Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1911-02-09

Discussing the Jackpot" which, since
Senator Roots speech and Senator Hsle's
consequent denunciation, has come to pos
sess exceptional interest in the senate, Mr..
Jones said:
The committee finds that there was a
Jackpot fund that was used for OF against
legislation. II had been I'm existence for
many years. IL had become a well known
appurtenance OF the Illinois legislature"
This, the senator thought threw much light
upon the testimony OF the witnesses in the
case, who confessed that they were paid
money after the election. but that no prom
Use had been made to them before that they
were to receive any money and also that
when they did receive the money they asked
no questions.
The senator said 1T was not necessary
to promise any money; It was not neces-
sary TO ask why the money was paid. This
was a part of the system.
80 under the system It IL doubtless true
that II a member was indicted for bribery
in connection with legislation, he could
say that he had not been promised dol
lar to support or oppose such legislation,
and that he had not received any money in
consideration of his vote thereon. and that
nothing had ever been said TO him in re-
gard to It.
'Under such conditions OF things what
would naturally happen? These men who
were looking for money. for any act In con-
nection with their legislative duties would
flock around this jackpot fund and around
those handling It like vultures around a
dead carcase. When they came TO the
fountain head, there was a complete I'M
Outstanding as to the course of procedure
,zyifbat1f unytdtnCr Al bad
to do was TO do as they were asked and
then reward would come in due time"
surmising that the fund" had been con-
tributed from various undetermined sources
Mr. Jones said that its existence had been
generally known and relied upon for GER
tain lines Of service in the legislature
Coming then to the use OF this money and
possibly of additional funds in the sena-
torlal contest, the Washington senator
brought Mr., Hopkins into the controversy,
saying:
There was bitter and determined oppo-
sition to the reelection OF Senator Hop
kins. There was strong opposition to him
in the republican ranks and II also APP
pears that among the democrats there was
very tense hostility to him especially,
and this opposition had something behind
members Of the Legislature and II
there were interests outside Of the
legislature that habtually contributed
to the jackpot fund to control
legislation, it takes no stretch Of the
Imagination to believe that there were out
side interests that would 5s perfectly will,
ing to contribute to the jackpot fund for
the purpose OF defeating Mr.. Hopkins.
Money was used to defeat him, and this
money was put in the hands OF the same
person who handled the Jackpot fund. II It
was not put into the fund itself. The
money was not money to elect Lorimer: Il
was money to defeat Hopkins II could be
used to elect any one they could elect so
It was not Hopkins. This is the reason
why Browne was so insistent that his men
should not vote for Lorirner until he was
sure that there were enough votes to put It
over"
But, Notwithstanding his exoneration Of
Mr.. Lorimer from participation in the al
legged frauds, Mr.. Jones still found ground
to oppose his retention Of his seat because
some OF the votes cast for him had been
procured by corrupt methods. He argues
that in reality all OF the thirty democratic
votes influenced by Lee O'Nein Browne
had been tainted, but commended that even
IL such were not the case, LOrimer still
had failed TO obtain a majority OF the
unchallenged votes east in the senatorial
election. Finding the bride givsrs to be as
much at fault as the bride takers, he said
there was no doubt that seven fraudulent
votes had been cast for Lorimer. De-
Quoting the seven votes from the Lorimer
column, but not from the total vote. no
found Lorimer to have been one short OF a