1912. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 8723
Mso, petition of J. G. Munson, of San Jose, Cat.,. against Also, petition of the Union Electric Supply Co., of Providence, passage of Oldfield bill to change patent lHws; to the· ...Com R. I., protesting against the passage of the Oldfield bill, for mittee on Patents. maintaining resale prices; to the Committee on Patents. Also, petition of Siln.s W. Mack~ of Monterey, Cal., favoring By Mr. WEBB: Petition of citizens and the Daughters of Lib passage of Kenyon-Sheppard bill; to the Committee on the erty of Jonas Ridge, N. C., favoring passage of bills restrict Judiciary. ing immigration; to the Committee on Immigration and Na tu- · Also, petition of Guy F. Slaughter, of San Francisco, Cal., ralization. favoring House bill 718, relative to providing military aviators; By Mr. WILSON of New York: Memorial of the National to the Committee on .Military .Affairs. Guard Association of the State of New Yor~ at Albany, N. Y., Also, petition of the Daughters of Liberty of San Francisco, favoring passage of the militia pay bill; to the Committee on Cal, favoring passage of House bill 22527, for restrictton of Military Affairs. · immigration; to the Committee ·on Immigration and Naturali Also, memorial of the Hebrew Veterans of the War with zation. Spain and the Workmen's Sick and Death Benefit Fund of the B.Y Mr. HIIili: Petition of the Workmen's Sick and Death United States of America, at New York City, again t passage of Benefit Fund of America, protesting against the passage of bills restricting immigrution; to the Committee on Immigration Hou e bill 22527, for restriction of: immigration; to the Com and Naturalization. mittee on Immigration and Naturalization. Also, papers to accompany bill relati-ve to Owen Farrell, Company I, Seventh Regiment Connecticut Volunteer Infantry; SEN.A.TE. to the Committee on Military .Affairs. By Mr. HUGHES of New Jersey: Memorial of the Work TUESDAY, July 9, 19n. men's Sick and Death Benefit Fund of the United States of (Continuation of legislative day of Satitrday, July 6, 1912.) America, at New York City, against passage of bills restricting At 11 o'clock a. m., on the expiration of the recess, the Senate immigration; to the Committee on Immigration and Naturaliza reassembled. tion. . I Ur. SMOOT.. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a By Mr. KINKEAD of New Jersey: Petition of James Scott, 1 of Jersey City, N. J., favoring passage of bills restricting im quorum. migration; to the Committee· on Immigration and Naturaliza The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah tion~ suggests the absence of a quorum, and the roll will be called. By lli. LA FOLLETTE : Petition of citizens of the State of The Secretary called the roll, and the following Senators Wa hington, favoring passage of the Goeke bill (H. R. 19133), answered tO' their names : for postal express system; to the Committee on Interstate and Ashurst Crane J ohnston, Ala. Simmons Bacon Crawford J ones Smith, Mich. Foreign Commerce. Bourne Culberson Lea Smith, S. C. By Ur. J\IAHER: P etition of the Hebrew Vetexans of the Briggs Cullom Lodge Smoot War with Spain, New York, protesting against the passage of Bristow Curtis Lorimer Stephenso!l Brown Dillingham McCumber Thornton House bill 22527, for restriction of immigration; to the Com Bryan du Pont Martin, Va. Tillman mittee on Immigration and Naturalization. Burnham Fletche1· Myers Townsend · Also, petition of the National Guard Association of the State Burton Gallinger Overman Warren Chamberlain Gardner Page Watson ot New York, of Albany, N. Y., favoring passage of the militia Clapp Gronna Perkins Wetmore pay bill; to the Committee on Military Affairs. Clark, Wyo. Gu,,,agenheim Pomerene Williams By Mr. McCOY: Petition of the Pennsylvania Civil Service Clarke, Ark_ Heyburn Shively Works Reform Association, prote ting against the passage of section 5 Mr. THORNTON. I wish to announce the unavoidable ab of House bill 24023, making a five-year tenure of office for Gov sence of my colleague [Mr. FosTER]. I ask that this announce - ernment employees in the District of Columbia ; to the Com ment may stand for the day. mittee on Appropriations. l\Ir. JONES. I desire to state that my colleague [.Mr. Porn Also, petition of the Patriotic Order Sons of .America, favor DEXTEB] is detained by important business. ing pass:rne of House bill 22527, for resh·iction of immigration; ' The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Fifty-two Senators have to the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization. . answered to their names. A quorum of the Senate is present.. Also, petition of the Trenton Chamber of Commerce, protest SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS. ing al!ninst the con truction of a bridge south of Trenton. as The Senate re urned the consideration of Senate resolution propo ed by the Pennsylvania Railroad; to the Committee on No. 315, submitted by l\Ir. LEA l\Iay 20, 1912, as follows: Inter tate and Foreign Commerce. Res
also separate from the senatorial election. The significant fact the underbrush of doubt and uncertainty, hew our own path that Horstlaw posed as a "dry" man and yet carried all the around the natu1·al obstructions unguided to the point fixed only " wet " counties and lost all the " dry " counties in his dis by suspicion and inference and preconceived notions? trict, taken in connection ·with Broderick's business and asso I have pointed out the beaten route to the true origin of the ciation, would stlikingly indicate that the liquor interests were money distributed. · ta king care of his campaign expenses. This idea is further CONDITIONS, POLITICAL AND OTHERWISE, AT THE TIME AND PLACE OF supported by the fact that Welch, a Republican saloon keeper ELECTION. at Carlyle, supported Holstlaw in his race for the senate. On Senator Isley, a Democrat, voted for Stringer on every ballot, any other theory these payments constituted a sheer and vol made a speech the day of the election urging Democrats not to untary waste of money on Broderick's part. vote for a Republican, said he had no distinct knowledge on the Mr. JOHNSTON of .Alabama. Will tile Senator permit me 7 subject of corruption in the legislature, never knew anyone who Mr. FLETCHER. Certainly. received anything for voting for Senator, and he further swore Mr. JOHNSTON of Alabama. I wish to suggest that Holst that "if there was any Democrat in the legislature who would law also-testified that his expenses in that election were $3.500. be justified in voting for LORIMER it was George W. Alschul~r" fr. FLETCHER. I am obliged to the Senator for that sug (p. 5545); that Hopkins was very bitter and cold toward Demo gestion. In addition to what I have said, Holstlaw testified crats; that LoRIMER was popular with the Democrats (pp. 5527, that his campaign expenses amounted to about $3,500 when he 5543). He and -Homer E. Shaw sought to organize Democrats ran for the senate. against LORIMER and any other Republican (p. 6830). Welborn, We ·can understand how Link swore he " considered it cam Womack, and Shaw T'oted always for Stringer. paign money." Homer E. Shaw, a Democratic member of the forty-sixth That is the testimony of Link. He considered the payment general assembly, said he heard " only such general talk of to him at St. Louis as campaign money. corruption in the forty-sixth general assembly as has been for The clear solution of the mystery surrounding Jandus and the past GO years in every legislature" (p. 6821) . . He has been his cash, De Wolf and his Bible money, Blair and his baseball in politi~s for 25 years. He testified that Hopkins was very bills, Wheelan and his borrowing, referred to in the minority unpopular with the Democrats, who were bitter again.st him views, will be found in the fact that they were each allied with (p. 6827); that Mr. LORIMER had a great many friends among the "wet" side in their respective counties, arrayed against the Democrats (p. 6828), growing out of his waterways advocacy. prohibition, and in some, if not all, instances were elected on He farther testified that " three or four days or a week before that issue. The evidence shows local-option measures were th~ election White told him he was going to vote for BILL before the legislature of 1909. Various other bills calculated LORIMER if he got a chance" (p. 6818). White voluntarily to draw forth contributions were introduced, referred, and dis assured 1\Ir. LoRIMER he would vote for him s9me days before posed of. the election (p. 7646). This destroys White's story about OTHERS UNDER SUSPICION SITUATED IN SIMILAR WAY. Browne coming to his room on the night of May 24 proposing to Lee O'Neil Browne had been for a number of years attorney pay money for his vote. for the Thirty-ninth District of Liquor Dealers' Association Lawrence B. Stringer, the Democratic nominee for United (p. 4939). - States Senator, was in Springfield all the while