Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1908-03-13
Banker Sentenced to Peniten-
tiary at LeavenWorth.
PLEA FOR A NEW TRIAL
Judge Anderson Denies It, With a
Lecture.
BANKING AND sPECULAT1NG
Says the Two Together Are Apt to
Breed Criminal Cases Like
the Present.

CHICAGO, March 13.-John r. Walsh.
former president of the Chicago National
Bank OF this city, and convicted of illegal
use of the funds of that institution, was
today denied a new trial by Judge Ander-
son of the United States district court
and sentenced to serve FIVE years in the
federal penitentiary at Fort Leavenworth
AS soon as the court had announced
its decision refusing to grant new trial
the attorneys for the defense entered a
motion in arrest Of judgment, which they
argued for some time. It was generally
thought about the courtroom that they
would consume two or more hours in CIV
ing their reasons for the granting OF this
motion. but Attorney Hart, who presented
it, ceased speaking in about thirty min
utcs. Judge Anderson then promptly
overruled the motion and sentenced the
banker to five years in Fort Leavenworth
Verdict Was Regular.
Judge Anderson, in denying the motion
for a new trial, spoke without notes, his
decision requiring about one hour In de-
livery. He first took up the question OIL
the alleged non-assent to the verdict on
behalf of Juror Palmer, reciting the cir
cumstances from the records of the court,
and declaring:
ut cannot be said for a moment that
Palmer .dissented from the verdict. To
my mind there is but one construction
to be placed upon the whole matter, and
khnt ic fhof hn n voYdiot
If 1t 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 deliberation or
that it be discharged. No such request
was made, and the court 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 ver-
dict was entirely regular
Incident Of the Garter.
The court further declared that the
charges of misconduct on the part of the
jury were not founded. in fact. saying
that the counsel for the defense had
stated in open court that they had no
objections to offer to whatever degree Of
liberty the court might allow 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 particular
ly when 1t had not been shown that any
improper use had been made of the free
dom granted
1T is claimed by the defense that while
In variety theate: one of the jurors in
this trial removed the garter Of an actress
What that has to do with this case / can
not imagine, and why dignif1ed counsel
should bring it 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, 1t being claimed
that the defendant was found guilty upon
several counts which charge the same Of
fense 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 inconsistency as al
legged,
Reckless Financiering.
On the point Of Alleged error commit
ted during the trial Judge Anderson said :
Generally speaking. 1 want to say now
that this defendant has had fair trial.
Nowhere did the court allow evidence to
go before this jury which was calculated
alone to prejudice the case against the
defendant.
In my opinion, no reasonable man
could hear the evidence in this case and
have any doubt that the defendant in
tended to do the things that are charged
against him in the indictment. For more
than thirty years l have taken part in
legal procedure as a lawyer and judge.
and it is my deliberate conviction that
more reckless, utter disregard of law has
never been shown in any case within my
experience. Feeling thus. II was with
considerable misgiving. If may SO speak,
that ! sat here yesterday for more than
three hours and heard counsel for the de-
fendant argue that the government had
failed TO show the criminal intent.
Duty of Banker.
81 had occasion to say in ruling upon
motion made by defendants counsel that
no man can serve two masters. To my
mind that is the key of this whole situa-
ton.
1.-The defendant was banker and presi-
dent of a national bank. The proof show
ed that he loaned to himself substantially
seven-tenths. or three-fourths OF the en-
tire assets Of this national bank-seven-
teen or eighteen million dollars. which
was invested not in property which had
been developed. but in railroads and other
properties which he hoped to develop
The banker was lost In the promoter, the
speculator. the railroad man. The evil
dence clearly establishes this. He owed
a duty to the bank. his master. He at
tempted to serve those other interests
the other masters. To my mind there has
been in recent times no clearer demon
stratfon of the statement that a man who
is banker ought to be nothing but a
banker. and that until at least those
bankers who own and manage national
banks understand that when they serve
their bank they cannot serve other inter-
ests-until that idea prevails cases like
this will probably continue to arise.
Under all the circumstances my duty
appears to me to be perfectly plain. and
this motion for new trial is overruled.'
The defense then entered a motion in
arrest of judgment. which was also over
ruled by the court.