Jasper County Democrat, Volume 9, Number 8, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 26 May 1906 — WERE POLITICIANS FROM 'WAY-BACK [ARTICLE]

WERE POLITICIANS FROM 'WAY-BACK

The McCoy Trial Opens Up Some Political History as Well as Showing Their Banking flethods.

STATE'S EVIDENCE NOT ALL IN And Will Not Be Before Middle of Next Week.—Trial Will Laat Three l*lore Weeks. The following report of the MoCoy trial is from clippings, for most part, from the special correspondent of the Indianapolis News, who is in attendance each day: The third week of the trial of Alfred and Thomas McCoy began Monday morning and the attorneys for the State are unable to say when they will finish their case in chief, but hope this week to examine all their witnesses. Then the defense will take some time to outline its side of the case and will have a large number of witnesses. The State will have many witnesses in robutal and the defense will surrebut with additional witnesses. Then the argument will follow, and how long that will take has not been agreed on; in fact, all through this case it has demonstrated that the opposing attorneys will not agree on anything, not even the time of day. Although this trial is one of the most important held for many years in the White Circuit Court, there are no atrocious features about it, and consequently it is not attended by many Monticello people. But it is attracting much attention all through northern Indiana and especially at the towns along the Monon railroad, where the name of McCoy has been a household word.

ment of the peculiar methods of private banks. One of the arguments used by the private bankers’ lobby in the last Legislature was to point out the great farms and magnificent lands owned by the operators of private banks all of which would go to make good any loss the depositors might have in the event of a failure. The State’s evidence in this trial has shown the fatuousness of this argument advanced by the lobby. The McCoys had the thousands of acres of lands and when the bank failed their friends.pointed to it as an asset. But the State has shown that this land was plastered with mortgages, in some instances four deep, and the witnesses have testified that the land was not worth nearly as much as appraised as an asset. And the bankers’ lobby declared that the books of the private bankers were always open to its depositors and the appointment of an examiner was only giving some politician a job. But if there had been aft examiner in this instance he would have sounded the alarm when be found the McCoy bank was paying 5 and 6 per cent, interest on time deposits (and the State says it will try to show that even 7 per cent, was offered). He would have sounded the alarm when he found that the McCoys were engaged in politics and that politicians could step up to the bank and get money on questionable securities, or even without any kind of security. It would have been cause for uneasiness when it was found that A. McCoy & Son & Porter, that McCoy & McDonald and the Rensselaer Stock Farm Co. were getting large sums of money from the bank; that Alfred McCoy and Thomas J. McCoy were taking money on their notes from the banking firm of A. McCoy & Co.; that A. McCoy & Co. and the members of the firm as individuals were heavy indorsers; that Wm. A. Rinehart, son-in-law of Alfred McCoy, had almost unlimited use of the bank’s money, and the examiner could easily have found out that the Western lands Rinehart used to get money on was mortgaged heavily. A competent bank examiner would have found that long ago this bank was in a critical condition, and the State asserts that it will try to show that five years ago Alfred McCoy wished to close the bank because its affairs were in such bad shape, and that if it had been closed then there wotild have been no losses. The proposition, according to the witnesses the State will have, was to put the bank into voluntary liquidation, and in time every depositor would have been paid dollar for dollar. The reading of the papers continued most of the morning, until the defense finally made an objection that the action of the trustee in appraising the McCoy property (the state having offered to read his appraisments as evidence of the McCoys’ insolvency) was an expert act and should not be put in evidence. When this objection was made, Judge Farber called for authorities on the subject, and the reading of the papers was discontinued until the afternoon, and the state called for some of its other witnesses.

POLITCAL BANKING. And Republicans everywhere in Indiana are watching the proceedings, because both of the McCoys were politicians. Alfred McCoy and his “sheepskin band” were for years at Republican gatherings in this part of Indiana, he paying all expenses of the meetings. In the McKinley campaigns he was particularly active, carrying with him over this part of Indiana his “band,” supplement by a glee club. “Tom” McCoy was Republican chairman of the Tenth district and had the politics so well in hand that no one thought of disputing the position with him. As political bankers both the McCoys were famous. They elected the custodians of public funds without trouble, and treasurers of towns, township trustees, county officers deposited, if not all, a large share of the public funds at McCoys’ in return for their bonds being supplied by the McCoys. And, in one instance at least, it was shown by the State that the McCoys paid interest on public funds; one witness, a former township trustee, C. M. Blue testifying that be was paid interest on township money. It is the intention of the State to show *hat many of those who had large overdrafts at the bank were ex-county officers and politicians.

VALUELESS NOTES OF POLITICIANS. “Why, don’t you know,” exclaimed Mr. Haywood, when witness Charles G. Spitler had declared a certain note for a large amount to be worthless, “that the maker of that note was once sheriff of Jasper county?” (Abe Hardy.) “Yes, I know it,” replied the witness, as he reiterated that the note scheduled as an asset was of no value. Mr. Sellers asked Mr. Spitler regarding the value of an overdraft of the Jasper County Republican Central Committee, and witness testified it was of no value. The State expects to show, or at least expects to argue, that “Tom” McCoy, the banker, was mixed up in so many political schemes that when money was needed he did not say “no,” and handed over the funds of the depositors to help out the politicians. And there is a certain class of private bankers who are watching this trial with more than ordinary interest. They know that the testimony as the State brings it out of witnesses is a severe arraign-

There were no witnesses present, and W. H. Eger, of Rensselaer, who appeared for the state a few days ago, was recalled for cross-examination by Mr. Haywood. He is a brother of John Eger, the witness who threatened to throw a bottle of ink at the Lafayette lawyer. The defense brought out that Mr. Eger had purchased four drafts payable to himself and held them when the bank failed. Mr Haywood asked the witness if he had not obtained the drafts and held them so as to avoid paying taxes on the money he had in the bank. The court excused him from answering. “I will ask you, sir, demanded Mr. Haywood. “If you had not been doing that for years?” Again the court ruled that the witness need not answer the question.

