The Wheeling intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1903-1961, 1911-06-27
Hines Sleuth
Trails Funk
Anti-Lorimer Witness SPRINGS
observation-disclosures That He
Has Been Threatened.
HINES Is MAN WHO
RAISED LORIMER FUND
New Turn in Senate Investigation
OF Lorimer Promises TO
Broaden Scandal.

WASHINGTON. June 2s-sbas.
owed for weeks by detectives ins,-,,,,
eu TO get anything possible against
MN was the alleged experience Of
which Clarence S. Funk. OF Chicago.
star witness in the present Lorimo-
investigation. complained today m
inc senate committee inquiring into
INC Lorimer election. The statement
produced a sensation, because the
name Of Edward Hines. whom Mr..
FUNK had testified had asked him 70
contribute $4,000 toward 100000
used TO put Lorlmer over at Sprinp.
heid' was mentioned in connection
WIN the services OF the detectives.
Mr.. Funk declared that four deteo-
uves had followed him TO Washington.
and two had watched him dur,nS
luncheon today.
one OF them, he said. had been COM
PEELED TO give his name and that Of
his employer when caught I'm a tjpbt
place. Mr.. Funk declined 10 break rio
word to the detective and reveal bis
name. He said the employer was not
Senator Lorimer.
Reveal Detectives Name.
The committee ended the davis
nearing by going into executive SEES
sion TO consider the situation.
At the executive session Mr. Emil,
is said TO have revealed the detec.
uve's name and promised TO produca
him before the committee tomorrow ~
possible. The committee then took m
consideration OF what steps to take
10 prevent detectives interfering with
witnesses before the committee.
Mr.. Funks statement about the do
tectivcs came at the close of a lon,
examination on the witness stand. He
retold the story he related to the
HeIm investigating committee in IL
Hnois about how Mr.. Hines is alleged
to have asked him, as general man.
ager Of the International Harvester
company, TO contribute $4,000 to the
Lorimer fund. For hours attorneys
and members OF the committee had
asked question after question Of him
about this conversation. the report Of
which probably led 10 the present in.
vestigation OF the Lorimer election.
The witness had described HIS per.
soual relations 10 Senator Iorimer.
Mr.. Hines and many Others figuring
In the case.
Rather incidentally Mr.. Funk re.
marked in answer 10 n question that
his part In the case had been any.
thing but pleasant, and that he had
been promised more "unpleasantness."
Threats 70 Witness.
Promised more?" repeated senn
tor Jones.
"Yes. over the telephone and by
anonymous communications indirect
threats have been made"
4hcn. In response 10 INQUIRIES OF
Senator Kenyon. Mr. Funk said he had
been followed by detectives ever since
ho testified a. Springfield before tho
Helm committee.
Mr.. Funk told about tho detectives
following him 90 Washington and
about getting fhC name Of one of them.
Hc said the detective he had cornered
claimed 20 be employed by the Thicla
detective agency FOO Chicago. and had
been instructed to get anything he
could on Nr Funk lie protested
against being made 10 reveal the de-
tectivcs name because no Seemed
Ike "a nice fellow. said ho was not
proud of what he was doing and had
n family 20 support" To tell his name
(Mr Funk sald) would mean his dis
missal
"1f YOU don't foil 60. an four viii
probably Jos" their jobs" suggested
Senator Gamble
VIM. J. Hyncs. of counsel for soma
for Lorimer and Edward Hines. urged
The witness to reveal Tho name
Put Mr Edward Hines on tho stand
and ask him 90 whom Tho detectives
report each nirht." responded Mr..
Funk.
Attorney Elhridrc Uanecv. of coun-
sol for Senator Ior'mer. askcd if the
detective said the senator employed
thcm
$50. Senator Iorimcr did not ON.
plov hom." declared tho witness
Tho committee then went into cx.
cCutivo session.