The Ocala evening star. [volume] (Ocala, Fla.) 1895-1943, 1912-07-22
THE CASE OF LORIMER

About as clear a presentation OF the
peoples side of the case In the Lori
mer matter as we have seen is the fol-
lowing from the Pensacola Journal:
More less maudlin sentiment is
going the rounds OF the press, much of
IL inspired by the friends of Lorimer
and of the senators who voted to keep
him in the seat which he was recently
compelled to vacate, and the purport of
IL 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 a kind on which you might
attempt, and fail, to convict a chicken
thief. But the Lorimer case is not of
that kind and 1t has no relation in law
or in morals, so far as Lorimer him
self is concerned, to the statutory crime
of larceny.
Senator Cullom, Lorlmer's aged col
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 certain membership OF the legis-
lature which sent Lorimer to the Sen
ate. Whether 1t was intended that the
senatorship should become a part OF
this program avails nothing. The fact
remains that Senator Lorimer was
elected by votes that were tainted, and
the testimony of confessed brihe.
takers remains tS.tseywere beinl
paid their @SgHeE"
It Is immaterial, so far as the merit
of the case are concerned, whethe
Lorimer had knowledge of the corrup
tion in the Illinois Legislature or MOI
The point is: was the seat occupied b
Lorimer secured for him by corrup
means.
Brown may steal Smiths watch an
present ii to Jones as a birthday gift
Jones receives the watch in good faitf
He does not know 1t is stolen prop
erty. But Smith comes along, prove
that the watch was secured from hir
through corrupt means, and Jones
compelled to give it back to Smit
from Brown had stolen it.
In this case, there Is no evidence {
show that Jones knew anything abou
the theft. But no one would maintai
for a minute that he should. becaus
of his personal innocence, be permit
ted to keep Smiths watch.
The seat in the United States Senat
belongs to the people Of Illinois in pal
ticular and the people of the Unite
States in general. 1t is theirs to Civ
or to take away.
that the seat was either stolen c
bought and was presented to Lorime
who thereafter occupied it. On tn
evidence, by a vote of practically tw
to one, the United States Senate, d.
clared that Lorimer was not the righ
ful occupant of the seat and it wa
therefore taken away from him.
That Is all there Is to the Lorimt
case. Whether he was or was not pei
sonally implicated with the larceny
the purchase Of the seat has absC
lutely nothing to do with it.
While the Journal does not belieI
that Lorimer could have been ignorar
of the corrupt methods by which tn
seat was secured for him, his persons
guilt or innocence is not point :
issue and no one should be blinded int
believing that 1t is.