New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1912-07-07
Dillingham; Defends Lorimer.

Mr.. Dillingham; devoted himself to-day
TO an effort TO demonstrate that Mr.. Lori
mer had not been a candidate for the SEN
ate until after the Senate deadlock in the
Illinois Legislature had continued more
than four months and until IL looked as If
there might be an adjournment without
action. He gave an elaborate account of
political conditions in Illinois. and after
undertaking TO show that the Democrats
would not support the reelection OF SEN
ator Hopkins said that they would be
willing TO turn to Mr. Lorimer because
Of their personal regard for him. lie said
Mr.. Lorimer had thought he could be Of
greater use In the House than in the Sem
ate.
Mr.. Dillingham;. dealing with the re-
election of Mr.. Shurtlefr as Speaker of the
Illinois House by a coalition with Demo-
crats in 1909. said that the Senatorshp
had not been involved in this contest. He
ascribed the reconciliation OF differences
between Lorimer and Governor Deneen 10
the fact that the Governors political sit
va ton was desperate by reason OF the
candidacy of -Vice-President stevenson
Senator Dillingham; showed that instead
~ -
tho Legislature met Lorimer was press
ing Deneen TO enter the race
During this recital Senator Lorimer en-
tered the chamber. and when a question
arose as to the attitude of Speaker Shurt-
leff on the Senate question he interrupted
TO say that the Speaker had voted for
Representative Foss for Senator.
Senator McCumbers speech was caustic
He declared he would not be a party to
this political murder" lie took the POI
sition that the Senate was unit 10 try such
case because OF the popular prejudice
against Mr.. Lorimer. and because OF the
influence that popular sentiment would
have on votes. He declared there should
be an amendment to the Constitution re-
llevlng the Senate Of the necessity OF pass
ing upon cases involving charges against its
members
Mr. McCumber charged that the popular
sentiment against the Illinois Senator was
due 10 ignorance on the subject Some
Senators had, he said, been defeated for
reelection because OF their votes for Mr..
Lorimer. but az for himself, his vote would
not be influenced by popular clamor, re-
own Senate fortunes. The case had been
once tried. he said. and he believed the
doctrine OF res adjudicata entirely appli-
cable
A New Trial, Says Myers.
Mr.. Myers, OF Montana. would not accept
the doctrine OF res adjudicata. He re-
carded this as simply a new trial and
contended that n the Senate should not be
permitted TO grant such a trial. II would
be the only tribunal controlled by the Eng
lsh system Of Jurisprudence to which that
right would be denied.
There Is no such thing known 10 the
law as turning back; there must be YER
dict In this trial." declared Mr.. Myers.
Having entered upon the new trial, 1t
could not be stopped midway. according to
all precedent; Il must be prosecuted TO the
end He contended that the new trial had
been justified by new evidence.
The fact that hfty-three Democrats had
coted in the Illinois Legislature for Mr..
Iorimer, Republican. was sufficient
reason for sussicion, as Mr.. Myers saw
the matter.
1T is proof that there is something the
matter either with the head or the heart,
he said.
Expressing confidence In the irresularity
of the I.orimer election. hs declared that
the very atmosphere OF the Illinois Legts-
lature was charged with corruption on the
day Of the Lormer election
the case Is reekng with infamy. IS
6ripp,ng with corruption and rs redolent
OF crime" he declared.