Watertown leader. [volume] (Watertown, Jefferson County, Wis.) 1909-1911, 1911-07-07
SEEK PERjURERS
IN LOR|NER CASE
Committee Lawyers viii Go to
Chicago Soon.
LOOK UP "CERTAIN MATTERS"
Department of Justice Reported at
Work Trying to Verify Truth of
Testimony CT Witnesses
Already Heard.

Washington-The start of a pros.
ecution for perjury between now and
the next session of the Lorimer inyes-
tigating committee on July IS, with
the object Of impressing on future
witnesses the necessity of telling the
truth, is regarded here as the prob
able next development in the case OF
the Junior senator from Illinois
The committee had been in session
but a few days when the testimony
which it was hearing began to show
startling discrepancies
Clarence S. Funk, general manager
Of the International Harvester com
pany, testified that Edward Hines, mil
iOnaire lumberman of Chicago, ap-
preached him in May in the Union
League club, Chicago, and asked him
to contribute $4,000 to the 100000
Lorimer fund. Funk said there were
no other persons present at the con-
versation.
Wirth Cook of Duluth, Mimi, Ium-
herman, testified that Edward Hines
over" He testified also that he heard
Mr.. Hines talking over the long dis
lance telephone to someone in Spring
field, the day of Mr.. Lorimer's cleo
ton, and swore that Mr.. Hines said he
would be down on the next train
with all the money that is required"
Mr.. Cook thought Mr. Hines was talk
ing to Governor Deneen.
Testimony obtained before the in
vestigatiDg committee Of the Illinois
general assembly, several months ago,
and substantiated by the sworn aft
davits of three men, was to the effect
that Shelley B. Jones of Marquette,
Mich, had admitted several times that
Mr.. Hines had boosted to him of put
ting LOrimer over" at a cost of $780,
00G.
That is the evidence obtained on
the one hand. On the other, the tes-
timony was just as positive-but diff
ferent.
Mr.. Hines swore that Mr. Funk ap-
preached him in the Union League
club, and asked for an opportunity
to contribute money to Mr.. Lorimer's
campaign expenses.
Mr. Hines said that three other men
all lumbermen, and two Of them in
his own employ-were present and
heard part of the conversation. The
one man who was not in Hines en-
ploy was trying to sell him 100000
worth Of lumber at the time.
Two of these three men have al
ready testified. They told of the in
cident just as Mr.. Hines recounted it
but on cross-examination they ad-
United memories had been
refreshed by Mr.. Hines, as recently as
three weeks ago.
Concerning Wirth Cooks testimony,
Mr.. Hines denied that he had spoken
of putting Lorimer over" Further, he
said that he was talking to Senator
Lorimer in the famous long distance
conversation, and the dialogue, as he
gave it, was unimportant.
Miss Frances Carroll, telephone op-
orator for Mr.. Hines lumber COM
pany, on the witness stand told the
committee that she had connected Mr..
Hines with Senator Lorimer at Spring
field on that day in May, two years
ago, and had listened in on the con-
versation. She thought she could
recollect what had been said. When
she was told to go ahead, she repeat
ed it almost word for word as Mr..
Hines had previously recited it.
Cross examination disclosed that
Miss Carroll had talked it over with
her employer several weeks ago, and
that she could remember no other
long distance telephone conversation
that had taken place during all the
ten years she had worked for the
Hines company.
To a great extent, the Lorimer case
has narrowed down to a question OF
the veracity of witnesses.