the legislature Wheelan managed three cumpaigns for antiprohibii:ion leagues was in session (p. 2272), and he had no information given him against the prohibitionists ( p. 4033). as to any wrongdoing or improper or dishonest attempt to in De Wolf was the "wet" candidate and his opponent the fluence the vote of any member in the senatorial election "dry" candidate when he was elected (p. 5394). He was "a (p. 2295). He further testified that l\Ir. LoRIMER had a great wet man on the liquor question," he said, in the forty-sixth many friends among the Democrats in the general assembly general assembly ( p. 5395). (p. 5527). Here were all these men actively and continuously Jandus was opposed to local option and was a member of the fighting Mr. LoRIMER and the Republicans generally, keeping United Societies for Local Self-Government (pp. 4013, 4024- close watch on every move by those of their own party, as 4025). well as of the Republican Party, and they had no information Wilson stood on the wet side. There were local option bills that money was being used or promised in connection with the befor~ the forty-fifth. forty-sixth, and for·ty-seventh general senatorial election. assemblies (pp. 3749-3829). There is no ground to question the integrity of Democrats Luke was generally drunk. Link and Beckemeyer were not like Tippit, .Alschuler, and others who voted for Mr. LORIMER. prohibitionists, neither was White. Beckemeyer voted . " wet " There was no chance to elect a Democrat. It is absurd to _ on the local option bills in pursuance of instructions from home, claim that it was as reasonable to expect Republicans would go he said (pp. 3005-3008). . to the Democratic candidate as for Democrats to make a choice Holstlaw being a deacon of the church was classed as a among Republicans when the Republlcans had a majority of "dry" man, but was elected by "wet" counties. 50 on joint ballot ,,. · Was this "jack pot" a liquor concoction? Members of both the Browne and Tippit factions voted for Wilson, with Lee O'Neil Browne, one Traut, and one l\fr. LoRIMER, as well as both those leaders. Hirscheimer were indicted in Sangamon County for conspiracy. The evidence clearly established a situation relative to the " It was something in regard to a fish bill," he says ( p. 3887). election under consideration which had no dependence whatever That indictment was dismissed. Beckemeyer and De Wolf were on corruption of any kind. This is expressed in the testimony interested in that fish bill (p. 2877) ; they were on the commit of a number of responsible witnesses heretofore mentioned and tee handling it. Bauter Bros., wholesale fish dealers, operating indicated further by Mr. Isley and Mr. Tippit. There was no on the Illinois River, were pleased to have the bill defeated and Republican in the State who stood as high with the Democrats asked Beckemeyer " what was done with all the money that had as Mr. Lo&IMER, according to State Senator A. E. Isley, an at been collected up and down the river there" (p. 2879). Joe torney of Newton, Ill. (p. 5527). Clark told Beckemeyer " that there was a pot collected among l\Ir. Thomas Tippit, for six years a member of the Illinois 1;he fishermen on the Illinois River, and that it had been paid, General Assembly, and leader of one of the Democratic fac he thought, to Foster, chairman of the committee, and it had tions in the forty-sixth, composed of 26 Democrats, testified : never been turned into the general or larger jack pot, and that "I could state further that it was my information, has been, Foster and Browne were at outs abou.t that" (p. 2879). and is now, that the election of Mr. LoRIMER to the United Evidently there were fish in the jackpot. Goldfish in alco States Senate was favored by Adlai E. Stevenson, late candi hol was one form this "corruption" designated as "wholesale" date for governor and former Vice President of these United took. There was nothing appertaining to the election of United States, and Mr. Louis Stevenson said to me that he would like States Senator about it. In addition to the above was the the Democrats to vote for Mr. LORIMER because of what he had corporation act which the governor vetoed and which was cal done for his father in the late election" (p. 4264). culated to yield considerable jack-pot money. He also . testified that, "My understanding is that three That some money was apportioned out after the legislature fourths, probably, of the Democratic central committee favored adjourned and paid over to certain members of the legislature the election of Mr. LORIMER to the United States Senate. I there is evidence. - That this was a common occurrence there is think that is true" (p. 4265). evidence. This record discloses quite clearly defined trails I apprehend, in view of this testimony, Members of the Sen leading toward original sources of such supply in no wise con-. ate, particularly those on this side of the Chamber, will not be nected with the election of Senator. Tracing it, according to able to follow the theory advanced by the Senator from In the proofs, only blind alleys, unused paths i·unning into insur diana [Mr. KERN] and the Senator from Montana [Mr. MYERS] mountable obstacles, lead in the direction of the senatorial that something was wrong either with the heads or the morals election. of the Democrats who voted for LonIMER. Shall we follow the plain, blazed, traveled way wherever it I submit that under these conditions the charge that prin may lead, or shall we abandon that and wander about through ciples and party were deserted -under circumstances which 19 12. CONGRESSIONAL REOORD-SENATE .. 87-25 showed "wholesale bribery had been resorted to in order to because the composltfon of the court has· changed or because the mem bers of the court who orlJrl.nally decided it ha"Ve changed their mind as bring about that result" is not justified. to the law or fact which fs involved. Such a contention ~an only be urged on the basis of Mayor Snpsea's notion in "The l\fystery of Edwin Drood." that" proof, On ~he application of Senator DU PONT to reopen the case, the sir, must be built up stone by stone. As I say, the end crowns committee unanimously decided that there had been an adjudi cation of it, "and that nothing further remained to be done," the work. It is not enough that justice should be morally certain; she must be immorally certain, legally, that is." and the application was denied. Senator Hoar insisted the doctrine of res adjudicata should be applied in such cases and THE FORMER JUDGMENT PRECLUDES FURTHER ACTION. although .the a~udication had been bJ a majority of 'only This case has been adjudicated; the action taken March 3, one, he said the Judgment of the Senate was" just as bindin"' in 1911, was final and forever settled the question involved, cer law, in all constitutional vigor and potency, when it was ~en tainly in the absence of new evidence of such a nature that, dered by one majority as when it was unanimous." (CON had it been introduced before, would or might have produced GRESSIONAL RECORD, vol. 29, pp. 2524, 2555, 1559, 1560.) a different result. If you hold this case has not been finally disposed of it means This case was passed UJJOn by the Senate of the Sixty-first nothing less than a decision that the Senate may try such a Oongress, the term expiring March 4, 1911. Some 30 changes case and decide it once, then, at the same or the next session, had taken place in the membership of the Senate by the time or at the next term, after there has been a change in the mem the Sixty-second Congress convened. Owing to these changes bership of this body, try it again, and the ne..~t session try it this case was ordered retried-the alleged grounds being, how again, and so continue until the Senator whose right to his seat ever, that new evidence had been discovered, which, if presented is thus brought in question is exhausted by the pecuniary tax, and considered, would make a different case. Many Senators m~tal and physical strain; broken financially and in health, believed additional and newly discovered evidence existed and he is forced to finally allow the trial to go by default or resign. in view of the charges made it would be advisable to make an In that way the case is determined and the conclusion is other investigation and a~ertain what new facts could be un re8:ched, not. on the merits at all, but solely by the arbitrary, coYered. This action will likely serve as a precedent-although unJust exercise of power. If that be any sort of justice or any the Senate treats each case, apparently, from the standpoint or apl?roach to proper practice, I confess my inability to see it. power and might-that is liable to plague us in future. In It 1S rather the Uob Roy plan- _ similar cases the Senate adopted the doch·ine of res adjudicata Let him tu.ke who ha.s the power; as far back as 1858. . Let him keep who can. The change of the personnel of the Senate should not prompt PUBLIC PREJUDICE MANUFACTURED. a change of decision reached as judges acting in a judicial capacity any more than a change in the individual justices on the We might as well recognize this is a newspaper war on Mr. bench should of itself give grounds for the rehearing of a c:;i.use. LORIMER. " Let the people rule," the :people being the Tribune, Unless a different case is presented inrnlving different facts or the News, and the Record-Herald, in Chicago. Here, "the peo additional, material facts not known before, clearly it must be pl~" is one man, who has access to the public through the press, recognized as an unjust interference, wrongfully imposing ex ~emg a fr~~t.