Eagle River review. [volume] (Eagle River, Wis.) 1890-1927, 1911-01-13
LOR|MER IN DEFENSE
DECLARES HE is NOT GUILTY, AS
COLLEAGUES ATTACK HIS
RIGHT TO SEAT.
BEvERlDeE IN OPPOSITION
Indiana Senator Hands Up a Minority
Reproduction Is Void, Says
Owen of Oklahoma In Resolution
Before United States Senate.

Neutrality-suspicious. Owen and
Beveridge clashed when the Lorimer
case was opened in the senate Monday
although both were seeking to bring
about the same result, but from diff
ferent method.
Senator Beveridge, by virtue of be-
ing a member Of the committee on
privileges and elections which invest1-
gated charges of bribery against Mr..
Lorimer, gained tactical victory by
filing a minority report attacking the
position of his colleagues on the COM
mittee who voted to exonerate the Hi
nois senator.
Senator Owen, however, introduced
a resolution to declare the election Of
Senator Lorimer to have been illegal
and void, but he was not permitted at
that time to address the senate in its
support.
Mr.. Beveridge then submitted his
report, the conclusion Of which was:
THAT this election was invalid I'M
der any possible view of the law. If
the senate SO concludes it is our duty
SO to declare. Therefore l submit the
following resolution:
Resolved, That William Lorimer
was not duly and legally elected to
seat in the senate Of the United
States by the legislature of the state
of Illinois,"
Before the report was filed Senator
Lorimer made a brief speech, declar-
ing his innocence of bribery and the
innocence of his friends of any parti-
cipation in corrupt practices in con-
nection with his election. He an
nounced his intention to be present
during the discussion of his case.
The parliamentary tangle as to
which of the two senators desiring to
open the attack on Senator Lorimer
should have precedence was not set
tied until after an appeal had been Ia
ken from ruling by Vice-President
Sherman and he had been reversed.
The Beveridge minority report re-
views the testimony bearing on the
alleged acceptance of brides by four
members of the legislature, and the
testimony Of these men that the
| brides had been paid by three other
members
The report declares that it Is an I'M
disputed fact of conclusive force, al
though the majority ignores it, that
the confessed bride takers were shown
to have had in their possession, in
bills of large denominations, unusual
ly large sums of money soon after the
dates when they swore to having re-
ceived the alleged brides.
This statement Is made in reply to
the contention of the majority that
the men who confessed to having re-
ceived brides were not to be be-
lieved.
The minority report argues that
only a majority vote under the cir
cumstances in the Lorimer case would
be necessary to declare the seat va
cant. At the same time it declares
that the evidence in the case requires
the senate to consider whether Mr..
Lorimer was informed of what was
going on in his behalf. If it were
shown that Mr.. Lorimer possessed
such information, Mr.. Beverage ar
CUES that the senate should vote to
expel, which would require a two
thirds vote.
Discussing Mr.. Lorimers connec-
ton with the election, Mr.. Beveridge
points out that Mr.. Lorimer was "a
seasoned politician" and that he was
ION the ground during the session of
| the legislature" Mr.. Lorimer is de-
clared to have been the intimate" of
Browne, charged with having been
one of the principal bride givers.