The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1901-12-12

scious. of the use to which he was put. Ihat
he was used as mere figure-head or STOOL
pigeon in this libel suit to serve him tine f9vere hay1
no kind of doubt. whether ne Is aware on -, :. !,
or not. The purpose Of those behind M e,,tii;. the
suit was to create ,asv nls,ruSe snd N intesrtw Of
those, or some of those. who hold promi-
nent places of public trust as Democratic
officials. or who are prominently s9hneS.eu s.,.
with the party organization and party
work. In this way they hoped also to pro
woke personal feuds. and thereby to weaken
the party in the State. AS these depositia,nss
into a mountain. there was great sput-
tering among the plotters, great happIns; M pm;
of buzzard wings and croakings OF TOTO
you SO" They couldn't find much that vas vas
not known already. and found still less less
that anybody would care to conceal. put
what little they did find or revamp: how
smiling devils benefaction, for 1t gave them
something to distort. to magnify, and TO
howl about As far as it went. the deposi-
Cook. Coo formerly chairman Of the State COM
mittee. and Mr.. seibert. the pres pre-
ent chairman OF the ,snon ,Ss1, commit, 1t:
men posing still as Democrats. for things
these two men did in connection with COM
mittee work. To that extent It Is an az
tack upon the paFsy ,rsse ronspIa.ors shown
to the detriment of these men IN Inc me spti> M9.H
they did for the committee. or to the deltI-
ment Of the party organization n sney Ispte 81 he
sented? The whole; complaint seems 10 oe
'ase' '1' h BASIS Of Complaint.
1. That Mr.. W. H. Phelps contrInu.su =.
s. COO to the committee campaign funds III
1896. which was entered in the public state,
ment of the committee as money coliecIeu
by Cook. without giving the name OF the
2. That Judge H. 8. Priest raised. with
HIS own contribution. $500 for the conf
mittee in 1885, which he handed to MI: MI.
Committee in conducting the campaign OF
3. That certain brewers in st. Louis con-
!. That Cook and seibert distributed this
money. collected in 1888; to aid In the eies. &c.
in the large cities and in close counties
throughout the State.
That is the whole story so far as It con-
Cook and seibert as State Committeeman,
First, as to the Phelps contribution. made
in 1896. There is nothing new IN this. All
this contribution was known and fully ex-
plotted on the stump. and In the Globe
Democrat and other papers years ago; the
nm of an old chestnut Mr. Phelps has
stated more than once that this contrihu-
tion was an Individual contribution OF MS
which he is associated had nothing what
ever to do with IT. II that be true. and he
says it IS. the contribution was not by
corporation, hut by an Individual. Whether
this contribution should have been ac,
cepted even when offered in a.e,ox the way ,oni amd
which men may differ. and as to that do
not now express an opinion. but certainly
no one will contend that one who claims
to be a party man should be denied the
right to legitimately aid his party by con-
trfbutions Of money. or otherwise: simply pG
and solely because he Is In some way con-
nected With a corporation. Whether it is
proper to ask or receive assistance from
any man depends on the circumstances OF
each case at the time-circumstances which
may affect his motives and his general re-
latiOns to the party.
But, as have said. this is an old story
long ago exploited and exploded. and 1t Is
hardly worth while to do 1t all over again
Personally, Mr. Cook says. he had no In
fention or wish to suppress the fact that
Mr.. Phelps had made contribution; and
says that the contribution was entered in
the public statement in the form 1t was.
namely, as money collected by him. only
because that form Of entry was suggested