The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1911-03-08


sest!ng as a reason f:a- the meetia@
IA proposal to give banquet 10 Mr.
Browne.
Unfortunately nearly all the wit
nesses to the meeting forgot that
there was any proposal TO give 2
banquet to MI Browne. All the
members OF the Browne following
met az their customary meeting
place in st. Louis. brought from
their several homes in different and
distant towns in the southern part
OF the State OF Illinois. called there
by teleerams FOR some purpose Or
other. and there appears in th> 'e:tl-
mony regarding that meeting Nd evil
deoce whatever as to any conclusion
reached. any question raised or any
action taken regarding the giving o.
a banquet 20 NJ. Browne.
There Is another fact wh!>h cor
roborates most powerfully the .esti-
nony showing that there was money
paid. fund distributed at the juiy
IS meeting: and that Is tnat two
OF the men who were there when
called before the Grand Jury OF
Cook County in al inquiry as 10 log
islative corruption testified under
oath that they were not present Il
the meeting-perjured themselves &c
conceal the fact that they were there
at all They were indicted for that
perjury Why. !! the meeting was
an innocent one. !: It was meeting
to talk about a banquet. II the tes-
;.mony OF these three men that ther:
was a fund distributed there is f.i'2,
and It was an innocent meeting. why
should men be willing TO commit
perjury IN order to conceal the fact
that they were there?
The corruption in the Legislature
OF Illinois which brought on the dis
tribution OF July Is was practically
admitted upon this hearing. When
the first testimony about that meet
ing was produced the counsel for
Mr. Lorimer objected 20 +, because,
be stated. It was testimony about
what they called the Jackpot" The
corruption in that Legislature had
continued so long. mems minds had
become so accustomed to believing
in it. men had become so callous to
the !niquity Of 1t. that they joked
about it and nicknamed It as II it
we're matter for jocular treatment.
Several OF the witnesses testified that
they called II Jackpot
White and Lick and Beckemeyer
all have sworn that on the 2lst day
Of June Mr.. Browne paid to them
$1,000 each. and two OF theC. testi-
fy to tha: payment being pursuant
to promises made by Browne TO them
before the election OF Lorimer. Upon
what ground are We to reject the
testimony OF these three witnesses
and accept the testimony OF Lee
O'Eeil Browne. which We already
know to be false. because he denies.
denies under oath. as We know.
, falsely. the disposition OF the jack
pot? I: appears that upon uncontra-
dicted and ind!sputable testimony
in this case. that the collector. the
distributor, the leader In this corrup-
ton Of the Legislature Of Illinois
was Lee O'Eeii Browne.
There is one other circumstance
which Is little aside from the main
current Of this sewer which We have
been considering. and that Is the
bribery OF Hoitslaw. Mr.. Holtslaw
was. prior to the meeting OF the AS
sem bly, OF Illinois OF 1909. in which
he was a Senator. a reputable man.
OF good standing in the community IN
which be lived. He test!ties that
labout the 18th OF June. or just be-
fore the 18TH Of June. ne was sent
sor by Mr.. Broderlck to come to his
place OF business IN Chicago.
| He testides that was either by let
ter OF telegram. and that he went
there: that Mr. Broderick handed
him $500 IN package and he took
1t end went away. BrodeTick at the
same time telling him there would
be more for him later. He went
away. and he went to the State Bank
OF Chicago and deposited this $4,000
IN the name OF his bank. the Ho!stlaw
Bank. OF Iuka The cashier o! the
State Bank OF Chicago was called.
and he testified that Holstlaw did oa
that 18th day OF June deposit this
ls2.50o IN bills to the credit Of the
Holstlaw Bank.
AL! Of the above testimony was
repeated by Senator Root on the floor
OF the Senate when he was making 4
speech against the seating OF Lori
me7. and not one fact in It was Ques-
toned by any other Senator. In
concluding his speech Senator Roo,
asked what Is the effect OF these
facts plainly established. the fact
that four OF the votes cast were cast
under the influence OF money paid.
and the fact that the money was paid
by three others OF those who cast the
votes? We are not engaged in 8
technical proce -ding. sir. We are
engaged In a proceeding where we
are bound. Il there Is sufficient et!-
dence. to proceed IN accordance with
what We really know to be the truth.
TRIED 1T ONCE BEFORE.