The Washington times., 1911-01-09

physical defect should be- SO unques
tionable that two-thirds of this body
would be impelled to vote for expul
sion.
And yet it is upon these grounds
and these only, that the argument Ii
made that a Senator guilty OF knowing
| OF bribery in his election must be ex.
PEELED by two-thirds vote rather thar
his election invalidated by a majority
vote.
This position is so dangerous to the
public welfare, so contrary to public
policy. so abhorrent to reason, and re.
| challenge 1t.
For conceding that an elected Sen.
ator had majority of perfectly honest
votes, would they have so cast theil
votes II they had known that the candi.
| date was bribing other votes.
Let me put an illustration personally
to each Senator here. Suppose that we
| are electing some man to some office
| within our gift. Suppose that all but
one or us We're honest and earnest In
our intended votes for this man. But
suppose that just before our vote we
discovered that he had bribed or coun-
tenanced the bribery of one Of our num-
| Der: Would single one of us with
such knowledge vote for the man for
| whom until that moment we had in
| tended to vote? or course not.
so 1t is that one act of bribery per-
petrated or countenanced by any Sen
ator to secure his election vitiates the
same. 1t does not necessitate an act of
expulsion requiring a two-thirds vote,
but resolution requiring a majority
vote invalidating the election.
Lorimer's Connection.
WAS Mr. Lorimer Informed of what
was going on in his behalf? While not
necessary to decision of this case, the
evidence and circumstances require the
Senate to consider this point.
From his speech on this case In this
body, It appears that Mr.. Lorimer is a
seasoned politician of nearly thirty
years experience in practical politics in
one of the greatest cities of the coun-
trv and of the world, superb organizer
who gives attention to the very smallest
details of anv election.
Mr.. Lorimer was on the ground dur
ing practically the whole session of this
Legislature. He was there principally
for the purpose of defeating the will of
the voters Of his party as declared In
the primary. He was the intimate
friend of the leader of the opposite
party. Mr.. Brown. and had been such
for years.
"It appears that Mr.. Lorimer himself
finally developed as a solution of the
deadlock which he had precipitated to
defeat the decree of the primaries OF his
own party. To secure his election he
numbers of members OF the general as
sembly from the opposite party.
Intimate Friend.
His intimate friend for years, Mr.
Browne, who was the leader OF the mi
nority and the captain of a faction
became his needed assistant.
"But even Browne. the chief Of
minority faction, declined to permit the
votes Of his faction to go to Mr. Lori
mer, unless Browne could be assured
that with the votes Browne might get
Mr.. Lorlmer could get enough others
certainly to elect him.
with this understanding and for this
purpose the two intimate friends,
Browne and Lorimer, worked together
for at least ten days or two weeks.
and almost continuous conference. night
as well as day. and both were seasoned
practical politicians.
"If we believe that anybody at all
was bribed, the testimony shows that
1t was during these fateful ten days tT
two weeks that the bribery was an
ranged. II we believe that anybody
at all was bribed, the evidence shows
that Brownle was the chief instrument
of bribery.
Taxing these things all together, did
everything occur that the evidence
shows to have occurred without Mr..
Iorimer's knowledge?
Even # the corruption fund came
from sources higher up. did those ex-
allied sources of iniquity pass by Mr..
Lorimer. whom they were trying to
elect with this putrid money. without
his knowing a thing about 1t?
Election Invalid.
I'm law. Mr. Lorimer must be held to
have knowledge of these transactions
in his- behalf.
"If so, l contend that his election Is
invalid upon this ground. If Senators
believe that he knew and countenanced
a single act Of bribery, we need not con-
cIude that we must expel him by a
clude that his election was invalid, and
so declare by a majority vote.
But for the purpose of this particular
case II is not necessary to raise the
question Of Mr.. Lorimer's knowledge Of
any bribery in his behalf. raise 1t
only because personally l want to go on
record against the position hitherto ad
yanced that an act of bribery by a sue
cessful candidate does not invalidate his
election, but only taints the successful
candidate himself.
'T conclude that this election was
invalid under any possible view OF
the law. II the Senate so concludes
it is our duty to so declare.
Therefore 1 submit the following
resolution:
Resolved. that William Lorimer
was not duly and legally elected to a
seat in the Senate of the United States
by the Legislature of the State of
Illinois