Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1910-09-27
RECORD BROKEN.
CONTINUED from Page One.)
LORIME CASE.
CONTINUED from Page One.)

asked by Minority Leader Browne to
vote for Lorimer and that Brown told
him he would receive $1,000 for his vote.
The testimony was the same as has
been given by White In the two trials
Of Browne
The first clash of the hearing came
wnen Austrian asked what money was
promised White. The representative re-
piled: Il asked Browne what l would
get from other sources and he replied:
oh, about as much more"
Senator Lorimer's attorney objected
to the answer. arguing that the other
sources were entirely outside the case.
"This brings up" he said what has
been referred to as the Jack Pot BY
the words of the witness other sources
Is shown that ii has no connection with
the election of Senator Lorimer.
To which Attorney Austrian replied.
I'VE claim that this line Of testimony
Is relevant because we will show that
the Democratic state senators and rep
resentatives who voted for Senator
Lorimel voted FOR him As a part of a
system in which their votes on other
measures and their vote for Senator
LOri1er were so related. We are trying
tn show there was general state of
corruption In that Legislature and that
men there We're trying to bride 9TH
ers."
The committee retired into executive
session to consider admissibility Of this
line Of evidence.
Whites answer which brought out
the argument relative to the Jack
pot" was: II saw Browne May 25. the
day before l voted for Lorimer and
asked him what l was to get. He
said to me: You're not afraid to
leave that to me are your l replied:
No. I am not afraid, but l would
like to know" Then he said: You
will get $1,000 cash but keep that UNI
der your hat, for l am suspicious of
that little place above here they call
Joliet Then I asked what l would
get from other sources and he replied:
About as much more
The issue between the attorneys
was clear cut. Attorney Austrian in
sistlng that the Jack pot" testimony
was material and admissible and At
torney Hanecy as vigorously arguing
against this admission.
The committee considered the adj
mony for some time In executive ses-
sion and upon returning to the hear
ing room questioned the witness con-
corning his understanding of the
promise of money from other sources.
White said he had heard rumors of
what was known as Jack pot was
to be divided among legislators for
~ considered it all a part of the
agreement from the $1,000 and my share
of the Jack pot"
Senator Gamble asked:
WAS the money from other sources
part of your promise to vote for SEN
ator Lorimer or did it have an in
fiuence on your vote?'
II think 1t had an influence" replied
White.
Would you have voted for Senator
Lorimer for that SCOOP" asked Chair
man Burrows.
YES, I think would have" replied
White, after some hesitation.
Senator Hepburn then asked the Wit
ness: This conversation you have re-
lated did not mean to you that yoh
would get any more than the $1,000 for
voting for Senator Lorinier?''' ga
mo, l think not, SIR" was the'an-
swer.
After a whispered conference with
his colleagues, Chairman Burrows an
nounce6 that the committee would
have It's ruling later on the formal mo-
ton of Attorney Hanecy to exclude all
testimony relating to the Jack pot
shortly thereafter the noon recess
was taken.
With the admissibility of the testi-
mony relating to the so-called Jack pot
still in allegiance. White was asked to
relate his later dealings with Browne.
The witness testified that he was paid
$3.50 by Browne in Springfield and that
early in June. in the Briggs House he
was given $3.50 by Browne.
when he paid me the money
Browne cautined me about showing
$50 bills around and told me that that
was all the Lorimer money saia
White.