OCR Text |
Show 1 WASHINGTON, June 26. Shadow- H erl for weeks by detectives instructed H to get anything possible against him, H was the alleged experience of which H Clarence S. Funk of Chicogo, star wlt- H ncss in the Lorimor investigation, H complained today to the senate com- H mittee inquiring into the Lorimor elec- l H The statement produced a sensation H because the namo of Edward Hines, H whom Mr. Funk had testified had H asked him to contribute $10,000 to- H ward ?100,000used to "put Lorhner H over at Springfield," was mentioned In Hj connection with the services of the H detectives Funk said four detectives H had followed him to Wasnington nnd H two had watched him during luncheon H today. One of them, he said, when H caught In a tight place, had been com- H polled to give his name and that of H his employers, Mr. Funk declined to H break his word to the detective and H reveal his name. He said the em- H ploycr -was not Senator Lorimer. The H committee ended tho hearing by going H into executive session to consider the H situation. H Revealed Detective's Name. H At the e.-cecutivo session Mr. Funk is H 6ald to have revealed the detective's H name and promised to produce him H before tho committee tomorrow If pos H slble. The committee then took up consideration of stops 'to prevent detectives de-tectives Intorferrihg ytix -witnespes. Mr, Funk's statenentaboutlho de tectives carae at the "close, 'of .aonE examination . on the witness stand. Ho re-told the story ho related to the Helm Investigating committee in Illinois Illi-nois about how Mr. Hines is alleged to have asked him, as general manager or the Intel national Harvester company, to contribute $10,000 to the Lorlracr fund. For hours the attorneys and members mem-bers of the committee had asked question ques-tion after question about this conversation, conver-sation, tho report of which probably led. to the present Investigation of tho Lorimer election. The witness had described his personal relations to Senator Lorimor, Mr. Hines and many others figuring in the case. .Promised More Unploa6antrteos. Rather Incidentally, Mr. Funk remarked re-marked in answer to a question that his part In tho case had been anything any-thing but pleasant and that ho had been promised more "unpleasantness." "Promised more?" repeated Senator Jones. "Yes, over the telephone and by anonymous communications, indirect threats havo been made." Then, in response to Inquiries of Senator Kenyon, Mr Funk Bald ho had been followed bv detectives ever since ho testified at Springfield before the Helm committee Mr. Funk told about tho detectives following him to Washington and about getting the name of ono of them He said the detective he had cornered claimed to be employed by the Thielo Detective Agency in Chicago Chi-cago and had been instructed to get anything ho could on Mr. Funk. Ho protested against being made to reveal the detective's name,- because "he seemed like a nice fellow, said he was not proud of what he was doing and had a family to support" To tell his name, Mr. Funk said, would'mean his dismissal. William J. Hynes, of counsel for Senator Lorimer and Edward Hines, urged the witness to reveal the name "Put Mr. Edward Hines on the stand and ask him to whom the detectives ' report each night," responded Mr. ' Funk. Attornoy Elbrldge Hanecy, of counsel coun-sel for Senator Lorimer asked If the dotectlve said the senator employed them. "No, Senator Lorimer did not cm-ploy cm-ploy them," declared the witness. Tho committeer'then went Into executive ex-ecutive session. N ' . |