Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1911-02-07
BURTON DEFENDS CULLOM
Ohio Senator Replies to AspersiOnS
Cast by Bailey Of Texas.
IORnERs ELECTION IS VOID
Speaker says Tendency of Evidence
a. 90 show that Every Demo-
cratic vote Cast for chicago
Man was Corrupted.

WASHINGTON. Feb. s-A defense of
Senator Cullom OF Illinois formed the most
striking part Of an address made in the
senate today by Senator Theodore Burton !
Of Ohio, In opposition to the report Of the
committee on privileges and elections by
which Senator Lorimer Of Illinois was ex-
onerated from the charge Of obtaining his
seat by means Of bribery.
The reference to Senator Cullom, who Is
Mr.. Lorimer's colleague, was called out
! by a statement made by Senator Bailey
of Texas in the senate during the excite
ment incident TO the close OF Senator
Roots arraignment of Mr.. Lorimer last
Friday. Speaking of the existence for
years Of Jack pot" fund in connection
with the sessions of the Illinois legisla-
ture, Mr.. Bailey, who supports Mr.. Lori
mer, said that the means used to elect
Mr.. Lorimer were the same as had been
employed in the election of Mr.. Cullom.
Mr.. Burton did not dwell long on the
Texas senator's differences. lie said:
| The senator from Texas, no doubt un-
| Willingly, did an injustice to the senior
senator from Illinois in some remarks last
Friday, In averring that II Mr. Lorimers
election is invalid. so is that OF the senior
senator. One conclusive answer to any
such groundless inference is the method
| VI Tic erection OF MT. OullOms ne was
nominated at a primary by a majority of
5000 votes. and It would be most unjust
to him to compare the circumstances under
which he was chosen with the corrupt and
dishonest methods prevalent in the legis-
lature In 1909"
BOrimer's Election Tainted.
| The Ohio senator discussed the allega-
tons against Senator Lorimer largely on
legal grounds. Without attempting to un-
ravel the testimony, he preceded on the
theory that certain facts had been proven
and then undertook to show through prece-
dents established in the United States and
Great Britain that the election by the
Illinois legislature had been tainted and
therefore. invalid.
Among other points discussed was that
as to whether the receipt of money after
the casting Of a vote constitutes bribery,
and 1t was held that it does. If" said
the speaker, those who received such
money were free from corrupt intent, they
certainly would not have received it after
the votes were cast. 1t is impossible to
separate the receipts OF money after the
election from other facts and circumstances
In the conduct of these members which
90 to make up one dishonest transaction"
Meeting the contention that the evidence
given by bride takers cannot be con-
sidered in connection with the case, the
Ohio senator declared that no such rule
In law now prevails. 1T belongs rather
to a crude state OF society" he pro-
ceeded. ITO maintain It would mean that
the most serious offenders against the
public must go unpublished. 1t ignores
the difference in the comparative guilt
OF those engaged in the same unlawful
enterprise. 1t regards the men guilty of
a crime as absolutely an outcast and dis
regards alike his reformation and the well
fare of society. 1t closes the door of re-
pentence for the criminal, even for him
who has been misled by the superior in
fluence Of others into doing something
against which his better judgment rebels
Mr.. Burton did not accept the statement
Of Mr.. Lorimer's friends that II there
had been bribery, that gentleman had not
authorized 1t.
Control of Corrupt COterfs.
In another connection, he said:
Who will assert, in the face of all the
testimony OF Mr. Brownies promises Of
money, of his control over these members,
his previous transactions that his action
was not corrupt or that Mr.. Loriner did
not share In that corruption? It is def
nitely conceded by the defendants of Mr..
Lorimer that a state of corruption was
rife in the Illinois legislature. They ad-
nit that bribery was common and had
been for a long time; but while concedinK
the rank corruption which prevailed, in
which Browne and others Of those who
voted for Lorimer were prominent figures,
they deny that this applies to the SEN
atorial election. They aver that there
may have been Jack pot but this does
not affect, they maintain, the question
at Issue
I'm the first place, there is little or
no testimony showing that legislation was
prevented or promoted by the existence
Of this Jack pot II there was anything
for which money was paid, It was for the
election Of a senator; and, again, how is
It possible to separate the two. il there
was such corrupt condition? The same
actors in plots to defeat legislation were
prominent in the senatorial election
) Without their votes, Mr. Lorimer could
not have marshaled majority. Every
r item of evidence goes to show that what
ever corruption existed had exerted an in
: fluence in the senatorial controversy more
than anything else
; Many Corrupt Votes.
t Summing up his conclusions, Mr. Burton
found 1t perfectly evident that fraud was
} so rampant and dishonesty so widespread
! that II is impossible to separate the sound
! votes from the unsond votes. when ."
, he added, there is undoubtabie proof, as
3 here, that fraud and bribery have been
> resorted to, no one can derive from the
{ cesspool Of corruption any conclusion ex-
E cept THAI no election was had. Undoubted
: proof is available not only to show that
I a sufficient number OF bribed persons cast
their votes for Lorimer to invalidate his
e election, but also that on other grounds
2 than this there was not a valid choice.
3 There are strong arguments to sustain a
= presumption that not only seven, eight.
nine or ten we're corrupt, but that posi-
I bly, thirty cast their votes under the In.
r nuence Of bribery or dishonesty"