-page feature in all the newspapers; yonder, pense and h·ouble, to repeatedly bring to the bar a Senator and the people is another man who hires and puts in operation l'equire him time after time to defend his right to his seat in this his news bureau to prom0te his own selfish and inordinate ambi body. If, in the Sixty-first Congress, he is tried, and again in tion. " Down with the boss" they cry, meaning the person the Sixty-'second, can he not be in the Sixty-third and Sixty making the demand wants all the room there is in which to fourth, and yearly to the end of his term? When is the judgment play the "boss" to the limit himself. of the Senate to be conclusive, and forever bar any further pro A patriotic, courageo11,s, unshackled, and unbiased vrnss is ceedings to adjudicate the same question? The authorities uni the greatest beneficent force in modern civilization. formly hold that the rule of res ad'judicata applies in this case, If malicious, tyrannical, or venal it becomes an influence ter and is a complete answer to the resolution offered and now .ribly destructive and woefully bad. pending. The l'eport of the committee sets forth a number of This power may be a blessing incalcufable, or it may be a authorities, and I will not elaborate upon them. The Senate curse unbearable. It may tremendously advance the highest ha s the power to force a reexamination of the questions and a good or become an insufferable nuisance. new vote by a new Senate on a resolution to the same effect Mr. Candidate wants an office. Whether it be constable or as the one previously voted on, but that is not the same thing President, the first thing he must do is to organize a publicity as having the legal or moral right to do so. bureau. The size and cost of this corresponds with the impor Certainly there is nothing in the present ca se, although thou tance of the office in some degree, because the larger the cffice sands of pages of adqitional testimony, legal and illegal. rele the more people must be impressed with the public and private vant and irrelevant, admissible and inadmissible, competent and· virtues, the great ability, and other qualifications of Mr. Can incompetent, were taken, which makes it stronger against the didate. sit~ing Member than it was at the last trial. On the contrary, If an opponent is to be got rid of the same method is the • it is a weaker case than it was before, and made so by the testi latest device. With such a bureau public opinion will be mony of Sena tor LORIMER and further light on general political manufactured to order. conditions and further . proof of perfidy on the part of White Industriously feed the kind of literature experts can pre and the evidence of improper motives, malice, and desperation pare to a chain of newspapers extending across the country on the part of enemies of Mr. LORIMER. both ways, including the national weeklies as well as the I think the former judgment ought not to be disturbed, and dailies, and the result will be a public opinion made and sus that further inquiry is thereby precluded. The precedents di tained, for a time at least, as wanted. rectly in point are the leading cases mentioned in the report, It is easy to make charges so general and by such indirection which I simply call to the attention of the Senate, in the hope they can not be disproved. that they will not be ignored when foe vote is taken. The specific charges in this case have been met; it is rea The first is the case of Senators Fitch and Bright and Lane sonable to exact proof of vague and broad insinuations and and McCarty, of Indiana, in the Thirty-fourth and Thirtv-fiftb assertions before approving them. Congresses. (Taft's Senate Election Cases, 164; Buck's Senate We are told to "purge the Senate of Lo&IMEB," who "repre Election Cases, 244.) sents the old regime." "Purge" for what? "The old regime" The doctrine was again applied in the case of Francis · W. means what? ., Represents" how? Where is the proof? we Sykes and George E. Spencer, decided by the Senate in the are given to understand. there is a terrible situation here. May, Forty-third and Forty-fourth Congresses (Taft's Senate Election we not ask for some evidence of it? Cases, 556; Buck's Senate Election Cases, 611-633), in which the He was elected by Democratic votes you say. Are there not committee used this lunguage in its report: other Republican Senators here who have been assisted by Demo cratic votes and against whose election no criticism is made on The question having been definitely settled, it was considered by the committee that it was not competent to reopen it, and that it must be that account? Are there not Democratic Senators here who treated as res adjudicata. were elected by Republican votes the validity of whose elections In the du Pont case (1898) the question was squarely pre has never been questioned? Can it be fairly claimed tha.t this sented (Buck's Senate Election Cases, 818-874), and on refer is such an ·exceptional case, after all, as to preclude good faith ence of a. memorial to again investigate the case, after holding and honesty?. -.... · that the Senate might review its decisions for fraud and for BIPARTISAN ACTION INEVITABLE AND NOT OUR AFFAffi. ~uch causes as enable a court in direct proceedings to vacate a Because of the aUeged bipartisan action, the evils of "the Judgment, and tbat the Senate might overrule a legal doctrine machine," the " rule of the boss " are painted in frightful colors. pronounced in a former case, the committee said: Let me tell you the constitution of Illinois opens the way for But. there id no case known in other judicial tribunals in which a bipartisan action and facilitates, if it does not make inevitable, final Judgment in the same case can be rescinded or reversed merely · bipartisan combinations. If that be an unmitigated evil, tlle 8725 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. JULY 9, constitution of the State, and not WILLIAM LORIMER, is responsible The investigation has been full and complete. The .commit foi' it. If that be a cur e, the fundamental law of the State tee employed as counsel Mr. John H. l\Iarble, of this city, and in its pronsions for minority representation chains the political Mr. John J. Healy, of Chicago, the latter having acted as coun affairs of Illinois to the body of that aeath. You can not fasten sel for the Helm committee, so called, a committee appointed the blnme for· that condition on any man. For instance, when by the Senate of the State of Illinois "to investigate alleged it comes to elect three representatives from a given county, the acts of bribery and official misconduct of members of the forty electors, under the con titutional provision, are permitted to seventh or forty-sixth general assemblies." Counsel were in cRst one vote for each of the three candidates or one and a half structed to seek suggestions and secure information from every votes for two of them or three \Otes for one~ That is the provi possible source, and were especial.ly instructed to confer with sion of the constitution. Can you ever escape bipartisanship the owners and managers of the Chicago Tribune, which has arrangements and combinations under such a provision as that been the most aggressive factor in the prosecution against in any contest waged on practical political lines? Senator Lo&IMER. They mingled freely with the representatives Illinois will neyer be free from bipartisan deals and combina of that paper, both in Washington and in Chicago. For the tions until her con titution is changed. I do not condemn the committee I may say that during the entire time devoted to constitution. I thought it was a very good provision, when I this work no member ever objected to any line of investigation first saw it, but I can see that in practical application it l.eads suggested by another member of the committee or by counsel. to the very thing the newspapers are arrayed against-biparti And I want to add that while members of the committee sharply san combinations. · That is a question with which we have differ in judgment in reaching conclusions based upon the evi nothing to do. If a Senator be elected as a result of the oper dence, nothing has ever occurred to cast a shadow upon their ations of the 1aw, and that is the real