“Then I will ask you it you returned to the assessor for taxation the amounts of the drafts?”

On the objection of Mr. Sellers, Judge Farber ruled that the witness need not answer, Mr. Haywood then started in on the most vigorous and 'caustic cross-examination any witness has yet received. In answer to repeated questions, Mr. Eger said he never made threats against “Tom" McCoy, never objected to T. H. Robinson going on McCoy’s bond, did not abuse Alfred McCoy in the streets of Rensselaer, nor aid he ever take any part in the proposed mobbing of McCoy. W. H. EGER QUESTIONED ABOUT THE DYNAMITING. „ Then Mr. Haywood came to the question of the dynamiting of the house of “Tom” McCoy the night of October 15, 1904. The attorney ask Eger if it was not a fact that Fred Cissel, the night before the dynamiting, went into Eger’s store and got some dynamite, which he handed over to Eger, who took it around the corner and handed it to John Moshler, who took it across the river and secreted it until the next night, when the explosion occurred. Mr. Haywood also asked if that explosion had not been the result of his advice, he not being present at the time, it having been arranged that be should be in bed when the dynamiting occurred. He was asked if one Vern Robinson stood guard while Moshler and Cissel did the work.

Judge Farber told the witness he need not answer the questions unless he so desired, and Mr. Eger inßistea that he be permitted to answer. He said that there was absolutely no truth in the statement made by Mr. Haywood, and that he had nothing to do with the dynamiting of Tom McCoy’s house, either directly or indirectly. Mr. Eger also denied saying in the streets of Rensselaer that he was sorry McCoy was not in the house when it was blown up. He said he had remarked to his boy that he would not have cared if “Tom” had been in the house. Mr. Eger also denied that he tried to make trouble for the McCoys, and declared that he had not been taken to Chicago by Delos Thompson, the day McCoy was arrested, to keep down trouble. Mr. Eger bore himself well on the witness stand, though the defense by its questions was trying to break down the testimony he gave a few days ago to the effect that in November, before the bank failure, Tom McCoy asked him not to withdraw any money from the bank, because they were hard up. Under the circumstances Eger was a good witness.

WHAT THE DEFENSE WILL BE. After all the'evidence in the trial has been heard, the result will resolve itself about three points that the defense has been raising: 1. What were the debts of the banking firm of A. McCoy & Co? 2. What were the assets of the banking firm of A*. McCoy & Co. 3. Did the firm, after an examination of its assets, honestly believe that it was solvent when it accepted the deposit of James H. Cox? While there are many technical points on which the defense are basing their cause for a reversal in the Supreme Court in the event of a conviction, the three enumerated are the ones on which the defense is depending to set the McCoys free.

SICK JUROR DELAYS TRIAL. L. A. Custer, one of the jurors, was taken sick Tuesday afternoon, and court was adjourned until 9 a m. Wednesday, when Mr. Custer was able to resume his duties. A dozen or fifteen witnesses were taken over from here Wednesday, but Thursday and yesterday only a few were used and those were each on the stand for some time. It is likely that the State will take up a part of next week with its testimony. It has been shown by A. T. Bowen, the Delphi banker to whom the McCoys and Rineharts were heavily indebted, that there is at least $65,000 in mortgages on “Bill” Rinehart’s big ranch in Missouri. The McCoys and Mrs. Rinehart owed the Bowens and their sister, Mrs. Busey, of Urbana, 111., about $20,000. The testimony of Charles Murdock, of the Merchant’s National Bank of Lafayette, disclosed the fact that in addition to the amount owed the Lafayette bank, it held a $4,000 note against the Rens-

selaer Stock Farm company, and that since the failure this note hag been paid by “Bill" Rip eh art. Now can anyone guess where ‘ Bill” got the money to pay this particular note? Considerable has been said in this trial by the defense about tax-dodging; the carrying deposits in the wife’s name which have have never appeared on the tax duplicates of Jasper county; the issuing of dummy drafts to heavy depositors so that they might ease their conscience when making oath to their assessment sheets, etc. The “dodgers” here say that “Our Tom” put them onto this method of escaping their just share of the burdens of government, but isn’t it strange that Tax Ferrit Workman didn’t discover this in his several years’ investigation of the taxpayers here? This but goes to show that The Democrat’s contention that Workman was only after the easy marks, the widows, orphans and infirm, was correct.

Here is a little story that is told with a good deal of amusement by the attorneys: John and W. H. Eger are brothers and live in Rensselaer. John was called as a witness and told a friend that he was glad to be here. “You see Bill is so hot-headed,” explained John, “that he is liable to fly all to pieces and I am going to stay here and keep him cool.’’ John, on the witness stand became so angry that be offered to throw an ink bottle at attorney Haywood and splutered about like a house on fire. “Bill” was subjected to a severe examination, but was as cool as a frapped cucumber. John, the peacemaker, was the fighter. “Bill,” the supposed fire brand, was as unresponsive as a wet blanket.