The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1911-06-27
Instructed to Get Any
thing They Can
en- Him.
Is III REAL E!lED
ANO- YMOUSLY
Star Witness in Lorimer Case
Tells Committee How He Has
4 Been Hounded Since He !.
Testified at Springfield.
An Executive Session
is Held.

Washington. D. c., June 26.-shad-
owed for weeks by detectives Instruct
ed 10 get anything possible against
nim was the alleged experience whiea
Clarence S. Funk, Of Chicago. star Wit
ness in the present Lorimer inyestiga-
ton. complained to-day 70 the senat e
committee inqulring into the Lorlme,
election. The statement produced a
sensa lion, because the name OF Ed.
ward Hines. whom Mr.. Funk had tes-
titled had asked him to contribute
$4,000 toward 100000 used to put
Lorimer over a Springfield" was men.
Toned in connection with the service.
OF the detectives.
MIR. Funk declared that four detec.
tives had followed him TO Washington
and two had watched him during
luncheon to-day. One OF them. ne said
had been compelled to give his name
and that of his employer when cauSh.
In tight place. Mr.. Funk declined TO
break his word TO the detective and
reveal his name. He said the employer
was not Senator Lorimer.
The committee ended the days hear
Ing by going into executive session to
consider the situation.
Reveals His Mime.
at the executive session Mr.. Funk
is said TO have revealed the detec-
tive's name and promised TO produce
him before the committee to- morrow,
II possible. The committee then took
up a consideration OF what steps TO
take TO prevent detectives in,erfer-
Ing with witnesses before the COM
mittce.
Mr.. Funk's statement about the de-
tecNves came at the close of long
examination on the witness stand. He
retold the story ne related TO the Helm
investigating committee. Jin,seIilino!s
about how Mr.. Hines.is alleged to, have
asked MIN. S general mana ger Of the
lnternatio Harvester COMPANY. 10
contribute $4,000 TO the Lorimer fund
FOR hours attorneys and members OF
the committee had asked question af-
ter question of him about this CON
versation. the report OF which nroh.
ably led 10 the present. investigation
or the Lorimer election. The witness
had described his personal relations
10 senator Lorimer Mr.. Hines and
many others figuring in the case.
Rather incidentally, Mr.. Funk re-
marked in answer 10 question that
his part in the case had been any
thing but pleasant and that he had
been promised more 'unpleasantness
Promised more?" repeated Sena tor
Jones.
Yes. over the telephone and by
anonymous communications. indirect
threats have been made"
Then, In response to inquiries of
Senator Kenyon, Mr.. Funk said he
had been followed by detectives ever
since he testified at Springfield before
the Helm committee
Seemed Nice Fellows.
Mr.. Funk told about the detectives
following him to Washington ane
about getting the name of one Of
them. He said the detective he had
cornered claimed to be employed by
the Thiele Detective Agency in Chi.
cago. and had been Instructed to gel
anything he could on Mr.. Funk He
protested against being made to re.
veal the detectives name because .ha
seemed, like nice fellow. said he was
not proud of what he was doing, and
had a family TO support" To tell his
name, Mr.. Funk said would mean his
dismissal
eff you don't tell ii, all four win
probably lose their jobs" suggested
Senator Gamble. MI
William J. Hynes. of counsel Tor
Senator Lorirf1er and Edward Hines
urged the witness to reveal the name.
Put Mr.. Edward Hines on the stand
and ask him to whom the detectives
report each night" responded Ar
Funk.
Attorney Elbridge Hanecy. of coun-
sci for Senator Lorimer. asked If the
detectives said tho Senator employed
them.
No. Senator Lorimer did not en-
ploy them" declared the witness
me committee then went into exc
cutive session