The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1911-02-09
MONEY FROM UTAH.

In all the discussions that have been
had Of the Lorimcr case, none has
been so absolutely grotesque and wild
as that put forth in the Smoot organ
here yesterday. 1t says that the mon
ey to defeat Senator Hopkins was sent
from Utah. this because Hopkins was
a supporter of Apostle Smoot III his
fight to retain his seat in the Senate,
and that organ says: "This Utah
money was sent to Illinois for the pur-
pose of bribing members Of the Legis-
lature to vote against Hopkins; and
the men who put it up are Just as guilty
as Lee o Neill Browne, or any of his
pals possibly could be- a refreshing
virtuosity, especially from that source.
But the idea that money was sent
from Utah to beat Hopkins because he
supported Smoot is about as silly as a
contrary assertion would be that the
church sent money TO help Hopkins in
his campaign because of his advocacy
Of Smoot. One is quite as credible as
the other. II was freely stated during
the Hopkins campaign for reelection
that Mormon elders were concentrated
in Illinois from different parts of the
East and set actively to work in the
primaries in his behalf, and afterwards
in his lobby. 1t was also stated that
anti Mormous were in Illinois doing
their best to defeat Hopkins. These,
however, were far less numerous than
no al bn
him. That was undoubtedly the extent
of the Utah participation in the cam
paign The charge that Utah money
was sent to Illinois is so foolish that it
is marvellous to see it made. The wild.
est stretch of sane imagination could
hardly reach TO such bewildering non
sense.
The same organ says that Hopkins
had fairly won the nomination at the
primary Which also is incorrect.
The truth is, that Hopkins had plu-
rality Of the votes at the primary, but
not a majority. There was. no choice,
and the Illinois legislators. in the alb.
sence Of real nomination. were at lin.
erty to support the candidates whom
they wished without regard to the pri.
mary. since that primary was incon'
| elusive.
In this connection, we present very
| fair summary of the facts in the al.
legged Lorimer bribery case, as made
up editorially by the New York Com
lnercial:
In the newspaper discussions OF the case
| OF senator Lorimer OF Illinois. whose seat
| by a pending resolution in the United
states senate is declared To- be vacant on
| the allegation that II was secured by
| turc, IT is very generally assumed that
certain members OF that body have con-
| fessed TO the taking OF money as the
price OF their votes for Lorlmer. The
| Commercial has used the expression
"confessedly bribc takers III this con-
| nection. a close examination OF the rec
| orGs discloses that such assumptions are
| monty set down as confessed" bribe-
| takers are Link, Bectemeyer, Holstlaw
and White. But neither OF the three
| first named ever made any such con-
| fcssion" either TO the senate investigat-
| ing committee or 10 anybody else that
has not subsequently been discredited
| and rejected.
Link, as the record shows. told the
State attorney and the grand jury that
he received neither money nor anything
| else OF value for his vote for I.orimer,
but ne Was arrested and while in the Gus
| tody OF an officer was told b. the State
| attorney that If he would go before the
grand jury and testify that he had re-
ceived thousand dollars from one man
4 ND ri har