graYamen of the com personal relations or• to disturb the harmony existing among plaint, the Senate can afford no remedy if it would and ought them in the prosecution of the work. They have acted in per not if it could. '.rhe commission of a sovereign State is en fect harmony, in perfect accord, and with a common purpose titled to some respect here. to secure the truth. sou:.H~ STAND o~ u ·01SPUTED GROUND. The committee made a report to the Senate which embodies It appeals to. a great many people for one to indulge in gen its findings as to the facts connected with the election of Sena eral indorsement of, and laboriously plead for, civic righteous tor l.iORIMER. That report was prepared with care; in it refer ness, . clean politics, good intentions, patriotic, unselfish efforts, ences to the record are made, so that anyone may readily turn as if these were matters sane men would combat or draw in to the testimony and judge whether the statements are sus question. You need not raise your hands to high beaven and tained; and the committee asks of the Senate fair considera proclaim· vehemently, and eyen violently, that you are for a tion of the result of its work. good man as against· a bad man, an honest man as against Two Senators who signed the report-Messrs. GAMBLE of a rascal, a sincere ma.n as against a trickster. This may im South Dakota and JOHNSTON of Alabama-were members of press some people as entitling the speaker to praise, but think the Burrows Committee, so called, the subcommittee of the ing people will know such a view ought to exist without argu Committee on Privileges and Elections, which made the former ment and as a matter of course. Nor shall I concede that investigation. Senator FLETCHER and myself were at that time continuous repetition of self-evident, undisputed propositions is members of the Committee on Privileges and Election , but evidence of one's superior virtue. not of the subcommittee. We both joined, however, in the re Unless there is proof justifying it, I shall hold no man up port of that committee that the story of Charles A. White, to as a "horrible example" because it strikes u popular chord the effect that Lee O'Neil Browne bribed him to ·rnte for Mr. to do so. LORIMER, was a fabrication and wholly without foundation in There is no evidence in this record of WILLIAM LoRIMER's fact. The fifth member of this committee joining in this re misconduct, unfitness, or disqualification for the position for port is the Senator from Washington [Mr. JoNEs], who was not which the legislature of his State deliberately selected hiru. a member of the subcommittee or of the full committee at the There is no evidence in this record that "predatory wealth". time of the first investigation. As a Senator he then both spoke named him or has been instrumental in defending him. and voted against Senator LoRIMER's right to a seat in this I would like for some of those who find apparent · relish in body, but after hearing all of the evidence taken on this inyes assailing him to point out somewhere in the record before us, tigation he has been compelled to reverse his judgment, and or outside it, a fact indicatiYe that he is not making in this bas joined with the others whom I have mentioned in reporting case bis own fight, single handed, and in a manly, frank way. that in the election of WILLIAM LORIMER they find no corruption. If be is· the representative of "privilege," "special interests," With the presentation of this report and ·of such statements "malefactors of great wealth," "predatory riches," it is ex as the individual members of the committee may make to the tremely remarkable that some evidence of their sympathy and Senate, their duty is done, their responsibility ceases. The concern bas not appe{lred. responsibility is then transferred to the· Senate to receive the That be is a. Republican is scarcely a sufficient answer. I facts and to act upon them in accordance with its judgment. disagree with him absolutely in his views on economic, gov I need not say that I am· anxious to be of service to those who ernmental, and political questions, but if that is to determine are not so familiar with the testimony as I may be, and for our action in this case our Republican friends, if they should that reason I purpose to present a story of the circumstances adopt the same rule, might easily perpetuate the Republican and events leading up to l\Ir. LoRIMER's election and the charges majority in this body. The legislature may not have been in made .against its· validity in their logical order. agreement with him on political questions, and yet it may haye l\Ir. President, it is impossible to understand the questions done what it conceived to be the best it could in the circum involved without considering the political conditions in the stances, and I do not see that corruption should be presumed. State of Illinois at the time of the election of Senator LORIMER All the ·platitudes a.bout the necessity for maintaining the by the legislature of that State on the 26th day of May, 1000. integrity of the Senate, which no one gainsays, all the abuse In discussing such conditions I shall ha.Ye to refer to the polit by the self-constituted censors of public men, all the protesta ical affiliations of a good many gentlemen in public life in tions by the Honeythunders, will not create prejudice, favor, Illinois, but in doing so I shall rely wholly upon the evidence or fear to supplant in my vote the principle of simple justice. taken during the investigation. The idea of " justice among the people " must embrace, not exclude, those in public life, must apply to each individual as POLITICAL CONDITIONS AT TIME OF ELECTIO~. well as all combined-the component parts as much as the en The evidence shows that previous to 1904-I go back four tire body politic. Justice in this case demands the defeat of years from the election of 190S-there had existed a strong the resolution and the approval of the report of the committee. personal and political friendship between Senator LORIMER and - Mr. DILLINGHAM. Mr. President, it is with a feeling of Gov. Deneen. They had worked together in many politlcal relief that I approach a period in the ·proceedings of the Senate campaigns; had fought many battles and won many victories. when the question of t;4e right of the Senator from lliinois [Mr. Gov. Deneen was admitted to the bar in 1886, and was made the LoRIMER] to his seat shall be determined. On the other hand, attorney of the sanitary district of Chicago in 1895 at a it is with a feeling of responsibility which is somewhat oppres salary of $5,000 per year. In 1896, and from thence on to sive that I approach the discussion of this case, because of the l 904, Mr. Deneen was the State's attorney for Cook County. great volume of testimony which has been taken and the multi From his salary and fees collected he amassed a fQrtune of tudinous phases .of it which demand examination. • $300,000. He was warmly f'!Upported by Mr. LORIMER for both The committee appointed to make the investigation devoted of these positions; and testified that his reelection to that office to it a vast amount of time, a \a.st amount of patience, and in 1900 came through Mr. LoRIMER's strong friendship for him presented to the Senate a Yolnme of testimony so large that it and because he was able to overcome the opposition of his (LoBI is impossible for any Member of this body to read it as a whole, MER's) friends to Deneen's nomination. That friendship con or by use of the digest ind~~ to follow or comprehend all the tinued unbroken down to 1904, when Mr. Deneen became an lines of evidence and the subjects which were investigated. aspirant for the office of governor of Illinois. At that time it 1912. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 8727 appeared to Mr. LoRIMER that Mr. Deneen had deserted him maries _as a cffn.didate for that position. In that primary con politically and had gone over to what was called "the news· test Gov. Yates and Mr. LORIMER warmly supported Senator paper crowd " in Chicago in order to secure that support in his Hopkins and his candidacy. Gov. Deneen also favored the new ambition. candidacy of M:r. Hopkins ; but after the primary election was It is a conceded· fact that for 20 years it has been the policy over it appeared-and the evidence is undisputed-that Mr. of the Chicago Tribune--and I am not" saying this in criticism Hopkins had failed utterly to return any of the favors which of the Tribune nor in approbation of it, for that matter-but for had been rendered to him by the respective candidates for 20 years the policy of that paper has been, according to the tes the governorship, and had evidently disappointed both. From timony of its manager, Mr. James Keeley, to drive Mr. LoRIMER that time on there was a coldness toward Mr. Hopkins both on out of public life and out of the politics of Illinois. Everyone the part of Mr. Yates and l\fr. LoRIMEB, and also on the part of connected with it-- Gov. ·Deneen. Mr. KERN. Mr. President-- Mr. REED. Mr. President, will the Senator allow me to The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Ver ask him a question for information? mont yield to the Senator from Indiana? The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Ver Mr. DILLINGHAM. Certainly. mont yield to the Senator from Missouri? Mr. KERN. . 