The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-10-24
Hearst's judges.
John W. Con.
Samuel Seabury.
John Ford.
Charles W. Dayton.
Some Curious Features OF Senator
BurtOn's Case.

Some Curious Features OF Senator
BurtOn's Case.
The Supreme Court Of the United
States last week denied the application
of Senator BURTON of Kansas for a re-
hearing in his case; and he has now been
sent TO serve the term Of six months
Imprisonment in the county Jail to which
he was sentenced by the judgment OF
the United States Circuit Court in
Missouri.
He was convicted of violating a pro-
vision of the Revised Statutes Of the
United States which forbids a Senator
or other official of the Government from
receiving or agreeing to receive any
compensation for any services in relation
20 any proceeding, contract, claim, con-
troversy or other matter or thing lin
which the United States is a party or
directly or indirectly interested" before
any department, bureau or officer. The
indictment charged that a proceeding
was pending in the Post Office Depart
ment TO inquire whether a certain COrpo-
ration known as the Rialto Grain and
Securities Company was conducting a
scheme for obtaining money by false
pretences through the mails of the United
States and whether a fraud order should
be issued by the Postmaster-General
against that corporation. The indict-
ment further charged that the defendant
as a Senator of the United States unlaw-
fully agreed to receive from the said
corporation s. 800 a compensation for
services rendered by him in relation TO
such proceeding before the Post Office
Department. The testimony must be
regarded g establishing the fact that
Senator BURTON did actually agree to
represent the Rialto Grain and Securi-
ties Company in the proceeding for the
sum mentioned and that he received $500
on account of his services.
It follows that the conviction was
undoubtedly right if it be true that the
United States was directly or indirectly
interested" in the proceeding before the
Post Office Department.
A majority of the Justices Of the
Supreme Court of the United States have
held that it was. 1t is a noteworthy
fact, however. 20 which We desire to call
attention, that three members OF that
court, Justices BREWER. WHITE and
PEcKHAM,. emphatically disssented from
this view and held that under the statu-
tory provision upon which the conviction
Of Senator BURTON was based the United
States could not be deemed to be inter-
ested either directly or indirectly in the
proceeding in which he acted. The dis
senting opinion in the Supreme Court
was written by Mr.. Justice BREWER, who
declared that it was clear to his mind
that the construction of the law adopted
by the majority Of his judicial brethren
wrote into the statute an offence which
Congress never placed there. 1T is a
criminal case" he said, "and in such a
case, above all, judicial legislation is to
he deprecated"
No lawyer will dispute that Justices
BREWER, WHITE and PECKHAM are the
equals in learning and ability of any men
on the Supreme Court bench; and it is
undoubtedly the fact that if Senator
BURTON had been tried in a court Of first
instance presided over by either of those
Judges the jury would have been directed
20 acquit the defendant.
OF course, it is true that where Opin-
ions as to the law differ in a court of last
resort the judgment of the majority
must prevail; and we do not mean tc
question the correctness Of that con-
struction Of the law which has resulted
in an afirmance of Senator BUTTONS
conviction. 1t is a matter of simple
justice. however, to point out that the
case against him is not a conclusive
demonstration Of moral t%urpitude on hi
part and that his family and friends hav'
reasonable grounds for insisting that h,
was in fact innocent Of any %intentiona
wrongdoing.