Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1912-05-20

practices were employed in the election
OF William Lorimer to the Senate Of the
United States from the state Of Illinois
and that his election was therefore in
valid
The minority pointed out that the
analogy that has been drawn between
the trial of an election case by the
most misleading. and that the Senate
ID not bound by any presidents. At
lacking the majoritys contention as
to the doctrine of res adjudicata, the
minority declared that there is no Sem
ate precedent holding that q contested
election case may not be reopened.
though there are Indiana and other
authorities the other way.
Summarizing these authorities, the
minority contended that they were
unable to find a single case that has
held that the Senate could not reopen
q contested election case on the ground
OF newly discovered evidence.
1t is inconceivable. declared the minor
vestigating Committee would have sane
toned the expense involved In this re-
investigation II they believed that neither
the committee nor the Senate could
consider the result Of their labor. and the
product OF the investigation at such an
enormous cost. no matter what new
and important evidence might have been
developed thereby"
Allege Confessions Of Four Men.
I'm this case" they said, "there are
confessions by four men that their votes
were secured by bribery. and their con-
fessions are corroborated by strong cir
cumstantial evidence.
If bribery cannot be proved in the SEN
ate by confessions OF the brfbe-takers.
corroborated by streng circumstantiai
evidence. then the conclusion is irresisti-
Bile that only express contracts Of bribery
duly authenticated by witnesses, can es-
tablish that crime to the satisfaction Of
the Senate OF the United States"
Witnesses Not Under Coercion.
The minority announced that an i'm
portant fact developed by this investiga-
ton was that no third degree or i'm
proper methods were used In examining
the members OF the legislature as wit
nesses before the grand jury in Cook
county; that the district attorney testi-
fed that no improper methods were used,
and no witnesses were terrorixed and
forced through fear to give testimony
that was false. and that there is no evil
dence that successfully rebuts this testi-
mony.
I'm view Of these facts, sufficient votes
l
Is not necessary tor US to show either
Senator Lorimer's connection with or
guilty knowledge Of the corruption. nor Is
it necessary for US trace the source of
the corruption fund. ,
Senator Lorimers hand was the guild
ing force in shaping the action Of the
legislature of Illinois In 1900 from soon
after its organization until the day of his
election. He was in such close consulta-
ton with Speaker Shurtleff and Minority
Leader Lee O'Neil Browne as to justify
the belief that these men were his agents,
and to warrant holding him bound by
their actions.
while there is conflicting testi-
mony In regard to any money being
furnished by Edward Hines to elect
Lorimer," the minority added. I'VE be-
lieve that the evidence shows con-
clusively that the interest Of Edward
mer was more than the ordinary in
terest Of a citizen desiring the election
of particular candidate.
Senator Lorimer Quoted.
1.-THE relations between Senator Lorimer
and Lee O'Neil Browne are established by |
Senator Lorimer's own testimony as well |
as Brownies. Senator Lorimer testified
that he loaned $1,000 or $1o.0 altogether. |
1T different times and in different |
amounts, to Browne. According to SEN
ator LoFimer. Browne came to see him at |
the bank about the Charles A. White |
said he did not have money /
enough to employ counsel, and Lorimer |
made the loans. saying This fight was
really a fight on me and not on him." |
Loeimer testified that he made no entry |