The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1911-07-05
ARE AFTER HIN
Funk, Star Witness in Lorimer Case,
Sbadowsd and Threatened
By PAID DETECTIVES
Mr.. Funk Says He Has Been Per
secuted and Ill Treated Ever Since
He First Testified in the Case, and
Iutimates that Zines Is at the Bot
tom OF 1t.

tom Of 1t.
Shadowed for weeks by detectives
instructed to get anything possible
against him wasathe alleged expert
ence Of which Clarence S. Funk, of
Chicago, star witness in the present
Lorimer Investigation. Monday COM
ptained to the senate committee in
quiring into the Lorimer election.
The statement produced a sensa-
ton because the name of Edward
Hines, whom MT Funk had testified,
had asked him to contribute $4,000
toward 100000 used to put Lori
mer over at Springfield was men
toned in connection with the SER
vices Of the detectives.
Mr.. Funk declared four detectives
had followed him to Washington ano
two had watched him during lunch
Monday. One Of them, he said, had
been compelled to give his name and
that Of his employer when caught in
a tight place.
Mr.. Funk declined to break his
word to the detective and reveal his
name. He said the employer was
not Senator Lorimer The commit
tee ended the days hearing by going
into executive session to consider the
situation.
At the executive session Mr. Funk
Is aid to have revealed the detec-
tsse's name and promised to produce
NR before the committee. The COM
nittee then took up consideration OF
what steps to take to prevent detec-
tires interfering with witnesses be-
fore the committee.
Mr. Funk's statement about the
detectives came at the close Of a long
examination on the witness stand He
retold the story he related to the
Helm committee in Illinois, about
how Mr.. Hines is alleged to have
asked him, as general manager Of the
Internationa1 Harvester company, to
contribute $4,000 to the Lorimer
fund. For hours attorneys and mem
bers of the committee have asked
question after question Of him about
this conversation, the report of which
probably led to the present investi-
CATION Of the Lorimer election. The
witness had described his. personal
relations to Senator Lorimer, Mr..
Hines and many others figuring in
the case.
Rather incidentally Mr.. Funk re-
marked that his part ip the case han
been anything but pleasant and that
he had been promised more "unpleas-
sntness.''
Promised more?" repeated Sena-
tor Jones.
eyes, over the telephones and BY
anonymous communications, indirect
threats have been nade.''
Then Mr.. Funk said he hs i been
followed ever since. he testified at
Springfield before the Helm commit
tee.
Mr.. Funk told about the detectives
following him to Washington and
about getting the name of one
Of them. He said the detective he
had cornesed claimed to be employ.
ed by the Thiele Detective agency in
Chicago and had been instructed to
get anything he could on Mr.. Funk.
He. protested against being made to
reveal the detectives name because
che seemed ike a nice fellow, who
said he was not proud Of what he
was doing and had a family to sup
port
To tell his name, Mr. Funk said,
would mean his dismissal.
eff you don't tell it, all four Will
probably lose their jobs, suggested
Mr.. Gamble.
William J. Hines Of counsel for
Senator Lorimer and Edward o.
Hines urged the witness to reveal
the name.
.sPut Edward Hines on the stand
and ask MIN to whom the detectives
report each night" responded Mr.
Funk.
Elbridge Hancy, of counsel for Sen
ator Lorimer, asked if the detective
said Mr.. Lorimer employed them.
tcNo, Senator Lorimer did not en-
ploy them," declared the witness.
The committee then went into ex-
ecutive session.
COTTON CONDITION.