The Washington times., 1912-07-10
SOME QUESTIONS THAT NEED ANSWERS

Some time this afternoon or evening, il is ex-
pected, Senator Lormer will make his final appeal
to retain his seat. In that appeal Mr. Lorimer would
do we'll to consider the following facts and explain
them:
State Senator Holstlaw confessed to getting
$4,000 for his vote for Lorimer. On the first in
vestigaton he swore that he RECEIVED A LETTER
from Broderick, member of the legislature, to
come to Brodericks saloon in Chicago not later than
4 o'clock on a certain day. Hostlaw went from his
home in central Illinois and, he says received $2500
from Broderick.
Holstlaw swore that he deposited the money at
once in a Chicago bank, whence it was afterward
transferred to his own bank at his home.
THE BOOKS OF BOTH BANKS BEAR OUT
THIS STATEMENT; so DOES THE TESTIMONY
OF THEIR OFFICERS.
Hostlaw could not find the letter from Brod-
erick, and his story was thereby much weakened
Later, Broderick was tried at Springfield on a
criminal charge. He swore he wrote such letter
to Hostlaw, had no communication Of the kind, and
paid money to him. Holstlaw, he admitted, came
to his saloon on the day named, took drink talked
few moments, and left.
On the second investigation Broderick swore to
this story again. Holstlaw to his original
story, admitting that he could not find the Broderick
letter to him. - s.
After Broderick had thus, in both his own trial
and two Investigations, sworn that he wrote no such
letter and paid no such money, Holstlaw FOUND
THAT LETTER among papers at his home. 1t was
produced before the committee, its genuineness
questioned
The letter asked Hostlaw to come to Broderick's
saloon not later than o'clock ON THE VERY DAY
WHEN HOLSTLAW, AS SHOWN BY THE CHI
CAGO BANKS BOOKS, DEPOSITED THE
MONEY
There has never been anything like explanation
of this damning chain of circumstances. On the
first investigation-the farce conducted by Burrows
the Lorimer crowd fought shy of the story about
the letter. THEY DIDN'T KNOW, THEN, THAT
HOLSTLAW HAD LOST 1T; 1T MIGHT BE PRO.
DUCED; so THEY LEFT THEIR CASE VAGUE
AND UNCERTAIN AS TO THIS POINT; THEY
WERE PREPARING, PLAINLY, TO ADMIT OR
DENY, ACCORDING AS THE LETTER SHOULD
OR SHOULD NOT BE BROUGHT FORWARD.
But on the criminal trial and the second invest
CATION, when Holstlaw had admitted he could moi
find the letter, the Lorimer case was strengthened
on this point; positive assurances were given thai
no such letter was ever written.
Then the letter was produced.
The circumstances could not have been better
arranged by the most skful criminal lawyer tha
ever lived to trap the Lormer people. They fel
The whole array of circumstances proved the
Holstaw confession beyond the shadow of reason
able doubt. 1t does more. 1t bears out the con
fessons of White, who said he got ST. ,OOO of Becke
meyer, who said he got ST 900; of Link, who said ht
got ST 900. 1t buttresses the story of the ST. Louis
meeting the bathroom payments Of the bribe money
the whole filthy story of bribery and corruption.
| Yet in the face of this convincing testimony
approximately half of the Senate is willing to vot
that Lormers claim to his seat is untainted of cor
ruption!
Is it any wonder that without exception when
ever the people have had chance to express thei
opinion, they have retired Senators who have sus
tanned Lorimer?
This is no criminal trial 1t is not demanded tina
Lorimer's personal guilt be proved at all 1t is no
necessary that corruption be proved beyond a rea
sonable doubt.
This is civil proceeding, in which a PREPON
DERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE is all that is needle
TO warrant Lorirner's exclusion. There has bee
nsstence by the Lorimer partisans on the theory O
criminal trial. That is false hypothesis
The truth is that the reasonable doubt has bee
removed. There is no excuse for any man to SUP
port Lorimer.
Every man who does now support him, thereb
test6es to the untness for Senatorial positio
| that taints Lorimer.