The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1905-11-24

had received a letter in washington
notifying him that his terms We're ac-
ceptable to the Rialto company and had
replied to the communication IN his
letter of November 20. Up to that time
Senator Burton could have committed
no offense. He had only contemplated
making a contract for his services. No
man was guilty Of what he con1eIn-
plated doing; it was for what he act
ually did.
In his contention over the second
point raised, that each months pay
was for services actually rendered
during the period covered in the
months pay Mr.. Lehman cited
number of decisions going TO snow
that Senator Burton could have can
cel1ed his contract at any time ana
refused to continue further in the
service of the company.
Judge Van Devanter's Ruling
Judge Van Devanter. in denying the
motion said that the indictment
charged two offenses. The hrst thaI
the defendant agreed to receive com
penSatiOn for services rendered Dy
him The other that he did receive
compensation for such services. The
question presented had to do only
with the place where these ouenseS
were committed. It was alleged III
the indictment that the agreement
had been made in this district. and
it was also charged that the money
was received in this district. IN re-
spect of the place it was true. as mad
been said by counsel, that we may
not here try defendant for an offense
committed in some other place, ana
it did not make any difference how
strong the evidence of the oftense, il
committed elsewhere, it must he tried
elsewhere.
"There was evidence that the nego-
tiations commenced on the train be-
tween St Louis and Chicago between
representatives of the Rialto Grain
and Securities company on one hand
and the defendant on the other me
representative of the Rialto company
was not authorized to make COM
pIete agreement for that company.
He was deputed to negotiate in re-
spect to an agreement But Whether
the com panV was to accept that agree
ment was to be determined later by
the company and the company was
located in st. Louis. The representa-
tive If the RialtO company returned
to St. Louis and reported to his com
pany the result of his conversation.
and Il was then tIat the company de-
termined to make the contract
Thereupon the representative of that
company telegraphed and wrote 10
the defendant that his services were
accepted to begin immediately The
court emphasized the point that Mr.
Harlan was merely the medium
through which information was re-
ported to the Rialto company in St
Louis, that the contract was not a
conditional one but became operative
when the company acceFted Senator
Burton's proposition.
In passing on the point that each
E.ontn's pay completed the payment
for the services rendered during that
month, the court called attention to
the fact that Harlan's testimony had
shown that Senator Burton would not
consent to a $500 payment for one
months service, but had expressly
stipulated that he must be employed
for five months. and Jhat whether he
did anything ia any particular month
to earn his compensation was not ma
terial, as he could have rendered all
the service in any one month and re-
ceived his pay in installments of $500
each.
Evidence for Defense.
The defense began with the presenta-
ton of NJ. G. Price, a pOstOffice inspec-
tor, who originally Investigated the case
with Mr.. Dice. 1t sought to establish
tives which actuated Harlan, when he
made the contract with Senator Burton
but the testimony was not admitted.
Mr.. Lehman, by agreement with Col.
Dyer. read to the jury the evidence of
Mr. Dice, postmaster in charge at St.
Louis when the Rialto company was
first investigated which was offered at
the first trial Mr.. Dice has since died.
! Il
had been made against the RialtO COM
pany in the opinion Of Mr.. Dice a. the
time the contract was closed with Sen
atOf Burton.
Thomas B. Harlan, the attorney for
the Rialto Grain company, was recalled
by the defense and especially examined
with respect to conferences that he had
had with Senator Burton in regard to
indictments against Dennis. He said
that he had conferred with Burton re-
garding the status Of the criminal case
against Dennis on three different occa-
sions in November and again at St
Louis, December "a and January g. At
this time they thoroughly went over the
! Dennis case
Did Senator Burton participate in
the trial of the case2" asked Mr. Leh-
mann.
Because it was not advisable to
weigh the case down with counsel"
Mr. Lehman asked witness if Dennis
did not want to employ other counsel
besides Crumm, Burton and himself.
The court excluded this question and
the answer.
Mr.. Lehman insisted that he wanted
the show that Dennis treated the COM
many and himself as one and that this
was frequently done, but the court held
| that the only question involved was as
| ia the services of Senator Burton dur
| ing the five months covered by the in
dictment for the Rialto company before
! the postoffice department in Washing
tom
READY TO BE TURNED IN