The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1899-04-15
"RED BOOK
AGAIN FIGURES
I'm QUAY TRIAL.
Keen Contentious Between Ex.
Senator's Counsel and the
District Attorney.
THE ADMISSION OF TESTIMONY
Secured Which May go a Long
Way in Establishing Guilt
OF the Accused.
IMPORTANCE OF THE BOOK
In Proving the Allegations OF the
- u.p1
THE ADMISSION OF TESTIMONY
IMPORTANCE OF THE BOOK
In Proving the Allegations OF the
z Prosccution..-A Very Bad
Z day for Quay.

PHILADELPHIA, Pa..Aprll H.-Per-
sIstent, keen and brilliant argument
between District Attorney Rothermel
on the one side, Messrs. Watson, Shnp-
ley and Shields on the other upon the
admission OF testimony, which may go
a long way to establish the alleged
guilt of ex-United States Senator Quay
were the features Of to-day's trial Of
that distinguished defendant and 1t cul-
minated in q decided victory for the
prosecution. The .red book" found In
Cashier Hopkins desk, after his sui
eide and upon the admission Of which
the commonwealth so largely rests Its
case was the shaft the district attorney
aimed at the defence. To pave the way
for the final effort to introduce the book
itself he succeeded after frequent
clashes with opposing counsels, some
times bitter and personal. In presenting
imperfect testimony to prove that the
book was necessarily q book Of the
bank, as accounts In the books admit
ted under the courts ruling would be
made ineligible.
Before starting his examination Mr..
Rothermel read to the court state
ment Of what he Intended to prove. The
expert, he said. had made thorough
examination OF all the books in the
case. He found that previous to April
80. 1891, the Peoples bank paid interest
on the state deposits to the state treas
urer and that records OF such payments
were kept In a regular way on the
books Of the bank. After April 80, 1891,
when Mr.. Hopkins appeared on the
scene. q new system was adopted. This
entailed the addition of another book
now known Us the "red book"-to the
books Heretofore kept by the bank.
Experts Testimony.
Meyer Goldsmith, an expert account
ant, was the witness upon which the
commonwealth depended to accomplish
Its contention. During the whole course
Of the experts examination, objection
after objection was made by the de-
fence and US frequently overrulcd by
Judge Biddle, while the district attor-
ney in Logical sequence drew from the
witness his conclusions US TO the book.
based upon a comparison of what was
written on Its pages with what appear
ed In the other books. After 1t was
nj frn u nf ,iy,o nd
cross-eXamination interspersed with
argument, this much was sworn to by
the witness. Two accounts out OF up
wards Of 1000 In the regular books were
incomplete and inaccurate unless eX-
planned by entries in the red book"
One was an Item for Sl,519 entered in
the individual ledger to the credit of the
person who received It. The witness
was not permitted to designate the per-
son by name. He found this item on
the stub Of the cashiers check book. but
what 1t represented he could not say
until he had examined the calculations
in the red book. Here he found the
amount entered and the Indications
TINT 1t had been paid by the cashiers
check on November 1, 1887. Another
item of $685. 10 he found in the regu-
lar book dated May %, 1894, and found
the same item In the red book dated
October 30, 1894. He stated there were
other entries in the red book which cx-
planned transactions in the regular
book. but the two instances specified
were the only ones in which ne could
reach accurate conclusions us to their
nature and purpose.
An Important Book.
Mr.. Goldsmith said that when he first
opened the red book he did not consider
It a book Of the bank, but when he COM
pared the calculations entered on its
pages with transactions in the other
books he was forced to consider 1t
book Of the bank. He explained this by
saying that prior to 1891 calculations
such as appeared In the red book were
regularly entered In the ledger, but
since then the red book had been sub
sltuted and fulfilled and fixed the same
results.
During the cross-examinatlon OF this
witness, which was conducted by Mr..
Shields, he testified to page which was
missing. The defence repeatedly en-
dcavored to get from him the statement
that there might have been figures and
words on that page which would clear
ly explain the entries on the other
pages. and that the book as 1t now
stands Is unreliable. This was ruled
out, following an objection by the dis
trict attorney. This would seem to in
dicate that when the final effort to pre-
sent the book in evidence comes to-
morrow. the defence will make another
determined opposition TO II on that
ground, even II the court should decide
that with relation to the transactions
testified to II Is n book OF the BANK.
During NIL the examination touching
on the book with the exception OF the
two items mentioned. no intimation Of
the amounts or names was allowed to
reach the jury. The prosecution all
along, however, has alleged that this
book will show that Cashier Hopkins