The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1903-11-07

at the W
tries dated 1891 and the two entries OF
| treating Senator Charles Smith. also dat
| ed 1901
| Mr.. Jeffries asked the jury to note that
| the entries skipped suddenly from 1881 to
| 1901: that these 1901 entries were in diff
| ferent shades of ink to those preceding
and following them; and that the first
| 1901 account set down was dated April,
while the Charles Smith entry was dated
March. Thus the April entry preceded
that of March.
Throughout the speaking Farris set mo-
| tianless and impassive, his face betray-
ing no sensation whatever He kept his
eyes fixed steadily on every speaker and
never lowered his glance from their faces.
Seated Immediately behind him and
within the witness rail. were his father,
John W. Farris. his wife and a Mrs.
Ridgely of Lebanon, who accompanied
Mrs. Farris throughout the afternoon.
Senator Smiths wife and daughter sat
among the spectators, Immediately behind
the Farrises.
JOURDAN CLOSES
FOR THE DEFENSE.
Mr.. Jourdan picked up the account book
in which Attorney Jeffries had called at
tention TO the accounts being entered
without reference to their dates and as
serted that this was merely an irregular
method of bookkeeping adopted by Doc
tor Wilson.
He said that other accounts showed
this same form of entry. Though but
two pages of the book had been admitted
as evidence, he turned over several leaves
to prove his statement, Attorney General
Grow apparently noticed this, as he
smiled quietly, but said nothing.
He then introduced the disputed letter
dated March 2, 1907, and said that the rec
ords showed it had been identified. He
used this letter as basis and made a
lengthy argument thereon. He insisted
that the payment of S7,G00. mentioned In
the letter as having been made by Lee to
Kelley, proved that Lee did not otherwise
dispose of the $500 he alleged he dis
tributed than to give 1t back to Kelley.
He took up the Lee letters i'll detail, Sc
Letting those Lee had identified.
"A man who would write such letters is
unworthy OF belief" said Mr.. Jourdan,
"and a man who belittled himself, his
writer Of these letters has done, is surely
not worthy of credence.'
DECLARES LEE WAS NOT
TROUBLED BY CONSCIENCE.
He then referred to the fact that As
sistant Attorney General Jeffries had
spoken of conscience or some other high
impulse which made Lee testify to the
Cole County Grand Jury.
''lt was PROBABLY no higher impulse
than the fear OF This same Granu jury
and its lnulctInents. salu Mr.. Jourdan.
he referred TO the evldehce of good cnar-
acter that the citizens OF Larieue and
Crawford counties had given FarrIs. ne
said tnat the whole testimony showed he
had never been suspected of any evil deal
iAgs, and that the sole man to accuse hun
was Lee.
In contradistinctipn to Lees testimony.
which. he asserted he had sufficiently dc
proved, he gave all the evidence of these
citizens, some of whom, he said, were held
in esteem in their own towns and all were
known as citizens of high standing.
Il am not speaking for 4.000,0 900 residents
as Mr.. JeffrieS asserted he was" contIn-
ued Mr. Jourdan, But am speaking for
one young man who sits there. i ask
you to give him the trial granted him by
the Constitution and laws of this State,
to accord him the fairness in treatment
your laws say he shall have"
He then referred to the Senator's home
life, to his wife and children and to the
disaster a conviction would be, asserting
that 1t would be an injustice that would
cast a blot on the family name.
Attorney General Crow closed the argu-
ments of the attorneys with the most elo-
quent speech of the day, asking for the
conviction of Farris to protect the institu-
tion of free government
II would give no greater benefit to Far
ris than to the veriest tramp, nor would I
give. him harsher treatment.
This was the keynote of General Crows
he
fact that his duty and that of the jury
were the only things to be. considered.
Starting with the defense's attack on
John A. Lee. he said that the prosecuting
witness in every case of the sort was sub
,ject to such attack, and that the jury
should not consider 1t.
He did not hesitate to declare the 1902
did Kelley. send back the envelope,
postmarked Jefferson City, he de-
ssd a. ms there anyhpE y1f to s srna he
ture. which Lee denies?"
1T lis headed Jefferson City, it is true,
but that could be written anywhere. Why
when there was no Assembly here?''
The defense always tries to attack
prosecuting witness and to prove alibis:
there any way to prove bribery; except
by the confession of an accomplice? Ii
Lee is guilty of what they charge. does
that make Farris less guilty?''
we 10 not" Heeu u pfONc tHol LIS
accepted money. but that he entered into
an agreement therefor. 1t is not neces-
sary to prove he received dollar.
.T never ask for a man to be convicted
in this case.
ASSOCIATION OF
LEE AND FARRIS.
"How did the defense get those letters
from Kelley? Why did they introduce
them? To discredit Lee. Because they
show Lee and Kelley were Jointly trying
to corrupt legislation. But when Farris
and his counsel bring those letters as evi-
dence to clear Farris, what position does
that put Earris In? Does not the evidence
show that Farris and Lee were associated?