The Washington times., 1912-05-21
THE LoRIMER CASE ONCE MORE.

The majority report in the Lorimer case is truly
remarkable document made to sustain an amaz-
ing conclusion.
Both by confessions of men who received money
fec their votes and by riotous wealth OF corrobora
tive circumstances the charge of corruption was main
tated. -Four men testified to receiving money, but
their detailed confessions are brushed aside as un-
worthy Of belief.
White was just generally bad and undesirable
Holstaw could not be disposed of so readily, so the
majority presents pleasant theory that the $2,5oo
paid to him came from the liquor interests; and
on. An alternative theory was necessary in Hoist
laws case II was possible to denounce Clarence S.
Funk as a liar to consider Burgess, Cook, and
OBrien as mere fabricators; but there was so much
reinforcing circumstance in support Of the Holsaw
story that it became necessary to admit that he told
the truth about GETTING So, 500, and then to deny
that he told the truth about WHAT HE GOT 1T
FOR! This is assuredly severe stretch. White
lied, sweepngly and unqualifedly, when he said he
got money. Hostlaw got the money--no doubt Of
that-so he must be convicted of getting it for
thing else than the Lorimer vote!
Funk, telling a straightforward story, is accused
of lying despite that adequate motive is suggest
ed Hines is worthy of belief throughout pitifully
devious, involved story that directly and admittedly
involved him as the agent of the Lumber trust and
the go-between for the national Administration.
There could not possibly have been collusion among
all the various witnesses whose stories pointed
toward Hines it is necessary to shove them all aside
as unworthy of credence.
Back of all this elaboration of circumstance lay
the tremendous fact that Lorimer WAS ELECTED
by combination of Democratic and Republican votes
suddenly pulled together by some mysterious influ-
ence; lay the detailed accounts of jackpot finance and
bathroom distribution Of the swag; lay the record of
Il ~c
the Springfield Legislature. Lorimers long service
in Chicago and Washington as agent Of big busi-
ness" was barred Every circumstance in his political
history justified general credence of such story as
was told in the various confessions and the buttress
ing testimony.
Yet in order to avoid the simple, easy, obvious
conclusion of facts the committee prefers to give
conding to the grotesque yarn of an anti-Lori-
mer conspiracy of newspapers and business enemies!
1t is imposing by far too severe strain on the good
nature of the public that Is expected to accept such
an analysis.
The invention of an utterly impossible, illogical,
unworthy conspiracy an offset to plain, logical
working conspiracy, whose obvious result WAS
ACHIEVED, is too strong.
The election of Lorimer in the way it was pro-
duced could not have been possible without con-
spiracy of some sort. Four testified that they
were paid for their votes. The votes of ten men who
supported Lorimer directly tainted with bribery
Yet that perfectly manifest undeniable conspir.
acy is set aside while Funk Tribune anti Lorimer
plot is hatched out of imagination, and the public is
asked to believe in it!
The performance would be worthy an ambulance
chasing, juryfxing petfogging lawyer; it is sadly
unworthy committee of Senators. That it can be
accepted by majority of the Senate would be be-
yond contemplation but for the fact that the Senate
has made plain that it is not considering this or
merits, but on prejudice and bias.
STILL the public is getting very real benefits
Every vote for Lorimer is an invitation to a con
sttuency to get better Senator, and thus far 10
of these invitations have been accepted