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

/
The Quay organ Of our county in sew
eral of its late issues has stated to Its
readers that Quay was triumphantly
acquitted of the charges against him OF
his trial for Illegally using state mon
les. We have heard some Republicans
ask what the trial was about, and why
it was not brought sconerZ' For the
information of such we would say, the
prosecution grew out Of the failure OF
the Peoples Bank of Philadelphia, IA
bank started by Quay aud others) which
was a very large depository of state
funds When the bank failed the cash
Ter. John II. Hopkins, killed himself
and a Receiver was put in charge Of it;
affairs. On examination of the book;
and papers of the bank. and the private
books of the cashier, the crookedness OF
| the bank s management was discovered.
and the evidence was obtained on which
the prosecution of Quay was based.
Had the bank not failed. the evidence
of crooked work would never have
seen the light Of day. When the bank
affairs were wound up and all the as
sets gathered, there was still a shortage
Of over 800, 900.
The Eagle may talk as it viii, and
apologize for Quay all it can, but the
fact still remains that the funds of the
State Treasury, (the peoples money,
were used. if not by Quay personally as
collateral security for the note of his
son, T.. r. Quay, for 100000. What
right was there in Haywood, Quay or
any set of fellows to have an under
standing that State money would not
be drawn on till Quay's son should pay
his note.
The following letter will give some OF
our readers some information they may
not have had before. and will also show
how triumphantly(g Quay was acquit-
ted:
PHILADELPHIA, Mar 4, 1900.-There
| Is no well informed person in Eastern OF
~
! fully understand the circumstances OF
ex-senator Quays acquittal OF the
charge of conspiracy to use the funds OF
the State Treasury for his own and his
| family's advantage. In that now fam
Gus trial one of the pieces of evidence
tending TO show that a conspiracy eX-
listed between Senator Quay, the late
| State Treasurer B. j. Haywood and
Cashier John II. Hopkins was the fol
| lowing remarkable letter written by
State Treasurer Haywood to James
McManes. President of the ruined
| Peoples Bank of Philadelphia, one OF
the leading State repositories;
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Treas
nary Department, Harrisburg, Pa.
July 31-96.
James McManes Esq, Peoples Bank,
Philadelphia,
Dear Sir:-On Monday we will mail
Won a check for 800. 600 for credit Of
| Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Gen
eral Fund. which will make credit TO
orr account of 5000. 600. The under
standing is that | am not to draw
against any part of this deposit until
Hon. r. r. Quay has paid or arranged
satisfactory 10 you the loan of SlOO.OOO
which YOU are to make him next week.
Very truly
b. J. Haywood, State Treasurer.
Supplementing this remarkable letter
was Il telegram sent from Canada by the
then State Treasurer. Mr. Haywood. to
Mr. Hopkins, Cashier a few days after,
while Mr.. Haywood was on vacation.
Ii is as follows:
II wrote to your President last Friday
night, saying we would not draw any
part Of the deposit of $500, 900 until r..
X. Quay had paid or arranged satisfac-
tory TO You the SlOO, 600 you were 10
loan him last week.
Since Senator Quay's appearance in
Washington where he has been trying.
with his friends. To induce the United
States Senate to admit him ON the certi-
ficate of appointment by Governor
Stone, a number of Quay newspapers in
Western Pennsylvania have been max
ing frantic efforts to Prove that Senator
Quay is "A prosecuted man and that ms
aCquittal in Philadelphia on the Grim
mai charge Of conspiracy is proof of
their assertions. They fail TO tell their
readers, however, that the Attorneys Of
Senator Quay pleaded limitation on GER
tain important evidence That it was
because of the failure to get this evi-
dence before the Jury proving that the
conspiracy was not alone with Mr. Hay
wood as State Treasurer but with every
other State Treasurer since Senator
Quays occupancy of that office, that his
acquittal was largely due.
The statute of limitations was raised
by ms Attorneys against the admission
Of discriminating evidence as the follow
ing extracts from published reports of
the trial show.
The original indictment charged all
of the State Treasurers from VI. > Quay
down, together with Cashier Hopkins of
the looted Peoples Bank, and Chas III
Mckee of Pittsburg with conspiracy.
During the trial the Attorneys of Mr..
Quay. VIZ David Watson of Pitisburg
and Rufus +. Shapley and A. ) L.
Shields of Philadelphia pleaded the lin
itation of time when the District AttOr-
ney. Mr. Rothermel, offered to prove
that Quay had been conspiring ever
since 1856 with all of the State Treas
urers Here are the extrscts:
Prosecuting Attorney ROthermel -
Nav ~ please the Court. the Grand Jury
did not find an Indictment against these
others the State Treasures before Mr..
Haywood but that does not prove that
this conspiracy which Is alleged did not
start as We allege it did, in the time of
NJ > Quay and continued with each of
the State Treasurers in succession up 10
the present time. We are showing
continuing conspiracy We are show
ing the existence of the conspiracy to-
day by reason of it having been formed
with each of the individuals who stood
in the same position rs Benjamin J.
Haywood, heiug State Treasurer.
The Court t-Do you mean to say that
this conspiracy with Quay commenced
at that time?
Mr. Rothermel In 1896. yes sir.
The Court Is that what you offer to
showt
Nr Rothermel Yes sir.
Mr. Sharpley The bill does not
charge that
Mr. Rothermel 1t is n matter of
evidence not of charge. We propose to
prove these very facts, the purpose
being 10 establish that this conspiracy
was originated IN 1ssG. and that con
tinued until the present time.
The Court our offer is 10 show
that Quay was a party.
Mr. Rothermel That is the allega-
tiou Of the Commonwealth, for which
we offer this evidence.
Mr. Watson Attorney for Mr. QUAY
Ny friend Mr.. RotEermelJ SAYS they
intend showing a continuing conspiracy
from this This is what was proposed
To do in the Bartleson case, and the Court
ruled it was unlawful. There is no
such thing as continuing conspiracy.
But a conspiracy must be within two
years.