The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1904-02-06
who was standing in the front of the rail-

dramatic situation.
| WOULD DISREGARD
McDERMOTT'S STORY.
| Il say that the man who has lied o
the Circuit Attorneys office is a despica
BILE perjurer say that he has willfull,
and knowingly sworn wrongfully to ma
| terial fact. And l say that you ought Il
| disregard that mans testimony
Here Maroney turned again to McDer.
mott The prosecutors face was flushed
| and his words were spoken In tones thun.
derous and wrathful.
McDermott at first seemed to regard the
matter as n huge joke. Center of the
gaze of 500 persons. he laughed uproarious.
ly. But the scathing arraignment gradu-
ally dampened his exuberant sense of hu-
NOR. The laugh subsidized to a smile. and
at the words ''despicable perjurer'' the
smile CONCEALED into frozen grin.
why was there no sign of other wit
nesses as to that conspiracy? 1 ask you,
gentlemen of the jury. why?" Maroney
continued. turning from the jury to Nc
'Dermott and from McDermott back to the
jury.
The jurors exhibited the keenest and So
berest interest in the development. but
did not become infected With the jollity of
the Witness
Judge Krum has argued" continued
Meroney. dealing with another point.
that the Circuit Attorney has been i'm
posed upon by this 'oleaginous aggregation
of perjured molecules But il Mr.. Folk
or others OF his office are so simple as all
this, then they are not fit to hold their
Places
Judge Krum has also said that three
witnesses have sworn that Butler was not
at the Hous, of Delegates the night of
the alleged bribery. Gentlemen of the
jury. there is not scintilla of evidence in
the record to the effect that Butler was
not there. What these witnesses did say
was they did not gee Edward Butler on
this OCCASION"
Maroney's address ended at 1880 o'clock.
HARRIS CLOSES
FOR BUTLER.
After the noon recess. David H. Harris.
prosecutor or State Attorney for Galloway
County. rose to make the final argument
against the State in defense of Ed Butler.
He emphasized the lack of direct con-
rection of the defendant with the passage
Of the lighting bill.
This nefarious combine" he said de
cided that they would vote down this bill
in order that they might smoke out the
people behind 1t. And whom did they
smoke out? Not this defendant. They
have shown only that there was a strong
public sentiment or demand for the pas
sage Of the bill. and that this gang of
sendbaggers were anxious to make money
by the sale of their votes / don't sup
pose that those gentlemen could conceive
Of bill being introduced there for the in
terest Of st. Louis
FOLK CONCLUDES
THE ARGUMENTS.
At Just o'clock Circuit Attorney Folk
arose to make the final argument for the
State. As Judge Graves called his name
there was stir in the crowded court
room
His opening reference to the change of
venue elected admonition from Judge
Graves that there is mo necessity for
speaking of the change of venue"
The Circuit Attorney argued that it was
necessary to use witnesses of questionable
reputation in bribery cases. He showed
that the only witness to bribery must al
most inevitably have been party to the
bribe either as giver or taker.
Before you and in this courtroom he
said. they told you that narrowing tale
OF infamy to which you have listened. And
they told in a manner which had every
semblance of truth
'If they have perjured themselves they
did 1t before the Grand Jury to shield
themselves and this defendant here Can
not a man repent. cannot a man reform?
When Paul of Tarsus was going down to
Galilee there came to him a great light
IEstead of after that denouncing Christ he
became his minister. If some one had said
then. is not this Paul of Tarsus. he who
denounced Christ not so long agoT Would
that have impeached Paul? No. 1t would
have made the testimony Of Paul to the
divinity Of Christ the more convincing"
TELLS OF CORRUPTION IN
MUNICIPAL ASSEMBLY.
The prosecutor then devoted his elo-
quence to description of the conditions
existing in the Municipal Assembly, the
serious corruption which had fourished
therein. He said there can be no doubt
that the combine received money to pass
he bill.
Now, who paid it? That's the only
question" He cited the States evidence
connecting Butler with the bribery; the
Murrell interview; Gutke and the pack
ase of money: references to Butler In
combine sessions; testimony bringing But
Ter on the floor of the House and the visit
of Bersch and Kelly to Buffers office.
And you have evidence that 81 500 was
divided at Julius Lehmann's house. Where
could the money have come from? Where
Just the amount agreed upon by this de-
fendant Could 1t have been waited in by
u stray breeze? Whence could it have
come but from Edward Butler?"
Folk attacked the a,ibi. emphasizing the
memories possessed by Butler witnesses.
who were accurate in recollecting Incl
dents which occurred on November Is
1899. but were surprisingly inaccurate with
refe-enc. to other dates.
ATTACK ALIBI
OF THE DEFENSE.
He finally reached the point at which
he could assert that the alibi rests upon
the statements ofs three witnesses that
they did not see Butler in the House. But
he declared that such testimony does not
prove him not to have been there; that
he could have been present and unseen to
Cronin. Sweeney and Burke.
IF you allow a man to so free upon
such an alibi. you would be granting free
dom upon a defense which every criminal
could offer. Any man here to-day in this
crowd could find three men also here to
swear that they did not see him, and they
would be telling the truth
II there be an offense, greater than all
others. 1t is that of him who sells his trust
for an fnducement. The bribers are worse