1t was shown by the evidence that the Chicago Mr. DILLINGHAM. Gladly. Tribune had at practically every election at which l\Ir. LORIMER Mr. REED. What were the favors to which the Senator was a candidate for Congress supported him. refers that Mr. Hopkin·s failed to return? ;what was the char Mr. DILLINGHAM. It did sometimes, as ~t supported the acter of them? Republican ticket, and sometimes it did not; but does the Sen Mr. DILLINGHAM. Nothing except the warm, hearty, ·and ator from Indiana deny the statement that I haye just made? earnest support they had given him in his candidacy for the Mr. KERN. What statement was that? senatorship. Mr. DILLINGHAl\L Of Mr. Keeley, as to the policy of the Mr. REED. Support for what? paper. Mr. DILLINGHAM. His candidacy before the primaries. Mr. KERN. That is, as to the general policy of the paper? Mr. REED. No; I mean what support was he to give them Mr. DILLINGHAM. Yes. for what office? Mr. KERN. I do not deny it, but I was unable all the 1\lr. DILLINGHAM. Gov. Yates expected that Senator Hop time to reconcile it with the fact that was conceded all kins would give him his support for the governorship, and I around, as I understood, that while the Chicago Tribune opposed presume Gov. Deneen also expected the same evidence of friend Mr. LoRIMER at the primaries, it supported him almost univer ship on the part of Senator Hopkins; but neither of them got it. sally at the electjons as against the Democratic candidate, with Mr. REED. Was not Gov. Deneen elected that year? one single exception, and in their editorials advised Republican l\fr. DILLINGHAM. He was elected that year. voters and all the voters of the dish·ict to vote for Mr. LoRIMER. Mr. LODGE. The support expected was for the nomination? Mr. DILLINGHAM. That was undoubtedly true at times; Mr. DILLINGHA.M. The support expected was for the nom- but before I have finished I shall call attention to evidence on ination at the primaries. I am speaking about the primary that matter, because Mr. Keeley testified, as I have said, that election now. he regarded Mr. LORIMER as a malign influence; that it had Mr. REED. I thank the Senator. I only wanted a little been the policy of the Tribune, and of Mr. Medill McCormick, dearer statement. who preceded him as manager of that paper, continuously, per Mr. DILLINGHAM. It is evident from the testimo:i;ty that sistently, and consistently, to drive Senator LORIMER out of pol both the candidates for the governorship that year were not, itics in Illinois, and that every effort and influence possible had after the election was over, in a pleasant frame of mind toward been employed in furtherance of that purpose. Senator Hopkins. The editor of the Record-Herald, Mr. Kohlsaat, testified that A STARTLING SITUATION IN WHICH GOV. DENEEN FINDS HIMSELF. for 20 years he had been politically opposed to l\lr. LoRIMEB. When the general election of 1908 had been held and the· That paper is owned by Victor F. Lawson, who is also the owner results known, it was found that President Taft had car of the Chicago Daily News, so that when we speak of the Chicago ried the State of Illinois by a majority of 179,000, while Gov. press we naturally think of those three great leading daily Deneen had carried it by a majority of only 23,000-179,000 as papers. against 23,000 ! The situation was further complicated by the ELECTIO:N" OF 1904. fact that our former Vice President, Mr. Stevenson, who that As we approach the election of 1904 we find that Mr. Deneen year was the Democratic candidate for governor of Illinojs, was a candidate for governor and was having the "newspaper gave notice that he would institute proceedings to contest the support," so called, of Chicago. Gov. Yates was a candidate for election of Gov. Deneen, founded upon the ground of alleged reelection. Mr. LoRIMER was supporting l\Ir. Lowden for that frauds in the election; so that when the legislature assembled office. The now famous Republican State convention of that on the 6th day of January, 1909, Gov. Deneen faced not simply year extended over a period of four weeks before being able to the possibility or probability but the absolute certainty of a make a nomination, During its continuance the situation be contest before that body. came so acute that it took a recess of 10 days for consultation Mr. ORA WFORD Mr. President-- with the people. Gov. Yates, while unable to secure the nomina The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does ilie Senator from Ver tion, held the balance of power in the convention and could mont yield to the Senator from South Dakota? control the nomination. He states in his testimony, in sub Mr. DILLINGHM.L Certainly. stance, that while he had no agreement with Gov. Deneen, and Mr. ORAWFORD. Did Gov. Yates and Mr. LoRIMER admit did not make a proposition to him or receive a promise from that after Deneen had carried the primaries and secured the him before the act, yet there was an understanding between nomination they practically bolted and opposed him at the gen them that after he had thrown his influence to Gov. Deneen eral election so that on that account he ran far behind Presi and thus secured his nornjnation for governor as against Mr. dent Taft? Lowden, he should have the support of Gov. Deneen two years l\fr. DILLINGHAM. I do not recall any evidence in which later, in 1906, in a contest which he intended to make against he admitted that. the distinguished senior Senator from Illinois [Mr. CULLOM] l\Ir. CRAWFORD. Neither of them admitted it? for a seat in this body. He testified that he failed to receive Mr. DILLINGHAM. No; I recall no such evidence. There that support, and from that day to this he has been the bitter were insinuations of that kind. and persistent political enemy of Gov. Deneen. I mention this ORGANIZATION OF THE LEGISLATURE. incident as evidence of one of the conditions which existed when Mr. President, it is clear from what I stated before the inter the legislature of 1909 rame together. ruption, that it was absolutely necessary for his political preser From 1904 to 1908 Mr. Deneen was governor of the State. vation that Gov. Deneen should control the organization of the The Republican Party in Illinois during those four years was legislature of 1909, before which this gubernatorial contest divided. Gov. Deneen was naturally the leader of one faction would come. In the preceding legislature he and Speaker and Senator LORIMER the leader of the other. Shurtleff had become opposed to each other, and the fact is ELECTIO:N' OF 1908. undisputed that the governor felt very bitterly toward Speaker In 1908 Gov. Deneen was a candidate for reelection. .A.gain Shurtleff, and that his friends fully sympathized with his atti ex-Gov. Yates loomed up against him as a candidate, and .Mr. tude -in this respect. Before the legislature convened Gov. LORIMER was among Gov. Yates's supporters. The primary sys Deneen had inaugurated a movement to control the organization tem had at that time been inaugurated and all these candidates of the house. Re had control of the senate, and to secure to went before the people. The situation was complicated by the the governor control of the house his friends held meetings in fact that Senator Hopkins was a candidate for reelection to all parts of the State and multiplied candidates for the speaker the United States Senate, ·and with the other candidates-Mr. ship as against l\fr. Shurtleff. On the Monday evening preced · Foss, l\fr. Mason, and l\Ir. Webster-went before the same pri- ing the organization of the legislature on Wednesday, January 8728 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE. JULY 9,
