The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1899-04-20
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The Last Witnesses Examined for
the Commonwealth.

After the recess George ID. Widener,
son of L. A. B. Widener, the street
railroad magnate, and David H. Lane
a prominent Republican leader OF this
city, testified to paying S3,7Oi.3O and
$366.37 respectively as interest on call
loans.
Meyer Goldsmith was recalled and
testified to ex-State Treasurer Is. j.
Haywood and j. w. Morrison cach
owing interest on oct. 81, 1897. The
entries in the books, he said, con-
tanned the initials "B. II. j." ana ~
w. NJ, and it was upon this he based
his statement. Mr.. Shields, in cross
examination, endeavored to draw from
the witness examination of the books
a contradiction of Mr.. Wideners les
timony but the witness said Mr.. Wild
ener had not testified as counsel IN
dicated. The question was as to tine,
Mr.. Goldsmith stating the books
showed Mr.. Widener owed interest on
Oct. 80. The name of Charles II. M
Kee. of Pittsburg. who has been SO
prominently connected with the case,
was then called, but there was NJ re-
sponse. Mr.. Mckee was included In
the charge of conspiracy at the time
Senator Quay was arrested, but the
grand jury subsequently ignored the
charges. District Attorney Rotherme
looked at the clock and then around
the room. Finding that Mr., Nckoc
was not present, he rose to apologize
to the court and ask that the pro-
ceedings be allowed to rest while,
pending the arrival of the missing wit
ness, who, he said, had promised to be
present at LAS o'clock.
At the same time the district attor-
ney made the important announcement
that there were no more witnesses
whom he could place on the stand for
| the reason, though he did not want 20
| be bound by the assertion he was
| about to make that there were only
| two more witnesses that he desir I'd 20
| examine in presenting his case. These
were Mr. Mckee and C. II. Woodruff,
| neither of whom were present.
MI. Mckee on the Stand.
| In few minutes, however, Mr.. Nc
| Kee came into the room, and at once
took his place on the witness stand.
What is your profession?" asked
Mr.. Rothermel.
IL am an attorney" was the reply.
Did you receive any money from
| JOllIl I1ODhltS On NNls Ol, 1907, VI
| thereabouts?"
mo, sir. l think not. I received
money from John s. Hopkins about
six weeks subsequent to that time"
What was the amount"
About $1,000"
What was it for?"
Il received it in the course of my
employment as attorney for protecting
O.
wood from the law"
Did you receive any more money
from Hopkins in that year?"
al did, in August"
How much?"
"A similar amount"
What for?"
For the same purpose"
What did you receive on Oct. 81,
1862"
'My recollection is that some time
subsequent to the date you mention
received $245O."
For what purpose?"
For the same purpose"
What amount did you receive after
April so. 1896. from Hopkns?"
About half the amount. some 81, 300"
For the same purpose"
Yes sir.'
"Cross-eXamine," said Mr.. Rother
mel.
Mr.. Quay was not on the bond2'
Mr. Shields asked the witness.
NO sir"
Not dollar Of this was received
for Senator Quay?"
''I have no knowledge of that al an
THAT is ALL" and Mr. Shields waved
his hand in dismissal.
At this point the defense admitted
the payment Of $77.74 interest on a cal
loan by a Mr.. Woodruff who was no
present.
District Attorney Rothermel then an
nounced that the commonwealth
closed. His announcement created
some stir and comment in the cour
room in view of the generally eX
pressed expectation that sensational
and startling revelations might divulg
during the course of the prosecution.
In order that the defence may hav
, an opportunity to prepare its opening
Judge Biddle adjourned court until to