Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1899-01-07
QUAY CASE CALLED
Argument Before Supreme Court for
Writ of Certiorari.
DEPENDANT PLEADS PARfIAlITY
Declares He Could Not Get Fair
Trial in Lower Court.
THE RECORD IN EVIDENCE

PHILADELPHIA, January THE Quay
conspiracy case, which has attracted the
attention of the public for several weeks
past, was called before the state supreme
court today. The defendants in the case
ara United States Senator NJ. S. Quay, his
son, Richard r. Quay, and ex-State Treas
urer Benjamin F. Haywood The charge
under which they stand indicted is that
of conspiracy in the misuse of state funds
for their own bepefit and profit. The case
came before the supreme court today on the
petition of the defendants for a writ of GER
tiorari to remove the case from the court
of quarter sessions of Philadelphia.
When court opened eX-District Attorney
Graham who has been retained by Mr.
Rothermel, the recently elected district at
torney. as special counsel in this case, pre-
scented a motion asking the dismissal of the
case on the ground of insufficiency of fact
in the averments of the petitioners and
want of jurisdiction of the supreme court.
Chief Justice Sterrett, who presided with
the full court of seven justices, Informed
Mr.. Graham that his motion would be con-
sidered after argument had been heard on
the petition of the defendants for writ
of certiorari.
Ready to Hear Argument.
DEFENDANTS counsel were then notified
that the court was ready to hear argument.
David T. Watson of the Pittsburg bar, who
has recently been associated with the ccun-
sci for defense, then proceeded with his
argument in support of the petition.
Mr.. Watson argued at great length on
the point that the defendants asked the su-
peryisory interference of the higher court
because of their apprehension and susp1-
cion that they could rot have fair and
impartial trial before the Philadelphia
county court He declared that the lower
court had overruled every application made
for relief, and that Judge Finletter, who
occupied the bench during the proceedings,
had shown his partially to the prosecution.
Furthermore, the contention was made by
Mr.. Watson that the body of the people
from which a jury would be drawn has be-
come prejudiced through newspaper publ
cations, hence the apprehension OF preJu-
diced Jury and the fear of an unfair and
partial trial. He made direct charge that
the machinery of the district attorney $
office and thai of the court had been used
for political purposes with the ultimate OBJ
ject of defeating the reelection OF one OF
the defendants as an United States senator.
To support his contention that the court
had been unfair he quoted from the decl-
sion of Judge Finetter in dismlsslng the
denurrerS entered by defendants, in which
the judge stated that 1.-The only effect of the
demurrers was to postpone and delay
final disposition of the case, and that such
motions served no good purpose. he
permitted the district attorney to alter an
Indictment after it had passed from the
hands of the grand jury. The charge which
he alleges was allowed to be made was that
of altering the wording as to make it
read: THE moneys of the Peoples Bank, y
instead of 1.-The moneys of the state as
originally appeared in the Indictment
This permitted irregularity, Mr.. Watson
claimed. was all sufficient to show the par
TALLY of the court.
Another Point Raised.
Another point raised by the attorney was
that Judge Finletter had dismissed the de-
murrer to one of the indictments which
charged conspiracy on the part of Senator
Quay with Cashier John S. Hopkins to use
the money of the Peoples Bank for the
purchase of stocks. No crime was charged
in this indictment, Mr.. Watson claimed, be-
cause the charter of the bank granted to it
by the state permitted the bank to "pur-
chase stocks and bonds" No law had been
violated, counsel commended, by the acts
charged in this Indictment.