The Topeka state journal., 1904-12-01
JUDGE DILLON CLOSES.
Opinion in Burton Case Not Expected
Before February.

| pied the time OF the court until aQ-
journment Wednesday afternoon. He
was frequently interrupted by ques-
tions from the bench, nearly all the
justices asking for information on one
point or another.
Judge Dillon maintained that the
1 United States was not a party in in
terest in the case in which Senator
Burton appeared in the postofice de-
| partment. Justice Harlan asked if
the United States was not interested
4 in protecting it's mails against fraud,
to which Judge Dillon replied that
the United States was no more a party
to such cases than it was to all other
governmental business, and that it was
lclearly the intent of the law that the
United States should be interested as
it would be interested in cases of a
Senators Culberson and Mitchell
were in court during part of the argu-
ment.
| There were frequent short confer
ences between the justices, and sew
era1 times the pages were sent to the
library for books. Justice Brewer in
dicated by his Interruptions that ne
was familiar with the details of the
case.
| 1t is not expected that the court
will render an opinion in the case be-
fore February.
| Mr.. Hoyt, solicitor general, will
speak for an hour in behalf of the
government. Frederick w. Lehman,
of ST. Louis, the only attorney for the
defense participating in the trial be-
fore Judge Adams who was retained
when an appeal was taken, will close
the argument for Senator Burton. w.
H. RosSington, of Topeka, will not
speak.
| In his argument in support of Bur
| toms appeal for a reversal of the judg-
ment of the lower court, Judge Dillon
contended that the court in which he
was tried, the federal court for the
eastern district of Missouri, had no
| jurisdiction because the alleged offense
was not committed in that district and
because the money he received from
| the RialtO company was paid in Wash
| ington and not in ST. Louis; that the
! United States was not directly or in
directly interested" in the question of
whether a fraud order should be issued
against the Rialto company, and that
therefore the court in which Burton
was tried could have directed a verdict
for Burton; that there was no evidence
to establish the guilt of Burton of the
offense charged in the indictment; that
during the time of his employment by
the Rialto company Burton did not even
know that any inquiry was before the
poStofhce department relating to lhe
| issuance of a fraud order; that the
court erred in trying the defendant,
senator of the United States, when the
senate was in session, and also in pro-
nouncing judgment and sentence of i'm
prisonment and fine against him at
time when the senate was in session
Errors in the ruling of the lower court
|
were also presented
| The contention of Burton that the ser
vice he rendered the Rialto company
was not such as to constitute viola
ton of the statute under which he was
! convicted, was emphasized by Judge
Dillon, and in support of this contention
| he insisted that the business which took
Burton to the postoff1ce department re-
lated directly to the affairs of the
Brooks Brokerage company, which
| Dennis had merged into the Rialto COM
pany, and that on none of the hVa VS.
it's he made to the department had he
even referred to the issuance of a fraud
/ order. against the Rialto company. In
reciting the facts in connection with the
organization of that company by Dem
mis-, Judge Dillon took occasion to con-
tradict a statement in the brief Of So
licitor General Hoyt rejecting upon
Dennis and the Rialto company He
said:
| character and was so recommended to
| Senator Burton when the services OF
| Burton as counsel of the Rialto COM
pany were desired. The solicitor geo
| eral has referred to the company as a
swindling concern. I am not here to
defend that company, ut the statement
| quoted is unfair. Major Dennis deslr-
| ed Burton as general counsel for the
Rialto company, because he was an
| eminent criminal lawyer, with an ex-
perience in many capital and other
| criminal cases. His connection with the
and in the contract he made with Ma
1or Dennis it was stipulated that he
was not expected to render any services
at the postoff1ce deparement. The Rialto
company did not employ him to pre-
vent the issuance of a fraud order, ana
he did not endeavOr to do So-
Judge Dillon also went over in detail
each of Burton's visits to the postofflce
department and analysed the testimony
of the chief inspector, Mr.. Cochrane,
and others in an effort to show that
the business that he desired to trans
act related chiefly to the return OF the
books of the Brooks Brokerage COM
pany, and to inquiries concerning the
inspectors who had been assigned to
investigate complaints filed at tne
postoffice department against tne
Rialto company. His statement in this
connection, he explained to the court,
was for the purpose of showing that
the lower court had erred in not di-
recting the jury to acquit Burton on
the grounds that the government had
failed to make a case against him. He
also took up half an hour in a discus
sion of the charge in the lnd1ctment
against Burton that he had accepted
compensation for rendering a service
in a proceeding in which the United
States was directly interested. con-
tending that the word interest I'M
DIied an interest involving money or
property He cited several decisions TO
support this definition of the word.
The government, Judge Dillon said,
could have had no interest in the books
of the Brooks Brokerage company, nor
in any of the other subjects which
Burton had discussed with officials OF
the postoffice department.
When he referred to Burton as the
general counsel of the Rialto company,
Justice Brown interrupted Judge Dill
lon to inquire if Burton had appeared
as counsel at the trial of Major Dennis
in St Louis, or in any other legal pro-
ceeding in which that company or Den
mis- was interested. Judge Dillon ad-
mitted that he had rendered no sucn
service to the company nor to Dennis.
Judge Dillon discussed at length the
of the Sf9fIIt0 under