The Rich Hill tribune. (Rich Hill, Mo.) 1903-1911, 1904-10-27

NAMANH - ~
to prosecute the corruptlonists within
his own political party. The number
OF convictions obtained: the secrets Of
the grand jury and personal abuse Of
the men who are to-day, and have been
for years. the head and front OF the
Missouri Democracy. are the materials
which have been used n are being
used by Folk in his campaign 10 obtain.
frst. the nomination and second, the
election. We know nothing Of wrangles
within the Democratic party and care
less; hut we. together with an other
M~issourians, are Internationally in.
terested-in the publication or the
truth about the Doodle prosecutions
upon which Folk bases his claim for
preference over all other candidates.
The fact that Folk to-day Is boon
companion and hail fellow wen met
with the very Democratic machine
leaders whom he denounced IN order
70 obtain the votes Of the people for
tho nomination. Is another matter 90
which we shall pay attention AZ an.
other time. What We are most con-
cerned IN. Just now. Is the claim that
Folk Is entitled 10 the g~overnorship
because he Is the ONLY man IN Mis-
souri, who was. and Is. capable Of con
vlcting boodiers. This claim we de-
clare Is absolutely without foundation.
On the contrary, there Is not another
lawyer In the state Of Missouri who
makes any p~retentions TO professional
ability who. given the case against
Col. Ed Butler which Joe Folk had,
would not have conducted the trial IN
an entirely different manner. FOLK
HAD THE EVIDENCE BUT he DID
NOT USE IT.
After the trial Of the only big boodler
against whom Folk proceeded. Il be-
came clear to every lawyer In Missouri.
hat Folk was either incompetent as a
public prosecutor. or be deliberately
withheld testimony which was neces-
Eary 90 the conviction Of tho defendant.
We base this charge upon three
grounds:
Flrst-That the states witnesses
against Butler were all self-oonfessed
bTibe-takers and periureFs
Second-Mr Folks fatal hlunder IN
asking for time 90 produce witnesses
AND THEN NOT PRODUCING them
% rehut the defcnse's testimony that
Butler was not present IN the House Of
Delegates when the city lighting bin
vas passed and did not there and then
atsure the members they would receive
3a.500 each for their votes. THIS
ERROR or THE PROSECUTOR DE.
LIBERATE OR DUE TO MOON.
PErENCY. ESTABLISHED AN ALIBI
FOR BUTLER.
Third-Mr Folks utter failure 90
reoduco evidence 20 show any motive
for the alleged bribery Mr. Folk fur
nished the press with what be repre-
stnted 10 be this evidence. less than q
year ago. He then charged that the
iightinE aIll doodle had been secured
or two checks a~gEregating 1880.
tr0vn by 8 director Of tho Taciede Gas
company, IN favor % Edward Butler.
and Mr.. Folk contested 10 assert his
rght as a public prosecutor 20 enter
the Northumberland National Bank
and secure the evidence O. this alleged
fact Mr.. Folk Won. He secured the
banks record. What he represented
10 be this evidence al the ST. Louis
papers printed az the time Mr.. Folk
then attempted 20 connect Butler.
whom ho CHARGED with hriblnF the
NNNNHHf WIN NMH man. AMM ANN NMIN
a said 10 be interested "a the
corrupt legislation.
NOT A PARTICLE or ALL THIS
ALLEGED EVIDENCE OF ONE YEAR
AGO WAS PRODUCED BY Mr. FOLK
AT FuLTvS IN THE BUTLER TRIAL
Mhyf Was q because this director
Was the principal client and supporter
~ the late James l. Blair. the prose-
AHfNNRn NHnA AaFmmHma - ma.M.a#
Fnlkf Dia this director contribute 10
she Folk prosecution fund.- Did this
director contribute 20 the Polk cam
paiFn fund.- Why has Mr. Polk re-
fused % furnish the people with a full
list az the contributors ana the
amounts contributed TO the Folk proso.
cntion aud campaign fnndsg Has che
Office Of the circuit attorney az So
Louis been used for campaign pur-
.posos9
We charge that Mr.. Folk alone vas
.rosponsihle for the failure 20 present
ALL the evidence against Butler at
Fulton.
Ed Butler was acquitted OF the
charge Of bribery ~ tho matter OF tho
lighting ordinance. ana Il can not be
charFed 20 the account OF legal tech.
AM ~ ~" EMNAItHHHEM III i
b Jury upon the evidence. and the
Jury found the defendant not guilty.
The case was tried In tho country
before a Jury 81 farmers. and. while
they were all Democrats. there a no
sRarrant for assuming that they were
al or any Of them consciously inhn.
cnced by partisan considerations IN
rendering the verdict thoy did. Indeed.
hmm The reea a urnrnnta1 - Erff,n i
h can not fairly be said that guilt vas
shown beyond a reasonable doubt.
There vert three points IN which
DO prosecution Numbered ia~montably
The Witnesses for the state whose
testimony implicated Butler, woro an
tRlfconfessed hnhe.takors and per
They had taken many hribes
nd they had told many lies. Such
Eon r not good witnesses and yet
|bey may tell the truth sometimes and
.~anN l..KH 49, .m...NN ia A. u