The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1911-01-18
LORIMER
Senator Burrows Declares There
Is No Evidence
To Show That His Seat Was Cor.
ruptly Obtained.

washington, Jan. 1S.-There is alb
solutely no proof, direct or indirect
from which a legitimate inference
could be drawn that a single member
of the general assembly was corruptly
Influenced to vote for Mr.. Lorimer.
This was the conclusion of Senator
Julius Caesar Burrows of Michigan,
in speech in the senate today de-
Tending the majority report of the
committee on privileges and elections
of which he is chairman confirming
the right of Senator VIM. LOrimer
of Illinois to his seat in the senate.
Senator Burrows reviewed the whole
case and cited much of the evidence
which induced the committee to ar
rive at its conclusions, because of the
criticism passed upon the report of
the committee. After summarizing
the testimony of Witnesses White,
Link, Beckmeyer and Holstlaw, SEN
ator Burrows declared that ''it is OBJ
vious there is nothing in the state
ments of any one of them or in the
statements of all of them taken togeth-
er which would justify a conclusion
that their testimony as a bribery is
true, or could be relied upon in a mat
ter of even minor Importance.
1.-The laborS of the committee said
Senator Burrows were greatly light
ened and the scope of the investigation
materially curtailed by the admission
of counsel for the prosecution that it
Lorimer with any acts of bribery"
Dismissing the matter of the integ2
rity of Senator Lorimer, Senator Bur
rows related the details of the inquiry
into the integrity of the election"
The testimony of Charles A. White, a
member of the Illinois legislature who
wrote the first article in the Chicago
Tribune in April 80, 1910, charging
bribery in the election of Senator
Lorimer, came in for severe denuncia-
ton by Senator Burrows. He said:
Reviews Testimony.
'"This testimony, briefly stated, is:
Charles A. White was called befofe
the committee and testified that he
was paid $1,000 for his vote for Mr..
Lorimer for senator. That he first
Lorimer on the night of May "A, 1909,
in Brownies room in the st. Nicholas
hotel. White says he asked if he
could vote for Republican and
says, He asked me to keep it strictly
under my hat. He said it would not
be any chicken feed either
Whatever impression the testimony
of White may make upon the senate
to the committee, the conviction was
irresistible taht if he told the truth to
the committee, he was devoid of all
sense of honor, or shame and was
ready to make merchandise of his po-
sition, violate his oath of office. be-
Tray the people VINO trusted ana elect
ed him and barter his vote for any
thing to anybody who would bring to
him personal gain.
eff Whites testimony is discredited,
then practically nothing remains
doubt on the right of Senator Lorimer
to hold his seat, but it is evident that
from the careful examination of the
case that the testimony of the other
witnesses who claim to have received
Tx@- H. 81
was purposely so shaped as to cor
roborate Whites story.
Michael Link claimed in his testi-
mony before the committee and before
the grand jury and under all circum-
stances that the money he received
from Browne was not compensation
for his vote for Lorimer.
Another witness upon whose testi-
mony great reliance is placed by those
who are opposing Senator Lorimer is
H. ]. c. Beckemey His testimony is
as Improbable as that of Link.
Furthermore, it is important to
note that he was compelled to invent
this story. He was taken to Chicago,
taken before the grand jury and there
persisted in his denial that he had re-
ceived any money. He was then placed
in charge of an officer piled with
liquor taken to d. theater, afterward to
a disreputable house, and by these
means was induced, or compelled to
change his story, under a like assur-
rance of indemnity in case he did so.
Any testimony Or statement that might
be made by him under such circum-
stances would be of little value if un-
contradicted, as it was, as has been
shown.
.sThe only witness whose testimony
could be considered as supporting the
| charges against Lorimer. was D. NJ.
dolstlaw. Holstlaw's testimony as o
bribery is contradicted by Brodericl.
and is impossible of belief if uncontra
dicted by any one"