The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-11-21
coNvrcr1No A RICH MAN.

CONNECTING A RICH MAN. The Anniston Hot Blast has this to say snent a recent occurrence:
 The sentence, of Col. Ed Butler. the St. Louis millionaire politician, to the pen- ltentiary for three years, seems very light punishment for the crime of which he has been convicted-the corruption ana been a poor man and had stolen a COW to get meat for his family. he would probably have been sent to the penlten- tiary for a longer time; but being rich
 ence for using his wealth to debauch pub- lie servants.
 While it may be true. from one point
 of view. that the sentance Is a light one,
 the conviction of Colonel Butler is none the less significant. Readers of The Ad-
 vertiser have not forgotten the stir which
 was created in St. Louis some time ago in connection with the charges of bribery made against members of the city govern conviction of others. The Advertiser strongly contended that to punish those
 who were guilty of accepting bribes. and
 not to punish those who offered and paid
 the money was beginning at the wrong end of the line. We argued that the
 brfbers were really the most guilty. be- cause they were men of more means and influence, and because the corruption of officials really began with those who
 were in the market to secure franchises or other concessions by corrupting the citys lawmakers.
 It was fully stated at the time that the real criminals were too rich and power full to be punished. It was argued that their money and influence would shield
 them, and that nobody would be pun
 ished except the comparatively uninfiuen-
 tial men who had accepted the bribes.
 That this prediction was even partially
 without foundation Is encouraging to all lovers of that equal, and exact justice
 to all men, which Jefferson mentions as one of the strong features of our sys-
 tenn of Government. It was not supposed that Colonel Butler could possibly be con- victed. He is one of the wealthiest men in Missouri, and is among the most pow erful and influential politicians of St. Louis. He really won a decided victory in that city at the late election, and while his trial was in progress. or dur ing the interval between his indictment and conviction, his son was elected to Congress.
 friends claimed that the election of his son and his own success in the election were such strong factors in his favor that he ought not to be punished, even 1T guilty. Added to this, his wealth enabled him to pour out money in every way that could offer any hope or probability of benefit. These various obstacles to conviction were freely discussed, and 1t was as freely predicted that no conviction could be secured. We know there Is belief that a very rich man cannot be punished by human laws. Shakespeare wrote:
 Plate sin with gold
 The strong lance of Justice hurtless
 breaks;
 Arm 1t in rags. and a pygmy's straw doth pierce it,.
 if we have the quotation correct. That is the substance of 1t, at all events, and Oliver Goldsmith almost two centuries later declared that Laws grind the poor. and rich men rule the law" showing how law and justice were regarded in Eng land centuries ago. and however much we may deprecate 1t the same sentiment or belief prevails in this country today. We are continually confronted by the state ment that Roland Molineux would not have been acquitted had it not been for money. In his case 1t is but just to say that all the evidence against him was circumstantial and, as we remember 1t, there was no proof that we would con- slider sufficient to justify his execution. That, however. is immaterial for the opin- ion is entertained and expressed that money secured his acquittal, and. whether that acquittal was justified or not, 1t will not change the opinion of those who be- lieve that he was not convicted because of the money used in his favor.
 The conviction of Colonel Butler will at least disabuse the public mind of the be- lief that no man can be convicted if he has money and influence. for this is one case where both failed to save the &C., cused. This may, 1t is true, be another case where the exception proves the rule, and though. as The Hot Blast suggests. a poor man who steals a COW may receive greater punishment than does this wealthy citizen who corrupted officials ana virtu- ally robbed a city. we must at least feel gratifed at the beginning made in the courts of Missouri. and be permitted to hope that there will be other good exam ples to chronicle.
 The Manchester, N. H., Union refers to the Kansas man of whom The Ad- yertiser had something to say a few days