The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1903-12-10

tive Of the combine. $4,000 to pass tn
present lighting contract.
Murrell took the money. but afterward
returned 1t to Butler. as the combin
wished $4,000 this price being fixed at
regularly called meeting of the combine.
Afterwards Butler came on the floor G
the House. when protesting citizens wit
ropes were In the gallery. and told tn
boodling Delegates that he would not pa
any such price. According to the test
mony in the trials that have taken place
he did offer them 1880, or $500 apiece
II they would pass the measure. Afte
hasty consultations the combine decide
to accept the offer.
One of the combine members previousl,
had seen Murrell return the $4,000 to But
Ter. outside Of the City Hall. Charles J
Kelly was appointed to secure the $47, so
from Butler. After the House of Dele
gates had passed the lighting bill Kelly
with Edmund Bersch. went to the offic
OF Butler. on Tenth street.
The combine did not fully trust Kelly
They delegated John Helms to watch KEEL
ly. He did SO. and when he saw Kelly
come out of Buffers office he got on 6
car and went to the home of Julius Leh.
|
combine Delegates were to meet. Kelly
went In carriage.
| PLAYED AND wHISTLED.
| There the si7.5OO was distributed by Kel.
| ~ and Helms in the dining room, while
Lehman played the piano and whistled In
the parlor The Delegates went into the
dining-room one by one as Kelly and
Helms checked off their names
Circuit Attorney Folk has as witnesses
for the State against Butler the follow
ing Delegates. who have confessed to be-
Ing boodlers: John Helms. Otto schur-
macher. E. E. Murrell. j. X. Murrell and
William NJ. Tamblyn.
That the decision OF the Supreme Cour.
may have great influence in the Doodle
trials Of the future is conceded by those
familiar with the legal points that NAV be
raised.
The two points on which the Supreme
Court based Its opinion are considered Of
vital importance in the Interpretation Of
the bribery laws Of the State.
LOOPHOLE FOR FARRIS.
An attorney said yesterday: 1.-THE opin-
ion lays wide open the way for a defense
Frank Farris. under this opinion, can
plead that the anti-alum law on the stat
ute books has been declared invalid, at
least in part. and that he could not be
guilty Of accepting bride to prevent its
repeal.
He might also allege that he was no,
legally elected. and II he could prove the
point, no case could be made. This, de-
spite the fact that the law has been OBJ
served as a statute. and he has been serv-
ing as a State Senator.
Likewise. the garbage contracts Of the
Board Of Health have been upheld for
nearly thirty years. Marshall. now
member of the Supreme Court. held that
the Board Of Health had a right to make
the contract. Schumacher, the preced
ing City Counselor. held the same view.
while the present City Counselor. Charles
w. Bates. holds that either the Board of
Health or the Board of Public Imrove-
ments has the right to bind the city.
'Supposing that Doctor Chapman had
accepted the bride Of $500. which he says
was offered to him. He would be a de-.
bauched public official. Butler would have
received for months the profits from his
contract. and still neither Chapman nor
Butler could be punished.
FACTS AND TECHNICALITIES.
"Under the same supposition Of an ac-
cepted bride Of $500. II either Of them
could 20 back far enough to prove that
the City Charter was not valid. they could
not be convicted. Technical violations
there could not have been, while actual
debachery there might be. 49,, Elm,
Again. under the.contention of tie su-
preme Court. that the Mayor Gid not sign
the ordinance Until the day after the
bride Is supposed to have been offered
by Butler. tn. gateway for corruption is
thrown open to a degree ret heretofore
appreciated.
Suppose the General Assembly had
passed a bill and It was up to the Cover
nor for signature. providing that, the Cir
cult Judges Of st. Louis were to appoint
r Jury Commissioner with a salary of
10000.
Knowing that the Governor would sign
this bill. suppose that boodler gives
5000 to a Circuit Judge for his favor in
deciding the appointment Neither the
Judge nor the boodling applicant for the
position could be convicted of corruption.
ut is proposition that is enough to
cause some Of us to think in what easy
ways boodling might be done and still |
not be boodling under the law as laid down |
by the Supreme Court"