Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1910-12-22
FRAZIER RELIEVES CORRUPT
VOTE DECIDED ELECTION,

Chicago Dec. Ex-senator FRAZER
statement on the Lorimer case was
made public here today. 1t follows:
1t is with great reluctance that l
differ with my colleagues on the sub
committee. but feeling impelled TO do
so. I beg leave to, state briefly my
views and conclusions in this case.
Il understand the precedents so
established by the senate and the
other branch of congress and now
recognized as the law governing such
cases. they are:
First If the proof established
the fact that the member whose seat
in question because of alleged bribery
or corrupt practices resorted to in his
election, has himself been guilty or
bribery or corrupt practices, or knew
of or sanctioned such corrupt prac-
tices. he may be unseated without ref
erence to the number of votes thus
corruptly influenced
Second. If the proof fails to show
that the member knew or or par
ticipated in or sanctioned such corrupt
practices, then. in order TO justify un-
seating him. the proof must show thai
enough members of the legislature
voting for him were bribed, or influ-
enced by corrupt practices, that de-
ducting their votes from the vote re-
telNeu DY HlIls WOulu ituhSC if'o
below the legislative majority requir-
ed for his election.
"While there are some facts and
communication in this case tending to
show that Senator Lorimer may nave
heard of or knew that corrupt prac-
tices were being resorted TO, ana
while Senator Lorimer failed to avail
himself of the opportunity of going
on the stand as q witness, and deny.
ing any knowledge or sanction OF
corrupt practices, if any such We're
being practiced, still, l am or the
opinion that the testimony talled 10
establish the fact that Senator. Lori
mer himself was guilty of bribery or
other corrupt practices, or that he
sanctioned or was cogniZant of the
fact that bribery or corrupt practlces
were being used by others to intlu-
ence votes for him.
This being true, the question theh
arises was bribery or corrupt prac-
tices used by others in his behalf to
influence votes for him and II So
We're enough votes thus tainted win
fraud and corruptly influenced, wheh
eliminated to reduce his vote peloW
the legal majority required Tor ms
election.
The Legislature of Illinois consisted
Of 2O4 members. There were present
and voting on the election of Senator
LOrimer 202 members A quorum OF
both houses being present, IN my
opinion, he must have received ma
jority of all those present ana Young
or 1O2 votes, to have been elected.
Senator Lorimer received los votes
or six more than necessary 10 eject
The testimony taken by the COM
mittee satisfies me that four mem,
money for voting for, or in conse-
quence of having voted for Senator
Lorimer. One senator and three rep
resentatives admitted under oath De-
fore the committee that they were
paid money, and the admissions OF the
facts and circumstances surrounding
the transactions satisfy me that they
received il as a bribe for or in conse-
quence of having cast their votes ior
Senator Lorimer.
The four confessed bribe-takers
implicate three other members OF the
legislature who voted for Senator
Lorimer as the persons who bribed
themt The testimony satisfies me that
three alleged bribe-givers were gull
ty of that offense. To my mind the
man who bribes another is as corrupt
as the one who bribes and by his cor
rupt act of bribery he demonstrates
the fact that he is none too honest 10
receive bribe II offered him.
While the proof is not clear or
conclusive that these three alleged
bribe-givers We're themselves bribed
OF corruptly influenced to vote for
senator Lorimer, when 1 take into
consideration their corrupt conduct as
hribers Of others. together with all
the facts and circumstances surround
ing the case. l cannot bring myself