The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-04-21
ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL.
Speeches by Quay's Attorneys and the
Prosecutors Address.


PHILADELPHIA, April 20.-When the
court opened this morning counsel for ex-
Senator Quay moved that the court with
draw the case from the jury and render a
verdict Of mot guilty" In support of this
motion David 7. Watson made a long argu-
ment. He began with the statement that
early In the trial the prosecution presented
an offer TO produce evidence connecting VI.
s. Quay with a conspiracy alleged to have
been entered into with Cashier Hopkins, of
the Peoples Bank, and State Treasurer B.
]. Haywood for the misuse OF State funds
deposited in the Peoples Bank.
Mr.. Watson argued that the district at
torney had utterly failed to prove his case,
and moved that the court strike from the
record the statements produced from the
books OF the bank because they failed to
connect NJ. S. Quay with 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, 1886. from Treasurer Haywood to
President McNanes. of the bank, agreeing
10 loan TO r. r. Quay and the minutes of
the bank directors with regard thereto, the
ground being that this evidence relates to
q transaction with which NJ. S. Quay was
not connected.
the commemorative chief witness, is not
an expert. and that instead of testifying as
to what the books disclosed he evolved
theory from differences and partly from
outside informatio-l- The crime charged"
said Mr.. Watson, 10 conspiracy, and, cur
ious TO say. there is only one person in
dicted. The commonwealth has utterly
failed" he contended, ito connect the de-
fendant with the charge of conspiracy
NO INTEREST PAID TO QUAY.
In the course of his argument. Mr.. Wat
son made the point that the prosecution ad-
mitted that not one cent of interest on
State funds had ever been paid to Mr..
Quay. He argued that while some of the
testimony offered may be evidence against
Hopkins and Haywood, il is certainly not
evidence against Quay. The commonwealth
had failed TO show that Mr.. Quay had
anything 10 do with inducing Treasurer
Haywood to deposit State funds in the Peo-
pies Bank Coming TO the loan of 100000
to r. r. Quay, Mr.. Watson pointed out
that this was a loan to another man. and
the commonwealth has not proved that
Senator Quay even indorsed the note. The
attorney quoted the laws relating TO the
duties OF the state treasurer. and said there
was nothing 10 prevent him from deposit
ing the money I'm his custody wherever he
pIeases. The law prohibits him from gain
ing profit by such deposit, but 1t does not
prohibit the depository from gaining profit:
II Is expected that a bank accepts deposits
for that purpose.
District Attorney ROthermel, in reply to
Mr.. Watson's argument. referred TO his offer
OF proof, and declared that the common
wealth has proved the conspiracy completely
within the line 10 which the court limited il,
namely the two years antedating Nov II,
lseS. He said the letters of Senator Quay TO
Hopkins were proofSof the conspiracy, as
was also the fact that for the six months
ending Oct 81, 1887 Senator Quay had re-
ceived $1s5.OOO without interest.
Judge Biddle said there was presented TO
him first a demurrer 10 the Indictment sec
ond "A demurrer TO the evidence. AS TO the
first he would say nothing. as he was not in
a position TO discredit the testimony offered
By the commonwealth, and he would. there
fore. allow the case TO go TO the jury for
them TO decide
There was a buzz Of conversation In the
courtroom over this decision adverse TO the
defense, and then the Quay lawyers got to-
gether for Il consultation. At the conclusion
OF this whispered talk Attorney Shields made
the announcement that the defense would
offer no testimony whatever and would at
once proceed with addresses 20 the jury. In
order 20 save time. Mr.. Shields offered to
waive the right TO make the opening speech.