Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1912-05-20
DECISION OF THE MAJORITY
IN THE SENATOR'S FAVOR
Declares There Is No Proof That
He Secured Votes by Bribery.
MINORITY OF OPPOSITE VIEW
Contends That at Least Ten Leeis-
1ators Were Corruptly In
huenced to Cast Ballots
for Lorimer.


whose election was alleged to have been
brought about through corruption, now
rests squarely before the open Senate for
final action. Both the majority for Lori
mer and the minority against him, of the
membership of the special investigating
committee that conducted the second in
vestigation into the charges, today filed
their reports with the Senate.
The majority reported that all the rules
Of law, judicial procedure and justice re-
quired that the Senate's former judgment
in Senator Lorimer's favor should be held
to be final and conclusive; that there
was absolutely no new and substantial
evidence discovered on this reinvestiga>
tion, no evidence that he had any knowl-
edge Of corrupt practices in his election
and that no vote was secured for him by
bribery, his election being 1.-The logical re-
suit of existing political conditions In
Illinois"
The minority reported that the evil
dence presented at the second tnvesti-
cation Is broader and more far-reach-
ing" than the previous inquiry brought
out and that 1t conclusively establish
for Lorimer at the joint session of the
Illinois legislature May 26, 1909, were
corrupt, and that his election, there
fore. was invalid.
Lineup Of the Committee.
The minority report was signed by Sem
ators Kern Of Indiana, Lea Of Tennessee
and Kenyon of Iowa The majority re-
port was presented by Chairman Dilling-
ham, and had the approval of Senators
Gamble and Jones. republicans, and
Fletcher and Johnston Of Alabama, demo-
Gratis.
MI
Senate having once "solemnly and de-
Hberately'' passed upon the charges
against Senator Lorimer. he should be
permitted to ratAtn shie xaeat unless new
and convincing evidence had been pro-
duced establishing corruption in his .eIec-
ton. Absolutely no new and substan-
tiaI evidence" had been produced at the
reinvestigation, the majority declared.
and consequently they declared the rules
Of justice required the former judgment
of the Senate. upholding Mr.. Lorimer, to
stand.
Conclusions Based on Evidence.
The report dealt at length with the
evidence in an endeavor to show that
nothing substantial had been produced
against Senator Lorimer. 1t also re-
viewed the legal authorities to show that
the first investigation of the Senate
should be taken as final.
The controlling factor in the action of
the Senate in reopening the case. the
majority holds, was a report that fund
of 100000 was raised by or through the
efforts Of Edward Hines. the Chicago
lumber man, to secure the election or
Senator LOrimer.
The majority rejected the version
Clarence S. Funk, general manager OF
the International Harvester Company,
gave of a conversation he held with
v~y NlSrh
at Chicago just after Senator Lorimer's
election. 1t was during this CONVEX
sation that Funk claims Hines asked
for a $4,000 contribution to a 100000
Mr. Funk's testimony stood uncor-
roborated either by other witnesses or
by any circumstances.
In discussing Mr.. Funk's testimony
that he had heard reports . OF Mr.; MI:
majority declared that such reports
must have had birth in Mr.. Funk 8
imagination
Comment was passed on the fact
that for many months H. H: Kohl
saat. editor Of the Chicago Record
Herald: James Keeley. editor Of the
Chicago Tribune; Victor F. Lawson.
owner of the Chicago News, and Col.
Theodore Roosevelt knew of Mr..
Funk's version and none saw At to
bring the Information to the attention
OF any person connected with any in
vestigation.
Says Testimony Was Discredited.
I'm fact, the Funk testimony" 1t
was said later in the report, has been
taken cum grano sails by nearly every
one who has heard it. Mr.. Funk him
self admitted that he thought his story
would not be believed"
The committee reported that it did
not find that Mr.. Hines was f1attered
by being consulted by Senators Aldrich
and Penrose in regard to the desire to
have some republican elected to the
Senate from Illinois.
His sense of Importance Of the mat
ter 1t was said, was greatly en-
hanced when he knew that they had
been in conference with the President
be Objectionable to him."
Expert accountants employed by the
committee, 1t was stated, had failed to
find any evidence in the books OF Ed
nection with Lorimer election fund.
Threats of Burgess Evidence.
The committee next considered testi-
mony Of William NJ. Burgess of Duluth,
Minn., that O. F. Wiehe, brother-in-law
OF Mr.. Hines, had stated in a smoking
room of a sleeping car out Of Duluth last
March that he had contributed $4,000
to a Lorimer election fund. Contradictory
testimony of others on the train was COM
mented upon with this concluding state
ment:
With a convincing array of evidence in
denial OF all the facts contained in Mr..
Burgess testimony. and in view of the
impro obability that a man Of Mr.. Wiehe's
intelligence and business experience. in a
public place and to an utter stranger.
A. 49, -
an infamous proceeding, this committee
cannot do otherwise than discard the
testimony Of Mr.. Burgess as proof Of any
facts alleged"
In this connection the committee con-
sidered the attempt to impeach the testi-
mony of Charles MCGOWAN, the young
Canadian who testified in Wiehe's behalf
This impeachment was sought by private
detectives with a stenographer and tele-
phonic apparatus extending into q room
in which Mr.. MCGOWAN was supposed to