The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1912-07-21
THE EXPULSION OF
SENATOR LORIMER
New York Sun. =
; = = >%%~ :

The people gave the sign of the
lhufnps ana William Lorimer was dis |
patched in tAe arena of the United |
states senate. Many of his judges had !
not read the testimony of either the |
hrst or second investigation, nor would |
they listen to the analysis of it by !
members OF the committee, Democrats
as Wen as Republicans, who had come
10 the conclusion that the case against
Lorimer had not been proved, that, i'll
Iact much of the testimony against
MN was worthless and some of it per-
Jured. Mr.. Johnston of Alabama, a
democrat, and a man of unimpeach-
able character, said in dealing with the
case in the open senate:
1 do not suppose that as many as
| twenty senators have read all the evil
dence In this case. Seven senators
were assigned as a sub committee TO
hear 1t on the first trial, and a special
committee of eight senators to hear
1t on this trial. OF these fifteen SEN
ators, composed of eight Republicans
and seven Democrats, eleven have
agreed in their findings in favor or
Senator Lorfmer and four only 10 tae
contrary. In the first trial the mem
| bers of the committee, with the eX-
ception of Senator Frazier of Tennes-
see, were unanimous, and on this trial
| they stand five to three for acquittal
and of the five one senator-one of the
ablest and truest in this body (the
| senior senator from Washington, Mr..
| ones)-voted against Lorimer on the
| first trial and has entirely changed his
| mind after a patient and impartial
hearing of the evidence in a long and
protracted sitting"
No senator gave more time and labor
| to the study of the evidence than Mr.
| Dillingham; of Vermont, Republican
of the highest standing and under no
| suspicion of political or personal in
| terest. He was indefatigable in try
! ing to elicit the truth, and probably
no other senator had such a grasp OF
| the testimony. In an elaborate and
| painstaking speech he gave Judgment
| for and not against the senator at
| the bar. One of the cIearest and most
| convincing dissections of the. evidence
| was that of Senator Fletcher of Flor
| ida, a Democrat, who had the courage
| to place himself by the side of Mr..
| Johnston and Mr.. Dillingham;. The
! sincerity and integrity of these sena-
! tors cannot be questioned. 1t is true
| that the testimony was reviewed by
| other senators who came to con-
| trary opinion; but most of them had
not been present at the hearings or
made an exhaustive study of it. Sen
| ators who spoke against Lorimer did
| not, as a rule, show themselves TO be
| familiar with the evidence, but most of
| them did distinguish themselves by
| bending 1t to a preconceived theory OF
| guilt. The charitable view is that they
did not approve of Lorimer's antece-
F.! dents and connections, and convicted
| him on a theory of suppressio veri; but
| IL is more likely that they saw the
people giving the sign of the thumbs
| and governed themselves accordingly.
How much the people really know
about the case except as they took
| ha of high
/ and low degree, or read reports in
newspapers dedicated to the destruc-
| ton of Lorimer, let Senator Johnston
| testify:
Mr.. President, dsy before yesterday
I sent up to the document room to in
quire how many copies of the hearing
had been taken out, and was inform
ed that but forty-one had been re-
| moved from the document room-not
| enough to supply half the members OF
the senate; and SO far as ! am ad-
| vised not a single copy had been sent
| to any citizen in private life.
William Lorimer is not of heroic
mould. and as an advocate for himself
he made a sorry and repellant ngure'
He is certainly not the type of man
who ornaments the senate or serves
the people of the country acceptably.
But he did not have fair trial before
that body. On the newly discovered
| evidence. so called, mainly the story
of Clarence S. Funk that Edward Hines
solicited from him a contribution to a
pool of 500, 900 to pay for W1lllam
Iorimer's election by bribery, the de-
PENDANT would have been acquitted IN
a court of record. The second case
presented against William Lorimer
was no stronger than the first, which
resulted in his acquittal by the tull
senate That he was presumed to De
guilty before his second trial by
Senate containing many new members
fresh from the people, who had made
up their minds about the case can
hardly be doubted.
5 or doses 666 will break any case
; of Chills and Fever; and if taken then
&C a tonic the Fever will not return