Northern Wisconsin advertiser. [volume] (Wabeno, Wis.) 1898-1925, 1911-07-07
SEEK PERJURERS
IN LOR|MER CASE
Committee Lawyers will Go to
Chicago Soon.
LOOK UP CERTAIN MATTERS"
Department of Justice Reported at
Work Trying to Verify Truth of
Testimony of Witnesses
Already Heard.

Washington.-The start of a pros
scution for perjury between now and
the next session of the Lorimer inves-
tigating committee on July Is, with
the object of impressing on future
witnesses the necessity Of telling the
truth, is regarded here as the prob
able next development in the case OF
the junior senator from Illinois
The committee had been in session
but few days when the testimony
which 1t was hearing began to show
startling discrepancies.
Clarence S. Funk, general manager
of the International Harvester COM
pany, testified that Edward Hines, mil
lionaire lumberman of Chicago, ,ap-
preached him in May in the Union
League club, Chicago, and asked him
to contribute $4,000 to the 100000
Lorimer fund. Funk said there were
no other persons present at the con-
versation.
Wirth Cook of Duluth, Mimi, lum-
herman. testified that Edward Hines
had told him of putting Lorimer
over" He testified also that he heard
Mr.. Hines talking over the long dis
lance telephone to someone in Spring
field, the day of Mr.. Lorimer's cleo
ton, and swore that Mr.. Hines said he
would be down on the next train
with all the money that is required"
Mr.. Cook thought Mr.. Hines was talk
ing to Governor Deneen.
Testimony obtained before the in
vestigating committee Of the Illinois
genetal assembly, several months ago,
and substantiated by the sworn affi-
davits of three men, was to the effect
that Shelley B. Jones Of Marquette,
Mich, had admitted several times that
Mr.. Hines had boosted to him OF put
ting Lorimer over" at a cost of $780,
900
That is the evidence obtained on
the one hand. On the other, the tes-
timony was just as positive-but diff
terent.
Mr.. Hines swore that Mr.. Funk ap-
preached him in the Union League
IluU, anu d0hCu III al OPPOASNAAANS
to contribute money to Mr.. Lorlmers
campaign expenses.
Mr.. Hines said that three other men
all lumbermen, and two OF them In
his own employ-Were present and
heard part of the conversation. The
one man who was not in Hines en-
ploy was trying to sell him 100000
worth of lumber at the time.
Two Of these three men have al
ready testified. They told of the in
cident just as Mr.. Hines recounted it
but on cross-examination they ad-
mitted that their memories had been
refreshed by Mr. Hines, as recently as
three weeks ago.
Concerning Wirth Cooks testimony,
Mr.. Hines denied that he had spoken
of putting Lorimer over" Further, he
said that he was talking to Senator
Lorimer in the famous long distance
conversation, and the dialogue, as he
gave it, was unimpOrtant.
Miss Frances Carroll, telephone op-
orator for Mr.. Hines lumber COM
pany, on the witness stand told the
committee that she had connected Mr.
Hines with Senator Lorimer at Spring
field on that day in May, two years
ago, and had listened in" on the con-
versation. She thought she could
recollect what had been said When
she was told to go ahead, she repeat
ed it almost word for word as Mr..
Hines had previously recited it.
Cross-examination disclosed that
Miss Carroll had talked it over with
her employer several weeks ago, and
that she could remember no other
long distance telephone conversation
that had taken place during all the
ten years she had worked for the
Hines company.
To a great extent, the Lcrimer case
has narrowed down to a question OF
the veracity of witnesses.