The Forrest City times., 1905-07-14

verdict are unfortunate coinciden- ces. And Senator Covington is lett in a most unenviable plight. Never was there better example of the Scotch verdict, "Guilty, but not proven. He is acquitted with. out even a semblance of vindica. ton, and one of the very jurors who pronounce him legally guilt less, expresses m the public prints full belief in his guilt.
 It should be added. too, that even if Senator Covington is absolutely innocent of taking a penny of any body's tainted money, he stands still properly condemned by public opinion.
 Because:
 No honest legislator can afford to be on terms o; intimacy with nortorious lobbyists and self con- fessed corruptionists as Cox and Cook-to visit at their homes, to receive them in his room, to eat with them and be seen on the streets and in cafes in their con- pany. A man is judged by the company he keeps, and that one cannot touch pitch and escape deflement is as true today as it was thousand years ago.
 CITIZEN.
 The Times believes that Senator Covington received money from Cald- vel < Drake, through Cox and Cook but the evidence plainly showed that II was for influencing Architect Day. $ report. This, of course. was the method used to outwit the law. The Times believes that there has been boodlng Tn the legislature, and 1t believes bood. lers should be punished, but the law says how they must be convicted first, and Judge Lea is not responsible for the language of the law. He is sworn To tnfofce the law as it is found upon the statu.e book, and is not permitted to exercise his personal opinion or follow his personal feelings in the dis charge of his duties.
 The law which governed Judge Lea in bis instructions to the jury as to the evidence of Caldwell, Cook and Cox is AS follows
 section 23s4 A conviction cannot be had in any case of felory upon the testimony of an accomplice, unless cor. robora'ed by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the com mission of the offeDse;and the corrobora 4. ton Is not sufficient If it merely shows that the offence was committed, and the circumstances thereof"
 There is no question that Judge Les followed this statute literally.
 His instructions were not objected [, by Prosecuting Attorney RhotoD, ant MT. Rhoton says publicly over his owI signature, that he regrets very mucl that the action of Judge Lea had beer crll iclZed, and that any criticism O Judge Lea IS uudeserved and most un just. l know that Judge Lea woult do nothing that he did not think wa absolutely right It may have locke, like extorting verdict from the jur, by holding it so long, but there nigh have been circumstances that mad such action necessary and desirable. | IS easy for outsiders to say what ShoulC have been done. l regret very muel that this criticism has been made. A : the representative of the State. certainly have 10 criticism to make.
 Hon. John '. Hicks, former prose outing attorney of this circuit. anon, other things iu d communication to tn Gazette. >tNs:
 lu Kent vs The State. 64 Ark s5s Ile supreme Court of Arkansas said is tte duty of the presiding iadet ta see tGat there Is some evidence, III dependent ef lbe testimony of the ac eHWPHee which ot itself tend t6 con nseE ths accused with the c0mmlss ot .et tAe crime. bat the question Us [, what weight to attach to the eYIdeler .ls faf the Iun '.
 Knowing The Law as given hy thi eastt ta he well rsjat lished the pres seatsug attorney dld not object 10 In raatts instructions And all exam nation uf the record Will reflect tht iaet that the only instruction IT qarstrd hy the defense and objected [, D, the prosecution was refused by th, cuutt. it necessarily follows. there tofe. that whatever the degree of re latieH>hip between the presiding ludg, and some other circuit judge wht ehaBeed to be present at the trial whatever conference may have beer held between them, whatever coin eidences m the incidents of the tria may be conjured by suspicious indl. tidaals, nothing has occurred to iasti ty the structures and the insnuation. which have found their way into tlt public prints.
 A a further witness faF Ioara aa