The Washington herald., 1911-01-10
ID in other evidence that has been ad-

The testimony, says Senator Bever-
idge. ''is overwhelming and conclusive.
not only that four members Of the general
assembly that participated in this cleo
tion were bribed, but that three of their
fellow-members Of the general assembly
paid them their money. The evidence
convinces me that at least seven tainted
votes were cast at this election
To these seven, Senator Beveridge also
would add three more corrupt votes.
| those of Clarke. Sheppard, and Luke.
Senator LOrimer received. all told. les
votes of the 2O2 in the Illinois legisla-
| ture. The seven corrupt votes of which
Senator Beveridge is positive would leave
him one less than a majority, and II
ten corrupt votes are conceded, he would
have four less than a majority. In either
event his title to his seat, as Senator
Beveridge views the situation, would be
invalid.
in the bribery case, Senator Beveridge
says:
''All these tainted votes were stanch
partisans of the opposite party to Mr..
Lorimer. For more than three months
ali of them had steadily voted either
for the candidate of their party, or at
least against any Republican. None of
them voted for any Republican until the
notable 18th of May. when all of them
| cast their votes suddenly for Mr.. Lori
mer. upon the occasion of his election.
II they actually were not bought to cast
their votes for Mr.. Lorimer, 1t follows
that they would have continued to vote
as they hitherto had done. either for the
primary nominee Of their own party, or
at least for some other member of their
own party. Was it not for the very pur-
pose of preventing them from so voting
| and inducing them to vote for Mr.. Lori
| mer that they were bought? II not, for
what purpose were they bought?
Challenges senate Precedents.
while, as / have shown, it is not
necessary to a decision of this case. yet
I challenge the Senate precedents cited
by the majority that even though it be
| proven that any number OF votes were
! bribed. yet If there were a majority of
untainted votes the election cannot be
questioned.
If only one case Of bribery be clearly
established in the election of a Senator.
hold that this invalidates the entire
election. In my opinion. one act Of brib-
cry makes the whole election foul. In
| the language of my illustnous predeces-
sor in this body. Senator Morton. ''brib-
cry is to an election what fraud is to a
contract
1T is said in defense Of these prece-
dents that ii would be hard on a per-
sonally SuiltleSs and successful candi-
date who had an honest majority il his
election should be invalidated by votes
corrupted in his behalf which We're not
enough in number TO destroy his honest
ma ajority.
THE clear answer is that il is harder
on the people whose representative this
candidate is to have any corrupt infiu-
ences employed in his behalf.
We cannot consider the personal for
tunes. or even feelings, of a candidate in
determining the law of election cases.
The candidate is not on trial. The cleo
ton is on trial Was the election pure
and free. or influenced and venal? The
candidate is nothing: the people are
| everything. Or. rather. the candidate is
nothing. except as the representative OF
the people.
Our business is to guard the purity
Of elections. Our concern is to permit no
chances to be taken. Yet chances always
are taken under these ill-considered
precedents-dangerous chances. For if a
number of corrupt votes are plainly
proven to be such, it is reasonable to
suppose that others were cast equally
he such. The law recognizes no more
cry or conspiracy to bribe.
And would this untainted majority be
cast if the uncorrupted voters positively
knew of the bribery being practiced for
the candidate for whom they voted? II
honest members of a legislature inno-
Gently vote for candidate for Senator
for whom corrupt members of the legis-
lature were bribed to vote, would these
honest members have SO voted had they
known of this bribery? This simple il
lustration will prove convincingly the
ursoundness of the precedents which
am aSSailing.
Holds One Act Sufficient.
so i propose that we overthrow such
unsound precedents and establish what
to us is new but what to the world
is an old. precedent, that one act Of
bribery makes an election foul.
''The public welfare, the theory of free
and fair elections, which it is our sole
business to safeguard, and which is the
reason and origin Of the power We are
now exercising, requires the establish
ment of this new Senate precedent.
I'VE should in this case establish the
law of the Senate in conformity with
the ancient common law. This pro-
ncuncement would prevent an ambitious
and wealthy candidate from perpetrating
bribery to make his election sure, and
doing it in such a way as to cover up
his tracks,
Senator Beveridge was followed by
Senator Owen. who seized upon the
Lorimer incident to advocate the electinS
of United States Senators by popular
vote.
I'm my judgment" said he. ''the better
ethical rule, upon which the Senate
should properly stand. is that no election
of a Senator clearly shown to have been
basd in any degree upon bribery or cor
rupt practices should be allowed to-
stand"
Senator Owen reviewed the testimony.
and said:
Il believe that If Mr.. Lorimer should
retain his seat under these painful cir
cumstances it would lower the United
States Senate in the esteem Of the Amer
lean people. I believe the time has come
when the American people will approve
stern measures in dealing with bribery
and corrupt conduct in public affairs,
and l think it better for all the people
that there should be an end made to the
election of Senators by the sinister COM
mercial forces of the republic.
Mr. President, I submit to the Senate
that the time has come for the election
of Senators by the direct vote of the peo-
pie, under the safeguard of an honest
and thoroughgoing corrupt practices act
and publicity pamphlet such as Oregon
has adopted, which gives an equal
chance to the rich man and the poor
man.. and strictly limits the use Of
money in the election of Senators.
I'm view of the fact that many seats