The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-03-24
Former Senator Speaks 1 atAbilene, Kansas.
CAUSE OF HIS DOWNFALL
Declares President Punished Him
 for Free Opinion.
criticises ~MachisveIIian Methods. e< RepnhIscan ststesmaa in EsorSs to Favor "suGar Trnscs---
 Review. Trial

< Burton. former United States Senator from Kansas received reception moro enthusiastic than that given him when he first returned as Senator. when to- night he returned to his home city af- ter five months Imprisonment at Iron- ton, Mo.
 A crowd of several hundred people with the town band. met him at the station ct o'clock and many persons were wearing badges on which was in~ seribed: Welcome. Burton" Tho ex- Senator rode from the Station tc his home in an open carriage. and hts pro- gress through the streets was in the nature of a triumphai proccssiou.
 Mir. and Mrs. Burton were enterfatn> ed at dinner by County Trsaaurer Schrider, after which they went to the theatre. where the ex Senator delivered his speech on why Was Prosecuted I
 The speech of Burton was heard n4 large audience and he was freduenhAY applauded. The Kanaas audience gave evidence of it's approval of his fa- marks
 The trial and conviction of tbe ex- Senator for acting aa attorney for the Rialto Company while serving in tho Senate was reviewed at length and his course was vfndicated. He declared that he had been peraecuted by tna President and other high Republicans because he had committed sin of dis- agreeing with them
 Burton Begins speech. Ex-Senator Burton began his speech by referring to the three indictments found against him. and the two convic- tions under them, saying that while the case was pending, he tried to get the Senate to investigate tho charges against him. but it steadily refused to do SO. and 1t was about fp expel him without an investtKaFtoEs when he resigned to avoid expuAHtnn
 A great wrong he aaids had been done not only to him. but to inc pse- | ple Of Kansas as well. and to the peo pIe of the entire country.
 Tor the greatest of all eriinAs I aKalnst q people" he said. 'ls where executaves ravleh the law in the tenn l pie Of justice as fltey did in EpT case I .sTaat I was employed for a sharf | time as the attorney of the Rialto Cun1- l pany was never concealed or denied by l me Payments on my contract were made In five instailments of $500 each | The first four payments were each made by check. which deposited wltn ! the bank where l kept an account im | Washington. There was nothing con~ cealed, or unusual tn the payments. as | there was nothing to conceal in the contract of employment
 Tt was an unjust accusation against l me that | had been employed aa an l attorney by n disreputable corporations l and that knew 1t to be Of such char
 acter at the time of my employment. | The Rialto Company bore no rsaexu- | biance whatever to get-rich-quiclg concern. During the time was one ok E ts attorneys, and during all the tin1o that it was managed by it's owner Ata- I for Dennis, the RiGlto Compay never
 swindled any person In the world out l of a dollar. I offered to show this in ! the trial of my case. but the court re- | fused to allow the testimony.
 q did nothing to prevent fraud
 order from issuing against the Riafto | Company. Months after my connection ! with the company ceased. and when conditions changed for the worst by | reason of the protracted Illness ard | absence of its owner, and when thero was an investigation by the Postoflice Department. 1t was not I, but the two
 men who prosecuted me, who prevented
 a fraud order from issuing against the company
 Tt was untrue that I was indicted for bribery, though it was so given out
 in the faring headlines of newspapers. The charge against me, throwing aside
 legal verbiage. was that I had beeA
 hired fin lawsuit, prohibited by the statutes, because I was a Senator. Ir | was not pretended in the indictment
 that the Government has one cent oE
 property interest In the case, where l 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 tho
 land fraud cases; no charge that haM l defrauded the Government out of any
 thing. The Government had no none | tary interest whatever In the case | Whether a fraud order should or 1 should not issue against my client.
 made not one dollar Of differences Co the Government. The Government
 would not make or lose anything, 1 whichever way the case should be do- | cided by the Postmaster General.
 The statute had been passed in l 1884 near the close or the war. to prevent Congressman from taking claims against the Government for col~ | lection. Claims against the Govern | ment had piled mountain high at that time as e result of the war, and Sen4~ tors and Congressman made a speciality l of seeking these claims for collection. The very best men in Congress adver-
 tised in the Washington papers to coi- l feet these claims on contingent fees. As it required appropriations to pay the claims when allowed, it was thought that such action should be de- nounoed as wrong and in conflict witk the official duties of Congressrnen. This
 was the inspiration and purpose Of
 the law. It means, as was then 1 thought. that in all matters where the
 Government stood to win or lose some thing, or where money or property waa | involved, the Congressman was pro- | hibited from appearing for monax or
 property or for fee. It was thought l by the framers of the law to cover nc other kind Of cases, Such was tho construction placed upon 1t hv tisa
 makers of the statute. Such was 3fA
 construction by Senators and RenxA4 | sentators Cabinet Ministers, Baxma{8
 officers, and. Indeed. by everyone unt1i the Supreme Court, by a decision Of Hno
 to four, gave it another and far dzifeF
 ent construction in my case.
 l After the enactment of the Statn{a
 no Senator or Representative who kassS
 of the law ever openly took a fAe f8F ! happearing in case before aAnAnl