St. Tammany farmer. [volume] (Covington, La.) 1874-current, 1916-08-19
Jutely NO connection.

! Bank Of Chicago was ONE of the mos
sensational happenings, Of that sen
sational city. This bank had at ON,
| time been q national bank, and hal
changed its charter and become .
state bank Upon the bank closing
its, doors both Federal and State
grand juries were called together
Experts were employed, and every
act and deed OF, every officer and OF
everyone connected with the bank
twas subjected to the closest and
most rigorous scrutiny. Months
were consumed in this Investigation
sEvery newspaper in Chicago carried
column after column day by day, and
after many months Of investigation
sex- United States Senator VIM. Lori
.mer. the President of the Bank, was
| indicted; Mr.. c.. B. Mundy, It's Vice
president, was indicted; the Cashier
and Assistant Cashier were indicted !:
members Of the Board of Directors
were indicted, and every man against
whom any suspicion of wrong doing
was had or against whom any evil
dence could be produced. was fndict
ed. II the charges OF. Mr.. Ponder
against me, were in any way borne
out by the records. is it not passing
strange that also was not indicted?
In this sensational case would it not
have been piling sensation upon SEN
sation to have indicted former Gov
ern0r of q far Southern State? Your
own common sense indicates most
clearly that had l been in any wise
guilty Of the olfenses charged by Mr..
Ponder that l would have been
promptly indicted and placed upon
trial. Not only was l not indicte i,
but. l was never connected in any
way with the thought of indictment.
had no connection with the bank.
There was no paper Of mine in the
bank When it failed. l was not on
It's board of directors. - was no. its
attorney, and was not and could
not be responsible for any act of
omission or commission committed
by any bank official.
1t appealing to the common sense
OF every one that If what Mr.. Ponder
charged against me was true that
would have been promptly indicted,
and Mr.. Ponder, realizing that his
charges had fallen dat, he again
shifts his attack, and in his speech
delivered at Kentwood ON August ],
he attempts to explain the reason
why l was not indicted by stating
that no one is liable for the wreck
ing of bank unless he is a bank
Official. when, as q matter of fact,
anyone who aids or assists IN the
wrecking Of q bank, or the abst, ac-
ton OF money unlawfully from a
bank. is liable to indictment and
prosecution, whether he is an Ollie
al of the bank or not.
''ln this same Kentwood speech ne
states further, after falsely charging
that l was the direct instrumentality
In which the LaSalle Street Bank
depositors were fleeced out OF nearly
. half million dollars, that l did this
either as dummy" for Munday or
1 /, co-conspirator.' ANY lawyer in
the District knows that IL did this
deed, either as dummy or as a
CO conspirator, that ! was liable to
indictment and prosecution. Any
act of any man that illegally and
wrongfully takes money out OF
bank, that he is not entitled to re-
eeave, is punishable under the law.
and no one knows this better than
Mr.. Ponder, who is SO fond of boast
ing Of his knowledge Of the law.
When Mr.. Ponder undertakes to tell
his audiences. as he has, and repeats
in! private conversation, as he has,
that the only reason was not in
dicted was because l was not an Of
hcial of the bank. he states that
which he knows is false and untrue.
/ was not indicted simply because l
had done no moral or legal wrong
and because had no connection
whatever with the bank or with its
failure.
! t'N Mr.. Ponder's statements in thus
connection were true, then any man
not connected with q bank as an
officer could loot the bank and go
Of justice.
i'.Mr. Ponder mrde the charge in
his Baton Rouge speech. and con-
hnues to make the charge in public
speech and private conversation. that
certain notes upon which suit were
instituted by me as owner were not
In, fact mine. II Mr.. Ponder has
read the record, and he says he has,
he knows that these notes were ac-
quired by me in a perfectly legiti-
mate business transaction. bought
these notes on credit agreeing that
I would pay for them 81 per cent of
whatever amount l recovered, re-
taining 20 per cent for my trouble
and expenses. Mr.. Ponder artfully
read in his Baton Rouge speech just
one. paragraph from my testimony,
wherein l stated the truth, which
was that Il did not pay anything for
the notes., neglecting to read to his
audience that portion Of my testi-
mony wherein l stated what l had
promised to pay for the notes. and
how had acquired them. Mr.. Pom
der's purpose in thus reading merely
q part of my evidence and not all OF
It, was to create in the minds of his
hearers the impression that l had
not acquired the notes, and was not
the owner of the notes, whereas he
knows that my evidence as whole
clearly prOves me to be owner OF the
notes.
''Immediately upon purchasing the
notes, under the terms. and condi-
tons as l have just related, flied
suit in the United States Court on
the notes against the maker of the
notes. the Southern Traction Com
pany, and put the Southern Traction
Company, that was unable to pay the