The Butler weekly times. (Butler, Mo.) 1881-1918, 1908-06-25
The Atkins Bill.
Senator Stone Replies to His
Critics.

Jefferson City, No., June l3. lSuo.
Quite recently some enterprising
ge atleman at Jt tfferson City has had
printed many thousand copies OF
what purporss 10 be a copy OF u bill
introduced by me In the 59th Con.
gress Tor the relief OF Thomas j.
Atkins, sub treasurer at st, Louis,
aud these have been extensively cir
culsted throughout the State, This
has been done with the notion that
II would In some way iniure me.
Concerning this matter, there is 9th.
ing l need desire to conceal. The
facts are as follows;
Senator Warner requested me, as
d matter Of favor, to present the bill
for him. He prepared Il, and II was
his bill. He stated that he had been
engaged to aid In the defense OF
young Dyer, who had been indicted
for embezzling the $61, 500 purloined
from the sub. treasury, OF which he
was subordinate official, and the
Senator said that as there would
probably be conflicts In the course OF
that trial between Dyer and Atkins,
he would regard It as q favor II |
would pFesnt the bill Ter him. -Thisl
did as q matter Of ordinary courtesy,
without assuming responsibility for
Il. While the bill on It's face was for
the relief Of Mr.. Akine, It's first and
most important effect would be to
cause congressional investigation
into the facts connected with the
SUBJ treasury lose, and to have the
facts suthoritatively reported. The
bill was In the form such measures
usually take. Atkins claimed, as l
was informed, that he was not per-
sonally guilty Of any neglect or off,
cisl fault; that he was guiltless OF
any wrong.doing, either OF commis-
sion or omission and that while be
might be technically liable In q court
proceeding, he ought not, In equity
and good conscience, to be held per.
sonally responsible for the loss, and
upon this he asked chance to be
heard. 6 The only way possible for
him to have hearing on his claim
was through Congress, and he pray
ed for an opportunity to present the
facts through proper committees to
the Congress for consideration. Per
sonally, l think every man who
claims right to be heard on a mat
ter vital to him should at least be
given a fair and impartial hearing
That is the universal American rule
oiiair play. What Missourian would
wish either OF his Senators to stand
In the way and deny one OF his con-
stituents on narrow partisan grounds
the right to be heard In support ol
his claim when he asked is? There
may be Missourians who look at
things in that way, but, happily OF
unhappily, am not so constituted
and l am accounted a pretty good
partisan, too. What would you
think OF me If l were Governor, or q
member OF the State Legislature, snd
q man, who had been q public Off
cial, should come to me and ssy, 81
have suffered q loss without fault o
mine, and / want to lay my case be
fore you," and should, in partisan
spirit and for partisan reasons, de
cline to give him hearing2 thinl
no man will impesch my devotion te
party or my consistent advocacy o
party organization and discipline
but l have never been so partisan 81
to deny q man q hearing and then ai
terwards pass upon the merits Of BIZ
claim. So far as party service ant
devotiongo, perhaps II might be vel
for those who raise this question Il
look to their own records. stant
on the broad proposition that ever.
man has q right to be heard, whel
he asks II, before the constituted au
thority OF bis State or county. More
over, In matters of this kind, th
hearing would make 1t necessary 70
the proper committees, If they prop
erly discharged their duties, to 81
anime into and report the facts, sn'
the public in such cases is as mucl
interested in knowing the facts AM
In doing justice according to tn
facts as the claimant himself.
After / introduced the bill In th
, manner stated, had nothing NOR
whatever to do with Il. l never q