The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1908-03-13
SENTENCE WALSH
Chicago Banker Must Serve a
Term of Five Years.
In the Federal Prison at Fort
LeavenwOrth.
HIS TRIAL WAS FAIR.
The Court Says and He Is I'm
dOubtedly Guilty.
Prisoner Is Released on Bond
Pending an Appeal.
HIS TRIAL WAS FAIR.

Chicago, March 13.-John r.
Walsh, former president of the Chi
cago National bank of this city, who
was convicted of Illegal use of the
funds of the institution was today de-
MED new trial by Judge Anderson in
the United States district court and
sentenced to serve five years in the
federal penitentiary at FIT. Leaven-
worth.
AS soon as the court had announc-
ed the refusal to grant a new trial,
the attorneys for the defense entered
a motion In arrest OF Judgment on
which they argued for some time. It
was generally thought about the court
room that they would consume two
or more hours stating their reasons
for the granting of this motion, but
Attorney Hart, who presented it,
ceased speaking in about 80 minutes.
Judge Anderson then promptly ov-
erruIed the motion and sentenced the
banker to five years in F't Leaven-
worth.
Judge Anderson, in denying the
motion for new trial, spoke without
notes, his decision requiring about
one hour in delivery. He first took
up the alleged non-assent to the YER
dict of Juror Palmer, reciting the
circumstances from the records of the
court and declaring: cit can not be
said for a moment that Palmer dis
sented from the verdict. To my mind
| there is but one construction to be
placed upon the whole matter and
that is that he assented to the verdict.
II it had appeared to counsel for the
defendant that he did not do so. they
should either have asked that the
jury be sent back for further deliber-
alton or that it be discharged. No
dn ,,-f
is therefore justified in saying that
counsel took at that time, the same
view as was held by the court and
that was that the verdict was entire
ly regular
The court further declared that the
. the jury were not founded on fact,
saying that counsel for the defense
had stated in open court that they
had no objections to offer to whatever
degree of liberty the court might al
low the jury at times when court was
not in session. This being the case,
he declared that counsel was barred
from claiming that too much liberty
had been allowed, particularly when
it had not been shown that any i'm
proper use had been made of the
freedom granted.
"It is claimed by the defense that
while in a variety theater, one of the
jurors in this trial removed the gar
do with this case I can not imagine,
and why the dignifed counsel should
bring 1t into this case is beyond my
comprehension. 1t has no logical or
possible relation to the deliberations
| of the jury.
Much has been said about the incon-
| sistency of the verdict, it being claimed
| that the defendant was found guilty
upon several counts which charge the
same offense to have been committed
| in different ways. 1t seems to me that
| the verdict covers all the points in the
case and that there has been no incon-
sistency as alleged"
On the point of alleged error commit
| ted during the trial, Judge Anderson
| said:
"Geenrally speaking I want to say now
| that this defendant has had fair trial.
Nowhere did the court allow evidence
| to go before this jury which was cal
culated alone to prejudice the case OF
the defendant.
''In my opinion no reasonable man
could hear the evidence in this case and
have any doubt that the defendant in
tended the things that are charged
against him in the indictment. For
more than 80 years 1 have taken part in
| legal procedure as lawyer and judge
! and it is my deliberate conviction that
a more reckless, utter disregard of law
/ has never been shown in any case
within my experience. Feeling thus it
was with considerable misgiving, If
may SO speak, that I sat here yester-
day for more than three hours and
heard counsel for the defendant argue
that the government had failed to show
criminal intent. I had occasion to say
in ruling upon q motion made by de-
fendant's counsel that no man can
serve two masters. To my mind that
is the key of the whole situation. The
defendant was a banker and president
of a national bank. The proof shows
J that he loaned to himself practically
seven-tenths or three-fourths of the en-
lire assets of this national bank-seyen-
teen or eighteen million dollars. which
was invested not in properties. which
had been developed, but in railways
and other properties which he hoped to
develop. The banker was lost in the
| promoter, the speculator, the railway
man. The evidence clearly establishes
| this He owed a duty to the bank. his
master. He attempted to serve these
| other interests, the other master To
my mind there has been in recent times
no clearer demonstration of the state
ment that a man who is a banker ought
to be nothing but banker, and thai
until at least those bankers who own
and manage national banks understand
that when they serve their bank, they
can not serve other thai
idea prevails, cases like this will prob
ably continue to arise.
Under all the circumstances my
duty appears to me to be perfectly
plain and this motion for a new tria
is overruIed-"
The defense then entered a mo.
ton in arrest of judgment which wa.
: also overruled by the court
1t was the general opinion tina
counsel for the defense would con
sumo considerable time in arguing the
motion for arrest of Judgment but af
: ter Attorney Hart had spoken for 81
) minutes the court interrupted him
| saying: