The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-04-21
Is WITH THE JURY
Boss Quay's Fate Hinges on the Yer.
dict Of Twelve Of His Peers.
SOME PREDICT AN ACQUlTTAL
Others Predict that the Jury viii Fail
to Reach a Conclusion.
NO TESTIMONY SUBMITTED BY DEFENSE
Judge Biddle's Ruling Admitted the Com.
mOnwealth's Evidence.
STATE ENDEAy0RS TO PROVE CONSPIRACY
The Red book WINS the Key to the
secret transactions Whereby
state Money Was Jonncd.
NO TESTIMONY SUBMITTED BY DEFENSE
Judge BiddIe's Ruling Admitted the Com.
mOnweallh's Evidence.
STATE tNDEAyORS TO PROVE CONSPIRACY

Philadelphia, April 2o.--rhe case OF
United States Senator quay WAS placed In
the hands Of the Jury promptly Al
o'clock this afternoon and no verdict
being reached at 10 O'Clock tonight the
jury was locked up until morning There
was no intmsuon other than mere ruMor
as TO the attitude Of the jury. Tho gem
orally expressed opinion OF those who nave
followed the trial siuce It's beginning on
Monday Of last week Is thai he vsfdlct
win he an acquittal. Many. however, look
for disagreement There arc hut few
who EXPRESS the belief that a verdict of
guilty will be given.
The days proceedings were confined en-
tirely to argument aud speeches by coun-
sell the defense deciding to present no tee
tinony.
Mr. Watson began the day ny request
ing that the case he Withdrawn from tho
Jury aud verdict of not guilty rendered.
He contended that the commonwealth had
utterly failed to make out a case against
Mr.. Quay. Judge Biddle declined % ta!e
this action. He ruled that ;ha case
should be gone through with in the usual
manner.
Attorney Shields here said the defense
would offer no testimony. and under the
rules of The courts he thus obtained the
privilege of making the last speech 20 .hs
jury.
The defense then opened Its part Of the
proceedings by moving that the eourt
Wit hdra "a tho caso from, he, {urv al ..ay
der verdict of not guilty. In support o,
this Mr.. David T. Watson made 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 10 have been entered into WIFI
Cashier Hopkins of the Peoples nans AMI
State Treasurer Haywood for he misuse
OF the State funds deposited In the i'uc-
pies bank. Mr., Watson argued the inc
district attorney had utterly famed 20
prove his case and moved that tLe coult
strike from the record the statements pro-
duced from the books Of the bank because
they failed to connect Mr. Quay with the
conspiracy.
He also moved to strike out the "red
book on the same grounds The same
motion was made with reference to The
letter OF July 81, 1896, from Treasurer
HAYWOOD to President McManes of mo
/ bank, agreeing 10 loan to r r. Quay
ana the minutes OF the bank directors
with regard thereto, the ground being that
this evidence relates 10 a transaction with
which NJ s. Quay is not connected An
other point raised was that Mr.. Gold
smith, the commemorative CHER witness,
is not an expert, that instead OF testifylng
to what the books disclosed he evolved a
theory from differences, and partly from,
outside information
The crime charged, said Mr.. Watson, Is
conspiracy and curious to say there ia only
one person indicted. The commonwealth
has utterly failed, he contended. to con-
meet the defendant with the charges OF
conspiracy.
In the course of his argument Mr.. Wat
son made the point that the prosecution
admitted that not cent Of the State funds
| had ever been paid to Mr. Quay. He ar
gucd that while some OF the testimony Of
fered may be evidence against Hopkins
and Haywood 1t is certainly not evidence
against Mr. Quay. The common wealth has
failed to show that Mr.. Quay had any
thing to do with inducing Treasurer Hay
wood to deposit State funds in the peo-
pies bank.
Coming to the loan Of 100000 to 2. r.
| Quay, Mr.. Watson pointed out that this
was loan to another man aud the COM
monwealth has not proved that Senator
Quay even Endorsed the note.
The attorney quoted the laws relating 10
the duties OF the State treasurer and said
there was nothing TO prevent him from
depositng the money in his custody wher-
ever he pleased. The law prohibits him
from gaining profit by such deposit, but
Il does not prohibit the depository from
gaining profit; II is expected that bank
accepts deposits for that purpose.
State Attorney Rothermel, IN reply 10
MIR Watsons argument, referred TO his
offer OF proof and declared that the com
monweslth has proved the conspiracy com
pletely within the line which the court
limited it. namely. the two years antedat
ing November II. 1895. He said the let
ters of Senator Quay 10 Hopkins were proof
az the conspiracy, rs was also the fact