The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1899-04-18
RoTHERMEL vExEs THE COURT.
Not Satisfied with the Decision of
Judge Biddle.

Philadelphia, April l7.-Expert Gold
smith testified that during the period
from April 30 1885, to October 81, 1896,
the commonwealth deposit in the Peo-
pies bank ranged from $3.50, 900 to $685.
600. The aggregate of call loans to
Senator Quay during the period was
$172,731.15. Stock was purchased for
Senator Quay to the extent of $152,-
066 9S
During the six months the interest
paid on the state deposit was $2,45111.
Senator Quay did not pay and was not
charged with interest on his loans.
During the six months ending April 20,
1895, the state deposit varied from
100000 to s625,OO0 Senator Quay was
loaned S141 ,9294S. His transactions in
stocks during 1894 and 1895 were in
cluded in this period, purchases for his
account aggregating s5OO,SO9.06 and
sales credited being $3.50, 5000, leaving
$4O,1SS.S6, to which was added sS4,49O.-
62 for purchases during the period
under discussion. No payment of in
terest by Senator Quay on these trans-
actions is shown by the books. The
payment of interest on the state de-
posts during the period is shown to be
$1,317.5O
Between April 80. 1895. and October
81, 1895, the state deposit ranged from
$6l5,OOO to $4,000. Senator Quay was
loaned 1925, 500 Is, including the balance
of $4O1SS.S6, which had been carried
over from stock transactions in 1894.
Interest on the deposit was paid to the
amount of $2,74515 during this six
months. Mr.. Quay apparently paid no
interest on this loan.
From October 81, 1894, to April 30,
1895, the fifth period, the state deposit
ranged from $40, 900 to 1925. .1O4.S1 SEN
ator Quay borrowed $494. .SO9.06, of which
1928 471.56 was for the purchase Of
stock. The interest paid for the period
was s2,537.61. The amount represented
in this instance. as in all prior in
stances, is 1-3 of the interest at 6 per
cent for three hundred days on the
commonwealth deposits. after de-
ducting 20 per cent. for the bank and
the interest on $25O,0OO for Quay. Nc
payment of interest by Senator Quay
appeared on the books.
During the sixth period, April 80,
1894, to Oct. 81. 1894, the state deposit
was as high as s1,119,356.06 and as low
as 1926, ,1O4S1. Mr.. Quay's loans We're
for stock purchases composed of 1000
shares of sugar at $225,0OO and 1000
shares Jersey at s. a share. The in
terest paid by the bank was $6,304.lS.
Interest on Quay's loan amounted at
4 per cent. to s9,142S7, but he paid only
81 ,691 so. From Oct. 81, 1899, to April
80, 1894, the deposit ranged from $685.
929.Sl to $1,l45, 929.Sl, and Senator
Quay's loans aggregated $602,4 ,425. in
terest on the deposit was paid out to
the amount of $5,27O, "to J. W. Nor
rison," added the witness in response
to question.
Quay's Counsel Mute.
While all these figures We're being
put in counsel for Senator Quay sat
mute and motionless, time saving
agreement having been made that it
! is understood that every single answer
! is objected to and the objection over
ruled and exception noted. At the close
| Of the testimony on the period ending
| April 80, 1894, when to Morrison, state
treasurer, $5.27O interest on state
| funds, was paid by Hopkins, Attor-
| Watson renewed the protest so often
| made by the defence, that the indict-
| menI against Quay covers the two
| years prior to November, 1898, and
| that these transactions in 1894 applied
to Hopkins and Morrison. Mr.. Roth
ermel called the courts attention to
the previous decisions that the indict-
men, against Mr.. Quay alleged con-
spiracy and that the facts adduced
were to prove the conspiracy. He held
that in showing the continuance of the
conspiracy he had but to show that
! two of the parties To the conspiracy
We're conspiring at any period to prove
that the conspiracy was steadily con-
| tinuing. The gist of the common
wealth's allegation was here very
plainly and forcibly stated--that a
conspiracy had been begun in 1884, in
| which NJ. ;. Quay, John Hopkins and
! the state treasurer whoever he might
happen TO be, We're concerned.
! Mr.. Watson again begged that Mr.
ROthermel would show him the connec,
tion between the testimony he was now
| introducing and the charge of conspi
raCy on which Quay was arraigned
This oft-repeated challenge this time
raised the ire of Mr.. ROthermel and il
a short but emphatic speech answered
the request OF the Pittsburg lawyer.
II thought" said ne, "that l had an,
swered this question before, but If my
friend insists I will go into it again
There has been shown a participation
i'm the division of the commonwealth.
funds by NJ. :. Quay and John S. Hop
kins. The expert stands there and
gives you the figures. Can there III
any better connection than by showinl
that what interest was paid to thu
state treasurer and what interest Il
NJ. S. Quay. | did not want to go int
this feature, for thinl; 1t is a matter
to be argued before the jury but tn,
defense has forced me to do it,"
Mr.. Shapley answered for Quay b!
quoting authority for the stand he anC
his associates had taken.
Mr.. Rothermel disclaiming any dcsir
to speak pointed it out that he wa
alleging the defendants guilt betweel
the two years of the statute and tina
he intended TO prove It. The cOrrobor
ative evidence of the previous years
certainly, should be admitted.
Mr., Watson contended that each con
spiracy alleged was a separate one.
Judge Biddle's Decision.
| Judge Biddle then decided agains