The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1901-10-12
COLLINS SCORES
LEACH AND COLE
Intinates That Their
IIotives Are Not
Honorable.
Makes Caustic Comments on
Peculiar Bookkeeping
in the Mint.

CeO-ee d, Collins, counsel for Walter
\. Dimmick. on trial in the United States
District Court Tor presenting a false
voucher TO the cashier CT the Mint. occu-
pied The whole of yesterdays session in
his argument TO the jury. He closed at
SIS D. N. Ex-JuGge S. G benson Will
make the closing argument for the Gov
orumeut. beginning at 10 2. m. to-day.
Nj Collins took the aggressive in his
argument. denied the assertion Of impair
uaIity put forth Tor The prosecution in the
argument of Bert SchlCsiDgcr on the pre-
yi0us day and insinUated that Superin-
reuGeut Leach and Cashier Cole should be
convicted instead OF The defendant. He
bOldlv charged the prosecution with I'M
fairness Ia the illumination Of the
witnesses on reputation when the counsel
for the Government asked whether the
witnesses had heard Of certain transac-
lions of DimmiCk with the T3llant Bank
ing Company, j. s, Kirk Of Chicago, the
Cutter-TOwer Company of Boston and
other matters concerning which they mad
not attempted to introduce a particle of
evidence.
The real law-breaker. said Mr.. Collins,
is Superintendent Leach, and in this case
the sanctity which the prosecution has
alleged surrounds a public official merely
because he is such does not apply TO Mr..
Leach, for he grossly violated the treas
Mint by allowing the Selby Company to
offset a claim that the United States held
against ii. Continuing, Collins said:
Suppose that $4,000 were missing out of the
q g--. - NJ NJ SH La M M
cashier. Is there NOT ample motive for the
prosecution o. escape, 50 lar as they are con-
CerLe1. the In-sIuJau1l that arises necessarily
from the commission OF that crime? l want
You 70 knoW tAat mere Is something IN TINS
cas- other thau the bald charge OF the presen-
taJlon Of tins voucher Tor S4ss S1-this voucher
which b. my agreement says Leach, was
10 be exhausted by credit for material fur
uished 10 The Mint. Section Of article q
OF he Revised statutes Of the United States
provides thar all funds received from the sale
u bl-prooucts old material, etc, shall be
separately deposited on the last Gay OF each
quarter IN ire Sub-TTeasuTy Of the United
states and that no portion OF the moneys col
lected for the purpose named shall be used for
Llle IaE--leur OF expenses OF any kind. Leach
clearly violated tins law, 50 that the proceeds
OF the sale OF old material never reached the
treasury IF the United States. The money
was lsed Ter expenses contrary to this regu-
latiCl. From that point on everything was
done IN this case as Leach ordered and wanted
ais own testinony shows what a gross law
breaker this man Leach is 1t was my under
standing with RalstOn," says Leach TO keep
this account separate from the regular pur-
chase account Of the Mint Leach had no
accent
M Collins next turned his attention to
showing that the alleged fraudulent
II was marked paid on March 2e. he said,
when in point OF fact il was never paid
II all. but was set off by material re-
Ceived from the Selby Company. Cashier
Cole came N for q scOTching because he
admitted that al the time ne paid the
money 10 DimnjcE he thought THAI the
transaction was peculiar, YET he waited
Ten months before he informed Superin-
zendent Leach Of that transaction
Counsel commented upon the fact that
Cashier Cole made no memorandum OF
The receipt OF the voucher and the pay
men1 Of the money as evidence that Cole
understood than the matter was TO re-
main in allegiance, and this proved that
Dimmick's version Of the affair was the
only correct one
It was necessary, the counsel argued
that the prosecution should prove that
D1mmick had q criminal intent TO oefraud
the Government Of 1898 81 before il could
expect q verdict Of conviction, even as
Stunning that the voucher was fraudulent
On the contrary, the evidence was that
Dinnick returned the money TO Cole, and
that Cole, while admitting the fact Of the
repayment Of the money by the defend
ant at the same time admitted that he
had made no entry Of the transaction IN
his books, thus cOrrobOrating the explana-
ton made by the defendant
In conclusion Collins said:
Cole Is about the trickiest witness I ever
saw on the stand he dissfululstes all through
the material portion Of his testimony and I
say that z man who cannot be believed on a
material point such as this IS not TO be be-
Deved Il all in snv part Of his testimony.