Show BURTONS CASE AGAIN ARGUED kansas Kansas Senator Before the Supreme Court C urt Trying to Evade the Amended Charges S GREAT ARRAY OF COUNSEL COUNSE POINTS POIN S URGED BY ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENSE Washington April 3 Argument was begun today in the supreme court of the he United States against Senator Burton of Kansas The government was represented by Assistant Attorney Attorney ney fey General Robb and Mr Burton by a long array arra of counsel consisting of John F Dillon B P Wag gener goner Henry Hubbard W H Ross ington W K Haynes Haymes Hay es F L Leh Lehmann Lehmann Lehmann mann and W P Hackney The charge against Senator Burton In 11 this case is the same as that pre when the case was before b fore the court last year except that In this case the receipt of money by Burton in St Louis Is alleged The reversal of the decision of f the circuit court on the former appeal was based on the failure to show that fact Charge Against Burton The charge against Burton is that of violating section se tion 1782 1732 of the revised statutes prohibiting senators and I members of the house from receiving I compensation for services rendered in relation to any an proceeding in which the United States is interested Bur ton is charged with accepting a fee of a month from the Rialto Grain company of St Louis for representing that company before the postoffice de department department department in a proceeding charging that company with fraudulent use of the malls malIs Pleas In the Case The government urged that Mr Ir Burton had entered upon the dis clis discharge charge of his services as counsel with full tun knowledge of the facts while it was contended on behalf of Mr Bur Burton Burton Burton ton that he had not in the beginning been the representative of the Rialto company but the personal attorney for Major Dennie of that company Mr Robb contended that the pending case presents a much stronger case against the defendant than that before the court on the former appeal and deserves more decided affirmation of its sufficiency Reference was made to the new tes testimony testimony testimony especially that given by Charles Brooks Brook Mr Burtons attorney attorney attorney ney did not fail to take tako cognizance cognisance of Brooks attitude claiming it to be due to his unfriendly personal and busi bust business business bustness ness relations with Avith Major Dennis Points in the Defense Mr Burton took exception to the constitutionality of the law under which he is prosecuted prose Mr fr Burtons defense was summed up in the follow following followIng following ing language We maintain mai first that the present indictment does not state a case in which the United States is interested within the meaning of section 1782 and second even if Interested never nevertheless nevertheless the proof shows that Burton Burtn neither agreed to render nor did ld be he berender berender render any services in respect of any aH matter in which shiichi in any view the United States had an interest direct director or indirect e |