The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1903-11-06

1eeao VI S.a'es' Dee"eeA .he 1>ea'''
--------
anu 'naI ne nao refused 10 naho'e Duff
ness onerea MN oy Neiiey. lnls business
nc SILL was 10 prosecute Vloiators Oh .he
pure-iooo Jaw.
ne ueiiieu' IN iact, an the ep'soues VI
.eies anis' haeieue Holei meetings ana M
eefVie"s III tne Mauisoh fotei' anu ri''oe
d hat cohtraoiSlieh OF Lees story from
peglnmng TO end.
LEE ON THE
STAND ASAiN.
1ohn A Lee was the next most I'M
por'aht witness OF the DAY. upon direet
examination he testlhed that ne hao
dealings with the Sugar Trust representa-
yves for publishing articles IN one OF
nus papers lie CANNED 10 nave received
NV" ior ehis'
ne went over MS testimony ol the oay
oeiore ana was not 10 be shaken on any
point He also identified check for a'o0O
presented IN court as the one tnat hao
peeh 'urheo over 10 A''ofhey 1ehefai d
GRO" ior use oetore inc eoie e'uh'S
arahd jury
Another check, dated fepruary l. isE'
inoorsed by Jenny a Lee was one ne
ciaimeo ne had casned LOT hehey. Lee
,,.'iu ma. ne uiu no' nav .,'te ~
~ oeieie sett,h. 'ne 1,ones vi ~ % ne
easneu ~ ,o' 'A' "1'N '0'--eN '''e
III 'i'e piouue'ioh VI ,e..eis III ',e ai'ei-
MON .he ueiense ueo w ,no" 'ne eon
,eooA US -. 90
enose inen'ioneo IA '"e
ITnon cross-ex. mina,ion he sais the
a ooo r,b;cb be claimed IN have received
go, rros,do,,+ 1J.,,or,a,,.r of tho AVER
;can sugar Refining Comnanv bv mail.
g. ~. .s-.ta go 80 49,. q.
~. to ha,, ,,,,,, =, ti, r.co for coyernor
Da+a,ti,,a Iar,o. rrr.c,, NO. oo,,ad ,,,-
s,.t.I,, 60 h,,. ,o h.. h.a III.
q. r.. ~. ,,-,.. n.
ttp 80
..s'u "'.,. '.N,.A
N>s"eS .iia. 10. Du 1e 80
aeo' Du. 'ne oo'ee..on y. nc ~
-. A.. .,a,a o., o,,,, .,,,a nv
voc oA 'i.e
.nree ninu.es
fnD ~
rlasi wiNhss' ~
Iii VI ,ne <Ane'' ,'ee
the stand. he was tolo"eo py Lee anu
Tracy came next.
w. j. ChamDiiss. VINO mas appeared sew
eral times to testify to records Oh tne
Senate. was called for a few moments to
identify Senate bill NO. ITO. ana 10 verify
one or two dates mentioned by the state
in its reference to this Dill.
Senator Emmett A. Dowell was then
called, but remained on the stand only
while he testified to records of the SEN
ate. His testimony was unimportant on
these matters.
John A. Lee was then recalled and again
testified to the check for 500 presented to
him before. He had identified another
check for $3.50. handed him by the defense,
as a check he had received from Kelley
for personal services. Asked to explain
some Endorsements on the back, he said
that he had not cashed 1t in st. Louis, as
he was sick in bed at Jefferson City at the
time.
Upon cross-examination by Attorney
Jourdan, Lee adhered to this story. He
stated that he was in Jefferson City when
he received another check, and that this
latter was received just ten days before
he became Lieutenant Governor.
FARRIS TESTIFIES
IN HIS OWN BEHALF.
Farris followed to the stand. His ac-
quaintancc with Kelley. he claimed, was
made in the lobby Of the Planters Hotel
in st. Louis in December. 1901
Farriss testimony was a fat denial Of
all charges. He asserted he had no con-
nection with Lee or the alum bill. nor did
he have any but official conversations as
TO the matter with the then Lieutenant
Governor.
He denied he knew Kelley at the time
the bill was passed, or that he had even
heard of him at that time. He denied the
episode of the telegram Lee claimed to
have given him, and said that on the
night on which this incident was said to
have occurred, he had been stricken with
Fainting spells in Senator Morton's room.
He went to the Senate the next day. he
said. put had TO be sent home in car
rage.
Senator Haynes followed. and then Doc
'or Pennington took the stand. Mr.. Crows
success in confusing this witness as to
1ates and figures made 1t appear as II ms
presence was rather point for the state
ihan for the defense. by whom ne hao
oeen summoned.