Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1905-11-20
SENATOR BURTON
PLACED ON TRIAL.
For Second Time He Must De.
fend Himself Against Ser.
ious Charges.
SAID TO HAVE TAKEN PAY.
For Using His Senatorial Influence Ia
Behalf of l,ialto Grain and
Securities Company.

st. Louis, Nov. 20.--For the second
time within two years United States
Senator j. Ralph Burton OF Kansas.
today was called upon 20 defend himself
In the United States circuit court
against an indictment charging that
he was offered and accepted .ompensa-
ton from the Rialto Grain & Securities
company of St Louis, now defunct. for
using his influence, while member OF
the United States senate, in behalf Of
that concern In certain matters pend
Ing before the postohice department at
Washington.
senator Burton was tried and con-
Vlcted on the first indictment In March
l9Vi' lie appealed to the United states
supreme court and the case was re.
Versed a new indictment was returned
last spring and about month ago de-
murrers filed by counsel for the defense
were sustained by L. S. Circuit Judge
Nandevanter, who Immediately ordered
mat new federal grand jury be sum.
moned TO consider the evidence in pos.
session Of the United states district
attorney.
On Nov. 10, eight days before the
statute OF Limitations became effective,
lhe thlrd and present Indictment
against Senator Burton was returned
Demurrers TO this and a plea In bar
zled by Senator Buttons attorneys
were overruled by Judge Yandevanter
ana the case ordered TO tia
The salient points OF difference be-
tween the first and third indictments is
that In the former Senator Burton was
chaSFfSswith receiving the alleged COM
pens--his br Washington, ID. c.. and one
OF the lS6li on which the supreme
court reVel sed the conviction was that
the ST. Louis court did not have jurls-
dlctlon, while the present indictment
alleges that Senator Burton agreed to
accept and did accept compensation for
his influence in ST. Louis.
When court convened at 10 o'clock
this morning Senator Burton was pres
ent. accompanied by his attorney. Fred.
erick w. Lehman OF St Louis lead.
ing counsel for the defense; w. H.
RossinEton of Topeka, Kan, and w. X.
Haynes of Chicago. The government
Is represented by Col. ID, p. Dyer, Unit.
ed states district attorney, assisted by
Charles II. Kobb, assistant to the at
torney- general Of the United states
and Horace Dyer, assistant to the dis
trlct attorney.
After the selection OF is talesmen
from whom the Jury was selected by
the exercise of the peremptory chal-
lenges. Mr. Lehman objected TO Judge
Nandeyanter's apportionment of the
challenges, claiming the defense was
entitled to more than three on the
ground that the punishment Of the Of
tense charged against Senator Burton
makes II a felony.
Judge Vandevanter overruled Mr.
Lehmann's claims, holding that the
statute under which the Indictment
was brought explicitly states the Of
Tense is a misdemeanor and as such
tie prosecution and defense are only
entitled TO three challenges each. Mr..
Lehman noted an objection.
Inc jury was sworn at 1880 a. IN.
and Judge Nandcvanter supplemented
the regulatio. oath by pointing out In
detail the duties Of a Juror and the
manner IN which the testimony In the
case should be weighed in order to
reach Just verdict
Col Dyer the district attorney, de-
lyered the opening statement of the
governments case. He said the charge
was brought under Section No. 1852 of
the revised statutes Of the United
ENdttH Nill'l PRIV lllts illdl no tIlplONe
or officer Of the United states govern
mtnt may receive or agree to receive
any compensation for representing any
party or parties in any matter before
any department Of the United states
government, In which the government
IS interested, The penalty for con-
viction Is a term Of not more than two
years in the penltentIary or fine OF not
more than $4,000 or both. and that
the convicted person shall be fors,er
debarred from holding office under the
United States government.
Col. Dyer than read the indictment,
which contains six counts, two counts
having been quashed previously on mo-
tion OF the defense
The counts charge virtually the same
offense, only differing In dates and
other matters pertaining TO the specific
charge made in the respective counts.