OCR Text |
Show LORIMER TO ljZCp PC AT I IiLLl uLi I ill Majority of Committee P I in Report to Senate i I Favor Him 8 I Washington, May 20. The case of JH Senator Lorlmer, of Illinois, whose Ul election was alleged to hav0 been H brought about through corruption. IH was placed before the senate today IH for :flnal action. H Majority and minority reports wero j made by the special investigating IH committee, .he former upholding and H the latter condemning tho senator. The majority report held that IH there was no Important evidence IH brought about in the re-investigation, jH hjs election being "the logical result IH of conditions in Illinois." jH The minority held that it was con- cluslvely established that at least 10 IH of the votes cast for Lorlmer were H corrupt and that his election therefore ' was invalid. IH The minority report was signed l by Senators Kern aud Lea, Demo- , crats, and Kenyon. Republican. IH I -iVhy Senator Lorimer should be H j permitted to retain his seat In the H , senate was set forth today by the H j majority of the senate special Lori- H I mer committee in their report to the IH ! senate It was submitted by Chair- , man Dillingham, and had the approval I H of Senators Gamble and Jones, He- IH piiblicanB, and Fletcher and Johnston H of Alabama, Democrats. I IH The majority took the position that ( IH the senate having once solemnly and jH deliberately" passed upon the charges l against Senator Lorlmer, he should l be permitted to retain his seat unless ne wand convincing evidence had l .been produced establishing corrup- l tion In his election Absolutely no new an tisubstantlal evidence had , j been produced at the rc-Investiga- f M 'tion. tl majority said, and conse- IH 'quent-y tcjav declared the rules of H justice r(, '-ed the former Judgment i lH I of the s-i i, upholding Mr. Lorlmer H to ' IH No Substantial Evidence. IH The report dealt at length with the ' IH evidence in an endeavor to show that H nothing substantial had been pro- j IH duccd against Senator Lorimer.' It , IH also reviewed the legal authorities to IH show that tho first investigation of i IH the senate should be taken as final. IH The controlling factor in the ac- H tion of tho senate in re-opening tho I H case, so the majority said, was re- i IH ports that a fund of $100,000 was ' jH either raised bv or through the cf- l forts of Edward Illnes, a Chicago lumberman, to secure the election of ll Senator Lorimer. Il The majority rejected the version lll Clarence S. Funk, general manager of 'lH the Internationa) Harveser companv. ! 1 gave of a conversation he hold with H Mr. Hlncs in the Union League club H at Chicago just after Senator Lori- I H mcr's election It was during this ' IH conversation that Funk claims Hlncs H asked for a $10,000 contribution to a H $1 00,000 Iorimer fund. The majority jH said that. Mr. Funk's testimony stood uncorroborated cither by other wit- H uesses or by any circumstances. IH "In view of the fact that it was H known to Mr. Hines.' said the com- fl m It tec. "that the relations existing IBl botween the officers of the Interna- 1 tioual "Harvester company and Mr. Xl Lorimer were those of opponents I'M rather than friends, it is improbable H that he would seek from Mr. Funk, IH the representative of that corporation. a contribution to aid in the election of l Lorlmer." IH In discussing Mr. Funk's testimony IH that he had heard reports of Mr. Hines' activities at Springfield, the H majority declared that "such reports" must have had birth in Mr. Funk's H imagination." I H Comment was passed on the fact lH that for many months H. H. Kohl- , IH saat. editor of the Chicago Record- i H Herald. James Keeley, editor of the IH Chicago Tribune: Victor F. Lawson, IH owner of the Chicago News, and Col. IB Theodore Roosevelt knew of Mr. jH Funk's position and none saw fit to IH bring the Information to the atten- jH tion of any person connected with H anv investigation. H "In fact, the Funk testimony," the l report said, "has been taken cum H grano sails by nearlv every one who l has heard it. Mr. Funk himself ad- mitted that he thought his story H would not be believed." The committee reported that it did not find that Mr. Hines was flat- IH tcred by being consulted by Senators IH Aldrich and Penrose in rcard to the IH desire to have some Republican elect- cd to the senate from Illinois. ! IH "His sense of the importance of IH the matter," it was said, "was great- IH lv enhanced when he knew that they J H had been in conference with the IH president and .Mr. Lorlmer' s candl- f H dacy would not be objectionable to IH him." i H Expert accountants employed by the fH committee, it was stated, had failed t H to find any evidence in tho books of l IH Edward Hlncs or Edward Tildcn of jf H connection with a Lorimer election H The committee next considered tos- l timany of William M. Burgess of Du- 1 M luth. .Minn., that C. F. Wiehe. brother. H in-law of Mr. Hines had stated in a H smoking room of a sleeping car that H ho had contributed $10,000 to a I-ori- IH mer election fund. IH |