Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1913-12-10
Money Lenders Heard.

securities. and certain classes of note dis
counters.
Money Lenders Heard.
1T being suggested before yolr COM
mittee that funds had been raised and
efforts made to improperly influence the
defeat OF this legislation certain of the
money lenders and pawnbrokers alleged
TO have been most prominent in the mat
ter were summoned to appear and their
testimony was taken.
i. &C principal character in this activity
was one George ID. Horning. who was
both a loan shark and a pawnbroker Two
other pawnbrokers examined were Isaac
heldenhelmer and Abraham BurnStine
After a number of hours of difficult ex-
animation, however. the committee finally
ELECTED the following information:
Very shortly after the introduction of
the Dyer bill, il being believed that il
would receive serious attention in so far
as il applied to those commonly classed
as loan sharks, George u. Horning pro-
ceeded to endeavor to raise a fund for
the purpose of defeating this legislation.
IL possible. and he did succeed in raising
at least 5000. Those contributing in
so far as Horning could remember the
names, or was willing TO give them,
We're: ]. s. Masters. 800 To $50: A.
l\ase. 500 to $500: William Bishop 81 900;
a Mr.. Watt who is citizen of Phila-
delphia and engaged ill business there,
but had interests in the loan business in
W ashlngton. S2-UOo. a Mr.. Wall of Chi
caso. who Was in the same situation as
Mr. Watt 5000. and Mr.. Hornine him
self gave from sl,.0o To s1,5oo
Attorney Is Retained.
Out of this fund there was paid 10
Henry L. Davis. an attorney of this
city, the sum Of $1,000. according 10
his testimony and that of Horning 1t
appears 10 have been paid as a retainer
10 him to conduct the fight against this
legislation. but. according to his own
testimony. H. rendered practically no
service in this connection. 1t is claim
ed by Horning that he has paid about
5000 out Of this fund for attorneys
fees since the passage Of the bill to
lawyers who are representing him in
litigation over the matter. and he
claims that he has from s.. 900 to $500
Of the sum collected in q private
box in his safe; that il has never been
deposited in any bank, although his
testimony dlscloses that he carried ac-
counts in several banks, and that he
has kept IL IN his private safe separate
and apart from all other funds ever
since ITS collection. and that he is now
holding il III this way. He states that
lie proposes TO night the legislation ana
use this money for that purpose.
The evidence as to the amount raised
~ these three men 10 be used III connec-
her in which il was expended. is by no
tueans clear or satisfactory. There seemed
manifest desire TO evade the inquiry in
his regard, and il was with the greatest
difficulty that your committee extracted
Sufficient testimony 10 obtain an intelii-
cent impression. The evidence obtained
shows, "a best the committee can deter
mine, that the fund raised by the three
men mentioned amounted TO -, 1896 OF
This Horning and Heidenheimer paid 10
cent. Horning seems to have had gen
erai charge OF the expenditure Of this
fund No books We're kept and paw
ments among themselves We're made
sometimes III cash and sometimes by
check
Funds for Costello.
The latter also swears that out III TINS
fund he contributed the sum Of $500 10
the democratic national campaign COM
nittee. paying the same t. John Coste ~.
the national committeeman for The Dis
trict Of Columbia. There was filed with
YOUR committee and copied into The rec
ord a receipt signed BY the national chair
man of the democratic committee ex-
ecuted to George u. Horning for the sum
Of $50 as a contribution 10 the cam
paign fund. So far as the receipt shows
This was = personal contribution of Horn
ing, but ne states that $3.50 OF this amount
was from the fund above referred TO.
Burnstine lad no knowledge Of this con
tribution being made at the time and
the testimony Of both TIorninS and Held
enheimer i hay and indefinite as to
when the latter actually learned OF il.
Upon the whole. however. Your commit
tee Is of the opinion that he knew of ii
at the time and sanctioned il, issuing his
heck October II, 1912, for his pro rata
Of 500 with fun knowledge of the pur-
pose for which II was to be used. There
is evidence that those receiving the
contribution had any animation of it's
being other than a personal contribution
of Horning The natural presumption is
that this contribution was made in the
nope that il might in some way influence
the legislation which was then pending.
fair construction OF the evasive testi-
mony of Heidenhe elmer and of the dec
iarationS of Horning made the impression
upon the committee that such was their
nope. but there is evidence Of any
promise beirg made them from any
source whatsoever, and fact Of his
tory the bill very shortly thereafter pass
ed and was written into law"