Watertown weekly leader. [volume] (Watertown, Jefferson County, Wis.) 1906-1908, 1906-05-25
BURTON GUILTY,
SENATOR NO MORE.
Kansan Loses in His Appeal to the
United States Supreme
Court.


today rendered q decision in the case
of United States Senator Ralph Burton
of Kansas
IF Senator Burton does not resign at
once" as prominent senator put 1t to-
day, "a resolution will be introduced to
declare his seat vacant"
Severe Penalty Affirmed.
The decision was against Burton, al
frming the decision of the United States
circuit court for the eastern district OF
Missouri, by which Burton was SEN
fenced to six months Imprisonment III
the jail of Iron county, Missouri, re-
CURED to pay a fine OF $500 and de
prived of the right to hereafter hold
office under the government.
The opinion was by Justice Harlan.
All of the points made in Burton's inter-
est were overruled. Senator Burton was
prosecuted on the charge of violating
section 1882 of the Revised Statutes,
which prohibits senators and represen-
tatIycS from receiving compensation tor
services rendered before any of the gov
ernment departments i'll any matter III
which the government may be interested.
Former Appeal Was Won.
The charge against Senator Burton in
this case is the same as that preferred
when the case was before the court last
year, except that III this case the receipt
of money by Burton in st. Louis is al
legged.
The reversal of the decision of the cir
cult court on the former appeal was
based upon the failure to show that fact.
The charge against Burton is that of
violating Section 1882 of the revised
statutes prohibiting senators and mem
berS of the House receiving compensa-
ton for services rendered i'll relation to
any proceeding III which the United
States is interested. Burton is charged
with accepting Il fee of $500 month
from the RiaIto Grain and Securities
company of St. Louis for representing
that company before the postofice de-
partment i'll a proceeding charging that
company with the fraudulent use of the
mails.
Denied He Had knowledge.
The government urged that Mr.. Bur
ton had entered upon the discharge of
his service at counsel with full knowl-
edge Of the facts while it was contended
on behalf of Mr.. Burton that he had
not in the beginning been the represen-
tatiye of the RialtO company, but the
personal attorney for Major Dennis of
that company i'll the matter Of Il per
Souai prosecution against him.
Justices Brewer, White and Peckham
united in a dissenting opinion delivered
ny DbNlIte lDItHtI L IItlI OllliiOII 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 de-
ciSiOn in the Burton case the supreme
court granted q motion to give sixty days
to Senator Burton in which to prepare 81
petition for a rehearing 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.
Senate Must Act
That the Senate will be compelled to
take cOgnizance of the case is indicated
by the decision in the following extract:
The final judgment of conviction did not
operate ipso facto to vacate the seat of the
to expel him or to regard him as expelled
by force alone of the Judgment. The seat
into which he was originally indicted as Il
senator from Kansas 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 in exercise of its
constitutional lowers
Justice Harlan also held that sentence
could not cover an election to the Senate
as they did not hold their places under
the government of the United States"
Place of Crime Considered.
tJn Inc point Illdl tie crime was coill-
mitted at st. Louis Justice Harlan said
In view of these cases it cannot be main
tanned that the personal absence of the de-
PENDANT Burton, from st. Louis at the
time has offer was accepted, and the agree
mcnt between him and the company was
completed and because binding. deprived
the federal court there Of jurisdiction. He
sent his officer to st. Louis with the inten-
ton that it should be there accepted and
consummated Having been completed in
that city in conformity with the intention
of both parties. OffCnSe was. in the eye
of the law, committed there and when the
court below assumed jurisdiction of this
case it did not offend the constitutional re
quirement that Il crime against the United
States shall be tried in the state and dis
trist where is was committed.
Important Point in Decision
The supreme court says as to the Consti-
tutionality question III the Burton ease:
There can be reason why the gov
eminent may not by legislation, protect
against everything, from whatever source
it proceeds, that tends or may tend to cor
rUption or inetfciency in the management
of public affairs. A senator cannot claim
immunity from legislation directed to that
end simply because he is MEMBER of 4
body which does not owe its existence to
Congress and with whose constitutional
functions there can be no interference.
NO man in this country, this court has
said. lis so high that he is above that
law. No officer of the law may set that
law ut defiance with fmpunity. All the
officers OF the government. from the high
est to the lowest. are creatures of the law
and are bound to obey it.
r