New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1906-05-22
SENATOR BURTON LOSES
United States Supreme Court Rules
against Him ON All Points.

Washington, May 21-The Supreme Court OF
the United States to-day rendered decision in
the case Of United States Senator Joseph r
Burton. of Kansas The decision was against
Burton. affirming the decision of the United
States Circuit Court for the Eastern District Of
Missouri by which Burton was sentenced to six
months imprisonment in the jail of Iron County
MO- required to pay fine of $4,000 and de-
prlved OF the right to hold office under the gov
eminent hereafter. The opinion was by Justice
Harlan All the points made in Burton's inter-
est were Overruled. Justices Brewer White
and Peckham united in dissenting opinion de-
iixsred by Justice Brewer Their opinion was
based on the theory that the United States was
not legally interested in the case against the
Rialto Company. in which Burton was employed
as counsel. Immediately after promulgating its
decision the court granted motion to give sixty
days TO Senator Burton in which to prepare a
petition for rehearing. This action will have
the effect of taking the case over until the next
term Of the court, beginning in October as the
present term will expire on next Monday
senator Burton was prosecuted on charge of
violating Section 1882 of the Revised Statutes.
which prohibits Senators and Representatives
from receiving compensation for services rem
dered before any of the government departments
IN any case in which the government may be in
tereSted He was specifically charged with ac-
cepting a fee of $500 a month for Ave months
from the Rialto Grain and Securities Company
OF St Louis. for services rendered that company
In an effort to 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 him
guilty and imposed the same penalty as in the
present case, but the Supreme Court reversed
the decision in the first instance because It was
mace TO appear that the money paid in
washington and not in St Louis. where the case
was tried. 1t was contended on behalf of SEN
ator Burton that the fee was paid on account OF
criminal proceeding against one Of the mem
bers of the Rdalto company, and not because Of
services rendered in the government prosecu-
ton OF the company The law under which he
was prosecuted was also attacked as unconsti-
tutlonal, on the ground that the Senate was the
sole judge Of the qualification Of its members
OUT TINS doctrine was not upheld by Justice Har-
Ians opinion. The statute was upheld in all re-
spects and held to be fully applicable to Burtons
case
On the point OF constitutionality, Justice Har-
Ian said:
By the provision In the Constitution "tbs4 all
iieslslatVe powers herein granted shall be vested
~ q congress OF the United States.' 1t is meant
LtIaI Consress-keeptng within the limits of it's
powers and observing the restrictions imposed
ny the Const1tutiOn-may, in its discretion enact
any statute appropriate to accomplish the OBJ
Jects Tor which the national government was
established A statute like the one before us
mas direct relation to those objects and can he
executed without In any degree impinging upon
3he r1ghtful authority Of the Senate over its
members or interfering with the diechar1o ~
the legitimate duties Of a Senator The proper
dlscharge Of those duties does not require a
senator to appear before an executive depart
ment in order to enforce his particular views or
the views Of others in respect OF matters com
United to that department for determination
lie may OFTEN do so without improperly and SO
AaF as eXlsIlng law is concerned, may do so
whenever he chooses provided he neither agrees
10 receive nor receives compensation for such
seEFICeS- congress- when passing this statute
knew, as indeed everybody knew that executive
ofcers are apt, and not unnaturally to attach
sreat-sometimes perhaps undue-weight to the
wishes of Senators The statute has for Its
main object to secure the integrity of executive
action against undue influence on the mari ~
members Of that branch Of the government
whose favor may have much to do with the
appointment TO or retention in public position
OF those whose official action 1t is sought to
control or direct. The evils attending such a
situation are apparent and are increased when
those seeking to influence executive officers are
spurred to action by hopes Of pecUniary reward.
mere can be- no reason why the government
may not by legislation protect each department
against Such evils indeed, against everything,
from Whatever source 1t proceeds that tends or
may tend TO corruption ineff1ciency in the
HaHagenlent or public affairs A Senator cannot
claim immunity from legislation directed to that
end Simply because he is member Of a body
which does not owe its existence to Congress-
and with those constitutional functions there
can be no interference. If that which Is enacted
in the form of a statute is within the general
sphere of legitimate legislative as distinguished
from executive and judicial. action, and not for
hidden by the Constitution, it is the supreme
law or the land supreme all in public sta
tons as well as over all the people,
NO man in this country" this court has said
is so high that he is above the law. No officer
OF me law may set that law at defiance with
impunity All the officers Of the government,
from the highest TO the lowest are creatures
Of the law, and are bound to obey it."
Nothing i'll the relations existing between q
senator Representative or Delegate in Con-
gress and the public matters with which IN
der the Constitution. they are respectively con-
nected from time to time can exenDt them from
the rule OF conduct prescribed by Section 1872
The enforcement Of that rule will not impair
or disturb those relations or cripple the power
OF senators, Representatives or Delegates to
meet all rightful appropriate demands made
upon them as public servants
on the question Of the right of Burton to hold
office under the government in future Justice
Harlan said. in addition to what has already
been quoted that that part of the sentence does
nothing more than declare the legal effect. and
might have been omitted
On the point that the crime was not commit
ted at St Louis. Justice Harlan said:
In view Of these cases it cannot be maintained
that the personal absence Gf the defendant Bur
ton from St. Louis at the time his offer was
accepted and the agreement between him and
the company was completed and became bind
ing deprived the federal court there Of i1lris-
diction He his offer to ST Touis with
the intent that il should be there accented and
consummated. Having been completed at that
cry IN conformity with the intention of both
parties an offence was in the eye Of the law
committed there, and when the court below as
sumed jurisdiction Of this 1t did not Of
fend the constitutional requirement that a
in the state and district where il was commit
ted
AS to the interest" of the United States in
he he