The Washington times., 1911-01-09
Senate Is Asked to Expel Senator Lorimer

that Senator Lorimer's election to|h his
seat was Illegal and void.
Regular ORDER" cried Senator Bev-
eridge.
The Indiana Senator insisted the
resolution was utterly out Of order
by the standing rules of the Senate
and hardly appropriate. But Senator
long discussion of the matter and
Vice President Sherman ruled that
Senator Owen had the floor and was
entitled to present his resolution, as
being one of the highest privilege.
Applause was heard from the gal
leries
Senator Gallinger raised the point that
the >resolution should lie over a day.
The Vice President ruled 1t should not
go over. Senator Beveridge appealed
from the decision of the Chair, and the
Senate overruled the Vice President,
and held the resolution should go over
Senator Owen attempted to speak on
the resolution, but 1t was held this was
not in order.
A little later, Senator Beveridge pre-
sented the minority report. 1t lays
down the lines on which the fight will
be made TO unseat Lorlmer.
Tells of the Brides.
Senator BeVeridge is convinced that
bribery enough to invalIdate the cleo
tion was practiced. Four legislators
testified to receiving bribes They
were Senator Holstlaw and Represen-
tatives Beckemeyer, White. and Link.
Holstlaw got his money from Brod-
erick. Beckemeyer, White, and Link
got theirs from Representatives
Browne and Wilson. Senator Bever-
idge concluded that the three men
thus involved in giving were quite as
much tainted as those who received
bribes.
He analysed carefully the corrobor-
ative evidence and concluded there is
10 reasonable doubt that these seven
votes are tainted.
For instance, he shows that the
people VINO received money deposited
1T in banks or elsewhere and general
ly were found to be in possession of
funds, the source of which they have
been unable to explain satisfactorily.
Representative Beckemeyer deposited
$500 ilr bank at Belle Isle, ILL.,, and a
business man of that town testified
that, the money being in large bills,
he asked Beckemeyer where he got it.
The investigating subcommittee would
not permit Gray, when on the stand,
TO repeat Beckemever's answer. on the
ground that II was hearsay. This rul-
ing is typical of the whole proceedings.
The committee enforced a most rigid
compliance with rules of evidence and
procedure contrary to custom in such
investigations.
The committee, however, considered
that the confessions were practically
extorted under pressure of legal pro-
ceeding; that they are entitled to small
credence, and that, because of this,
they should rot be allowed to taint
the votes OF members implicated as
givers of the bribes.
Sympathy for Link.
The committee expressed sympathy
with bride-taker Link, who was SUBJ
jected to the third regree' by the
assistant States attorneys. Yet these
assistant States attorneys were not
summoned before the committee TO tell
their stories, and there was evidence
that they would have put a very DIFF
ferent face on this third degree" story
The question for the Senate" said
Senator Beveridge, in substance, lis
whether il believes these four men re-
cCIved bribes. If SO, then it must be-
lieve somebody gave the brides; and, If
they are to be believed when they say
they were bribed, they must be believed
wien they name other members Of Inel
assembly as the briber. The testimony
IS overwhelming that four members
were bribed, and that three members
brtbcd them. | am not able to follow
the mental processes that COnced" tnat
the four bribe-takers got their money,
but did not get it from the thl eG bribe-
gfvers whom it is conceded thay mot IN
suspicious circumstances.
But the seven votes thuS shown
tainted are not all. At least three more
those of Clark, Shepherd, and Luke
We're Shown corrupt. Luke is ue9u, but
his wIfes story had been such as TO
satisfy that he received his part of the
bribc rnoneY-she even saw the money.
Put the committee refused 10 let her
ten ieT story on the stand.
As to Clark and Shepherd. the latter
met the brihe-givers in st. Louis, just
as did the others who are conceded 10
have taken bribes. All the circum-
stances remove reasonable doubt that
thev did receive hrihc money.
Thus it is apparen, that at least ten
votes were corrupt. What is the legal
effect on the election?'
On this point Senator Peveridge pre-
eeEts the Law of the case against Lori
nner in much detail ard clearness. His
EtGtenPr! of it is highly important, be-
cause IT is known to be the view on
which the anti-Lorimer leaders have
agreed, AMI on which they will make
their fight to declare his title to seat
null.
Votes Necessary for Choice.
To elect, the statute requires a ma
1oritv of all the votes Of the joint as
Eembly, a majority cf all the members
elected to both houses being present
ard voting The number in joint as
,sembly was 2O2 A majority of all |
was 1O2. I.orimer received los, or six |
more than "A majority of ALL
"But at least seven were tainted. |
This leaves 101 for Lorimer. or one |
less than "a majority of ALL
IF to these seven corrupt votes, the
Luke, Clark, and Sheppard be added. |
there were ten tainted votes. De-
Quoting these ten from this 10S leaves
GS untainted votes for Lorimer. or
1QHr less than "a majority of all
sAll this, even admitting the sound
ness of precedents cited by the COM
mittee. that no matter how many
votes We're bribed. if there was a
majority of unbribed votes, the cleo
tion is valid.
in the present case there was not an
Unbribed majority of all. There was at |
least one vote less. Including Clark,
Sheppard, and Luke as corrupt, there |
were four votes less. So the election |
was invalid-it never legally occurred.
IF it is said that these untainted |
votes must be eXpunged and considered |
as never having been cast, the answer
IS, in the words of the statute itself, |
that they were present and voting
Tainted Votes Cast.