The Lexington intelligencer. [volume] (Lexington, Mo.) 1901-1949, 1905-08-12

AAAANAA
acquitted. The jury was one Of rep
resentative citizens OF Cole county,
The trial Judge was a f%air-minded,
able lawyer from a district remote
from Farris home. The prosecution
and defense were conducted by attor-
neys who rank among the foremost
10 the commonwealth. There was
nothing in the circumstances Of the
trial which leaves room Tor doubt
that the verdict might have been the
same in almost any other county seat
in the state. Yet probably a large
majority Of the people Of the state
believe that Frank Farris is a corrupt
man and that he was guilty on the
charges OF the indictment, There
has been a great deal Of criticism re-
Gently 10 Missouri directed against
courts, the jury system and the forms
Of legal procedure. Many Of those
who express the bitterest dissatisfac-
tion with the results Of legal trials
would have rendered the same YER
diets, II they had sat on the juries
bound by the same oath. There are
statutes written in the hearts Of
men that legislatures cannot repeal.
Take twelve Of the best, calm-minded
men you know, men who have for years
believed Farris to be a corrupt man,
and let them go into the jury box
without a doubt about rendering a
verdict Of guilty, Let them hear
the evidence In which practically
everything that is discriminating is
the testimony of a bride taker and
bride giyer, who has been promised
immunity for his testimony-a
mumbling, clumsy, cowardly liar who
is not able to tell the same story
twice ,-and what is the'result? Why,
perhaps the jury still believes that the
defendant is guilty, but not from the
detestable evidence. Perhaps not a
man on the jury would vote for the
defendant for any Office or honor him
with any trust. But three-fourths Of
them would vote mot guilty. on a
verdict involving punishment. A few
years ago in a neighboring state a
gentleman, a member OF Congress,
boarded a railroad train at his home
town. As he was taking a seat he
saw a man coming down the aisle
who had committed a nameless otfense
against his home and family. He
shot him through the brain as
promptly and with as little compunc-
tion as he would have brushed away a
mosquito. He went on to his des-
tlnation, returned, surrendered to an
officer, gave bail, and was tried. At
the trial he made no p~retense Of self
defense, denied that he thought his
life in danger, and said that he did
not ever notice whether the man was
looking at him when he shot him.
10 spite Of the instructions Of the
court twelve good men and true
promptly returned a verdict Of not
guilty. The statutes defined murder,
but the jury would not accept the
definition. In the Farris case Judge
Davis under his oath of Office in
structed the jury to accept John A.
Lees testimony, with proper Quallf-
cation and allowance; and a jury Of
COED men under its oath Of Office re-
fused to be influenced by Lees testi-
monY at all. The jury would have
been quite as likely to convict Farrls
upon general principles, II Lee had
not been summoned. Doubtless the
result would have been about the
same with any other jury Of represen-
tatlve citizens chosen by lot in any
other county in the state. Frank
Farris is now ceremonially clean.
But the people think about him just
as they did before.