The daily telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1901-1926, 1912-05-20
In a Report by the Majority
Of the Probing
Committee.
EVIDENCE NOT GOOD
And There is Nothing Sub
stantial to Show Corrup-
ton in Election.

set forth today by the majority OF the
Senate special Lorimer committee in
their report to the Senate. 1t was
submitted BY Chairman Dillingham;
and had the approval Of Senator's
Gamble and Jones, Republicans, and
Fletcher and Johnston, Of Alabama,
Democrats.
The majority took the position that
the Senate having once .'soiemniy and
deliberately passed upon the charges
against Senator Lorimer, he should
be permitted to retain his seat unless
new and convincing evidence had been
produced establishing corruption in
his election. Absolutely no new and
Substantial evidence had been pro-
duced at the re-inyesHgatlon, the ma
iority said, and consequently they
declared the rules of justice required
the former Judgment of the Senate,
unfolding Mr. Lorimer to stand.
The report dealt at length with the
evidence in an endeavor to show
nothing substantial had been pro-
duced against Senator Lorimer. 1t
also reviewed the legal authorities
to show that the first investigation Of
the Senate should be taken, as fnal,
The controlling factor in the action
OF The Senate In re-opening the case,
50 the majority said, was reports that
fund of 100000 was either raised
by or through the efforts of Edward
Hines, the Chicago lumber man, 10
secure the election OF Senator Lori
fnef.
The majority rejected the version
of Clarence S. Funk, general man
ager Of the International Harvester
Company, gave Of a conversation he
held with Mr.. Hines in the Union
League Club at Chicago just after
Senator Lorimers election, 1t was
during this conversation that Funk
claims Hines asked for $4,000 con-
trtbution to 100000 Lorimer fund.
The majority said that Mr.. Funks
testimony stood uncorroborated either
by other witnesses or by any cir
cumstances.
"In view of the fact that IT was
known to Mr.. Hines" said the COM
mittee, chat the relations existing
between the officers of the Interna-
tionsl Harvest er Company and Mr..
Lorimer were those of opponents
rather than friends, IT is improbable
that he would seek from Mr.. Funk,
the Representative of that corpora
ton, a contribution to aid in the
election Of Mr.. Lorimer; and 1t is
inconcefyabfe that Mr.. Hines if guilty
of an infamous crime would have un-
reservedly revealed It under the cir
cumstances described by Mr.. Funk,
and in any qGse to a person with
whom he had 50 slight an acquain-
lance and at a time when the cleo
ton was SO fresh in the minds of
the public, And particularly when IT
appears that at no previous time not
even at that time did Hines know
whom Mr.. Funk preferred for a
United States senator"
In discussing Mr.. Funk's testimony
Rat he had heard reports of Mr..
Hines activities at Springfield, the
majority declared that "such re
ports must have had birth in Mr..
Funk's Imagination"
Comment was passed on the fact
that for many months H. H. Kohl
saat, editor of the Chicago Record
Herald, James Kelley, editor of the
Chicago Tribune, Victor F Lawson,
owner Of the Chicago News, and Col.
Theodore Roosevelt knew of Mr..
Funk's version Ind none saw fit to
bring the information to the attention
OF any person connected with any in
vestigation.
In fact the Funk testimony" 1t
was said later in the report, has been
cum granO sails by nearly every one
who has heard it, Mr. Funk himself
admitted that he thought his story
! would not be believed"
y The committe reported that 1t did
not find that Mr.. Hines was fiattered
by beng consulted by Senator's Aid
rich and Penrose in regard to the de-
sire to have some Republican elected
to the Senate from Illinois.
His sense Of the Importance Of
the matter It was said, -was greatly
enhanced when he knew that they
had been in conference with the
president and that Mr. borimeF's