The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1906-03-27
BURTON'S BRIEF.
1t Has Been Filed With the q. s.
Supreme Court.
--
The Government Has Not Yet
Completed Its Case.
HE WANTED CARLISLE.
But That Gentleman's Name
Does Not Appear on Papers.
Sticks to Old Plea That He
Needed the Money.


of the attorneys for Senator Burton Of
Kansas in his appeal from the judg-
ment Of the federal court for .he East
ern district of Missouri, in which he
was convicted, has been filed with the
supreme court.
Burton was sentenced November 29
by Judge Van -Devanter to serve six
months in the Iron county jail and to
pay fine of $2.50O for violating that
section of the revised statutes forbid
ing members of congress from prac-
ticing for compensation before a gov
ernment department in a proceeding
in which the United States is inter-
ested. He represented the Rialto
Grain and Securities company of st.
Louis in a fraud order proceeding
before the postodice department. The
supreme court will hear arguments on
his appeal from this Judgment next
Monday. Burton's case will be pre-
sented by Judge John F. Dillon and
Harry Hubbard Of New York, w H
Rossington of Topeka, Frederick W.
Lehman of st. Louis and ". Knox
haynes Of Chicago With the excep-
tlon OF Mr.. Haynes, all of these at
Iorneys have been connected with the
case since Burton was first indicted.
The brief of the government has not
peen med. 1t is being prepared by
Charles H. Robb, assistant attorney
general, who with Solicitor General
HOyt will represent the government
1t was said today that Burton has
made an effort to retain John G.. Car
llsie as one Of his lawyers. Mr. Car
Isles name does not appear on the
prief hted and so far as known he has
had no connection with the case.
Grounds of Appeal.
In support Of the appeal to the su-
preme court to set aside the judgment
OF the district court, Burton's counsel
contend: First. that the United Staes
was no a parry to nor interested in the
proceedings set forth in the Indictment;
second, that the Indictment states no
facE showing the psHdency Of anv
proceedings in the postomioe depart
lnent; third, that the constitutional pro
vision under which 10 person for The
same offense shall be twice put in
jeopardy, applies to Burton; fourth
that there was no evidence that Bur
ton made any agreement to receive COM
pensation for services to prevent the
issuance of a fraud order and that If
any agreement was made, it vas not
made in the state of Missouri. chat the
federal court for the Eastern district
of Missouri had no jurisdiction in the
case on the theory that Burtonss offense
was committed partly in Washington
and partly in Missouri. After emphasiz-
ing these points the brief continues:
The defendant, Burton, was a United
States senator and he was a poor man.
He desired to supplement his OFFICIAL
salary by the earnings OF his profess
sional labor An opportunity presented
itself in the case Of the RiaIto ccm-
pany. He was called upon to assist in
the defense Of its president, who was
involved in trouble, as he insisted
through the rnachinations Of others It
was desired also that he should assist
in starting the company in q new line
of business. when was entirely legiti-
mate and proper. The employment of
the defendant by the Rialto company
was ostensfbly at least for these pur-
poses. And nothing existed at that time
to suggest any sinister reasons for his
employment. Dennis was man in
good standing. prominently engaged in
a reputable business aside from his
connection with the Rialto company.
The Case OF Dennis
"The apprehended Indictment of
Dennis. explained to be due to the con-
duct by others Of the Brooks Broker
age company's business, could not
speak the condemnation of the Rialto
company. It would suggest very nat
uralIy to the defendant when he went
to INQUIRE whether the department in
tended to press the case against Den
mis-. to INQUIRE also whether there were
any complaints against the Rialto COM
pany and It was just as natural that
he should explain the fact that he in
uuired. He was the counsel Tor the
comnanv and was advised that it was
doing a legitimate business, but II It
was to become involved with postofhce
department. he, being senator. would
have nothing to do With-not simply in
the deDartment. but neither in the de-
Dartnent nor out of it. This is the only
ineligible explanation Of what he said
as to his position.
everything done by the defendant
In the department was done as an in
cfdent of the Dennis case But rela-
tions are reversed. and it is assumed
against the defendant that the Dennis
case was but an incident of what was
done in the department. The indtct-
ment against Dennis is said to have
been a trivial matter and to have
served as a mere Dretext for the en-
Dlovment of the defendant for his IN
huence in the departln ent; ana yeS
that fndictrn ent crush ed Dennis and
killed him. The significance OF that IN
dictment in this case is determinable
not by what others may now assume
to think Of It, but what Dennis then
did think of it.
AIleres Agreement Was lawful
The argument between the defend
ant and the Rialto company, accord
/ ing to its terms as stated by Harlan
I and the defendant, who alone knew
what its terms We're, was a fair and
lawful one and it must be presumed
to have been intended as such, unless
there is something in the evidence to
/ f1npeach the good faith of the parties.
'sITnIess there has been an offense
there can be no offender. In every
criminal case the first inquiry should
/ be not Is the defendant guilty. but
has a crime been committed? In the
/ present case If we first inquire Wheth-
+ er a crime has been committed, we viii
get no farther. Everything done re-
f specting the complaints against the
Rialto company was done under the
rules and regulations of the postofhee
/ department by the proper officials and
2 II