The Washington times., 1911-04-06
CLEAN UP THE LORIMER
SCANDAL AT ONCE.

The United States Senate cannot too
quickly undo the discrcditable work of
last session in connection with the
Lorlmer case. 1t was plain from the
very beginning of the investigation
by the Burrows committee that there
was no purpose of seriously going
after the truth.
The honor of the whole Senate is in
volved in this performance of the
Committee on Privileges and Elections.
1t is the more seriously involved, be-
cause the Senate gave a majority vote
in favor of retaining Lorimer.
One of two conclusions must be ac-
cepted. Either the committee did not
want to know about the disgraceful
corruption back of the Lorimer election.
or else it was chiIdishIy incompetent
for its task. The former explanation
is obviously correct.
Such contempt of public opinion,
such callOused Cynicism, such reckless
disregard of consequences, as were dis
played by the committee and by the
Senate majority that favored Lorimer,
fairly pass comprehension.
Sensational revelations have been
brought out by a committee of the
Illinois State senate. Editor kOhlsaat,
of the Chicago Record Herald, has told
OF receiving information that a
100000 fund was used to elect Lori
mer. kOhlsaat declined to tell the
legislative committee how he knew
this, and was threatened with Jail for
contempt. Thercupon Clarence Funk,
general manager of the National Har-
vester Compny, came forward and told
the committee that he had given the
facts TO kohlsaat; that he had been
asked by Edward Hines, millionaire
lumber dealer and lobbyist. to be one
of ten to contribute $4,000 each to
this fund; and that Hines named Ed
ward Tilden, one of the leading figures
in the Meat trust, as the treasurer of
this fund.
Hines relations to the lumber sched-
ule of the Payne act, his leadership in
the financing of the Lorimer election,
and his activities in defense of Lori
mer's right to his seat, were perfectly
understood by the Senate Committee
on Privileges and Elections. This
whole "slush fund.- story has been
known for months past in Washing
ton and Chicago. Without doubt, the
Senate committee could have devel-
oped the legal proofs; but it did not
seek them. Its whole procedure
suggested desire to avoid such dis
COveries.
Instead OF going after the full facts
that might have been had and that are
now coming out, the Senate took the
preposterous ground that men who told
of receiving bribes were perjuring them
selves; that a bribe-taker could not be
believed when, after confessing his
own guilt, he implicated others in the
same crime! In the light of things
now developing, and the substance of
which was known last session to
moral certainty, the whole procedure
of the Senate and its Elections Com
mittee appears utterly puerile and in
sincere.
Senator Crawford told the plain truth
when he declared that the whole at
mosphere surrounding the Lorimer cleo
ton was charged with the suggestion
of corruption.
1t is well at this time TO recall the
names of the Senators who composed
the Elections Committee that made
this precious investigation" and
recommended the whitewash of Lori
mer. They were Burrows of Michi
gan, Depew of New York, Beveridge
of Indiana, Dillingham; of Vermont,
Gamble of South Dakota, Hepburn of
Idaho, Bulkeley of Connecticut, Re-
publicans; Bailey of Texas, Frazier Of
Tennessee, Paynter OF kentucky, John
ston of Alabama, and Fletcher of Flor
ida. Beveridge and Frazier constituted
the minority which protested against
the whitewash, and Beveridge, with
Frazier's Endorsement, introduced the
resolution to exclude Lorimer.
The country, and particularly the
States they misrepresent, needs to
keep its eyes on these Senators when
thew come forward for reelection.
Several have already retired; others
are now candidates for reelection.
Their record in the Lorimer case ought
to be kept constantly before their con-
stituents.
MISSOURPS GOVERNOR