Arizona republican., 1910-09-29
When Illinois Legislative
 Money Changed Hands DEACON HOlsTLAW SAID
He Got Money at Various Times, He Did Not Know Precisely for What, But He Was Filled With Sur mises.

Chicago, Sept 2S.-Senator Hoist law, one of the democrats who voted for Senator Lorimer, was on the wit ness stand today before the sena- torial Investigating committee, and testified that after he had voted for Lorimer he received s2,5OO. and that he supposed the money was paid be- cause of his vote.
 The state senator, who until re- gently was a banker at Iuka and of some prominence in the Baptist church, is the second legislator to tell the committee that money was paid because of a vote for Lorimer Senator Holstlaw. in response to a question by Attorney Austrian. Was anything said about the payment for your vote for Senator Lorimer?" said: "The night before the election of Lorimer I met State Senator John Frederick outside the St Nicholas hotel at Springfield, and he said: They are going to elect Lorimer to- morrow
 T replied: Yes. I think so; am going to vote for him
 He said: Well, there is $2,500 In it for you
 That was all that was said. I in tended to vote for Lorimer, anyway. l had made up my mind three or four days before that, and did not know there was anything in it for me"
 Were you offered anything?" he was asked. and the witness replied:
 'Broderick did not offer me any thing; he simply said there was s2,500 in it for me-
 Ibid you get s2.5OO?"
 Yes" he answered. 'T went to Chicago about June Is. 1909. to Bro derick's office, and he gave me s2,500. which he counted out of an envelope. He merely said: Here's that money said nothing to him beyond greet ing him when I met him.
 On further examination, Holstlaw said he supposed the money was paid for his vote for Lorimer. In response to questions by Senator Frazier. Holstlaw said that Frederick was the first man that had spoken to him in regard to voting for Lorimer.
 Did you ask what the s2.5OO was for, and who was paying it?" queried Frazier.
 "No," was the reply, T asked noth- ing"
 The witness declared that he had no other conversation with Broderick relative to his vote; that he went to Chicago to see Broderick in response to a letter, the substance of which was a request from Broderick that he (Holstlaw) meet him in his office.
 Did Frederick owe you anything?" Frazier asked.
 No" was the reply, in the same monosyllabic negative.
 Did you have any claim upon him? Was there any reason other than your conversation before the election for the payment?"
 Further, Holstlaw said that later Frederick paid him s700. When I got the s7OO Broderick simply said that much was coming to me. and I simply took it. don't know what it was for" This S7OO has been referred to as part of the alleged jackpot" fund.
 Senator Paynter asked the witness if Lerimer or the senatorial election was mentioned when he received S2,5OO from Broderick.
 . Neither Lorimer nor the senatorial election was mentioned then" replied Holstlaw
 A confession signed by Holstlaw on May 2S, 1910. when he was before the Sangamon county grand jury. was pre- sented by Austrian, who called the att tention of the witness to his statement there that "Broderick told me. there was s2,5OO in it for me if would vote for Lorimer."
 On cross examination, Hanecy brought out that Holstlaw had told many persons prior to Lorimers cleo tion that he had made up his mind to vote for Lorimer.