The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1903-11-07
SENATOR FARRIs's FATE
NOW RESTS WITH JURY,
Continued From Pare One.

dresses TO the jury. and earnestly asked
that body to remember the testimony, of
Lee for themselves. The court did not
pass upon the matter. SO neither side in
troduced the letter in its final argument.
MIR. Crow also picked flaws in the entry
book submitted to prove that Senator
Smith was in his home. sick in bed, the
day of March 10. He scored this testi-
mony and that of Doctor Pennington un-
mercifully in his final address. He openly
charged that the latter had not been at
Smiths house the day he claimed. as he
said that Pennington would have recol-
lected more than that mere fact IL he
actually had been there
ONLY TWO WITNESSES
ARE EXAMINED.
Only two witnesses were examined aft
er court convened this morning.
Patterson Balm of ST. Louis was intro
duced as witness in rcbuttal of Smith,.
testimony. Baia was a representative Of
one of the baking powder companies af-
fected by the anti-alum law. His tes:i-
mony. after one or two minor points about
procedure. WIS contradictory 10 Senator
Smiths.
He said that it was his impression he had
seen Smith at TIE Lacl.de Hctcl March
~: that he had also seen him for few
moments in his (Smith's, office and later
mt the hote..
Attorney Genera, Crow then introduced
the report accompanying bill No 40 when
sent from the senatorial committee The
defense promptly objected. and lengthy
argument ensued between Assistant At
torney General Jefrriss and Attorney Jour
dan The court finally decided however,
that 1t should not be admitted.
Upon cross-examiration by Jourdan,
Bain stated that he might possibly be
mistaken as to the date on which he saw
Smith. and that it might have been March
%. 1t was his impression. however, that
1t was March 19.
John A. Lee was then called for the last
time. He denied that he had written the
letter in which references are made to
sending back s1.O00 to Kelley. He said he
had not seen this letter until its presenta-
tion to him upon the witness stand.
He stuck to this On cross-eXamination
and here Attorney Jourdan rose and in
sisted that Lee had admitted writing this
letter the previous day. The court Ste
ographer. ]. w. Cosgrove, was then
askeu 10 snow MS records.
According TO Cosgrove the letter marked
exhibit 30 had been identified by Lee the
previous day. This is contrary TO the be-
l,ef of the State. and as Attorney General
Crow stated on the point that If the rec
ords SO showed. that the stenographer had
rot reported the case correctly.
Mr.. Crows view is taken by representa-
tives of at least ten daily papers. Assist
ant Attorney Sam Jeffries. Prosecuting
Attorney Price Stone of Cole County and
disinterested witnesses all understood Lee
to saw distinctly that he Gid not write 1t
from the start.
The defense took up this point triumph
antly in its address to the jury later. Mr..
Geffries asked why. If they claimed Lee
had identified II from the start, the de-
fense had thought it necessary to ask
Hettel to Identify 1t the previous day by
the handwriting.
STONE MAKES
OPENING ARGUMENT.
After the charge by Judge Graves.
Price Stone made the opening address for
the State He stated briefly that the
crime with which the defendant was
charged was one of the worst known. as
1t struck at the foundation of the Re-
public
81 am not here" he said, Ito hold Lee
Up as a model of honesty. II he had not
re-, oornac,os ,,,,h tha .r,r,a bs would
not be witness here to-day"
He said that If the testimony did not
fully prove the $500 was deposited for
corruption, II at least proved all details
of Lees evidence as to the source Of the
,noney
Nc ra,,,sred tho .,,,dencs br,esv said
that tho derense had heen ent,rely nm
.b,o ., sh,,,. I..,. ,.st,,,,onv n,hareos
tho state had b.d,y t.ngied nm penn,ng.
ton an iu,nortant u,,nes. for tho do
fense who was tn have nroved an a,,b,
for Senator Smith. The points about PEN
nin.ton having clear recollections Of what
on March 10 1871. hut no recoI-
,ectior of other dates mr. othor sessions n,
III. Js,1s,.,yra or even of tho very do
tail. on which he testified was em,ha-
.i,ad
Ctr. corc,,d.d h,, ra,err,r, 20 p,,..r
On, p,,r,s .,,darca and th.t a. nro,,ad
tho St,te,s attach on sr,tb,s o,,h, uo
said he believed In the correctness os the !
c,,ta,. c,a,r, ~ Il
..cont,er,en ho,,svo se,.tor u.,,n.s
mn, .hort cb.n,ed sor,e,hor. ;n +hi.
dea,r
POPE spEAKS
FOR THE DEFENSE.
w. s. Pope was the first speaker for the
defense. His main line of argument was
that Lee was disgraced and his testimony
was worthless. He said the State had
accepted Lees Identification of the $751;
200 letter. the day before.
Mr.. Crow and Mr.. Jeffries rose instantly
and the Governor denied vehemently that
any such acceptauce had been made.