The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1912-05-20
BY a Majority Report of the
Investigating Committee.
FINDS NO MONEY WAS USED
Either by Him or by Friends to
Influence Election.
Suggests That Liquor Interests
Paid Money to HOItsIaw.

Lorimer should be permitted to retain
his seat in the senate was set forth to-
day by the majority of the special
Lorimer committee in their report to
the senate. 1t was submitted by
Chairman Dillingham; and had the ap-
proval of Senators Gamble and Jones
Republicans. and Fletcher and John
ston of Alabama, Democrats. The
majority took the position that the
senate having once "solemnly and de-
Hberately" passed upon the charges
against Senator Lorimer, he should be
permitted to retain his seat unless new
and convincing evidence had been pro-
duced establishing corruption in his
election.
Absolutely no new and substantial
evidence had been produced at the
reinvestigation, the majority said, and
consequently they decided the rules of
Justice required the former Judgment
OF the senate upholding Mr.. Lorimer
to stand. The report dealt at length
with the evidence in an endeavor to
show nothing substantial had been
produced against Lorimer. 1t also re-
viewed the legal authorities to show
that the first investigation of the sem
ate should be taken as final.
The controlling factor in the action
OF the senate in reopening the case.
so the majority said, was reports that
a 1und OF 100000 was either raised
by or through the efforts of Edward
Hines, the Chicago lumberman to Sc
cure the election of Senator Lorimer.
Rejects Funk's Story.
The majority rejected the version
Clarence S. Funk, general manager of
the International Harvester company
gave of conversation he held with
Mr.. Hines in the Union League club
at Chicago just after Senator Lorimer's
election. 1t was during this conversa-
ton that Funk claims Hines asked for
a $4,000 contribution to a 100000
Lor1mer fund. The majority said that
Mr.. Funk's testimony stood uncorrob-
GRATED either by other witnesses or by
any circumstances.
In view of the fact that II was
known to Mr.. Hines" said the COM
mittee, that the relationship existing
between the officers of the Interna-
tional Harvester company and Mr..
Lorimer were those Of opponents rath-
er than friends, it is improbable that
he would seek from Mr.. Funk, the rep
resentative of that corporation, a con-
tribution to aid in the election of Mr..
Lorimer."
that he had heard reports of Mr..
Illness activities at Springfield, the
majority declared that such reports
must have had birth in Funk's imagi-
nation" Comment was passed on the
fact that for many months H. H.
Kohlsaat. editor of the Chicago Rec
ord-Herald; James Heeley editor of
the Chicago Tribune; Victor F. Law
son, owner of the Chicago News, and
Colonel Roosevelt knew of Mr.. Funk's
version and none saw fit to bring the
information to the attention of any
person connected with any investiga--
ton. In fact the Funk testimony. the
report said; HAS been taken cum
grano sails by nearly everyone who has
heard it. Mr.. Funk himself admitted
that he thought his story would not be
believed"
Hines was F1attered.
The committee reported that it did
find that Mr.. Hines was flattered by
being consulted by Senators Aldrich
and Penrose in regard to the desire
to have some Republican elected to
the senate from Illinois.
His sense of the Importance of the
matter" 1t was said, was greatly en-
hanced when he knew that they had
been in conference with the president
would not be Objectionable to him."
Expert accountants employed by
the committee, it was stated, had fall
ed to find any evidence in the books
connection with a Lorimer election
fund. The committee next considered
testimony of William NJ. Burgess of
Duluth. Mimi, that c. F. Wiehe.
stated in a smoking room of a sleeping
car that he had contributed $4,000 to
a Lorimer election fund.
The report stated:
with a convincing array of evil
dence in denial of all the facts con-
tanned in Mr.. Burgess's testimony and
in view of the improbability that
man of Mr.. Wiehe's intelligence and
business experience should, in public
place and to &n utter stranger,
have confessed to having part in an
infamous proceeding this committee
cannot do otherwise than discard the
testimony of Mr.. Burgess as proof OF
any facts alleged"
The committee considered the at
tempt to impeach the testimony of
Charles MCGOWAN. the young Cana
dian, who testified in Wiehe's behalf.
This impeachment was sought by pri-
vate detectives with a stenographer
and telephone apparatus extending
into a room in which Mr.. MCGOWAN
was supposed to have acknowledged
having perjured himself.
No Faith In Stenographer.
The committee related an attempted
reproduction of the conditions under
which the stenographic report of Nc
Gowan's conversation was made and
added the results were so disastrous to
the claims made by the stenographer
as to satisfy the committee that no
dependence whatever could be placed
upon his testimony. The committee
passed Judgment upon some of the
prominent features of the first investi-
of inquiry at the second investigation.
The sensational account by former
state Representative Charles A White
of receiving Lorimer election money
was pronounced "as a pure fabrica-
tion so far as it relates to the election