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

fused . request OF oenatOt Dut'VA
counsel to charge the jury when the
Jury reported inability 70 agree.
1--WE think" the supreme court
held, "the court should have instruct
cd the Jury as requested BY the coun-
eel for the dsienGs and that its re-
iusAI to do 90 was error. Here was .
case Of very great doubt 10 The minds
Of some Of the jurors. II had delio-
Grated for more than thIrty-six hours,
aud been unable TO agree upon o YER
dict balanced as the case ives 10 the
minds OF some Of the jurors, doubt
existing a. to the defendants guilt In
tho mind Of at least one, It was . case
where the most extreme care and
caution we're necessary 10 order that
the legal rights Of the defendant
should be preserved"
To this view Of bis eight associates
| Mr.. Justice Harlan made vigorous
dissent, again declaring sit Seems TO
me that In reversing the opinion upon
the grounds stated the court has sac
rifiCed substance to mere FORM" and
90 the case comes back to the Mis-
aouri court. A new indictment must
be found II there is to be 0 new trial.
The senator cannot be prosecuted
here for having received the money
In Washington. Perhaps he can be
prosecuted here II the evidence shows
that 1t was In St. Louis that he en-
tered into the agreement to accept
the money for such service.
So much for the law and Its inter-
probation in the strange case OF Sena'
tor Burton Of Kansas. According to
witnesses the testimony will show
that the senator did not enter into the
agreement at st. Louis to perform
this service, but the proposition was
made to him on railroad train while
he was travelling between St. Louis
and Washington and upon bis arrival
at Washington he wrote back to the
Rialto company the acceptance OF the
proposition.
In Washington common report has
1t that the senator, following the de-
cisiou OF the supreme court, presented
to the department Of justice the sug-
gestion that 1t be conceded the offense,
II any, was committed in Washing
ton, and that be DO tried there.
There 10 no question that Senator
Burton received the money, and there
is no question that he acted as attOr.
nsy or counsel for the Rialto company,
or looking after its interests Of the
post Office department. The statute
under which no was indicted and
tried prohibits senators, represents
tives and other officers from accepting
compensation for any services In any
proceeding, matter or thing "'n
which the United States Is . party or
10 directly or Indirectly interested"
There has always been some difference
Of opinion among senators and repre-.
sentatives and others concerned % to
the application Of the statute. Some
have. interpreted the word 'inter-
ested" to apply only where the gov
eminent is financially concerned.
There have been cases where Sena.
tors and representatives Of wide rep
u.atlon as lawyers have accepted EN-.
ploy msnt and fees and have rendered
services in matters before the depart
ments or bureaus Of the government,
and where the United States was In
some sense q party. Possibly this
difference Of opinion as to the mean
ing Of the statute, difference which
is marked in the practice Of public
men at Washington, was, in the minds
Of the chief justice and Of Justices
Brewer, White and Peckham, when
they expressed themselves 'Oi opin-
ion that the statute does not cover
the case, % alleged In the indlct-
ment," and 'of opinion that there
was no evidence whatever on which
| to found d verdict OF conviction"
Curbing the Loan shark.