Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1911-01-09
EARNEST STRUGGLE BEGINS
Resolutions Declare Illegal Election
of Senator From Illinois.
FINDS SEVEN VOTES TAINTED
Indiana Senator Calls Upon Col
leagues to Sustain Him In
His Protest.

election of William Iorimer as senator
from Illinois were presented today to the
Senate. Senator Beveridge CT Indiana
and Senator owen of Oklahoma were the
sponsors.
The fight TO oust Mr.. IIorimer from his
seat began with struggle between the
two senator's for priority In presenting
their resolutions. Senator Owen won the
first conflict. but was cut off from MAX
ing his contemplated speech. Senator
Beveridgc got in not only his resolution,
but also a minority report.
That William Lorimer was not duly and
legally elected to seat in the Senate OF
the United States by the legislature OF
the state of Illinois declares the resolu-
ton which Senator Beveridge submitted.
Such action by the Senate to oust Mr.
I.orimer was suggested at the conclusion
of q minority report framed by Mr.. Bev-
eridge, in which he declares that ito my
mind the testimony is conclusive that far
more than enough bribery was practiced
in this election to invalidate the same
even under the Senate precedents upon
which the majority rely"
AS the primary reason for declaring
Mr. Lorimer's seat in the Senate vacant,
Senator Beveridge finds that seven of the
votes cast for him were tainted. three
more were probably tainted and that
the seven were sufficient to reduce Mr..
Lorimer's vote below majority.
In the present case" he says, there
was not an unbrbed majority of all the
votes of said joint assembly,
Senator Beveridge holds further that
one case Of bribery fully established Tn
validates the election.
One Bribe Invahdates Election.
II only one case Of bribery be clearly
established in the election Of q SENATOR"
he continued, II hold that this invalidates
the entire election. In my opinion, one
act Of bribery makes the whole election
foul"
Dven Il this overturns Senate prece-
d4ntA, MS. Beveridge urged this view.
1ut most radical Of the holdings Of SEN
a. % =: :Ss@ ,snsss ust IN this ;, wss ssia TO
he~e knowledge Of these transactions in
yves lEr. Lorimer informed of what
was Toias on IN his behalf?" Senator
BsvoF1dgo ASKS. while not necessary to
a decision 6f this case. the evidence and
circumstances require the Senate to con-
slider this point. From his speech on this
case In this body, It appears that Mr..
LoriYner Is q seasoned politician Of pearly
thirty years experience In practical pol
itics In one Of the greatest cities Of the
country and OF the world-a superb or
ganizer, who gives attention to the very
smallest details of any election.
M. Lorimer was on the ground during
practically the whole session Of this legis-
iature. He was there principally for the
purpose Of defeating the will of the voters
of his party as declared In the primary.
lie was the intimate friend of the leader
Of the opposite party, Mr.. Browne, and
had been such for years.
Needed Votes of Opposite Party.
1T appears that Mr. Lorimer himself
finally developed as q solution of the
deadlock which he had precipitated to
defeat the decree of the primaries of his
own party. To secure his election he alb
soluteiy required the votes Of large num-
from the opposite party.
His intimate friend for years, Mr..
Browne, who was the leader Of the minor
ity and the captain of a faction, became
his needed assistant.
But even Browne. the chief of a mi
nority faction. declined to permit the
votes OF his faction to go to Mr. Lorimer
unless Browne could be assured that with
The votes Browne might get Mr.. Lorimer
could get enough others certainly to elect
him.
With this understanding and for this
purpose the two intimate friends
Browne and Lorimer. worked together for
at least ten days or two weeks. During
this time they were in repeated and al
most continuous conference night as well
as day, and both were seasoned practical
politicians
III we believe that anybody at all was
during these fateful ten DAYS or rv.o
weeks that the bribery was arranged. If
we believe that any body at all was bribed
the evidence shows that Browne was the
chief instrument Of bribery.
Did Lorimer Knowe
Taking these things all together. did
anything occur that the evidence shows
TO have occurred without Mr.. Lorimer's
knowledge?
Even II the corruption fund came
from sources higher up. did those ex-
aited sources Of iniquity pass by Mr..
l.orimer. whom they were trying to
elect with this putrid money without
his knowing a thing about it,
In law, Mr.. Lorimer must be held 10
have knowledge Of these transactions
in his behalf
III So I contend that his election is
invalid upon this ground. II senators
believe that he knew and counte-
nanced a single act Of bribery, We need
not conclude that we must expel him
by q two-thirds vote. We need only
conclude that his election was invalid
and SO declare by a majority vote.
But for the purpose of this particular
case IL is not necessary to raise the Ques-
tion of Mr.. Lorimer's knowledge of any
bribery in his behalf. i raise Ii only be-
cause personally want to go on record
against the position hitherto advanced
that an act of bribery by successful
candidate does not invalidate his cleo
ton. but only taints the successful can
didate himself.
II conclude that this election was in
valid under any possible view of the law.
II the Senate so concludes 1t Is our duty
to SO declare.
At the beginning of his report Senator
Beveridge considers the facts as
brought out by the testimony in the case
to show that he cannot concur I'm the
conclusions OF fact with the majority
Of the committee. He sets forth the fact
that four members Of the genera assem-
bly, of Illinois admitted they received
bribes
What Majority Report Ignores.
Now comes an undisputed fact of con-
elusive force, although the majority re-
port ignores it, he continues These
confessed bribe-takers We're shown ia
have had I'm their possession, in bills oil
large denomination. unusually large sums
CONTINUED on Second Page.l