The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-04-21
ACQU|TTAL IS EXPECTED
Quay's Case in the Hands of the
Jury.
THEY WERE LOCKED UP
The Defense Put In No Testimony-Con-
dnsd Themselves to Argument.
Impartial Instructions
Given.

/
ex-United States Senator Quay was
| placed in the hands of the jury prompt
| ly at o'clock this afternoon, and no
verdict being reached by 10 o'clock to-
night the jury was locked up until
| morning.
| There was no intimation other than
| mere rumor as to the attitude of the
| jury. The generally expressed opinion
| of those who have followed the trial
since it's beginning on Monday of last
week is that the verdict will be an ac-
quittal. Many, however, look for a dis
agreement There are but few who
express the belief that verdict of
| guilty will be given.
To-day's proceedings were confined
entirely to argument and speeches by
| counsel, the defense deciding to pre-
sent no testimony. Mr.. Watson began
the day by requesting that the case be
withdrawn from the jury and ver-
dict of not guilty rendered. He con-
tended that the commonwealth had ut
terly failed to make out case against
| Mr.. Quay. Judge Biddle determined
that the issues We're for jury to de-
eide and he ruled that it be gone
through in the usual way. Mr.. Shields
here announced the defense's intention
to take no testimony, and under the
rules Of the court he thus obtained the
privilege of making but one, the last
speech, to the jury.
District Attorney Rothermel spoke for
one hour; Mr.. Shields followed for one
hour and three-quarters, and Judge
Biddle charged the jury in nine min
utes.
The defense opened proceedings to-
! | Ioy hxy,, hot ha 7, Jra
the case from the jury and render
verdict of mot guilty" In support of
, this motion David T. Watson made
long argument. He said that early in
the trial the prosecution presented an
offer to produce evidence of the con-
nection of Quay with the conspiracy
alleged to have been entered into with
Cashier Hopkins and Treasurer Hay
) wood for misuse of state funds deposit
ed in the Peoples bank. He said the
district attorney had utterly failed to
| prove his case and moved that the court
strike from the records the statements
produced from books, because they fail
J ed to connect Quay with the conspiracy.
Another point raised was that Gold
{ smith, the commemorative chief wit
5 ness, is not an expert, and instead of
testifying ito what the books disclosed
( evolved a theory from inferences and
partly from outside information. Wat
) son made the point that the prosecution
Z admitted that not one cent of interest
on the state funds had ever been paid
to Quay and that the commonwealth
) had failed to show that Quay had any,
thing to do with inducing Haywood to
( deposit the state funds in the Peoples
bank.
District Attorney Rothermel, in reply
{ to Watson's argument, declared that
s the commonwealth has proved the con-
s spiracy completely within the line to
which the court limited it. He said
: the letters of Quay to Hopkins were
s proof of a conspiracy, as was also the
5 fact that for six months, ending Oct.
: 81, 1897, Quay had received $1S5,000 with
out interest.
Judge Biddle said there was present.
) ed to him first a demurrer to the in
dictment: second, demurrer to the ev-
{ idence. AS to the first he would say
5 nothing, as the question had already
; been decided by judge of a Philadel-
: phia court Regarding the second de-
{ murrer, the judge said he was not in a
5 position to discredit the testimony Of
I fered by the commonwealth. and would
{ therefore allow the case to go to the
{ jury.
5 There was buzz of conversation in
Z the court over the decision adverse to
( the defense and the Quay lawyers got
5 together for consultation. At the con-
) clusion of the consultation Mr.. Shields
: made the announcement that the de-
{ Tense would offer no testimony and
5 would proceed to address the jury.
; Shields waived the right to make the
I opening speech and Mr.. Rothermel at
{ once started in a calm, quiet manner
5 with his attempt to convince the jury
: that he has established the guilt of
{ Quay.
s The district attorney in opening, re-
; viewed the charges against Mr.. Quay
I and read the law on the subject. The
{ crime, he said, was that of conspiracy
5 and being born in secrecy, was there
fore difficult to prove. 1t must invar-
iably be proved by the acts of the con
spirators, as it is almost impossible to
get the statement of the conspirators
Coming to the relation of Mr.. Quay
politically to State Treasurer Haywood
he indicated that if the state treasurer
received the interest from the cashier
and Mr. Quay the interest on 5000, ,00t
from the cashier, the natural Inference
s is that the men have entered into "A con-
spiracy. There might be no direct evi-
dence, he continued. but there should
be no doubt that a conspiracy was con-
{ ceived and carried out.
81 Mr.. Rothermel read Mr.. Quay'S letter
I TO Cashier Hopkins, directing the pur-
chase of 900 shares of Metropolitan
{ stock. This, he argued, was unlawful
: because the purchase was made with
bank money and no interest was charg-
ed He showed by the evidence that ihe
state deposit due the six months md
! ing October 81 1897. ranged from 1929
600 to over 100000, and that other loars
were made to Mr.. Quay without inter
est The check of Hopkins to Treasurer
Haywood for 81 ,519 was discussed. Mr.
Rothermel said the banks books show.
} ed this amount was the Interest or
z state funds, less 20 per cent for tht
( bank and less interest on 100000 fol
s the use of Mr. Quay.
The red book he designated as unin
telligible in ITSELF but connected viii
the other books of the bank he assert
) ed that 1T was the key to the proof o
, the charges. He went over certain en-.
tries testified to by Meyer Goldsmith
his expert, to disclose the fact that til
defendant and Haywood were paid in
terest on state deposits by Cashier Hop
Z kius. The entries in the red book