6, rn which was a paramount issue in Illinois. They discussed an Mr. DILLINGHAM. Senator Hopkins testified that at that anticipated decision nullifying the primary law. They dis time he had no thought of it, that his friends had no thought cussed their previous political relations. They discussed politi of any such thing; and that to which reference is now made was cal conditions generally. They discussed the senatorial situa entirely an afterthought, judged only by the result. Senator. tion. They discussed the organization ·of the house. Mr. LORI Hopkins in his testimony makes this perfectly clear. MER testified that they talked about the committee that would Probably no man was ever more bitterly opposed than was probably be appointed to investigate Gov. Deneen's title to the Senator Hopkins by the Democrats of that body. Everyone ap - governorship, and the organization of the house only to that ex pearing before the committee testified to the extreme dislike of tent, showing that the discussion of this subject was the leading the Democrats for Senator Hopkins, for the reason that when object in Gov. Deneen's mind when he sought this conference he was upon the stump in Illinois he used terms in reference with Senator LORIMER. to them which cut them to the quick. In other words, as they The real purpose on Gov. Deneen's part was expressed by1 expressed it, he was ha1·sh and severe in his denunciation of Mr. LoRIMER when he says that Deneen seemed to be fearful Democracy and of Democrats. It can not be denied that tlle that a committee might be appointed that would turn him out of entire Democratic body entertained toward Senator Hopkins office regardless of the evidence, and he felt that Speaker Shurt a feeling of hostility not entertained toward any other person in leff was so antagonistic to him that he would do anything to the State of Illinois. destroy him. I will demonstrate as I go along that this desire to defeat Senator FLETCHER inquired: him was a matter of growth. I have already indicated that he That was after Shurtleff had be J 8730 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. JULY 9, ]fr. KERN. How many Lorimer Republicans withheld their M1·. KERN. No; I am a:Sking the ·senator from whom he is votes? quoting. · Mr. DILLINGHA.i\I. I do not remeniber. I will ask the Mr. DILLINGHAM. I was quoting this from Senator Loo.I· Senator how many? · · MEB'S testimony. Mr. KERN. You ham the record here. Mr. KERN. I understood the Senator to state certain faets Mr. DILLINGHAM. I have not the record. I have an and then to draw certain conclusions therefrom. I a.sk him extract from the record. whether he quotes those facts from the testimony of Senator ·:rifr. KERN. There were more, I will say, of the so-called LoBIME& or the testimony of Gov. Deneen. Lorimer Republicn.n.s than there were of the Deneen Republi l\fr_ DILLINGHAM. I quoted those from the testimony of cans who refrained from voting. Senator LoRIMER, but I do not understand that they were ever Mr. DILLINGHAM. I do not recall that fact. I will not denied. Senator LORIMER said: dispute the Senator. ' At th~ interview, when he told me positively that be, Gov. Deneen, would try to appointed to consider questions involved in the contest between appointed a c-omrnittee solely of his friends. The Senator has Mr. Stevenson and Gov. Deneen for the governorship. He says: simply stated what was the result. What were the considera The committee was appointed upon the 11th day of February-a ma tions? How was that effected? How did it happen that Shurt· jority of Republicans-and every Republican appointed by mi! was a leff, who had been bitterly opposed to Gov. Deneen, so bitterly Deneen man, thoroughly a Deneen man. One of Gov. Deneen's close. that they expected him to pack the committee against the gov friends, Edward J. King, candidate for speaker, was on the committee; Mr. Reynolds, of Rockford, was chairman of the committee. He was ernor, after a conference with these gentlemen turned around c;>ne of their candidates for speaker. I appointed no Republican upon and packed the committee for him? There must have been a that committee who had any affiliations with any of our friends or who reason for it. had any affiliations except the closest with Gov. Deneen, which prac tically settled the contest on February 11. M:r. DILLINGHAM. If the Senator has patience and will allow me to proceed, I will tell him. I can not stop to explain Mr. REED. Thnt seems to be a very frank admission that in advance that which I intend to discuss later on. they packed the jury. Mr. LORIMER. Mr. President-- Mr. DILLINGHAM. Sena.tor Jones asked this question: The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Ver· So, if you packed any committee, you packed that committee in mont yield to the Senator from Illinois? behalf of Gov. Deneen? Mr. DILLINGHAM. I yield to the Senator from Illinois. Mr. SHrmTLEFF. I did. Mr. LORIMER. To answer the question. as to whether or not I do not think there is any dispute between the Senator and ·speaker Shurtleff ever voted for Senator Hopkins, I will say myself on that point. that the record will show that Speaker Shurtleff testified that Mr. ORAWFORD. Mr. President-- Senator Hopkins's friends called on him and asked him to make The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from a statement in writing, which he did, that whaever received the Vermont yield to the Senator from South Dakota? majority of the vote in his senatorial district he would vote for . .Mr. DILLINGHAM. Certainly. At that time Senator Hopkins naturally supposed that he would Mr. ORAWFORD. While we may differ as to what was receive a large majority in that district, because that district in the mind of these men, does not the Senator admit that the had been in the congressional district that he represented in speaker of the house elected at the time of its organization Congress for a great many years. Congressman Foss recei"rnd was hostile to the candidate for the United States Senate who about two votes to one over Senator Hopkins, and Speaker had carried the primaries, and was also hostile to the governor Shurtleff voted for l\Ir. Foss, and continued to vote for him who had been chosen at the election in November? from the first ballot until the last ballot, except the time when l\IJ.·. DIT,J.INGHAM. I will have to divide that question in be voted for me and when he once voted for Gov. Deneen. answering it. I do not understand that he was opp~sed to That is the record. Senator Hopkins. I do not remember what his attitude was. Mr. ORAWFORD . Mr. President-- l\fr. ORAWFORD. There is not anything in the record to Mr. DILLINGHAl\I. I find n·om examining the record that indicate that Senatot· Hopkins, the party nominee, had his wish down to the fifty-se·rnnth ballot he voted for Mr. Foss. followed in choosing a presiding officer for the house, is there 7 ~Ir. ORAWFORD. That would indicate that naturally he l\fr. DILLINGHAM. There was no contest about that. would not be the choice of Mr. Hopkins as the speaker of the Mr. CRAWFORD. But the speaker who was selected was a house of representatives, would it not? loyal and intimate friend of Senator LoRIMEit. Mr. DILLINGHAM. Coming back to the matter I was dis· Mr. DILLINGHAM. He was; there is no question about that. cussing when interrupted, Senator Lo&IMER testified that Gov. Mr. ORAWFORD . So that, whether it was designedly Deneen also stated that he would try to defeat Hopkins, and brought about ot not, the fact remains that the nominee for the in that connection asked Mr. LoRIMEB to suggest to Speaker Senate, Mt. Hopkins, failed to secure a loyal fI·iend us presid ing officer, and Senator LORIMER did secure in that office a Shurtleff that in the appointment of a committee to visit the personal, loyal friend. That is the fact, is it not? charitable institutions of the State he should select only Hopkins l\Ir. DILLINGHAM. I have no doubt that is the fact; but it men. Their duties as members of S\lch committee would take was not claimed ut that time, nor for months after, that it had them away from Springfield for a couple of weeks, tiding over any reference to Senator Lo&n.fE&'s candidacy, and as I pro the- period of the vote on the senatorship. Mr. LoB.IMER as ceed I will demonstrate that to the Senator. sumed that this was done, as he conveyed the governor's sugges tion to the speaker, who called upon the governor the follow- 1\Ir. ORAWFORD. Well, that is a matter for inference. Is ing day to discuss it. · it not also a fact that Gov. Deneen, who, as the Senator says, had his very official life at stake, a contest hanging over him, Concerning their relations afterwards, Senator LoRIMER says : did not have his choice selected for speaker, and that Mr. I think I talked with him [Gov. Deneen] every week from that time on until the last week or the second last week of the session of the gen· LORIMER had his intimate friend in that position, so ·that they ern.l assembly ; some weeks one interview. held the destiny of the governor-elect in their bands by secur ing the reorganization of the house1 GOVERNERSHIP CO~TEST SETTLED. Mr. DILLINGHAl\I. I was trying to demonstrate the fact- On March 18, which was two months after the organization Mr. ORAWFORD. Does the Senator from V"ermont· differ of the house, the title to the governorship was settled. In the from me in saying that that is the fact, no mutter what was meantime there had been created a union of forces against l\Ir. the motive of these men in bringing the situation about 7 Hopkins. In February there occurred. general discussions as to l\fr. DILLINGHAl\I. I do not undertake to say what Speaker the advisability of bringing forward a compromise candidate. Shurtleff's attitude was on the senatorial question when the There is no question but that at that time Gov. Deneen, Senator