New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1911-06-30
PRESIDENT TAFT WAS
NEVER FOR LOR|MER
Hines Attempts to Place Re-
sponsibiIity on ex-Sena-
tor AIdriCh.
A DENIAL FROM PENR0SE
Funk's Statements Flatly Con-
tradicted by Hines-Senator
Kenyon Suggests Prose
cutions for Perjury.
From The Tribune Bureau. 7

From The Tribune Bureau.l
Washington. June 29-Edward Hines. OF
Chicago. the main figure around which the
second investigation Of the election Of SEN
ator Lorimer turns. sought to-day 10 justify
his efforts 10 use President Tafts name in
support OF the Illinois Senator by shifting
Tho responsibility TO ex-senator Aldrich.
lie acknowledged that he himself had
not seen the President but said word was
hrousht TO him by Senator Aldrich. after a
conference at the White House a few Gays
before the Illinois election, that the Presi-
dent favored the election of Mr. Lorimer.
Mr.. Aldrich. who is to appear before the
committee as a witness. VIII ne aoie u
give his orn version of the incident Sen
s,or Penrose whom Hines also cited as
favoring the election OF Mr.. Doriner' said
later: II did talk with him about the SIT
ustIon in the Illinois Legislature, pehdlhs
rho senatorial election in 1909. / had served
with Senator Hopkins and felt interested In
him, and told Mr.. Hines that ! hoped
there would be an election. | thought the
Republican ranks should be filed up ana
said 30, hut beyond such expression dic
not 60. Senator Aldrich felt the same way
and so expressed himself.
When Hines made substantially the same
statement before the committee or the HE
nois Senate that he made more in detali
,o-dsy II was pointed out that the Presi-
h.nt IN letter written last september
had disposed OF the report by saying;
9TH, reports, rumors or statements that
I consciously lent any weight OF the ao-
,r,inistration 20 the election OF Lorlmer are
wholly untrue
This was reinforced at the time oy
abatement from Senator Cullom, VINO said
that. although he had talked 10 the fresi-
dent many times about the ILLINOIS slIua-
tim. the latter had made no comment en-
cent 10 express the nope that the deadIoch
would he broken by the selection OF nc
,uhlicsn. IL is well known also tnat IL
was largely through the influence OF the
President that Senator Root was led 10
make the study of tho Lorimcr case result
ing IN his speech protesting against LORI
,ner's retaining his seat in the Senate.
I, was announced at the White House to-
,,rht that the President would not discuss
NJ Illness reiterated statement that the
Chief Executive expressed any preference
for Mr.. Lorimer for Senator
Mr.. Hines fatty contradicted many state
ZION aroused Senator Kenyon, Of Iowa.
Now. there ought 10 be some prosecu-
,ions for perjury right here, he exclaimed
While he mentioned no names. his remark
created q profound impression.
Mr.. Hines was on tho stand all day and
his examination was not finished when the
committee adjourned until tomorrow
Al ibc afternoon session. Senators Gam
HE. KENYON and Jones Piled the witness
with questions designed to show that ne
knew nothing directly OF President Tafts
attitude. Mr. Hines declared that at first
ne understood the administration was
merely anxious for a Republican to be
elected but that later it became convinced
from some source that Mr.. Lorimer was the
only one the factions could unite on, and
hence favored him.
. You didn't understand that President
Taft and Senator Aldrich wanted to have
Mr.. I.orimer elected by Democratic votes,
did vou?" inquired Senator Gamble.
II don't know" replied the witness, that
question was not discussed
Did you think your message to Spring
field that President Taft and Senators Al
drich and Penrose wanted Lorimer elected
would influence Democratic votes:' asked
Senator Jones.
NO, / thought it was TO influence Gov
ernor Deneen."
Funk's Story False, Says Hines
Mr.. Hines then denied tho testimony Of
Clarence s. Funk, general manager Of tho
International Harvester Company, regard
ing the conversation the two men had at
the Union League Club in Chicago, shortly
after Mr.. Lorimers election. Funk had
testified that Hines asked him on that oc-
ca sion for a contribution OF $1,000 10 4
$1,000 Loriner campaign fund. Mr.. Hines
testified that Mr.. Funk asked for an in
PRODUCTION to the new Senator and for tho
privilege Of contributing TO his election ex-
renses.
Mr.. Hines added that when he mentioned
the proposed introduction. Mr.. Lorner
Objected because he regarded Mr.. Funk
Is one Of his active enemies When the
senstor explained to Mr. Hines that lie had
no election expenses 10 defray, Mr.. Hines
said he decided not to mention Mr.. Funk's
offer.
Subsequently, he said. Mr. Funk ex-
pressed disappointment at the outcome of
hts conversation with Mr.. Hines, but con-
finued cordial, even asking Mr.. Hines to
get him seat in the Senate gallery here
March last and to introduce Mrs. Funk
70 Mrs. Hines on one occasion last spring
Mr.. Hines denied that he ever went tC
Mr.. Funks Office 10 refresh the latter's
memory as to the Union League converse
ton. Mr.. Funk testified that there was
such q visit.
Mr.. Hines also contradicted testimony
given by Writ IL Cook. of Duluth, MINI
He denied having telephoned from Mr.
Cooks room in a Chicago hotel on May
~ 1Hs, that he would go 10 Springfield or
the next train with all the money needed
in the Lorimer election. lie also denied
that he said in a conversation with MIR
Cook and Mr.. furnish about May !, 1879
that he had elected "Old Stephenson 81
that the Southern Democrats in Congress!
would not stay put" on the lumber ques
ton. or that he had il all fixed TO cleo
Iorimer 20 the Senate. IT was after h'
had said that he believed he had not reac
Mr. Cooks testimony about this CONVEX
n A