The Washington herald. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1906-1939, 1910-12-22

Hepburn 10 Report.
The majority report submitted yester-
day is signed by Senators Burrows, De-
pew. Dillingham;. Gamble. Hepburn. and
Buckley Republicans; and Bailey.
Paynter, Johnston. and Fletcher-Demo-
Gratis. Senator Hepburn joined Ia the
majority report and also submitted an
individual report on the case.
The conclusions OF the majority of
the committee are embodied in the fol-
lowing statement that in their opinion.
the title Of Mr. LOrimeT TO a seat in
the Senate has not been shown 10 be
invalid by the use or employment OF cor
rupt methods or practices
The committee at the outset OF its
investigation, laid down the proposition
that there were only two matters upon
which it was called upon to pass, 1t hav-
ing been the practice Of the Senate in
a number Of cases that have been be-
fore it that TO invalidate the election
Of a Senator, on account Of bribery. ii
must be made 10 appear either
I'D That the person elected partici-
pated in one or more acts OF bribery or
attempted bribery or sanctioned or en-
couraged the same; or
80 That by bribery or corrupt prac-
tees enough votes were obtained for
him 10 change the result OF the cleo
ton"
At the outset. those conducting the
case against Mr.. Lorimer admitted their
inability TO connect him with ny acts
OF bribery. and their counsel announced
that thky would make no attempt 20
do so. This action, the committee holds.
made it unnecessary 20 investigate the
first test Of his qualifications. The COM
mittee found that there was no testi-
mony offered during the investigation
which would tend in the remOtest de-
gree 10 implicate Senator Lorimer in any
personal act of bribery or attempted
bribery or corrupt practices Of any ma
ture"
In reviewing the testimony OF the wit
nesses called in the investigation. and
especially Of Charles 4. White, a Demo-
cratic member OF the legislature, who
started the sensation by writing a per-
sonal confession for a newspaper, the
committee INDUCES in severe cOndemna-
ton OF number OF them.
Condemn whites Action.
OF White. the majority say:
The chief Of these self-aeeusers, and
the one on whose testimony the whole
fabric of the accusation largely depends.
was Charles A White. a member of the
lower house of the Illinois general as
sembly. White seems to have developed
early in his legislative career an in
satiable desire 10 secure a pecuniary
compensation for his official acts. and
he also appears TO have suspected his
fellow-members of the general assem-
bly, OF being as corrupt as himself. He
endeavored to induce the chairman of an
important committee to defer reporting
bill, in order to extort money from
those who were interested in its pas
sage.
After Mr.. Lorimer had beer elected
to the Senate, White tried to obtain
information from another member of the
house whether money had not been used
TO promote Senator Lorimers election.
This inquiry not only shows his corrupt
character, but also casts suspicion upon
the truth of his story that he had been
bribed TO vote for the successful candi-
date for Senator. After wasting his
salary and other means III riotous liv-
ing. White appears to have conceived
the plan OF claiming to have been bribed
in connection with the senatorial cleo
from Senator Lorimer."
The majority find that after seeing.
observing. and hearing this witness, il
was the opinion of the majority Of the
subcommittee that no credence ought TO
be given 10 any part Of his testimony
tending to establish the fact of bribery.
The committee holds that Senator Lori
mer's title TO his seat has not been in
validated, even if the votes of the con-
fessed bribers are thrown out Senator
Lorimer had fourteen majority on joint
ballot. and IF it were admitted" say
the majority, that four of the members
Of the general assembly who voted for
Mr.. Lorimer were bribed TO do so, he
still had a majority of the votes cast in
the general assembly, and his election
was valid.
Bribe Stories Disbelieved.
1T is. however. declared that if the
four witnesses before named were hribed
to vote for Mr.. Lorimer. those who
bribed them we're equally guilty. and that
the votes of Browne, Broderick. and
Wilson should also be excluded. But the
committee can find no warrant in the tes-
tmony for believing that either one OF
said legislators was moved by any cor
'upt influence. Brownies reasons for-vot-
.ng as he did are clearly set forth In his
testimony He was header OF a faction
of the minority Of the House, and for
certain political reasons he thought il
good policy TO aid in the election OF some
member OF the majority party other than