The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1899-02-28
Hearing Of the Case Against the
Pennsylvania Senator
Postponed Again Until April Tenth. On Nd.
ton Of the District Attorney.
Counsel for the Accused Objects tn
the Motion to Defer the Trial,
Insisting That It Would Cause
Great Inconvenience and Was
Unfair to His Client.

| O4AdAx " xA28 Ox4e4ts
PHILADELPHIA, Feb. 27.-On mo-
ton of District Attorney Rothermel.
the Quay conspiracy trial has been
postponed until April 10th. The Dis
trict Attorney did not state his reason
for the postponement. Though interest
IN the trial was intense throughout the
city, there was no crowding in the
court because of an order issued by the
court that only the lawyers directly
interested in the case, the panel of wit
nesses and a limited number of news
paper men should be admitted.
Senator Quay, with his son, entered
the courtroom accompanied by their
counsel, Rufus E. Shapeley, A. S. L.
Shields and David T. Watson of Pitts
burg. The presence of the latter was a
surprise to those in attendance, as it
was generally understood that he had
retired from the case.
District Attorney Rothermel and his
associates held a brief consultation, at
the conclusion of which the District
Attorney arose and, addressing the
court, said that for reasons which he
did not care to state at present he de-
sired that the trial of Mr.. Quay be post
pOutu ne WAS uOI ready 10 PIOCtcu
with the trial now. He stated that, as
the Judges of the court would be en-
gagged for the greater part of the pres
ent month in hearing the liquor license
| applications, he would ask that the
date for this trial be fixed for April
10th.
Mr.. Shapeley, of counsel for the de-
fense opposed the motion. He said
| their witnesses had been subpenaed
and every preparation made to bring
the trial to an immediate conclusion.
A postponement at this time, he said,
would cause great inconvenience, and
would be unfair to his clients.
! Judge Reitler announced that he
would grant the motion, inasmuch as
the District Attorney was not prepared
to proceed, and named April 10th as
the date for the trial.
| Senator Quay on leaving the court
room expressed his disappointment at
the unexpected deferring of the trial.
He declined to discuss the matter fur
Their, simply adding that he was ex-
! tremely atlxious to have the case die
| posed of, and he had hoped that it
would have been taken up to-day and
quickly brought to a conclusion. Dis
trict Attorney Rothermel, when seen
after the trial, refused to state the rea-
son for his request for postponement
Mr.. Shepeley was considerably per-
turbed over the postponement. He
said, after leaving the courtroom, that
his clients and himself and associate
counsel were fully prepared for the i'm
mediate trial of the case, and confident
of their ability to dissipate any evil
dence which might be presented by the
prosecution. There could be but one
result, and that would have been ac-
uuittaL Touching on the evidence adj
duced at the preliminary, Mr.. Shapeley
| had placed much Importance on the en-
tries on the memorandum book OF
Cashier Hopkins, which showed a num-
Der of credits to the account of Senator
Quay, and indicated many transactions
between Hopkins and the Senator. IN
| formation had recently come into the
possession of Mr.. Shapeley, which he
declared conclusively, that these en-
tries were wholly false. They would
never be admitted as evidence by the
court, as their falsity could be clearly
proven Investigation, he continued,
had shown that Hopkins for long
time had been defrauding Senator
Quay, and many entries in the mem
orandum book found in his effects had
been made for the purpose of deceiving
not only Senator Quay but also the
officials of the bank. Mr.. Shapeley SAID
he entertained no doubt of the prompt
acquittal Of his clients when the case
shall come to trial.
Mr. Shapeley further stated that the
few books of the Peoples Bank in ex-
istence are in such condition that it Is
Impossible for any living person to tell
anything about Senator Quay's ac-
count. or of the accounts of any other
person Some pages of the books IN
existence have been torn out, and the
remaining pages have been deliberately
falsified and forged to such an extent
/ that they would be inadmissible by the
court
The Evening Bulletin" says: mo
sooner had the postponement been
made than it was declared by high au-
! thority that the cause for halt in the
case was an astounding discovery af-
fecting the jury panel. Officials in the
District Attorneys office declined to
discuss this, besides stating that there
was only reason why the trial should
not go on, the prosecution being en-
| tirely in readiness to proceed. Rur1or
had it that a case of representation had
been detected, but concerning this no
definite information was obtainabie.
After court adjourned Mr.. Rother-
mel stated, in reply to an interroga-
ton: While I will say nothing what
ever about the cause which induced me
to continue the case, except what l
said in court can state that the en-
tire subject was submitted to Judge
Bentler and approved by him before I
made the application for postponement.'
Upon the question Of tampering
with the jury, the District Attorney
made most significant utterance IN
court, avowing that the postponemenc
was duty to the commonwealth
Beyond that he refused to speak. save
to say that it would be unwise to give
his reason at present. Judge Bentier
had been informed of it, and that SUI
/ feed. His manner and his words con-
veyed the idea that proceedings are
likely to grow out OF the discovery
and that a disclosure could be made IN
advance of the steps that the common
wealth might take I will not say
anything about the jury panel,' ne
| said finally"