Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1951-02-25

~@~e~@AS
rat, who was defeated by Butler
lican. of Illinois had been elected
by the State Legislature in 1909.
A year or more later the Chicago
Tribune published charges that
Lorimer had been elected by
bought votes Of legislatures. The
case was taken up and two in
designations were made by Sen
ate committees. In both instances
the reports of the committees
were favorable to Lorimer. In
deed, the Senate voted on March
l, 1911, he was entitled to his
seat. But the contest was re-
newed and in the following year
Lorimer was turned out.
Corruption Charged
In another case. that of Senator
Stephenson, Republican, of Wis
consin, the right of the Senate
to consider corruption in the pri-
maries came up for consideration
in the Senate while the States
were still electing Senators by
State Legislatures. Stephenson
spent $107,793 to win the incorSe-
ment of a State primary (non-
binding) in 1909. The Senate
Elections Committee in 1910 held
that the election by the Legisla-
ture could not be invalidated be-
cause of possible corruption in
the primary. Stephenson, how
ever, escaped exclusion-in vote
taken in the Senate in March.
1912, by q slender two-vote mar
gin. One of the votes which
saved him was that of Lorimer.
The case of Senator Newberry.
Republican, of Michigan, whose
nomination to the Senate over
Henry Ford in 1918 was chal-
lenged on the ground of excessive
expenditures in the primary cam
paign, was responsible for a re-
writing of the Federal corrupt
practices laws. A Michigan law
at the time limited the expen-
ditures of senatorial candidates
in the primaries and elections to
$500, and Federal law. to
$4,000 unless the State maxi
mum was lower. Newberry and
his supporters, according to the
evidence, spent more than $780,
900 in the primary alone.
The United States Supreme
Court in 1920 ruled that the
Federal Corrupt Practices Act OF
1910 was unconstitutional insofar
as it attempted to regulate spend
ing in primaries. Nevertheless.
the Senate continued to debate
the Newberry case until January
IL. 1922. It then seated New
berry by a vote of 46-to-41. In
the November elections OF 1877,
seven of the Senators who had
supported Newberry were defeated
for reelection. On November ~,
1922, Senator Newberry resigned.
It was apparent that a new test
of his election would be sought.
Smith. Ware Denied Oath
Frank L. Smith Of Illinois and
William S. Ware of Pennsylvania,
both Republicans, elected to the
senate in 1926. were not per-
mitted to take their seats because
of charges of excessive spending
in the primary elections and be-
cause of charges of corruption in
the election of Ware. Mr.. Smith
in December of that year present.
ed himself in the Senate to be
sworn in, having been appointed
by the Governor of Illinois to fill
the vacancy created by the
death of Senator Mckinley
whom Smith had defeated in the
primary for the Republican sena-
torial nomination. A special
committee of the Senate, headed
by the late Senator Reed of Mis-
souri,, had investigated the
charges of excessive spending in
the primaries by Smith and Ware.
More than 100000 was found to
have been expended by Smith, and
four-fifths of his campaign con-
tributions came from Samuel In
sull and others directly connected
with Illinois public utilities. Smith
was chairman of the State Com
merce Commission which had juris-
diction over the public utilities
at the time.
When Smith presented himself
in the Senate, Senator Reed i'm
mediately presented a resolution
denying him the privilege of TAX
ing the oath. The resolution car
ried by a vote of 48 to SO. The
fate of Senators who had voted
to seat Newberry and then been
defeated at the polls may have
had something to do with the de-
cisive vote. The vote in the Sen
/C.~ RYYr1r r1sG ~Acr na~> rgA