The Birmingham age-herald., 1910-09-29
HOLSTLAW GIVES
 HIS TESTIMONY Legislator Details His Part
 In Bribery Case MONEY PAID FOR HIS VOTE Holstlaw Is Closely Questioned By Sem ator Frazier Relative To the Plan
 To Vote for Lorimer for
 the Senate
 
MONEY PAID FOR HIS VOTE

Chicago, September 2s.-State Senator D. w. Holstlaw of Iuka. H.. one of the 53 democrats who voted for Senator Lori mer, on the witness stand today before the Lorimer Investigating committees said that after he had voted for Lorimer he received s25O0 and that he supposed the money was paid because of his vote"
 The state senator, who. until recently, was broker in his home tomn and had some prominence In the Baptist church, was broker in his home town and had heard by the committee and the second legislator to tell the United States sena- tors who are inquiring into the Lorimer election, that money was paid because of vote for the junior senator from H. linois.
 There was few preliminary questions asked by Attorney Austrian before the receipt of s25OO by Senator Holstlaw was admitted by the witness. After stating that he voted for Lorimer, Senator Hoist law in response to question "was any thing said about payment for your vote for Senator Lorimerr' said:
 'The night before the election of Sen ator Lorimer I met State Senator John Frederick outside the St. Nicholas hotel in Springfield and he said to me, They are going to elect Lorimer tomorrow
 1T replied. Yes, think so, and I am going to vote for him. He replied, Well, there is s25o0 in 1t for you That was all there was said. I intended to vote for Lorimer anyway and had made up my mind three or four days before that, and d&d not know there was thing in 1t for me-"
 Nothing offered
 Were you offered anything?" was ask ed, and the witness replied:
 He did not offer me anything and simply said there was s25oo in 1t for me-"
 Did you. get the s25oo?" was the next question. Yes" was tse answer. { 'I went to Chicago June l6, 1909, to Senator Broderiek's office and he gave me $25oo which he counted out of an en- velope
 
 said nothing to him beyond greeting him when I met him."
 On further examination Senator Hoist law said that he supposed the money was paid for his vote for Lorimer. Senator James B. Frazier, a democrat of Tennessee, who joined his colleagues on the committee today, questioned the witness at length. In response to the questions of the United States senator, Holstlaw said that State Senator Brod- erick was the first man to speak to him regarding voting for Senator Lorimer; that he met Frederick by accident tho night before the election of Senator Lori mer and had the conversation relative to the $2500.
 q had made up my mind to vote for Lorimer before that. said Holstlaw in reply to further queries from Senator Frazier, land had told others that l would vote for Lorimer."
 Did you ask what the $2500 was for or who was paying it?" asked the sena- tor from Tennesse.
 ''No, sir," was the reply. T asked noth- ing"
 Trip To Chicago
 The witness declared he had no other conversation with Broderick relative to the senatorial vote and that he went
  to letter. the substance of which was request from Broderick that he Hofts- law) meet him in his office.
 "Did Broderick owe you anything?' asked Senator Frazier
 "No," was the reply, and the same monosyllabic negative was the witness reply to the further questions.
 Did you have any claim upon him?" and Was there any reason other than ion, I~afa hn For the payment?"
 Another payment of s7O0, supposed to be part of the so-calred jack pot" was told of by the witness.
 A confession signed by the witness May 2S, 1910, in Springfield. when he was before the Sangamon county grand jury, was presented and Attorney Austrian called the attention of the witness to the statement there that Frederick told me there was $2500 in 1t for me if l would vote for Lor1mer"
 Senator Holtslaw said his statement in the document was the same as he had just made to the committee and that he had told the truth when he made the written statement and also on the wit ness stand.
 Discrepancy Found
 On cross-examination Attorney Hanecy brought out that Holtsaw had told many persons prior to the Lorimer election that he made up his mind to vote for Senator Lorimer. Holtslaw did not remember all the names mentioned by the attorney, but admitted that he had made no se- cret of his inten1jon to vote for Lorimef
 On redirect exae nation Attorney Aus trian called attention to a discrepancy in the statement ol the witness. who on direct examination said he had made up his mind three or four days before the election to vote for Senator Lorimer and later testified that he had so decided two or three weeks before.
 At the conclusion of the cross-exami- nation the witness was excused. Shortly before the adjournment the committee was advised that the official record of the legislature showed that Senator Lor- inner had been voted for May IS, preceding his election on May 77, 1909.
 Shortly before the adjournment Senator Paynter said
 ..So far as I am concerned this case is being approached on the presumption that the men who voted for Senator Lorimer did not do so because of bribery or cor rupt influences. It would be unjust to have any other assumption"
 To this statement Senator Hepburn added:
 The whole committee Is proceeding with a lack of presumption of corrup- tion in the election. the burden of prov ing such corruption is on those who are making the charges"
 It had been expected that Representa- tive H. J. c. Beckemeyer would follow Senator Holtslaw on the witness stand, but through misunderstanding Becke- meyer had been dismissed for the day and the session adjourned without call ing other witneses~