THE LEGAL SIDE OF JOSEPH W. FOLK seeking the franchises and privileges which Stock wanted to pay so handsomely for. Folk charged that Meysenburg was a mem ber of the Council and of the railroad com mittee of that body, that he held up the bill; that is, would not permit it to go out of the -committee, and that when Kratz went to him and asked why he was keeping the bill back, Meysenburg stated he had been worsted by "the gang" and was but even ing up. Kratz arbitrated and it was •charged that he arranged with Stock to take up the shares at their par value of -$9,000. This Stock did, in the presence of Kratz, and though Meysenburg voted against the bill when it finally came up for passage, he was charged with bribery. In his examination of the talesmen, Folk mentioned the names of most of the other men accused of bribery, asking the jurors if they knew them, and this was grounds for the saving of exceptions by the defendant, the latter claiming that it was calculated to prejudice his case by linking his name with other defendants in kindred causes. The •courts held that the questions were proper. Folk's trial of the Meysenburg case dis played his wonderful power of preparation. He was ready for every point raised by the •defense and their authorities were his. He traced every move of the Combine, linked every act and overcame the defense so easily as to force the belief that he was a Moses of Criminal law. The same careful work was apparent in the trials of Edward Butler, at Columbia, Mo., for attempted bribery, and at Fulton Mo., for bribery. Butler was considered the political boss of St. Louis and one of the Democratic powers in the State Machine. Folk's audacity in attacking him was food for unlimited com ment, yet the young prosecutor secured one conviction and a sentence of three years was placed on the head of the "Village Black smith" as Butler is called. Folk is a master in the handling of a jury. Though not conspicuously eloquent, he has the power of binding his men to him and it
75
takes him but a brief space to gain the con fidence of a jury. He believes in stating facts but has a habit of drawing similes, often of the most beautiful kind. In the Meysenburg case, for instance, Folk's opening words were : — "When you find paint upon the lily, or artificial perfume upon the rose, there is a suspicion in the one instance of the original whiteness of the lily and in the other of the original sweetness of the rose; so when you find so-called innocence defended with such eloquence there is a suspicion of the inno cence so much eloquence defends." Getting at the issue of the cause, Folk's assertions to the jury mainly were : — "After all this pyrotechnical display of words you have heard, I would have you to go back with me to the main issue in this case, and that issue is not regarding some foreign matter that they have endeavored from the beginning, of this case to bring here to confuse this jury, but that issue is, — has this defendant been guilty of corrup tion in office under the facts in this case. These gentlemen appearing here for the de fense are employed for that purpose and they do their duty well. We who appear for the State have the same motives, the same interest as you have. We are here for a common purpose, in a common cause, to vindicate and uphold the law, you as jurors and I as the Circuit Attorney. Gentlemen, Mr. Lehman speaks of the infamy that is supposed to be attached to the informer. That is no new gospel he preaches. You can hear the same doctrine in every den of thieves and haunt of crooks in all this city and all this land. It is the thieves' doc trine that one shall not tell on the other. If that doctrine could meet the sanction of this jury, it would delight every thief and every crook in this city and everywhere. If we do not have a man to turn State's evi dence, then how is the law going to be vin dicated in a case like this. It would take away from us the very means to prove bribery. How are we going to prove it