legislature opened; I do not recall it. I have the record of the LORIMER, and many others were of the opinion that the contest several roll calls in my hand, but it would take some time to would result in the election of some person other than those examine them. I will do this, and call the Senator's attention who up to that time bad received the votes of the general as to it later. sembly. In February, after they had discussed the possible can l\Ir. REED. May I interrupt the Senator for a further didacy of Gov. Deneen, the latter suggested that they cooperate · question? in putting the election of Senator over until after the 4th of Mr. DILLINGHAM. Yes, for a question; but I do not want March, when the seat would become vacant and the people in to be interrupted in my remarks too frequently because I have sistent that it be filled, thereby creating a condition under a long statement to make, and the question of physical endur· which Gov. Deneen could consistently accept the place. ance is one to be seriously considered in this weather. About March 15 Gov. Deneen told Mr. LORIMER that it would l\fr. REED. The question I am asking is in good faith and be embarrassing to him personally to make arrangements to be for light and not to provoke a controversy. The Senator stated come a candidate for the Senate, and the latter suggested that that there was an antipathy between Gov. Deneen and Senator he have his friend, Roy 0 . West, come to Springfield the follow LORBIER. ing week, and that he [LoBnIER] would discuss the plan with l\Ir. DILLINGIIML I did not say that there was an antipa him. This was done, and plans were made between LORIMER thy between the governor and Senator LoRIMER. and West to bring about the election of Gov. Deneen, it being Mr. REED. Political antipathy? agreed that his name would be presented to the legislature on Mr. DILLINGHAM. No; they had remained friends, but March 24, but on the evening of March 23 Mr. West informed .they had separated politically. Mr. LORIMER that the governor would not be a candidate. Mr. REED. Yes; a political antipathy. If Senators will read the testimony of Mr. .Alschuler, brother Mr. DILLINGHA.l\1. I did not call it "antipathy." of a former candidate for governor of that State on the Demo .Mr. REED. Well, whatever name the Senator calls it. He cratic ticket, a man who went to that legislature from Sena f?aid there was u contest, and that was gotten out of the way, tor Hopkins's home town and home county, elected as a Demo f or Shur tleff, who had been bitterly opposed to the governor, crat , and whose sole mission in that body was to defeat Senator 8732 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. JUJ;Y 9, Hopkins's reelection, and who apparently thought of nothing else and positively refused to be a candidate. At different times he from the opening of the session to the day of the election- had urged upon Gov. Deneen the possibility of 1\Ir. Boutell's Mr. KERN. Mr. President-- election. The testimony shows that Mr. Bouten had an inter Mr. DILLINGHAM. Let me finish my sentence. Senators view with the President and went to Chicago to consult with hi<; will find that Mr. Alschuler testified that it was expected that friends. in the hope that the factions might agree upon him; Gov. Deneen's name would come before the legislature, and that but he found that was not possible and his candidacy was aban he immediately saw all the Democrats he could and asked them doned. Mr. Lo-r;den was suggested, also Congressman McKIN to support the governor. LEY, Congressman RODENBERG, A. C. Bartlett, Mr. Calhoun, and Mr. KERN. Did I understand the Senator to say that possibly others; but Mr. LoBIMEB testifies that uov. Deneen Alschuler had been the Democratic candidate for governor? found some reason for opposing all who had been ment1011ed. Mr. DILLINGil..llf. No. I said his brother-I will ask the Roy 0. West was anxious to become a candidate and bnd re Senator to correct me if I am wrong. quested the governor to intercede for him; but in that c:u'le Mr. Mr. KERN. He had a brother who was a candidate for gov LoRIMER was the objector, as he was not favorable to Mr. West'-:; ernor, but in his .testimony he expressly exonerated his brother candidacy. from any complicity in his conduct or in anything he said. ALL WILLI~G ro SUPPORT DENEEN. Mr. DILLINGHAM. Exactly. I quite agree with the Sen- The committee finds as follows: a tor as to that; Mr. Alschuler has been a member of a subse- • These general conditions continued for some considerable time; the quent legislature, and is now the Democratic leader of that situation was discussed in the newspapers and it seemed that no one body. among those mentioned was developing any strength ; several State !\Ir. KERN. He measured swords with Lee O'Neil Browne. senators, some of whom were friendly to both Mr. LoRI.MER and Gov. Deneen, importuned Gov. Deneen to enter the race. And after the Mr. DILLINGHAM. He testified that on that occasion the situation had been generally discussed for some time in the publlc Democrats were ready to throw their strength to Mr. Deneen, press and otherwise, Mr. LORIMER again took up with the governor if his name had been presented. Senator LORIMER testified that the question of his becoming a candidate, strongly urged him to enter the field, and assured him that he and his friends would support him. Gov. Deneen said that opposition developed against his can- Gov. Deneen testified that the "Senator urged me very strongly to didacy, because his election would make Mr. Oglesby, then the take it," stating that it was a position where "I must expect criti- f eism," but that it was the only opportunity "I would ever have to linu t enant governor, governor o f th e State, an d tha t or some go to the Senate, because if I did not the party would be organized reason or other, not necessary to examine at this time, his ele- on other theories and it would be impossible to overcome the clifil. yation to that office would not be agreeable to Mr. Deneen's culties." Senator Curtis had presented the matter to· Gov. Deneen aud dis· friends. cussed it with him several times, urging as a reason the harmony As time ran on they attempted to agr2e upon Mr. Shurtleff as which his candidacy would bring to the party, and that it would quiet a candidate for the Senate. Mr. LORIMER says in his testimony, the disturbances which had existed there for years. Mr. LoRIMEit speakin2: of an interview with Gov. Deneen: also assured him that he would receive all but 15 of the Republican ~ votes in the general assembly and most of the Democrats. I suggested the name of Speaker Shurtleff. We talked about him for quite a while, and that night he said that he thought I ought to be· THE GOVERNOR'S ATTITUDE. come a candidate. Gov. Deneen hesitated. He evidently wanted to become. a I talked for Shurtleff, and he said he would let me know in about a candidate at that t• B t h · th f th f th · week ; that he would have a talk with his friends in Chicago about c c · ime. u - e was e a er 0 e primary that. we had a conference every week for, 1 think, a period of tik·me Jaw, and felt that it would not do for him to become a candMatc running over about three weeks. Finally he told me he had tal ed against Senator Hopkins, who had been named in the primaries; with his newspaper friends in Chicago, and named Mr. Noyes, the and h. s h · th t t• f l\f L d. 11 editor of the Record-Herald, and they were opposed to Mr. ShurtletI's is reas0 n are s own In e es rmony o r. un m, w 11 election, and he said: "Why, I can not support him, because I can not was formerly a member of the State Senate of Illinois and afford to break with my friends on account of it." afterward a Member of the House of Representatives of the Gov. Deneen says in his testimony in relation to this matter: United States. I presume Senators know him. I will read Ile (LORIMEn] suggested Mr. Shurtleff, and I discussed that with what the committee finds from Mr. Lundin's testimony: him. The point of the thin~ was this : The d1scussi9n was of consid- It appears from the testimony of Ilon. Frederick Lundin, former erable length. I stated to him that I thought it would be a great mis- member of the Illinois State Senate, and also of Congress, that he had fortune for him, from his standPQint or that of his organization, to frequent conferences with Gov. Deneen regarding the senatorial situa elect Mr. Shurtlefl', because hlr. Shurtleff did not represent any forces tion ; that as late as the first week in :May-that was nearly four in his organization. months after the deadlock began-in a conference between them the He was a man of very considerable ability and experience, and in- governor thought it would be a good plall and good politics to make the dividually was a very strong man, but he had not any large force back deadlock secure and not elect a Senator at that time; that the object of him. I said he had not any great influence