The Washington herald., 1911-01-10
Senator's Attack L0rimer Election
Continued fro. Page one.

more perturbed over the situation than
did Lorimer himself. As the Illinois
Senator left Senator Owen, he met Sem
ator Eeveridge, on his way into the
chamber with the minority report. He
stopped also and addressed few words
to the Indiana S0ator. As soon as the
Senate had been called to order, Mr..
Lorimer arose, and amid profound si-
lence, said:
Il am obligated to my State and to
myself to be present in this chamber
during the discussion of reports concern
ing me. And ut some time later I re-
serve the right to discuss the statements
made. l hope my presence here will not
embarrass any Senator who desires to
discuss these matters. as their presence
will not embarrass me when the time
comes for me to discuss them myself"
Senator Owen was on his feet, asking
for recognition from the chair. as soon
as Lorimer had finished.
Il rise to a question of highest privi-
lege," said he.
Il call for the regular order OF busi-
ness" interrupted Senator Beveridge, who
was also on his feet.
1t was apparent that there was to be
strong rivalry between Owen and Bever-
idge as to which one would get before
the Senate first resolution declaring
Lorimer's election void.
Sherman II Overruled.
Senator Owen declined to yield. and
Vice President Sherman sustained him.
Senator Beveridge thereupon appealed
from the ruling of the Chair. and the
Vice President was overruled by the Sem
ate whereupon Senator Beveridge took
the floor and presented the minority re-
port.
The Senator in this report is severe in
several places on the majority members
of the Senate Committee on Privileges
and Elections. which signed report
clearing Lorimer and declaring that he
held his seat by a valid title. Senator
Beveridge is the only member of this
committee, except Senator Frazier. Demo-
crat. of Tennessee. who declined to sign
a report vindicating Lorimer.
Senator Beveridge. in his report. lays
considerable stress upon the fact that the
confessed bribe takers are known to have
had in their possession large sums Of
money soon after the dates when they
swore to having accepted bribes. This
fact according to Senator Beveridge. was
proved by the uncontradicted testimony
of impartial and disintercsted witnesses.
Yet it was ignored by the majority report
of the Senate Committee on Privileges
and Elections.
Senator Beveridge also attacked the in
timation of the majority report that the
alleged bribe takers We're compelled or
driven to make confessions favorable to
the prosecution because of their treat
ment by the officers OF Cook County. The
language Of the report. according to Sen
ator vtridge, suggests sympathy for
bribe taker Link. The Senator added:
States Attorney Not Heard.
The men of whom Link most bitterly
complains are Assistant States Attor-
the former: yet the committee did not
subpoena these officers of justice to give
their account of Links story. although
they were residents Of Chicago, in which
city the hearing was held. The majority
seem to think that the remarkable So
called third-desree story told by Link
actually compelled him to testify to
falsehood in confessing his bribery. If
SO. it was important that Arnold and
Marshall should give thei- accounts. Yet
they were not called"
Senator Beveridge declared that the tes-
timony taken by the committee convfnces
him that the four members of the general
assembly who confessed to taking bribes
did receive such money. They confessed
to having received the money from three
members of the legislature, their leaders,
and in Senator Beveridge's opinion these
three bribe givers are as guilty as the
four bribe takers.
THE majority report said Senator
Beveridge. 'exonerates these three ac-
cused bribe sivers, upon the ground chief
ly that they denied the accusation. What
else did the majority expect these bribe
sivers to do except to deny that they
gave brides? What else could they have
done unless they too. confessed? Did the
majority expect everybody concerned in
these corrupt proceedings to confess? Is
bribe giving to be proved only by the
sworn confession of the bribe givers? Is
not the law settled, clear. and conclusive,
that bribery may be and often must be
proved by circumstantial evidence?'
Finds Circumstanti Evidence.
Senator Beveridge finds sufficient cir
cumstantial evidence for his mind in the
meetings Of the alleged bribe givers and
bribe takers in st. Louis and elsewhere,