The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1907-03-24

just one step DelJW the supreme bench
Judge Pritchard Acknowledges TO hav-
ing done what was accused Of doing
have always and shall ever deny COM
hitting the act for which I was con-
victed
Confessed Offender Free.
Judge Willis Vandevanter presided at
my last trial. and pronounced sentence
upon me He was formerly Assistant At
torney General TO the Secretary Of the
Interior. He was. therefore. the law Off
Ger OF that department In that capa-
| city, it became his duty to sit as a Judge
and hear all appealed cases coming from
the Land Office, and all other cases in
volving questions of law. and really de-
Gliding the cases for the Secretary OF
the Interior, who was not a lawyer. A
mining case, involving valuable prop
, erty. had Geen taken. by appeal. 70
| the Secretary Of the Interior, and came
before Judge Vandevanter.
THE only lawyer on one side OF the
case was a United States Senator, who
appeared and filed his brief with Judge
Nandevanter- The judge accepted the
| brief. and recognized the appearance Of
the Senator, doubtless thinking there
was nothing IN the law making 1t
| crime for Senator 70 appear as a paid
| attorney in the case For il is incon-
| ceivablc that he would have permitted
/ a Senator TO appear before him. when.
! by such appearance. the judge knew the
! senator was committing a crime The
/ senator was IN blissful ignorance that
! he was committing a crime for which
! he might be sent TO jail for two years.
| hned $1,000, depOsed from his high Of
| ice. and be forever forbidden 70 hold
| any oHice Of trust or profit under the
! Government Of the United States. II he
was knowingly violating the law, he
/ surely would not have furnished the
! Government with positive proof Of his
/ CUNT by ming his brief in writing with
'i-e Judge This Senator Is a man OF
/ national reputation as a lawyer, is a
IIlli!onaire, and was a member Of the
last Congress. 1t was in 1901 when he
| appeared before Judge Vandevante7 in
/ tAe case 70 which have referred.
When I was indicted. this Senator
boldly announced that II I was guilty.
ne likewise. was guilty. For. as he said,
/ nave appeared in a case before the
secretary OF the Interior, or, rather, be-
/ fore his law officer. for a fee The
senator made no cOncealment Of what
( ne hdG done. He was not conscious OF
having violated the law. The Depart
ment OF Justice and Mr.. Roosevelt were
IuiIy advised Of the act OF the Senator.
| IN appearing IN the case, 70 which
have referred.
The statute Of limitations had not
then run There was nothing in the
| way 10 prevent that Senator from being
indicted. The evidence Of his guile was
IN writing. and IN the possession of the
Government. That same Senator. called
on me last December. at the fail. at
lronton. He was on his way 20 his seat
in the Senate
Reason for Prosecution.
I doubt if the country has ever f,uv
! realized why / was prosecuted at ST
Louis. On the evening Of March 4 1908
shortly after I had been indicted. and
before my trial. asked President
Roosevelt why he had proceeded against
me In St louis and he said he ala not
know. Within a day or two thereafter.
the same question was propounded to
the then Attorney General. now Senator
Knox, and he refused 10 answer Il. Ny
attorneys often asked the question. in
case had been brought In St. Louis and
not IN Washington, and they could get
no answer.
NO truthful answer could be given.
that was not a confession. that in pro
ceeding against me in st. Louis. the
Government had violated the very shirt
Of the Constitution. Four Of the five
payments were made % srne IL Wash
ington- Il I rendered any services that
were prohibited by the statute. rem
dered them in Washington. and not in
ST. Louis. Nearly all the witnesses lived
in Washington, and near that city. II
had not made any agreement with my
client in the State II Missouri
Then, why did they proceed against
me at St. Louis?
Because It was a part OF the con-
spiracy of those who began the case
against me. TO violate the fundamental
law. by taking me into a city, and be-
fore a tribunal where I could be con
Victed, regardless OF the evidence .pnd
the law. There was a wild crusade
against accused officials in Missouri an
that time, and the storm-center was at
St. Louis.
Odds Against Him.
For some time vicious attacks had
been made throughout the countr,,
against the United States Senate
Therefore, the prosecution Of a United
states Senator in the city OF St I,ouis
furnished a shining mark for all the