The Rich Hill tribune. (Rich Hill, Mo.) 1903-1911, 1904-10-27
WHY BUTLER WAS ACQUITTED.
FOLKS LAMENTABLE FAILURE TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE
WHICH HE A SAID HE PossESsED-IN-
COMPETENCY OR Design

nave iurneu mtOrmers IN those bribery
cases, have done 40 10 escape punish.
ment for their own wrongdOlng And
everybody knows that IN some way or
another Il may be extreme lndircc.
ton, these men have been promised
favor IN some measure. The evidence
Of this Is open before us. Where they
had not been indicted when they
turned states evidence. they have not
been indicted at all. and where they
had been indicted they have not been
brought up for trial
And yet Sir. Folk has IN every case
posed these men as genuinely con
scicnce-stricken and r~epentant. com
ms upon the witness stand, not from
the hope OF immunity. but from a de-
sire TO make atonement He has com
pared these creatures to Saint Paul.
and himself to Christ As the light Of
the Savior shining from heaven upon
the persecnting Saul OF Tarsus con
verted him into Paul. the great mis-
sionary apostle. so the radiance eman-
ating from the great Folk. the light Of
the ever-instine smile. had converted
the hasest OF the boodlers into the
most sincere civic reformers. This
false p%retense dld not fool the farmer
jurors Of Fulton. They knew they
we're asked 70 believe a lie when they
were asked 10 believe that these men
had become reformers, or that they
had taken the witness stand from y
other motive than the hope r expecta-
ton OF favor. They we're bad wit
nesses 10 begin with. and they were
made worse by the false Endorsement
given them by the prosecutor.
The second point Of blunder was the
way In which the defense was met
The only evidence 90 connect Butler
with the bribery was that Of the in
( formers as 20 his presence IN the
House when the bill was passed. and
the assurance which they say be gave
them that they would each get twenty
five hundred dollars and no more. As
might have been anticipated. Butler
denied having been present in the
House az this time. and was supported
In this denial by several witnesses.
THE PROSECUTION ASKED TINE
ITO PROCURE WITNESSES To RE
BUT THIS. MR. HOLTCAMP AND
OTHERS, MEN OF GOOD REPUTE
THE DELAY WAS GRANTED. MR.
HOLTCAMP AND THE OTHERS
CANE. BUT THEY WERE NOT PUT
UPON THE STAND. WITH THE
MORAL EFFECT THAT BUFFERS
ALIBI WAS NOT ONLY NOT III.
IPEACHED. BUT WAS STRONGLY
coRRoBoRATED
The third biunder Is 80 remarkable
as 20 be inoomprehensibie. There was
no evidence 10 show any motive for
the bribery. II was not made 20 an
pear that Butler had any interest ia
the pending bin. or that he was req
~rescntlng anybody who had. The
charge upon tho evidence amounted
20 this. that Butler paid forty-seven
thousand and five hundred dollars Of
his wi money 20 secure the passage
OF a bill In which he had no interest
Such a charge was absurd upon It's
face There was either a great omls.
sion 81 evidence. or the evidence actU~
ally offered was false II was material.
TO show who was being benefited by
this lighting bin. and who furnished.
the money that pushed q through.
Butler was not Interested ~pecunlarIiy
IN the lighting bill. and nobody sus
pectcd him 81 furnishing the money
that vas used IN the House 81 Dele
gates. II he had anything 10 DO with
the matter NJ all. 4 was as a mere.
ascent for some one else. Who was
this some one else. aud why was he
not brought forward Less than a
year ago. tho newspapers were fnll %
tho fact that che lighting Doodle had
been drawn ont OF The Merchants
taelcde National bank on two checks
which aggregated furty-soYen thousand
ave hundred dollars The bank on
GERS and the bank hooks showed The
date and amount ~ ne checks and
who drew them. The drawer was a
man who had made fat contributions
20 che niairFok fund for the Prose
cuton Of boodlers lie had made tat
contributions "a political campaign
funds He was wen then making very
fat contributions in the way Of loans
10 Mr.. Blair. thus aiding him 10 post
pone tho day OF his exposure aud dis
grace, This fat contributor was wanted
20 show why he drew those two checks
Tor this slnEulaFly oolncident sum on
the very day o. the day before the
brlbe money was paid 10 the DELEGATES
lie was waited tn mako a contribution
of knowledge AZ least sQ Mr. Folk 4
said. and he said II 10 an the news
papers. who IN turn said Il a. an their
readers In spite OF this. perhaps be
cause OF at this. the fat contributor
did not respond 90 the oali % q sub.
poena, but remained IN New York 4
and elsewhere beyond the state. until
the dsy that was said 90 have some
relation 20 the statute OF limitations
his own case BUT NOTHING I
OF THIS EXPLAINS THE FAILURE
TO CALL HIN TO FULTON AND
HAVE HIN TELL THE JURY TOT
WHOM lie GAZE THE MONEY pATn
on THOSE TWO CHECKS M.
STEAD. THE SOURCE FROM
WHICH THE MONEY CAME WAS
A MYSTERY. IT MIGHT FOR
ALL THE TESTIMONY SHOWED !,
HAVE DROPPED LIKE MAMMA
FROM HEAVEN.
An az which goes 70 show that an
.%nordinate ambition 20 De governor isl'
bot a necessary nor even q useful at.l'
.ribate Of q prosecuting attorney