The Mathews journal. (Mathews C.H. [Court House]) 1903-1937, 1906-05-24
BURTON MUST
PAY THE PENALTY
U. ). Supreme Court is Against Kansas
Senator.
CAN PETITION FOR A REHEARING.
supreme Court OF the Uuited States Afflrms
Tue Judgement of Lower Court, Which
Convicted Him OiImprOperIy Accepting Fees,
and Sentenced Him TO Serve Six Months,
Besides Paying a Fine.

Besides Paying Fine.
Washington, D. c., (SpccialJ The
Supreme Court of the United States
Monday rendered decision in the case
OF United States Senator Joseph X. Bur
ton, 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 nine months
Imprisonment in the Jail of Iron County.
Missouri, required to pay a fine of ST.
500 and deprived Of the right TO here
after hold Office under the Government.
Inc opinion was by Justice Harlan
All of the points made in Burton's in
tcrest were overrucd.
Immediately after promulgating its
decision the Supreme Court granted
motion to give 90 days TO Senator Bur
ton III which to prepare petition for
rehearing. The action will have the cf-
iect OF taking the case over until the
next term of the Court beginning i'm
October; as the present term will expire
next Monday.
Senator Burton was prosecuted on the
charge OF violating Section 1872 of the
Revised Statutes, which prohibits Sen
ators and Representatives from receiv-
ing compensation for services rendered
before any Of the Government depart
mcnts III any matter in which the Gov
crnment may be interested. He was spc-
cihcally charged with accepting fee OF
$500 per month for FIVE months from the
Rialto Grain and Securities ComDapy OF
81 Louis for services rendered that Com
pany in an effort to prevent the issuance.
of an order by the Pcstoficc Depart
mcnt prohibiting the use of the mails by
the Company.
This was Senator BurtOn's second ap-
peal to the Supreme Court In the first
case the Circuit Court found him guilty
and imposed the same penalty that was
imposed in the present case. but the Su-
premc Court reversed the decision in
the first instance because il was made
TO appear that the money wSS paid in
Washington and not in ST. Louis, where
the case was tried. Il was contcnded on
behalf OF Senator Burton that the fec
was paid on account Of criminal pro-
cceding against one Of the mcmb>rs OF
the Rialto Company and not because OF
services rendered in the Government
prosecution of the Company. The law
under which he was prosecuted was also
attacked as unconstitutional on thS
ground that the Senate was the sole
Judge of the qualification OF lis members
but this doctrine was not upheld by
Justice Harlan'S opinion. The statute
was upheld i'll all respects and held to be
fully applicable TO BurtOnS case.
Justices Brewer, White and Pcckham
united in dissenting opinion delivered
by Justice Brewer. Their opinion was
based on the theory that the United
States was not legally interested in the
case against The Rialio Company, in
which Burton was employed as counsel
If Senator Burton does not resign AT
once, as prominent Senator puts H.
4 resolution will be introduced TO declare
his seat vacant.
The sentence OF Senator Burton was in
two parts, as he was convicted on two
counts OF the indiCtncnt. One was six
months in Jail and a fine of $1,000. and
the other three months in Jail and $500
aggrcgating nine months in Jail and a
fine of $25oo
Senator Burton received the first news
OF the Courts decision by telephone at
his room in ;he Raleigh Hotel where nc
is stopping. TO the newspaper men who
called 10 see HIM Senator Burton said:
Il shall adhere to my original policy
of saying nothing until my case is finally
determined"
He would not say, in reply to a qucs-
ton, that he intended to take further le-
gal steps, but from the fact that he does
not regard his case as finally decided, in
view OF the 90 days granted for a re-
hearing, it is inferred that he will do so.
That the Senate will be compelled to
take cognizancc OF the case is indicted
by the decision in the following extract
The final judgment of conviction did
not operate ipSo facto to .vacate the seat
OF the convicted Senator, nor compel the
Senate to cxpeI him or to regard him as
expelled by force alone of the iudg-
ment The seat into which he was orr
ginally inducted as a Senator from Kan
sas could only become vacant by his
death or by expiration of his term OF
office, or by some direct action on the
part of the Senate i'll exercise Of its Con
StltutIOnal powers"