The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1903-11-05


Is that your handwritinS?" asked Jour
dan of Lee, rendering the message to him.
Attorney General Crow leaned forward
and inspected the paper. There was a
dead silence for several moments while
Lee looked at the sheet. Then he said, in
n low voice: mo. that is not my writ
| ing
Mr.. Jourdaa dropped the matter and
! proceeded with other evidence.
| Briefly summed up. the burden of Lees
| testimony was confession of matters
relating to the Farris case that have al
| ready been made public. He bore out in
detail the charges made by Attorney Cen
eral Crow in his opening address. He
| gave a full explanation of the Farris case
and the baking-pGwder deal as he alleged
the affair took place, and was then sub
| jected to a strong cross-e1arnination by
| Jourdan.
LEE ADMITS THAT HIS
! MEMORY FAILS HIM At TINES.
The latter attempted TO make him con-
tradict some of his previous evidence in
the present case by tangling him up on
certain points. In the same detected voice
in which he had given his previous testi-
mony Lee adhered to the story for the
| most part, although he freely stated at
times that he had been mistaken in evil
dence given before the other bodies.
So far as getting him TO contradict HIM
self on the statement he made in his di-
rect examination. Mr.. Jourdan succeeded
in but one or two minor points on which
Lee had seemed rather uncertain in his
first answers. In two or three cases he
tot f1,at Lii
In one case, where he had testified that
he was moderately sure Senator Matt
hews had been in Farris's room at the
Laclede when the envelopes of money
we're made up, Lee, upon cross-eXamina-
tion. said he had seen Matthews at the
time. but that he had met him in front of
the Laclede Hotel.
kELLEY'S CHECKS TO
LEE INTRODUCED IN EVIDENCE.
Checks in large numbers were presented
to Lee for Identification in the course OF
the afternoon. Interest was aroused to
high pitch for a moment when Lee
stated that he had not received money
from Kelley prior to 1901. As Attorney
Jourdan reached for some checks imme,
diately. it was apparent he had some evil
dence in this connection. but Lee quail
fed his remark by stating that he had
often cashed checks for Kelley.
Ten checks were introduced later in his
cross-examination. The defense asked in
each case whether he recognized the
check. the circumstances under which he
received it and where he had cashed 1t.
Many of these checks dealt with mat
ters already reported to the Cole County
and st. Louis Grand Juries. In the ag-
gregate, they represented sums close to
s, 400. They were dated from February
Ii. 1900 to December 2, 1902 The last check
introduced was one for s1.000 dated March
10, of this year. This was the check he
turned over to Attorney General Crow.
Lee stood a continuous cross examina-
tion on this point. He seemed little un-
certain of some minute details, but did
not contradict his testimony on main
points He testified that the check had
eral days before he gave 1t to the prose-
cutting officers, and declared that he had
not written to Kelley concerning it.
He said that he did not remember writ
ing letter to Kelley in which references
were made to the check that Bob had.
The closing remarks by Attorney Jour
dan were connected with the details OF
Lees recent appearance before the Cole
County jury.
NO PROMISE MADE TO LEE
OF NONPROsECUTION.
One point on which he questioned Lee
closely was whether any promise had been
made the former Lieutenant Governor that
he would not be prosecuted for his tesu
mony before the Cole County Grand Jury,
Lee said that no promises or assurances
had been made, but that he had talked
his case over with friends. who believed
hat r y1nf frYraQ ~ m
the States witness in important cases.
When asked to give the circumstances
attending the cashing Of each Of the KEEL
ley checks. Lee recounted the details. The
later checks. he said, were cashed in st.
Louis, while others were cashed throughout
the State. He said that Kelley frequently
gave him checks to cash while he was
checks appearing with his Endorsement as
early as 1880. when, he had asserted. none
of Kelleys money had come into his per
Most Of the checks were cashed for Kel-
ley while the latter was here. he asserted.
Jourdan demanded to know whether some
Of the checks were not dated y New va'1dI; I3rk;
had been in New York when he, Lee,
cashed them for Kelley. MIR. Jourdan
asked why Kelley would qdL send checks ,,t 9 to
not press the point and went on to an e1-
animation of the letters.
A NEW LEE LETTER IS
PRODUCED IN THE TRIAL.
One letter not heretofore addrced as
evidence was given out by the defense.
which reads, in part, as follows:
"Mr. D. ]. Kelley, New York City, N.
Y: Dear Sir-I have your esteemed favor
without date, as usual. l have instructed
P. not to Introduce the bill until requested
and we concluded that 1t would be better,
possibly, to devote our attention to pre-
venting the repeal of the present statute
rather than the passage OF a new i;-1 iaWi !
will await advice from s. before having
the bill introduced, unless you think best
to do So at once.
This letter is one of those Lee denies
writing. 1t will likely be thrown out OF
the evidence as il cannot be identified.
Lee said he could not account for his sig
nature to this letter.
The epistle continues by descrlning tne
efforts of the good opposition" which are
characterized as ridiculous, and states
that the writer win send a typewriter
copy OF the bill introduced in the lower
will have talk with Senator Walker. who
Is to be chairman of the new committee,
and winds UP land he accepts. told him
that ne would make good; S strong g fIiedaS nd ,he
postscript is signed simply Lee.
The 'S." referred to in this letter is said
to be prominent politician who has been
connected with the movement to keep tire
antialum law on the books.
LEE SAYS HE SUGGESTED
STONE AS TRUSTS ATTORNEY.
In his early testimony Lee said that
upon first communication with Kelley he
had suggested the name of William Joel
Stone as a suitable lawyer to take UP the
food question.
Following out the line OF argument about
Lees denials of there being any corrup--
ton in Farris's actions, Jourdan examined
hi