The Manchester journal. [volume] (Manchester, Vt.) 1861-current, 1911-04-06


Ia r.spenss to ~ Invitation from
the EDITOR II ihss paper. senator bil
finFham has written a eommnhica
ilon. published elosev here on this
page. % which be- Discusses the case
oi senator l.orimer ~ Illinois. the
I e.for, 10 uneeat whom has caused
| widespread interest Senator Dil-
| llnFhAms uticfanoe Is the first hs
has made Ia explanation oe his vote,
| favorable 70 Lorlmer. and Tor which
| be has been quite sharply criticised
I both within and without the state
Il is also the first presentation We
/ have so.n cf the Lorimer side Of
this eontfuyerss; & least many OF
he points brought OCT BY Senator
IDillngham are new 10 Nv point
: very material 10 the whole subject
matter.
After reading Senator Dillingham;
letter. we renew the expression here
lofore made that II IL hot safe oi
best 10 convict men offhand on tht
strength ~ newspaper accusation
or popular prejudice resulting large
Ily therefrom. From the outset. |,
has appeared strange that men who
they say, accepted bribes 10 sot,
for I.orimer should come forward
land confess" with all the eagernes.
Of small boys expecting reward o.
merit. Instead OF conyleting Lori |
mer In our mind, these comics |
sions" have raised suspicion coneeri
ling the e1nfessors. IL Is cieal
enough that men do not reveal theii |
Town infamy--real or alleged-~with |
tout some consideration that out |
weighs all the other and ordinar.
considerations that prompt them Il
keep It secret. From the fair ant
clear statement made by Senator ID |
lngham as to the kind Of evidence
relied upon 10 convict Lorimer oi
bribery. we do not wonder that tn
Senate committee found the lllinoii
senator blameless, that he WAS civ
ne hts aeat, and that the senior Vel
mont senator joined In the majorit!
vote
II is a significant fact, as show
/ ing the utter worthlessness of the
evidence against Lorimer--a case
| melted and pushed by hostile
newspaper-th In every instance
where the charge OF bribery wa
1 made before the courts In comes
tlon with this case, several of whicl
have been tried, the verdict of tn
| juries has been OF quick acquittal
rhe last OF these was the case
State Senator Broderick. tried las
week at Springfield. H., and tn
jury was out but twenty minutes
IL is, OF the two easier 10 be
lleyo that Lorimer, man long az
tive In politics, with bitter politica
enemies anxious 10 down him, hgs
been made the undeseryed victim
maleyolent persecution than tha
ho was guilty OF buying his seat
the Senate--after reading the fact
presented By Senator Dillingham; &C n
oerning the nature of the evidenc,
against the Illinois senator. And 1
there is still doubt as TO his guilt
II is a safe principle to give th,
benefit thereof to the accused
Hon. w. p. Dillingham;.
Montpelier, VI.
Dear SENATOR
You have doubtless seen good
deal of comment In Vermon1 news
papers concerning the votes of oul
senators on the unseating OF Senator
Lorimer. | have not taken de
cided stand In this matter, believing
that the questions at issue wer,
rather those OF fact than Of morals
That Is, II 1t were established tha 1
Lorimer was improperly elected h'
should be unseate,d OF course, ant
the only way TO determine that wa I
by an investigation OF the elroum }
stances. note that you were o
the committee which heard the eYi !
deuce, and with this In mind | hav'
been inclined To think that the fact ,
may not have been brought oui 1
quite clearly here In Vermont. Il
do not urge 1t. but II you wish u
use my columns 10 discuss the mat
tor, or set forth your position, oi !
say anything whatever. shall
very glad 10 tender them In (
friendly way. =
Very truly. i
l.. b. JOHNSON. 9
Randolph. Vt, March 90, 1911.
Mr.. L. d. Johnson, i.
Randolph. VT
NV Dear Mr.. Johnson
am In receipt OF your letter OF q
he goth instant and am touched b.
ia courtesy and Its candor. II IL
rue, as you suggest. that | have u
teen the comments In the Vernon 81
newspapers upon my action In vot o
ng against the unseating of Senator n
.orlmer. but | have contented my "a
.elf in the possession OF good con
Icience and in the expectation thai
'ome time others like yoursel ~
would come 10 look at the question
u issue as one OF fact rather than
Il morals. But upon your sugges pl
ion that tho grounds upon which r.
majority OF the Senate favored the u
'ctentlon OF his seat by Senator Lor De
mer have not been well under ar
fpDu III t@muItt AtA kldu 10 ttl | o
orth. with such brevity as | can h
he reasons which governed my ac II
lon
Mr., Lorlmer, resident OF the sc
tate OF Illinois. represented his dis gt
riot Ia the United States House OF ~
representatives continuously fol n
welye or thirteen years, having re A.
eived from the people six consecu IN
i've elections He Was substantial .ri
J the inltiator OF the project for Il.
'reat public waterway between the
treat Lakes and the Gulf OF Mexico el,
nd for years 30 devoted himself tf 10
be Development Of that undertak
ng that he gained large persona hi
ollowiHg among both parties in The an
tate oG Illinois ~
The legislature o. Illinois OF 1909 m,
ayine halloted SO timesa without NJ,
cling able 10 elect senator TO suc r.,
Fed senator Hopkins. whose term ou
Ad expired, looked about for com 81,
romlse candidate. On the seth so,
afiof Mr. inrluef's name first an | -