. 1886. authorizing
a loan Of 100000 alleged TO be indorsed by
Mr.. Quay. provided a certain letter could
be obtained. He then read the Haywood
letter to President McManes. of the bank.
indicating that 100000 Of state money would
be deposited in the bank If similar
amount was loaned to r. r. Quay, and that
it would not be removed until the loan was
paid.
MR.. SHIELDS CLOSES.
After a short recess A s. Shields began
his argument to the jury. At the outset
he took up the fact that the case of the
prosecution was built on the testimony of
experts, and quoted an opinion OF the Su-
preme Court that 'the tendency is to call
experts to testify to ready-made opinions"
This" he declared, twas a prophecy COW
ering the in remarkable way Mr..
Shields dwelt on ex-Judge GordOn'S con-
nection with the prosecution. and de-
nounced his actions in unmeasured terms.
He argued that political conspiracy against
Quay was begun when Judge Gordon got
from the receiver Of the broken bank the
books and letters found in the dead CASH
ier's private desk, and kept them in his
possession for months. He went over the
improper use made OF these documents in
furtherance OF his political ambition and
his hatred of Senator Quay.
Mr.. Shields denounced the photograph
ing of the letters and the exhibition of
those photographs to Democratic National
Committeeman Guffy and John Wana-
maker as proof positive of the conspiracy
for the undoing of Senator Quay. The
speaker took up the bill OF indictment,
which. he said. charged the misuse of
public funds and dared any member of the
jury, In defiance of his conscience, to rem
der a decision against the defendant He
turned TO the letters of Senator Quay to
Hopkins, which, he said all explained
themselves. They represented ordinary bus
mess transactions. and he pointed out that
whenever Quay wrote to Hopkins &c. buy
stock or make payments on his account. the
books showed that the senator had ample
money in the bank in his own name to
cover the transactions.
Mr.. Shields took up the plum tree tele-
gram and directed his most whitening sar-
casm against the smallness of the minds
of the men who would use this document
against a public man I'm view of the fact
that Senator Quay had more than $4,000
OF his own money on deposit and that $1,000
of this was used as margin in the trans
action. Taking the regular books of the Peo-
pies Bank, Mr.. Shields said it in evil
dence that Senator Quay never knew of
line OF their contents. He further said the
prosecutions own expert had been forced
TO admit that the books contained fictitious
figures and fictitious accounts. Mr.. Shields
argued that this admission destroyed the
value of the books as testimony against
Senator Quay. Expert Goldsmith's testi-
mony was denounced as false, and counsel
exclaimed dramatically that Pennsylvania
was compelled 10 witness the spectacle of
this man being put forward ito despoil her
escutcheon and destroy her representative"
LIKENED TO THE DREYFUS CASE.
Mr.. Shields pointed out that the letter
written by State Treasurer Haywood on
July 81. 1896. promising TO increase the state
deposit IL a loan were made 10 r. r. Quay
was addressed to James McManes, president
of the Peoples Bank. IL this was not
political conspiracy. he asked. why was not
McManes arrested months before the perse-
cution OF Senator Quay began. He likened
the political conspiracy against Senator
Quay TO the Dreyfus affair in France
The lawyer took up the red book and
charged that Senator Quay's name in the
book had been written long after the other
entries were recorded. He asked II il
would be possible that such an intimate
personal friend Of Mr.. Quay as Hopkins
was likely to misspell his name and do 1t