The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1911-02-22
First Demonstration Of
Its Kind Ever Made
in Senate.
DAY GIVEN OVER
10 LORIMER CASE
Rebuke for Applause Given to
Crawford by Spectators Causes
Expression Toward Texas
Senator--Beveridge Will
Conclude To-Day After
Lorimer Is Heard.

Washington. D. c.. February al
Shrilly rising above the expiring ap-
plause with which the galleries had
greeted a comment rejecting upon the
intelligence Of those occupying them
a long, sibilant hiss fioated over the
cha,nber OF the United States Senate
to-nay So far as many who have
ions been connected with it could re-
Gail never before had hiss been
heard in that dgnified body.
The incident followed a remark BY
Senator Bailey. of Texas Senator
ora"ford, OF South Dakota had made
d statement bearing upon the Lori,ner
ca Sc that brought forth an expression
OF approval from on-lookinE opponents
OF the Illinois Senator. who sat In thn
gallery. In
no applause Will be permitted from
those in the galleries." said the Vice
President severely.
The applause" said the Texas Sen
ator who was in controversy with
era Word. SIS a fair measure OF the
intelligence OF the audiences" From
that portion Of the audiencs that t lad
not joined In the previous applause
came a slight outburst despite the
presiding officers caution. but as IL
trailed. out came the hiss.
NO notice was taken of the incl
dent By Senator's or officers Of the
body
Bevertdgc Doc. Not Finish.
ne Gay In the Senate largely was
given over TO Mr.. Beveridge. who dis
cusscd the Lorimer case He did not
conclude. and suspended with the UNI
Outstanding that he would continue
TO- morrow afternoon. after the conclu-
sion OF Mr.. Lorimer's speech in his
own behalf. Senator Burrows, In
charge OF the question In behalf OF
the Committee on Privileges and Elec-
tons. had previously given notice that
after the conclusion OF Mr.. Lorimer.s
speech. he would ask that q vote be
taken
There was general acquiescence in
this plan until 1t was found that Mr..
Beverage could not we'll conclude to-
night.
The most spirited part of to-day.s
discussion came toward the close of
the Beverage speech and was begun
by Mr. .Galiinger. He interrogated
Mr.. Beveridge as to the source OF the
money which the latter had freely
charged had been used in the Lorimer
election. Mr.. Beveridge replied that it
had been received from Brown, Brod-
erick and Wilson.
Blu, where did Brown Frederick
and Wilson get it," persisted Mr. Cal
linger Mr. Bcvcridge confessed tina I
he did not know. and 10 assist him
somewhat, the New hampshire Sena-
tor suggested that as the men who
had confessed to receiving the money
were "a band of liars" no one could
tell whether there was any foundation
for their charges in this instance.
In this connection Mr.. Bailey un-
dcrtook TO show that nothing had de-
veloped to connect Mr.. Lorimer with
the use of money in the election. He
mentioned it as a curious fact that
this was the first case in the Senate OF
the kind, in which there had been no
effort TO find the source from which
the money alleged 10 have been used
had been derived.
Mr. Crawford then entered the con-
troversy. 1T makes no difference
where the money came FROM he said
IF II was used for corrupt purposes
and an election resulted from It's use"
a burst of applause resounded from
the galleries The chair admonished
the visitors that demonstrations OF the
kind are not permitted by the Senate
Hiss rs Heard
oh" exclaimed Mr. Bailey, who
accepted the manifestation as against
his position; 1T is fair measure Of
the intelligence OF the audience" Then
Declaring that there was not a
scintlla of evidence connecting Mr.
Lorimcr with the charge Of bribery,
Mr. Bailey asked Mr.. Bcveridge IL he
believed that Brown, Broderick and
Wilson had supplied the money, and
the Indiana Senator replied in the no.
Eative, expressing tho opinion that 1t
had been furnished to them. The
Texas Senator then declared that IL
xI,o
possession Of Holstlaw. Beckemeycr,
Link and White, it's source easily could
have been traced. No effort had been
made, he said, to show that cents
had been drawn from Lorimer's bank,
and he argued that If money had been
used for Mr.. I.orimer the bank books
would have shown this fact.
THAT position is against every rule
Of common sense" declared Mr.. Crawe
ford, interrupting the Texan. "The bur
den Of proof IS not on those making
the charge; the presumption is that
those who .prohted by the transaction
furnished the money"
Mr.. Bailey was just as compliment
airy in his response. When the Sena-
tor suggests resort to the rules of
such rules himself" he said The
trouble he urged was il was assumed
That money had been used as the wit
nesses had charged, which he did not
Then" said Nir. Beveridge. ct was
all Dream
NO. not dream; 1t was all lie"
responded Mr. Bailey.
Does not the Senator believe that
Holstlaw deposited the $4,000, as APP
asked by Mr.. Bcveridgc, and he
promptly replied TINT he did not.
what motive could have prompted
the testimony?" the Indianian demand
ed. n -" "
The same motive that caused 9th
ers to want to destroy Mr.. Lorimers
character" was Mr.. Bailcy's cxplana-