The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1907-03-24
Astounding Attack
On Mr.. Roosevelt
Defense of Burton
oCohtInued Ion IS 70

| Continued from First Page)
ton of the average American citizen.
| What I say now. and shall hereafter
/ saw. is not to convince the people Of
Abilene and Dickinson county, that
was innocent of the charges preferred
against me You know that now. You
| have known ne too long to believe in
my guilt
! Il do want. however. at this time.
| to consider certain salient features Of
| the case, and to correct. II I may, some
/ false Impressions, that have been indus
! triously circulated throughout the coun-
| try, for the past three years. That l
/ was employed for d short time as the
| attorney of the RialtO Company, was
/ never concealed or denied by me. Pay
| ments on my contract for employment
were made in five installments Of $500
| each. The first four payments were
/ each made by check. which I deposited
with the bank where I kept an account
/ in Washington. The last payment was
/ in cash. There was nothing concealed,
| CT unusual in the payments, as there
was nothing to conceal in the contract
/ of employment
No Get-Rich-Quiclc Concern
Now the RiaIto Company bore no. re-
| semblance whatever 20 "a get-rich-CuIick
! concern. Durng the time was one Of
| IT'S attorneys. and during all -he time
/ that IL was managed by its owner,
! Major Dennis. the Rialto Company
never swindled any person in the world
| cut of n dollar. l offered 10 show this
| in the trial OF my case. but the court
refused 20 allow the testimony. We
| invited the Government. time and again.
| TO go into the subject Of the good faith
/ OF the Rialto Company with its patrons
! while was one of its attorneys. and
! the Government declined the invitation
and, as have said. the court denied me
/ the right TO present the proof.
/ The Rialto Company was organized
/ about the 1st Of September. 1902 Major
/ Dennis was its sole owner. IL YVES or
! ganized under the legal advice and di-
/ rection Of Judge Chester II. Krum and
] Thomas B. Harlan, who. I thought,
} were lawyers OF good standing. In the
! city Of st. LOuis-Judge Krum being the
/ warm personal friend and intimate as
! sociate OF Col Csoon 20 be Judge David
/ p. Dyer. Colonel Dyer -ereged him to
/ defend his son, David T. Dyer, jr,
| charged with stealing SOL 500 from the
| subtreasury In ST. LOuis. Judge Krum
/ was one Of my attorneys at the first
/ trial, but he was not in the case after
/ IL was appealed 20 the Supreme Court.
Shortly after going out OF my case.
upon the recommendation OF Colonel
| Dyer, and, presumably. on his reputa-
/ ton as a great lawyer and a responsible
man. President Roosevelt employed him
/ for the Government 10 assist Colonel
IN
I over the Terminal Association. He is
now employed by Roosevelt To prosecute
/ z. G, Lewis and his associates. I refer
/ to these supposed high Inducements Of
/ Judge Krum. for if the RiaIto Company
used the mails 20 d5efraud both he and
! Harlan must have known Of Il at the
time,
Didn't Balk the Order.
IN the history OF my case it will
/ plainly appear that I did nothing TO
prevent q fraud order from issuing
against the RiaIto Company. It will
also plainly appear that months after
my connection with the company ceased
and when conditions changed for the
worse. by reason OF the protracted sick
ness and absence OF It's owner, Major
, Dennis. and when there was an investi-
cation by the Postonice Department.
that it was not I. but Il was the two
men who prosecuted me. Colonel, soon
20 be Judge, David p. Dyer and c. Z.
Robb who prevented a fraud order from
Issuing against that company.
There was a false statement, pub
lished throughout the country, as 10 the
nature of the charge made against me.
It was given out that I had been in
al q. n
along the line while the case was pend
ing against me. When. however. the
end came and I was sent to Jail, a few
leading journals called attention TO the
fact that there was no bribery nor
fraud alleged IN the charge against me;
that my offense did not involve any
moral tUrpitude whatever; that, il
guilty at all, my guilt was only tech
nical. But these fair publications came
too late 10 be an amidote, 50 far as my
case was concerned, for the poison sown
broadcast for years
"The charge against me. throwing
aside legal verbiage. was that 7 had
been hired in a law suit, prohibited by
the statute because I was a Senator.
It was not pretended in the Indictment
that the Government had one cent of
was accused Of acting as an attorney.
There was no charge against me like
that made against the late Senator
Mitchell and other defendants in the
land-fraud cases; no charge that I had
defrauded the Government out of any
thing. The Government had no none
tary interest whatever in the case. The
statute had been passed in 1864. near the
close Of the war. to prevent Congress
men from taking claims against the
Government for collection.
- Indictments Known.
There never had been 3 prosecution
under the statute when I was indicted,
and the law had been forgotten. I
think I am entirely within the bounds
Of truth when ! sly not a single Senator
or Representative knew of the exist
ence Of the statute at the time was in
dicted. I certainly did not Senator,
now Judge. Peter c. Pritchard, of
North Carolina. was offered a fee while
he was Senator by a brother lawyer