Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1911-06-24
CORRUPT PT|ON FUNDS
TRADITIONAL At
SPRINGFIELD
HOPKINS WITNESS IN
L0RlMER INVESTIGATION
Man Who Lost In Race for Sen
ator Unable to Tell Whether
'Jackpotsn Were ReSponS-
ibIe for His Defeat.
my Morning Journal Special Leased wItei

Washington, June 23.--"Jackpots," +"
or corruption funds, In the Illinois
legislature constitute "one of the ira
ditons of politics in Illinois" accord
ing to the testimony of former Senator
Albert J. Hopkins before the Lorimer
| investigating committee of the SEN
ate. Mr.. Lorimer succeeded MIR
Hopkins.
Whether any of the Jackpot funds
or other corruption funds had been
used to defeat him for senator he was
T, unable To tell the committee of his
own knowledge. He explained, how
ever, that he would be the last man
| to know of such corrupt practices be-
cause he was, at the time OF the cleo
ton of senator, lin the position OF a
man in a crowd knocked down with q
| bludgeon, who knew no more about 1t
than the crowd. but was hurt worse
/ than it.
! The only other witness was Edgar
A. Bancroft, general counsel of the
! International Harvester company. His
testimony was that Clarence 5. Funk,
general manager OF the company, had
/ told him of an alleged attempt of Mr.
Hines" or Edward Hines" to raise
money to meet the expenses OF elect
ing Mr.. Lorimer.
Nearly every phase of the Lorimer
case was gone into when Mr.. Hopkins
was on the stand. He declined to
answer specific questions as to whe-
ther he suspected Lorimer was using
corrupt methods 10 defeat him. or as
to whether or not he believed certain
members of the legislature had been
| bought.
Mr.. Hanecy counsel for Lorimer,
protested against the witness leaving
| the stand without expressing an opn-
on the rumor that the fiftythree DEM
| o-aats who voted for Lorimer on the
llTa ballot received nnnev.
ut leaves cloud on those men, >
insisted the counsel. The committee
did not require the witness 10 answer.
As to the personal relations between
! the witness and Senator Lormer. Mr..
Hopkins said Mr.. Lorimer had told
him he would oppose his candidacy.
Judge Hanecy attempted to get the
witness to admit that Lorimer had al
ways been popular with the democrats
and had repeatedly carried a demo-
cratic district
II know he was a great organizer,
was as far as the witness would go.
At the opening of Mr.. Bancrofts
testimony there was a clash as to
what interests might be represented
by the counsel at the hearing. MIR.
Bancroft made application TO appear
as counsel when Clarence S. Funk
takes the stand tomorrow and j. c.
O'Loughlin of the Chicago Tribune,
asked that the right be reserved to
James Keeley. manager of the Trib-
tine to have counsel when he takes
the witness stand. provided Mr.. Ban
croft was cross examined by Judge
Hynes. representing Edward Hines.
An executive session was held, af-
ter which il was announced that only
Mr.. Lorimer's case was being heard,
and that while witnesses might be
advised by counsel they would not be
accorded the privilege of being rep
resented.
Mr.. Bancroft, in relating what Mr.
Funk had told him, said he had no
distinct recollection OF the words used
by Mr. Funk In the conversation. The
effect of 1t, however, was that Mr.
Hines had asked Mr.. Funk to contrib
ute for the company $4,000 to meet
the expenses Of Senator Lorimers
election. when cross-examined by
Judge Hynes for Lorimer's counsel,
Mr.. Bancroft said he had no definite
recollection that Mr.. Funk had used
the word "expenses, but said II might
have been costs.