The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1904-02-05
BUTLER MAY KNOW THE VERDICT BY THIS AFTERNOON.
BY A STAFF CORRESPONDENT.

| BY A STAFF CORRESPONDENT
Fulton. Mo-, Feb 4.-Testimony in the
| Butler case was closed at o'clock this
! afternoon. when both sides rested.
! Judge Graves delivered his instructions
case presenting so many legal problems
and adjourned court.
Arguments by the attorneys Will begin
as soon as court convenes tomorrow
morning. II the programme outlined to-
night is carried out the attorneys will
have concluded and the case will be in
the jury's hands by o'clock tomorrow
afternoon.
As the evidence of the one side fatty
contradicts that of the other, so belief or
disbelief must be largely a matter of Its
presentation by the lawyers.
Confronting the direct assertion of the
six boodlers that the lighting measure was
sold by them for money paid by Butler;
are the equally direct denials from Butler
and his witnesses. Between the two
stories. between the closely knit evidence
offered by six confessedly corrupted men
and the incomplete alibi offered by But
ler the jury must choose.
c. Orrick Bishop will open the argu-
ments for the State tomorrow morning
promptly at $50 o'clock. If the speakers
keep the prepared schedule, Mr.. Folk will
have closed at o'clock. 1t is expected
that it will then be matter of only
little while until Butler shall know his
fate upon the event of the second trial
growing out OF the municipal scandals of
st. Louis.
SOME PERSONS
EXPECT HUNG JURY.
Owing to the varying age of the Jurors
their obviously different characteritics
and. it is said by some, owing to their
known factional and political affiliations, a
hung jury is expected by many.
Circuit Attorney Folk did not present
any testimony in rebuttal. Mr.. Folk made
every endeavor to obtain the attendance
Of c. W. Holtcamp. Lennon Parker and
Lafe Studevant. members of the House
when the lighting bill was enacted. 1t was
thought that they could swear that But
Ter was in the House chamber upon the
occasion of the bills passage.
Folk thought thus to weaken Buffers
alibi. since three witnesses swore posi-
lively Butler was not present
Only Mr.. Holtcamp reached Fulton. On
the train with him was Fred Zachritz,
also former Delegate, who had been
summoned by Attorneys Krum and Rowe.
But Mr. Folk did not call Mr. Holtcamp.
The latter stated that he is not sure that
he saw Ed Butler upon the night in ques-
would weaken rather than strengthen the
states case to examine Holtcamp. SO.
there being no witnesses in rebuttal, the
case was rested.
STATES WITNESSES
DID NOT ARRIVE.
The trial had been delayed to await the
arrival of the train from St Louis and
the expected additional witnesses. The
train being late. court did not reconvene
until almost o'clock. Then Judge Graves,
following an announcement that the cases
OF the respective sides were closed read
his instructions to the jury.
Ihese are remarked by attorneys for |
their unusually concise nature, their brev-
lty and pith in dealing with a cause so |
fraught with legal difficulties as the Sec
ond bribery charge against Butler. He
assails and disposes of the legal points
at issue in very direct language and in
very few words.
The defense's claim that IL it were
proved Butler had paid money to Berscn
and Kelly It would not legally mean that
butier had bribed a combine was passed
over in brief sentences.
Inc court put aside the bubble of the
oe1ense with reference to Albright. which
that the evidence failed to |
SHOW Albright was of the nineteen in |
equally definite manner.
He said: IF you find that Charles f.
Kelly and Edmund Bersch were selected
by said Albright and other eighteen men, |
bers of the alleged combine to receive |
money from Butler, and that Butler had
Of such fact, then the payment
Of the money to Kelly and Bersch. or TO
either of them. was a payment to the said
Albright. and the other eighteen members
acting with him.
In other words. IL the jury believes that
Kelly and Bersch received the money
rom Butler, a conviction will follow.
The instructions are marked by the same
lirectness with which Judge Graves has
conducted the entire case.
3UTLER'S DEFENSE
PURELY NEGATIVE.
The Butler aiibi, as 1t now stands in
evidence, is purely a negative defense.
Che visit by Bersch and Kelly, sworn to
~ Helms. to the offices of Butler, where
he money is alleged to have been OBJ
aimed, is contradicted by Ed Butler, Jr..
md two of his employees. That Butler
vas on the floor of the House is contra
'erted by three delegates-Sweeney,
Burke and Cronin-who say that they did
lot see him.
The Gutke incident. in which Gutke IS
aid to have been seen to hand Butler a
ackage. and the Murrell interview. at
vhich Butler is alleged to have said that
My $47.50O was In the bill are denied
My by Butler himself.
The weak points of his defense lie in
he fact that Buffers whereabouts is not
rousht out by any testimony that the
'elegates in question state, only that they |
Id not see him in the House chamber
nd that the other points are contradicted
My by Butler himself. by his son, or
len in his sons employ.
On the other hand, the States case has
weakness in that the whole Of it is
and that the circumstances
re supported by participants in the al
ged crime.
TTORNEYS ARRANGE
Ian OF ARGUMENTS.
The arguments are planned as follows:
ishop. beginning at $50. to continue I
,rty-five minutes: David H. Harris. one I
Dur: ]. H. Murry. forty-five minutes; G
hester II. Krum. one hour: A. c. Ma
'ney. forty-ffve minutes: William Will
ans. forty-f1ve minutes; Joseph W. Folk, t