The Mitchell capital. (Mitchell, Dakota [S.D.]) 1879-1918, 1912-07-18
porations to the public.

credulity to credit the charges made
against Archibald, when the House
judiciary committee could include in
it's report on the Archibald case the
statement that Judge Archbald's
sense of moral responsibility has be-
come deadened. He has prostituted
his high office for personal profit.
He has attempted by various tran
to commercialize his poten-
tialities as judge"
If we are to prevent application of
the recall to the courts, as it is to be
hoped, then 1t will not do to refuse to
entertain any suspicion against the
integrity of "a member of the judi
ciary. All those endowed with the
ermine must be out of the reach of
suspicion. They cannot escape the
burden of responsibility for the in
tegrity of the bench and it is not
unreasonable to expect them to re-
establish confidence in them when
ever it is shaken.
@s<-A
LORIMER NO LONGER SENATOR.
Lorimer has been ousted. Thus is
concluded perhaps the most remark
able attack eve made upon the seat
of a member of the United States
Senate. Lorimer's term began in
1909, and not until he had served
more than half the period for which
he was elected is he removed from
the Senate.
1t required two Investigations of
the Lorimer case and a deal of agi-
tation throughout the country, in
volving the defeat of at least six
United States Senators for their sup
port of Lorimer, in order to create
a majority in favor of expelling him
from the Senate. The first %investiga-
ton was concluded on March /, 1911,
when the Senate by the close vote OF
that there was not sufficient evidence
to show that Lorimer obtained his
seat by bribery.
The second investigation was di.
rectly caused by the statement made
by Clarence S. Funk of the Harvesr
ter trust, quoting Edward Hines, {
millionaire lumberman, as saying
that he, Hines, had charge of the
collection of a 100000 "slush fund
to put Lorimer over." The secont
hearing really did not develop an,
evidence connecting Lorimer more
directly with the bribery that Wen
on in the Illinois legislature thar
did the first one. However, the Funl
story, backed up with more or lesi
of detail, served to increase the cir
cumstantial evidence against tn,
Illinois Senator. The Senate follow
ed the public finally in believing tina
where there was so much corruption
Lorimer, who always has Representa-,
the worst in Illinois politics, mus
have been a beneficiary.
The large majority cast agains
Lorimer at the conclusion of tn
second investigation. nearly two t.
one, is a manifestation of the powe
of public opinion, more than it i
evidence of a change of view by tn
Senate. The Lorimer case proved tn,
undoing of so many Senators tina
undoubtedly a considerable numbe
in that body have been moved by fea
of consequences to vote against TIL,
Illinois man. One of the most not
able changes is that by Senator Cul
lom. the venerable colleague of Lori
mer, who was defeated for renomina
ton principally because he espouse,
Lorimer's cause in the first investi
cation.
The action taken by the Senat
is undeniably wholesome. This il
true. ever granting that there is con
siderable doubt about the direct con
nection of Lorimer with the briber,
at Springfield. 1t signifies more thai
anything else that the requirement
of nuhlir oninjon domand thot thor