The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1908-05-19

terly logic and the elOQuence with
which he clothed the details Of his
argument made q profound impression
upon all his hearers. He began his ad-
dress with an illustration from ancient
times when it was the custom of those
in authority to reach forth their hands
and seize from their subjects whatever
they desired. But here was case OF
the state demanding money on bond
from a private corporation, and yet
coming into court to prove it's case first
like any other individual instead or
using violence without regard to JUS
tice as practiced in other centuries.
But he declared that there was often
injustice practiced under the law as
well as under the custom of lawless-
ness He wanted the jury to CONSIDER
this case without regard to the charac-
ter of either defendant, but as onicers
of the court sworn to administer JUS
tice in conformity to the law. He stat
ed that the great question at stake IN
this case is, was this a deposit account
or an account for collection only.
The courts instructions were to the
effect that if the jury found this TO pc
law, then the state could not recover
from the banks bond company. he
claimed that all the business transact
ed by Treasurer Kelly with the FIRST
National bank was OUTSIDE the pohu.
The states only witness that this was
an account for collection only was Mr..
Kelly's bald statement to that erect
Now could Kelly have stated otner-
Wise without admitting that he ma
acted unlawfully? He stated mat the
evidence that he had kept only DE-
post account with the bank in Ques-
ton. Kelly admitted that at the very
beginning Of the collection account
he deposited $4,000 in this bank In
the form of a check drawn on this
bank and payable on demand and at
sight and left it in the bank for a
period of at least ten days W1thout
checking against it. Was this de.
posit for collection? Any person OF
CANNON sense knews that it was a
plain deposit. All the deposits MADE
bv Kelly in this bank were merged
with the other monev OF the bank. ana
the ex-cashier of this bank, Mr.. BOW
man. testified that kelly's account was
handled in exactly the same way as
the accounts Of the banks 1.5OO other
depositors Mr. Bowman testified that
ali Kelly's checks on the bank were
subject to payment at sight unless Tor
a very large amount. say $4,000. when
and In. this case the bank required
some few days, time to get the money
with which to meet such large
check. "And you tell me this was
deposit account, when this bank placed
the states money in with its other
funds and loaned 1t out in the course
of its business? Had there not been
a secret agreement with Kelly and the
hank that this was to be a regular
deposit account would this bank nave
dared to allow one cent of the states
money out of its vaults for one minute
except on check by the state treasurer.
Accounts for collection, specially IN
large sums, are placed apart IN the
vaults from a banks other money ana
held there subject to instant With
drawal The law regulating state de-
| positories required that a regular sum
should be paid the bank for making
collections on the checks and drafts
deposited by the state. There was no
! evidence introduced here to show that
any such agreement was ever MADE
between Kelly and the bank. Did this
bank collect and handle over two MIL
lions of dollars for Mr.. Kelly and the
state for nothing? TODAY the state
treasurer has, under the new law
which requires that the treasurer de-
post state money In banks, $45O,0OO
deposited IN 45 banks over the state
and receives interest on daily balances
| in the sum of about $1,000 per year,
| while Kelly. under law that forbid
deposits in banks, kept over half a
million of the states money IN one
bank all the time and the state did not
get one cent Of interest tnerefrom.
And you call this an account for col
| lection only"
| Frank L. Williams followed for the
| state at the beginning of the afternoon
session. Archie WiIifamO followed him
| for the defense. Mr.. Blair for the de-
tense and Mr.. Gleed for the state
clos ed the argument, and the case went
| to the jury at about $3.50 o'clock.