The times and democrat. [volume] (Orangeburg, S.C.) 1881-current, 1911-06-29
ARE AFTER Him
Funa, S'ar WiDess iD Ler;n.r Gaze,
SSaaoW.d and ThreaEeutd
BY PAID DETECTIVES

Mr.. Funk Says He Has Been PER-
secuted and III Treated Ever Since
He First Testified In the Case, ana
Intinlates that Zines ls mt the Bot
tom of 1t.
\ Shadowed for weeks by detectives
instructed to get anything possible
against MIN was the alleged expert
ence of which Clarence S. Funk, of
Chicago, star witness In the present
Lorimer investigation, Monday COM
plained to :he senate committee in
quiring into the Lorimer election.
The statement produced a eensa-
tion because the name Of Edward
Hines, .whor1 Mr. Funk had testified,
had asked him to contribute $4,000
toward $10D, 900 used to put Lori.
mer over a. Springfield" was men-.
toned in connection with the SER
vices of the detectives.
Mr.. Funk, declared four detectives
had followed him to Washington and
two had watched him during lunch
Monday. One of them, he said, had
been compelled to give hig name and
that Of his employer when caught Ia
"a tight place. !, - a-.,..
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. nE.--r -. az.,
At the executive session Mr.. Funk
is aid to have revealed the detee-
lives name and promised to produce
him before the committee. TIE COM
mittee then took up consideration OF
what steps TO take to prevent deteo4
tiyes interfering with witnesses be-
fore the committee. a.e7 ,ts
Mr.. I, Fnnlt's statement about the
detectives came at the close of long,
examination on the witness stand. Ha
retold the story he related to the
helm committee In Illinois, about
how MI Hines is alleged 10 have
asked him, rs general manager OF the
International Harvester company. 10
contribute $4,000 to the Lorimef
fund. For hours attorneys and MEM
bers of thy. 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 10
the case. .,..--.rTa
/ Rather incidentally Mr.. FnnA re
marked that. his part In the case has
I been anything but pleasant and thaz
he had been promised more "unpfeas-
antness." ss
+ promised more?" repeated Sepa-
4 tor Jones. -".-.-r
"Yes, over the telephones ana BY
anonymous Communications, indirect
threats have. been made" - J
:, Then Mr.. Funk said ne had been
followed ever since he testified at
Springfield before the Helm commit
ter. .'.'s-'z':t q" gs E'
Mr.. Funk told about the detectives
following him to Washington anS
jabout getting the name Of one
;. of them. He said the detective he
ihad corhered claimed to be employ.
:. ed by the ThieEe Detective agency in
lChicago and had been Instructed to
ret anything he could on Mr.. Funk!
He protested against being made to
reveal the detectives name becanSe
"he seemed like a nice fellow, who
!; said he was not proud OF what he
was doing and had family to sup~
port"
' To tell his name, Mr.. Funk said,
would mean his dismissal.
eff you don't tell IL, all four WIZ
probably lose their jobs" suggested
Mr.. Gamble.
William J. Hines or COUNSEL for
Senator Lorimer and Edward O..
Hines urged the witness to, reveal
; the name.
Put Edward Hines on the stand
and ask him to whom the detectives
report each night" responded M':
) Funk. '....
Elbridge Hancy, OF counsel for Sen
ator Lorlmer, asked IL the detectl7e
said Mr.. Lorimer employed them.
'cNo, Senator Lorime' did not en-
ploy Them" declared the witness.
The committee then went into ey-
!, ecutive session.