Butler citizen. [volume] (Butler, Pa.) 1877-1922, 1900-03-15

tiOn should be taken into consideration,
and the following taken from Mr.
Sharpley's remarks is conclusive: Mr..
Sharpley had quoted from the opinion
in the case of the Commonwealth vs.
Bartleson, and drawing parallel said ;
Il submit in this case therefore, as l
suggested before, andas my colleaguesug
gested a number of times, that all this
evidence which relates to Morrison or
Bower or Hart or Livsey, or any of the
other payments to them, does not fall
within that case, but Is strictly ruled
ont by the early portion of the opinion
The opinion to which Mr.. Sharpley
referred when pleading for Mr.. Quay ;
exemption. was given by the Supreme
Court which quashed two indictments
in the Bartleson conspiracy case because
the crime charged was barred by the
statute of limitation
At this point the prosecuting at
torney took issue with Mr.. Quay's at
torney when the following interesting
discussion ensued:
The Court-Who do you allege this
conspiracy that you are talking about
was betweeny
Mr.. Rothermel-The original CON
spiracy we allege, was between Quay
and the officers of the bank and the
State Treasurer whoever he was. At
that time Quay himself was State
Treasurer. The conspiracy for the
bank by John 5. Hopkins. We propose
to show by the testimony that 1t was
ioined by various State Treasurers up
TO the time of Haywood.
The Court-Do you allege that at the
time of the conspiracy Hopkins was III
it?
Mr.. Rothermal- Hopkins was in it at
the time as to which | am going TO offer
evidence.
The Court Hopkins was in it?
Mr.. Rothermal-Hopkins was III 1t
at the time to which this evidence ap-
plies.
Mr.. Sharpley (Quay's Attorney He
is not a defendant; he is not indicted.
Mr. Watson (Quay's Attorney He
was not in il in 1896.
Cashier Hopkins had blown out his
brains because the Peoples Bank was
ruined through politics and speculation.
The language OF Mr. Watson clearly
indicates that it was the determination
of Mr.. Quay's counsel TO let no evidence
appear that could be barred by the
statute of limitations. Both Mr. Wat
son and Mr. Sharpley argued ably and
Iearnedly to prove that any testimony
concerning former State Treasurers,
and Mr.. Quay's connection with them,
or any payments of money as interest
to State Treasurer should be ruled as
inadmissable under the statute of
limitation in the trial of his case.
The Court ruled, under the law, that
their contention was right and that the
evidence which the prosecuting
,fara1 fl1DV
compicity in transactions with
STATE TREASURERS AS FAR AS 1886
SHOULD BE RULED OUT
The above evidence is taken from the
published stenographic reports of the
trial and the arguments of counsel
ANY Attorney, or any intelligent man
unfamiliar with court proceedings, can
readily see how in the above manner
Mr. Quay's Attorneys pleaded the stat
ute of limitations as to time. Under
such showing the claims that Mr.. Quay
was prosecuted. that his acquittal clears
him Of all charges. as to State Treasury
mismanagement in years past, IS falia-
cious and untrue. 1t was largely because
this evidence could not be admitted
showing how for years a conspiracy had
existed to use the States money that the
case ultimately failed
This letter speaks for itself We
submit whether or not the case would
not have been made out had the eyi
dence offered by the District Attorney
not been ruled out by the Court on the
objection of Quay's counsel by pleading
the statute Of limitation. The course
of his counsel was equivalent to saying:
What You offer to prove is true, but
You did not find it out soon enough;
and the law says prosecutions Of this
kind must be brought within a given
time or not all. We are not persecut-
ing Quay, we are simply giving our
readers his record as he made it himself.
So our readers can intelligently make
up their minds as to how they viii vote.
Have we not had about enough of Quay
and his methods Think it over and an !
swer at the primaries.