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

checks and certificates from the bank
showing the deposit and, withdrawal of the
sums named in its accusation on the dates
charged.
1t has proved that Farris was at the La
clede Hotel on the date mentioned by Lee
and that minor circumstances on which
Lee was asked to prove his story have
been shown to be correct.
The defense, on the contrary. has intro
duced fiat denials by Farris and six Sena-
tors Of the charges Lee made against
them on the stand. 1t has introduced doc
tors testimony to the effect that Senator
Smith. one Of those mentioped, was at
home in bed on the day prior to that on
which Lee states he saw him elsewhere.
and Doctor Wilson OF ST. Louis testified
that Smith was in no physical condition
to go downtown the following day.
1t has read letters in court in which it
claims that Lees statements are i'm
peached, and 1t pointed out the foregoing
letter to evidence the fact that Lee
claimed while writing it to have sent 5000
back to Kelley on the very day he claims
he distributed it to the Senators.
1t also has introduced witnesses to tes-
.ffy to Farris's character and has put
ether witnesses on the stand who swore
hat they heard Lee make eulogistic state
ments about Farris, denying the charges
Of corruption at times subsequent to the
spread Of rumors about bribery in the
Senate.
CROW TANGLES
DOCTOR PENNINGTON.
In rebuttal the State has tangled up at
least one witness-Doctor Pennington-as
to sundry details and has made the point
that If all these witnesses of the defense
are SO sure what occurred at the close of
the session of 1901. they ought to be just
as sure about matters at the close of other
sessions. Mr.. Crow tripped up several
witnesses and secured admissions that
they were not certain what occurred in
detail even of last winters session.
He has also questioned an entry by
which Doctor Wilson kept record of his
visit TO Senator Smiths house and asked
why it was written In the book in differ
mt kind of ink from that in which other
entries on the same page appear.
After a brief continuance of this rebuff
raj tomorrow morning. each attorney will
present his case. and Mr.. Crow and Mr..
Jeffries both believe that the matter will
be in the hands of the jury soon after
court opens tomorrow.
More than thirty witnesses were exam
ined and cross-examined in the course. of
the day. the testimony of John A. Lee
and Frank Farris being the features.
EARRIS DENIES
RECEIVING DOODLE.
Farris was called early in the morning
and made his answers in a loud voice
that could be heard clearly throughout the
courtroom.
He denied he had had any conversation
with Lee until after the alum bill had
been introduced; that such conversation
was never more than official discussion of
the merits of the bill. that he had never
made any promises to vote for the bill, or
had ever received. directly or indirectly,
compensation for his attitude toward it.
He denied all the interviews with. Lee.
the transfer of any money, and said that
he had never even heard Of d. J. Kelley
until the latter part Of the year, in which
the bill to repeal the measure was killed.
He asserted his attitude with Kelley at
that time was merely that Of m attorney