The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1904-03-30
deeper. 1t is possible that many of these
wells may yet be reclaimed.
THE CASE OF SENATOR BURTON.

The conviction of Senator Burton. of
his denial of the charges against him was
very earnest, and because he declared his
readiness to meet them, and went TO st.
Louis voluntarily to stand trial. But as
he was convicted by jury in the United
States Court the evidence was doubtless
conclusive.
The charge against Senator Burton was
having accepted compensation to protect
the interests of the Rialto Grain and Sc
curities Company of st. Louis before the
Postoffice Department. In other words. he
was charged with having sold his services
as a lawyer and used his influence as
senator to protect a bucket shop which the
department was investigating with a view
to excluding from the use of the mails on
the ground of fraud. The investigation re-
suited in the dismissal of the charges
against the Rialto Company. at least the
but that did not alter the fact that while
the investigation was pending Senator Bur-
ton accepted fee for defending it before
the Postoffice Department.
Senator Blrton's offense was accepting
fee for practicing before a government
department. A lawyer not member of
Congress might do this with entire pro-
priety. hundreds do. but for a member
of Congress TO do so is a penal offense.
Senator Burton's friends claim he thought
his action was legitimate, but being a law
yer himself it is difficult to perceive how
he could have persuaded himself it was
not violation of law. Even if he did think
so it would be no defense, as ignorance of
the law excuses no one. 1t is more likely
his greed and his tough conscience led him
TO take the risk of accepting employ
ment which he should have known was cor
rupt and punishable by law.
When the jury, after having been out
thirty-six hours, came into court for fur
Their instructions. standing then II to for
conviction, the court said the question
asked by the jury showed it had not read
the charge carefully. "If it had done SOL
said the judge, sit would have seen that
the court set forth that Senator Burton had
perfect right to act as the paid counsel
for the Rialto Grain and Securities Com
pany, and do all things legitimate in the
line of his employment, except that he had
no right to accept pay to go before the
Postoffice Department" To the point made
by one juror that the charges against the
Rialto Company were not sustained, the
court said that had nothing to do with the
case, and that it made no difference
whether the Rialto Company was con-
Quoting legitimate business or not. The
only questions for the jury to decide was
whether an investigation was pending be-
fore the department and whether, pend
ing such investigation, Senator Burton ap-
peared for the company for pay. The evil
dence on these points being clear, the jury
could not find any other verdict than
guilty.
Senator Burton's counsel will appeal, it
is said on two grounds: Cd That the case
is out of the jurisdiction of the st. Louis
court, for the reason that the payments
were made to Senator Burton in Washing
ton. and not in that city, and (2) that Sena-
toI was the pdlQ cOunSel Tor tnS
Rialto Grain Company. and that his pay
ments were under a five months contract
and not because of any influence he may
have exerted at Washington. Senator Bur-
toms contract with the company was for
$500 a month. and the evidence showed that
he had been paid in all $780, covering the
period from November, 1902, till March,
1903
The question has been raised whether
Senator Burton can hold hts seat in the
Senate or will attempt to resume it. A
conviction of crime in the United States
Court might justify the Senate in expell-
ing him, but it will probably take no ac-
ton until the resist of the appeal is known
Even then it would not be likely to act
without the report of committee of in
vestigation. 1t would simplify matters if
Senator Burton would resign, and that is
what he should do.