Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1911-01-28
cuMMINs eEsTs BAILEY.
Warm Debate Over lorimer in Senate
Causes Texans Retreat.

Washington. Jan. ga collOQuy,
which rapidly filled the senate chamber
yesterday afternoon and resulted In a
severe blow being given the defense in
the Lorimer case. marked the close Of
address started Thursday by Senator
Cunlnins Of Iowa.
It caused senator's to enter upon
ma thematical calculations and Senator
Bailey Of Texas, who has been the
master mind in directing the defense.
to beat a hasty retreat, after he had
attempted to Withstand the combined
attack OF Mr.. Cummins and Senator
Borah Of Idaho.
Proceeding on the assumption that
outside of the members OF the commit
tee on privileges and elections who
submitted the majority report, senators
would regard the evidence as proving
that at least seven members OF the Illi
nois legislature who voted for Mr.
Lorimer had been brbed. Mr.. Cummins
insisted that the most important ques-
ton was how these corrupt votes
sh ould be disposed Of.
He declared that the question w1leth-
e. Mr.. Lorimer should retain his seat
or no. shrinks into insignif1cance COM
pared with the rule which Mr.. Bailey
and those who had spoken in favor OF
Mr.. Lorimer would have the senate
adopt. This rule. robbed OF its techni-
calities, Is that corrupt votes should be
deducted from the total vote cast. as
we'll as from the votes cast for the cam
didate who received them.
Applied to the Lorimer case, the con-
tention Of Mr.. Bailey and his three as
sociates would be that the seven bribed
votes deducted from the 1OS votes cast
for Mr.. Lorimer would leave him q
total Of 101. that deducting the seven
votes from the full membership of the
legislature, which was 202 on that day,
would leave 1875. and that as 1o1 is a
majority OF 1875, Mr.. Lorimer was duly
elected.
Mr.. Bailey startled the senate by re-
versing his position and declaring that
the election having been obtained OBJ
vously by corruption the senator could
not retain his seat.
Mr.. Cummins welcomed the state
ment but Mr.. Bailey attempted to wiegle
out Of the position by explaining that
on the former occasion he understood
the hypothetical question to propose
that one of the members Of the legisla-
ture had been bribed to absent himself,
whereas in the question today he had
been supposed to have voted
To fasten him tighter. Mr.. Cummins
then asked with legislature of 202
votes. Of which Mr.. Lorimer received
lOs. II 1t were assumed that seven OF
these votes were bribed, whether Mr..
Lormers title would he good.
Mr.. Bailey replied that 1t would be,
because the seven tainted votes must
be suhtra cted from the 1Os and also
'out Of 1875.
between one corrupt vote and seven
corrupt votes, altho in each case q COR
rupt vote was decisive" responded MI.
Cummins. greatly to Mr.. Bailey's EN-
barrassment.
Mr.. Bailey argued that the question
should be considered from the stand
point Of positive and negative wrong.
a principle we'll understood by lawyers.
What puzzles me is to discover why
1t is a positive wrong to buy one vote.
when that vote Is decisive, and not q
positive wrong to buy seven votes.
when at least one Of them was decisive
in Mr.. Lorimers election" pressed Mr..
Cummins.
"Mr. Lorimer never could have been
elected with the 101 votes he had" con-
tinued Mr.. Cummins, "and It Is con-
elusive presumption Of the law that
when one is bribed to vote for a candi-
date. II the bribery had not taken place
ne would have voted another way.
These seven votes gave Mr.. Lorimer his
election"
Mr.. Bailey intejected to declare that
when q vote 10 shown to be corrupt It
must be rejected for all purposes as
not vote at all, whereas he said MI.
Cummins commended that II must DO
rejected from the count Of the man re.
ceiving It and still remain to be counted
In the total vote cast.