The Mena weekly star., 1906-05-24
DECIDES AGAINST BURTON
Supreme Court Overrules Every Point Made in the Interest
 of Kansas Senator.
JUSTICES WERE DIVIDED IN THEIR VIEWS
Brewer. White and Peckham ohi.e !" senting Opinion-Burton Sise" Days in Which to Prepare feu'io" io Rehearing-Senate to Take eoghiz'"oe of the Decision.

nebearing-senate to Take Cognizance
 of the Decision.
 Washington, May 22.-The supreme court of the United States Mohuas rendered a decision in the case oi United State Senator J. Ralph bur' ton. of Kansas. The decision was against Burton, affirming the decision of the United States circuit court TOT the eastern district of Missouri, by which Burton was sentenced to nine months imprisonment in the Jaii VI Iron county, Missouri, required to pay a fine of s2,500 and deprived of the right to hereafter hold office under 1he government
 The opinion was by Justice Harlan All of the points made in Burton ih- terest were overruled.
 Senator Burton was prosecuted on the charge of violating section l,io@ of the revised statutes which prohlDitS senators and representatives from re- ceiying compensation for services reh- dered before any of the government departments in any matter in which the government may be interested. He was specifically charged with accepting a fee of $500 per month for five months from the Rialto Grain < Securities company of St. Louis for services rendered that company in an effort 70 prevent the issuance of an order by the postofice department prohibiting the use of the mails by the company.
 This was Senator Burton's second appeal to the supreme court. In the first case the circuit court found nm guilty and imposed the same penalty that was imposed in the present case but the supreme court reversed the decision in the first instance because it was made to appear that the money was paid in Washington and not in St. Louis where the case was tried.
 It was contended on behalf of Senator Burton that the fee was paid on account of criminal proceeding against one of the members of the Rialto company and not because oi services rendered in the government prosecution of the company. The Ia" under which he was prosecuted was also attacked as unconstitutional on the ground that the senate was the sole judge of the qualification of it's members but this doctrine was not upheld by Justice Harlan's opinion. The statute was upheld in all respects and held to be fully applicable to Bur tons case.
 Justices Brewer, White and Peckhan united in a dissenting opinion deliy- cred by Justice Brewer. Their opinion was based on the theory that the United States was not legally inter --.-' in the case against the Rialtc company lh which Burton was em- ployed as counsel.
 Immediately after promulgating its decision in the Burton case, the su- preme court of the United States granted a motion to give 60 days tc Senator Burton in which to prepare ( petition for a re-hearing. The action will have the effect of taking the case over until the next term of court beginning in October as the present term will expire next Monday.
 That the senate will be compelled tc take cognizance of the case is indi cated by the decision in the following extract:
 ''The final judgment of conviction lid not operate ipso facto to vacat' the seat of the convicted senator, nor compel the senate to expel him or tt regard him as expelled by force alone of the judgment. The seat into whicl he was originally inducted as a senatoI from Kansas could onw become vacant by his death, or by expiration of hi term of office. or by some direct actior on the port of the senate in exercisi of its constitutional powers
 Justice Harlan also held that tn sentence could not cover an election t the United States senate as they d not hold their places under the gov ernment of the United States"
 On the point that the crime wa
 
 not committed at St. Louis, Justic | Harlan said:
 Tn view of these cases it cannot b. maintained that the personal absenc of the defendant, Burton, from St Louis. at the time his offer was ac eepted, and the agreement between him and the company was complete, and became binding, deprived tn federal court thereof of Jurisdiction He sent his offer to St. Louis wit the intent that it should be there ac cepted and consummated. Havin been completed in that city in con formity with the intention of bot parties, an offense was in the eve O the law, committed there and whel the court below assumed jurisdictio, Of this case it did not offend the con stitutional requirement that a crim against the United States shall b tried in the state and district wher 1t was committed"