The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1901-12-08
REPUBLIC

independence. Mo, Dec. Former Gov
ernor Lon V. Stephens WAS the chief wit
ness, and his refusal to answer questions o
Attorney Fred w. Lehman. who conducte,
the cross-examination for the defendant
was the interesting feature in the deposi
lions taken here to-day before Notary A
NJ. OFT in the suit for damages brought b,
former Representative W. O. Cardwel
against The st. Louis Republic.
MI. Lehman persistently asked the forme,
Governor about any knowledge he Nigh,
nave or did have as to corrupt or venal at.
tempts to influence legislation at Jefferson
City, about contributions or alleged contri.
buttons from corporations to the Democrat.
tc State campaigns and questions bearing
upon these and like matters.
Mr.. Stephens just as pe~rsistently, acting
upon the advice of Attorney Frank p.
Walsh. who represented the plaintin, de-
clined to make reply. MIR. Walsh repeatedly
advised the witness not to answer the cues
lions on the ground that they were i'm
material 10 the case at issue.
II Is customary in dispositions for the Wit
ness 10 answer whether objection is made
or not But in this case Mr.. Walsh not
\ only ob1ected but advised and almost COM
Nnanded the witness not to respond to the
pertinent queries of Mr.. Lehman.
TO DISPROvE COOk.s
STATEMENT FALL SHORT
1t was evident at the outset that the only
OBJECT or to-day's dispositions was to pro-
duce testimony to contradict that given be-
Tore the notary a week ago last Wednesday
oy Secretary of State Sam B. Cook to the
effect that he Mr. Cook. while chairman
OF the Democratic State Committee, had re-
ce1reQ a contribution of 60 nta frnr- -,--,
william H Phelps, attorney of the Missouri
Pacific Railroad, and had. upon the instruc-
ZION OF Mr.. E. T. Orear. formerly Insur-
ance Commissioner credited This contr,h,,-
tion In his own Cooks name.
Facts bearing upon the lawsuit itself
were not much in evidence. In his effort
" uispfo'e TINS statement of Mr.. Cooks.
A.'orneS walsh not only sinSularly fell
short' out his witness rext in Importance
:" governor Stephens. Mr.. Orear himself.
aum'teed IN his deposition to-day that It
was ne who made the suggestion, as he
anHdiy put it. that led Mr.. Cook In soc
.Phelps about the matter.
OREAR's ACCOUNT OF
THE PHELPS CONTRIBUTION.
Mr.. Orear frankly admitted that shor,,,,
after the campaign he met Mr.. Cook AT ST
LOUIS. and at the Southern Hotel had +.,L.a
oser the matter of this contribution with
nl"' and practically, or in effect. advised
MI. COOK that. inasmuch as If w,s ao.n,aa
uh"ise to let this contribution be sborn =.
tne sworn statement of the treasurer ne 81.
campaign Committee as having come rror,
Soionei Phelps. a contribution miyb, ~
pear as having come from Mr.. Cook ns-son
ally. o''A person.
M. orear also stated that he know W.
So'A had called upon Colonel Phelps twice
vi 'Hae OCCASION: that the first time bo
.eu Soiohei Phelps evidently was NOT 4,
ou. after the second visit he came fortt
VIZ" d written order from Colonel pbe,n,
h'ihs TO the listing of the coptr;b,,-
Cook. " CHAIRMAN
NOs TESTIMONY as
TO sTUEvER.s DONATION.
"e course of this testimony former.
nof stephens admitted that in ,b.
So,sh m which he was running for Gov |
sfhor IN 1896 Mr.. Tony Stueyer tb. G.
LOUIS brewer. had called at his bon,o - |
seherson City. was introduced to tho c.
erhor by a friend who the Governor ,t,or
"aros said was MIR. Ellsner). and told Az
otepnehs mat he believed he wac h.,n, |
betrayed by members of the partv-man
oets OF the committee. in fact-in 81. Ion,s.
mat nothing was being done 10 aid III.
eaecuon Of the Governor in South st Ionic
ana mat he. Mr.. Stuever, wanted IN do
s'me'nins for him as a Democrat Interested
IN tne success of his party's candidate
ne intimated that he wanted to mako
contribution of money and Mr.. stenbans
Said mat he fatty refused to accent II, Nv
Nueser added that he did not care To mako
Tho n-nn fyDN - 4
sne aohation TO the State Committee. as
MI. stephens suggested he should. beca,,s.
" "aS aifaio IL would not be expended in
the manner In which he desired, namely. ~
heip the Governor carry the German vote
in South St Louis.
AFTER the departure of Mr.. Stephens WIN
was quite i'll at the time. Mr.. Stuever ,ef,
the check with Mrs. Stephens. The Cow
ernor found it to contain s1.oO. He turned
1t over to the State Committee.
Mr.. Stuever subsequently made several
contributions. Just how MANY and
what amount Mr.. Stephens said he Aid
not recall, but they probably aggregated
5000.
LEHMANN's QUESTION
MADE MIR. STEPHENS INDIGNANT.
The Governor also told of his signing the |
breeders Dill. the efforts made for and in
OoAAosA "S ASdsuIe AFTER II reached |
him for action, and his final decision ON
being convinced that it would be a benefit
to the State. or at least a greater benefit
an evil. to sign it.
He reiterated in his deposition the state
ment made by him. in an interview recently
a St. Louis newspaper, to the effect
Mr.. Cook had urged him to vote for
the measure.
In the course of his cross-exa in, ,;on
Lehman asked Mr.. Stephens IL the
of Mr.. Stuever as Police Conn
of st. Louis had any connection
the contributions made by Mr.. Stueyer
10 him I'm behalf of his election.
I Mr.. Stephens appeared ~indignant>a at what
he seemed to think was an ~insinuation
hat the appointment was In return for
his assistance. and declared the question
IN insult. Mr.. explained that he
meant no ~onense, and had simply asked the :