Abilene weekly reflector. [volume] (Abilene, Kan.) 1888-1935, 1905-04-20
THURSDAY. APRIL 20. 1905.


yesterday gave itb VPiniVu y" Wv Vs..
Of Senator Burton which 10 worth
reading. It shows on how slight q
techniCAlIty he is being prosecuted
or perhaps perSecuted would in many
ways ct the matter better-and how
little ground there is for trying him
again In view Ct the supreme courts
expression Of opinion. The article
follows;
Not since the famous income tax
decision has the supreme court OF the
United States divided SO closely and
90 CurIously as In the strange case Of
Senator Burton Of Kansas.
Five justices declared themselves
..oi opinion that the facts alleged in
the indictment show case that 10
covered by the provisions OF the
statute"
The chief justice and three justices
dissented and declared themselves
t'oi opinion that the statute does not
cover the case as alleged In the indict-
ment."
The full bench took part 10 this in
teresting decision. Justices Harlan,
Brown, McKenuA, Holmee and Day
were the majority. Chief Justice
Fuller and Justices Brewer, White
and Peckham were the minority on
the question whether the statute sp'
piled to the case.
The second division announced In
che decision was even more remark
able. assuming that the statute
applieS to the facts stated in the in
dictment," the court dealt with the
other question, "whether there was
sufficient evidence Of guilt to be sub
mitted to the jury" Upon this ques'
tlon the decision declared majority
Of the court, the same justices con-
curing, are oiopiniOn that there was
or are not prepared to say there was
not, and the same minority dissented
from that view and are Of opinion that
there was no evidence Whatever on
which to found q verdict Of convic'
tion.
Had the conrt stopped with the
decision Of this question the verdict
aRainst Senator Burton 10 the federal
court at St. Louis would have stood
BY vote Of 8 to4, "But," the su-
preme court proceeded, "thers are
questions remaining which We now
proceed to discuss on the theory that
the statute covers the case" Tnat
discussion led to an entirely new
alignment Of the nine members Of the
court. One who had voted with the
1--WE to form the majority sustaining
the indictment dropped out and be-
came a minority. The four who were
In the minority now united on three
reAsons why "the Judgment must be
reversed and the case be remanded to
the district court Of Missouri with
directions for new trial"
All Of the quotations above are
from che OertiHed opinion Of the court.
One reason for reversal was that the
payments TO Senator Burton set forth
Ia the Indictment for his services Ia
behalf Of the Rlalso grain and Securi.
ties company were made IN Washing
ton, and mot In 81. Louis, IS the To-
dictment averred. The senator 70.
ceIved checks. $500 at time, which
be deposited to his account In q
Washington bank. The supreme
court held that the payments being
90 made ''the court 10 Missouri bad
no Jurisdiction to try the offenSe eel
FORTH From this view Mr.. Justlcs
HARLEM, one Of the former majority,
vigorously dIssentsd, insisting the
drawing Of the check in St. LouII
made that the place Of payment, and
hence the location Of the alleged Of.
Tense.
A second reason for reversal was 81
error Of The court. When the jury
came in unable to agree. after being
out from Saturday to Monday, ths
court said, II do not want to know
how many stand for conviction Of
how many stand for acquittal, but tC
know the number who stand The on,
way and the number Who stand an
cher way The supreme court fell
fnpsllsd to say "thst . practice ought
not - grow up Of inqulfing Of . jury
uhsn brought inio oourt bsotuis N,
L.. A.. - -. T.. 4 49, a