The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1903-10-15
Contends That If Butler offered
the Bribe He Is Guilty Tn
der the Statute.
WILLIAMS UPH0LDS DEFENSE.
Urges That OffenSc Does Not
Come Within the Language of
the Statutc-BOth Sides Of
Case We'll Presented.

I BY = STAFF CoEEESpoNpENT
jefferson city. Mo. oct. l4-'Suppose
/ that Doctor Chairman had sought and se-
| cured a bribe on the garbage contract
/ Does any one suppose that he could plead
/ the alleged nleEalty uf the Board of
| Health's powers
PropoundIng this question. Attorney
/ General Crow this morning made a strong
/ plea for the affirmation of the lower court
/ in the Butler case. He talkcI for nearly
an hour. and with a knowledge ~ the de-
tails tnat showed his deep interest and
thorough study 81 the famous trial and
the law on the subject. He was followed
by Judge Williams or Roonyile
In answer TO the question Of the Attor-
ney General. Judge Williams took up the
CGigel. and said that Doctor Chapman
could plead the Ilegality of the statute
n he had been bribed. On this point. IL
IS thought. the Supreme Court will decide
th- case.
ATTORNEY GENERAL
MADE ABLE SPEECH.
The Attorney General was not feeling
well. but he made speech that has re-
ceived tho favorable comment nj the
many lawyers who were present t0 near
He said that "Nr Butler was not tried
for a violation Of the ordinance giving 10
the Board of Health the power 10 let the
garbage contract. but for trying 10 affect
the official conduct OF an officer OF the
law
II Butler offered the bribr." said the
Attorney General. he was guilty"
Suppose that there was no ordinance
he continued. simply suppose that this
officer was an acting member 0f tho
Board OF Health. created 10y the char
ter. tho defendant was guilty NJ an Of
fcnse II nc tried 10 brihe him. tn" law
does give 10 tho Board of Health IN"
right to remove and reduce garbage as
function or sanitary government Doctor
Chapman was acting on this matter in
the regular course of his official conduct
Mr.. CROW dweIt for snmc time on tho
revyrso proposition Of Doctor Chapman
guilt II he had accepted a hribe-
is Il possible he asked 'for there 20
be bribe without hrihcEivcr:
The proposition proves ITSELF
OFFENSE WITHIN
LANGUAGE OF STATUTE.
Mr.. Crows speech was largely devoted
to the consideration OF the instructions Of
the court. He insisted that tho offensc did
come within the language Of the statute
and mentioned the fact that for many
years the executive department n ST
Louis had accepted the contracts made by
the Board OF Health as had tho de-
fendant. The testimony OF Doctor Mer-
rell was declared 20 be admissible rs
showing the intent OF the defendant.
Judge Williams spoke for an hour in
his closing speech Tor the defendant. Most .
OF his argument was devoted to a learned I
discussion Of tho provisions Of the Char |
ter and the right OF the Board Of Health I
10 make the contract. Judee Williams is I
recoFnized as one OF the best lawyers OF 1
the State. and his argument was heard 4
with great deal Of interest by those |
present.
On the proposition that the reduction Of 1
garbage was a public work. Judge VII I
liams cited the fact that the sprinklinS T.
contracts. cleaning Of streets and other I
work OF sanitary nature were let by the
Board Of Public improvements in accord-
ance with the provisions Of the Charter.
He said that on the reverse, proposition
of Doctor Chapman's accepting a bride.
he same defense could be and would De
proper. He cheerfuIly assented 10 the
des that there was no dIHersuce betSeea