The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1912-07-21
SUNDAY, JULY 81, 1912.
Lorimer and the Illinois
Seat in the Senate.

More or less maudlin sentiment is
going the rounds Of the press, much of
it inspired by the friends of Lorimer
and of the senators who voted to keep
him in the seat which he was recently
compelled to vacatesan the purport of
it all is that the unfortunate man
himself had no personal knowledge of,
or connection with, the corrupt means
by which his seat in the senate was
secured.
This might all be very material if
the case ITSELF and the evidence there
in, was, as Senator Fletcher once i'm
piled, of kind on which you might
attempt, and fail, to convict chicken
thief. But the Lorimer case is not of
that kind and it has no relation in law
or in morals, so far as Lorimer him
self is concerned, to the statutory crime
of larceny.
Senator Cullom, Lorimer's aged coll
league from Illinois, stated the case
exactly when, in explaining his vote
against Lorimer. he said:
There was no evidence in this inves-
tigation to show that Mr.. Lorimer,
either personally or through others
was guilty Of corrupt practices in his
election to the senate Yet there is
evidence, to my mind, of a conclusive
character which shows that corruption
did exist in the forty sixth general as
sembly of the state of Illinois, and that
the senatorship was connected with
and became a part Of a program of a
certain membership of the legislature
which sent Lorimer to the senate.
Whether it was intended that the SEN
atorship should become a part of this
program avails nothing. The fact re-
mains that Senator Lorimer was elect
ed by votes that were tainted, and the
testimony of confessed bribe- takers re-
mains that they were being paid their
money.
It is immaterial, so far as the merits
Of the case are concerned, whether
l-orimer had knowledge of the corrup-
ton in the Illinois legislature or not.
The point is: was the seat occupied
by Loriner secured for him by corrupt
means?
Brown may steal Smiths watch and
present it to Jones as u birthday gift.
Jones receives the watch in good faith.
He does not know it is stolen prop
erty But Smith comes along, proves
that the watch was secured from him
through corrupt means, and Jones IS
compelled to give it back to Smith
from whom Brown had stolen it.
In this case, there is no evidence "a
show that Jones knew anything about
the theft. But no one would maintain
for minute that he should, because 81
his personal innocence, be permitted t.
keep Smiths watch.
The seat in the United States senate
belongs to the people of Illinois in par.
ticular and the people of the United
States in general. It is theirs to Civ,
or to take away.
IN this case, the evidence showed
that the seat was either stolen o
bought and was presented to Lorime
who thereafter occupied it. on thi
evidence, by a vote of practically tw,
60 one. the United States senate de
clared that Lorimer was not the right
full occupant of the seat and it wa
therefore taken away from him.
That is all there is to the Lorime
case. Whether he was or was not per
sonally implicated with the larceny o
the purchase of the seat has abso
lutely nothing to do with it.
While The Journal does not believ
that Lorimer could have been ignoran
of the corrupt methods by which thi
seat was secured for him, his persona