Tonopah daily bonanza. [volume] (Tonopah, Nev.) 1906-1929, 1911-07-20
LORIMER CASE
NOW A Series
OF DOUBT
CONTRADICTION OF TESTIMONY
WITH EVERY WITNESS PLACED
ON THE STAND.

WASHINGTON, July 2O.-More
contradictions on testimony before
the senate Lorimer committee yes
terday befogged the Lorimer inves-
tigation far worse than at any time
since the new inquiry began. All
four witnesses fatty contradicted inn
'portant testimony previously given.
Charles McGowan, a young Can
adian contractor, declared that C. F.
Wiehe, secretary of the Edward
Hines Lumber company, did not re-
mark on the Winnipeg Flyer" on
the way from Duluth to Virginia,
Mimi, in March, 1911, that there
was a jackpot raised to elect Lori
mer, and that he subscribed $4,000
to it.
William II. Burgess testified yes
terday that Wiehe did make this
remark in the presence of himself
and a young Canadian"
B. A. Johnson, of Chicago, until
July /, 1911, general staff repre-
sentative of the American Lumber
man, testified positively that Wiehe
made no such statement.
Isaac Baker, buyer for the Ed
ward Hines Lumber company, un-
qualifiedly denied that Edward
Hines, president of this company,
said over long distance telephone
to Springfield, from w. H. Cook S
room in a Chicago hotel, on May 26,
1909, that he would come to Spring.
| field With all the money necessary
for Lorimer's election. Cook testi-
fled Hines did so state. Bakers tes-
timony regarding the conversation
agreed almost verbatim with that
given by Hines.
Baker also agreed with Hines ac-
count of Hines meeting Clarence
S. Funk, general manager of the
International Harvester company,
who claims Hines asked him for a
| $4,000 Lorimer election contribu-
tion. Hines says Funk asked to be
introduced to Lorimer and for the
privilege of contributing to his cam
paign expenses. Baker told about
the introduction request just as
Hines had testified. D. M. Frame,
cigar stand employe in the Union
League club, testified that Hines
once remarked to H. M. Hettler
that he (Hines) had elected Senator
Lorimer, thus corroborating Hettlers
Testimony and contradicting that OF
Hines.
| MCGOWAN was subjected to a rigid
cross-eXamination. He said that all
the men in the smoking car when
Burgess said the Wiehe conversation
took place, were strangers to him
at that time, but that he remember.
ed where each sat and the order
in which they left the smoker. In.
stead of Wiehe remaining in the
smoker until all the party of eight
or ten men left, except Burgess ant
MCGOWAN, the witness said Wiehe
was the first to depart.
Later MCGOWAN declared to BIZ
: correct an affidavit he made few
, weeks ago, in which he said thai
, Wiehe was continually in the pres
ence of some of his party all the
way from Duluth to Virginia, MINI
Attorney John H. Marble, for The
\ committee, pointed out that the wit
ness could not know with whom
) Wiehe was with after he left thu
r smoker.
Il must have misunderstood thu
| affidavit" said MCGOWAN.
The witness said he had heart
, everything that was said durin:
r the trip and he was sure nothins
was said about Lorimer The tariff
: and reciprocity were discussed, bu
( he was unable to tell what any on
7 said about either.
f Johnson disagreed with Burgess
t about Wiehe remaining in the smok
ing room after the witness had left
Y Johnson will be cross-examined thi
n n Fforn0op