back of him, and that of the conference at that time was to get four or five Hopkins supporters he would not add to it and it would be a misfortune, I thought, to to agree with others to vote for some one else; that the reason Gov. elect him from his standooint. He urged it and said that he thought Deneen wanted this done was that he did not really know whethe>r he: he could be elected ; that -he had the strength that came from organiza- wanted the Senator$hip or not ; that he would like it, but was not j~st tion there; the Democrats had voted for him there, and they could sure that he dared take It; that while he wanted it, he supposed that all'ord to vote for him as senator, because they had voted for him for the newspapers-the Record-Herald, Tribune, and Daily News-would speaker, and he argued the matter. I then said to him, "Well, If not let him take it. you have the power to elect Mr. Shurtleff, why do you not elect your- Mr. Lundin testified that during these conferences Gov. Deneen said self? You are a power and he is not a power in Illinois politics, except that the men with whom he had worked in past years had not done as an individual factor, a man of ability." right by him; ti.at if Senator LORIMER's friends and his friends should Now comes the reason why Mr. LoRIMEB would not be a candi- work together, there .would be no question but that they would uc the controlling element m the Republican Party in the State; that he date when urged by Gov. D eenen, with the assertion that he was thought that Senator LORIMER could afford better than any other man a power in the State and co'uld be elected: to take tbe Senatorship; that it would injure him less, and, in fact, he He stated that he could not afford to take it, because he had advanced said it might be a good solution of the deadlock to have Mr. LonnIER in the House to such a position that he thought he had considerable elected by Democratic votes. influence in reference to waterway I~gislation, and it would take some WHY MR. LORIMER CONSENTED TO BECOME A CANDID.iTE. time to acquire that influence in the Senate, and that the que!jtion The deadlock, as I have said, had continued almost four was ripe for action and he could do more service in the House than th d th · ea.· t f in the Senate, as I recall it; and he dismissed it and the subject and mon s, an ere was no lIDlll ia e prospect o the election of went to other matters. anyone, and ·it was feared there would be adjournment of the There is the testimony of Gov. Deneen as to the attitude of legislature without the election of a Senator from that State, l\ir. LoRIMEB at that time. In that crisis it appears that Col. John R. Thompson, Col. Mr. KERN. Mr. President-- Chauncey Dewey, and Col. Copley, all members of the gov- The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Ver- ernor's staff and his warm personal and political friends, men mont yield to tlle Senator from Indiana? who were influential leaders in the Republican Party, became Mr. DILLI1\GHA1\L Certainly. active in their efforts to induce Mr. LORIMER to become a cnndi- Mr. KERN. I think it is fair that the Senate should under- date for the Senate. As the deadlock continued and it ber::ime stand whether the Senator is attempting or pretending to quote apparent that l\Ir. LORIMER was probably the only person upon from the testimony in the record or whether he is giving his whom the different factions could unite, he finally determined to own digest and some of his own conclusions. I am unable to do so. find-- In addition to those last mentioned, he had the support of Mr. DILLINGHAM. This is a quotation from the testimony Gov. Yates and Speaker Shurtleff, who had been strongly urg- 0 ~ Gov. Deneen, pages 1123 and 1124 of the record. ing him to accept Democratic votes and the election. Many Mr. REED. From the abstract? other prominent Republicans were anxious to support him, f t f and he also developed strength among the Democratic mem- . Mr. DILLING HAl\ . No: I do no re er to the abstract; no bers, but it was not until two or three weeks before the election, one does that; refer to the record. which occurred May 26, 1900, and it had become perfectly ap- CONDITION OF SENA'.1.'0RIA.L DEADLOCK AT END OF THREE MONTHS. parent that unless he did become a candidate the legislature We come along in this story to the middle of April, three would ad.joUl·n without an election, that l\fr. LoRIMER's can months after the beginning of the deadlock. During this ti.mo didacy began to be seriously considered, and he thinks it was Mr. LORIMER never had been a candidate, but had consistently about the 10th or 12th of May when he determined to ascertain J 191.2. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 8733 whel he': he could be elected. This substantially accords with things through which he can: injure you." After considerable · talk along that line he said-he is a rather impulsive man: "Well, LoBil\IER~ the testimony of Gov. Deneen; and, if my recollection serves I will take your word for it, and I will support you ; " and that ended me correctly, it was on May 14 that th~ Chicago Tripune first the discussion betwee:p. him and me about Mr. Sullivan. · mentioned l\Ir. LoRIMER's name in connection with that office Senator KERN. He being the Democratic leader, you recognized the importance of having h.1:s support? as a candid.ate. Senator Lon.IME.R. I recognized the importance of having his sup· When Mr LoRIMER began to consider the suggestion that he port, whether he was the Democrat leader or not, oocause there is no more influential_ man in the House of Represcntatlvei. of Illinois than become a candidate for the Senatorship he went to his friend Mr. Browne; a.nd I really thought he had more influence in the house Mr. Shurtleff and to others to advise with them regarding the before he wa.s leader than he had at the time he was leader; I am propriety and advisability of doing so. Mr. Shurtleff testifies sure he did. that after talking with l\Ir. LoRIMER he conferred with Mr. Senator KERN. His followers, or the men that belonged to his fac tion, would be inclined to follow him, would they not? Browne as to his attitude in the matter. Mr. LoRIMER says he Senator LORIM.E!l. I can not answer as to that. I know that the knew that Mr. Browne would support l\Ir. Shurtleff if he were men that belonged to his faction that were friends of mine would 1'fr. vote for me, if I wa.;; a candidate, whether Lee O'Neil Browne was for to become a candidate, and Shurtleff testifies that Mr. me or not. I know that from what they have said to me. Browne had in fact urged him to become a candidate, and had Senator KERN. You think you ha-d more influ-ence with them th.an assured him of the Democratic support in that event. It is he had? Senato• LoRIMER. No; I think this way about it: If it was a ques equally true that Mr. Browne did not at any time favor the tion of their supporting Browne or me, if they had to choose between ~lection of Mr. Hopkin , but wa.s earnestly opposed to his the two of us, some of them would have voted for Br·owne and ·election. some of them would have voted for me. I am quite sure Emanuel Abrahams would have voted for me as against Browne or a.nybotly In relation to that matter Mr. Shurtleff testifies as follows : else, unless it was a condition of this sort, where, as a Democrat, he Mr. Browne had been to me two or three different times and pro was candidate for United States Sena.tor. or some office of that kind posed to have the Democrats vote for me for United States Senator. and Emanuel Abrahams's vote would elect him as a Democrat. In He said it was the chance of my lifo; that I could be United States such a <:ase Abrahams would vote for him ; but on questions that are Senator; that there were a large number of Democrats who would not political Abrahams was more friendly to me than he was to vote for me and wanted to vote for me. I think he came to me two Browne.. There is not any doubt ab<>ut that. or three different times, telling me that I was making the mistake of On this point Lee O'Neil Browne testified as follows: my life that I did not. let the Democrats vote for me for United States Senator. When the Lorimer movement started it was generalcy under I made up my mind to vote for him, providing there would be enough stood that there were two forces that had to be in unison to elect any votes, combined Republican and Democratic, to eled him. body United States Senator outside of A. J. Hopkins. One of these forces was Gov. Deneen and the other was Mr. Browne. Possihly to some of I cite this testimony because it appears in evidence that lli. my friends I had said something about Browne's offer to vote for me. LoRIMER had insisted he would not allow his name to go before / and I think they had been very solicitous to have me be a candidate. the General Assembly of Illinois until assured that he would The suggestion was made that I go to Mr. Browne and ask him to vote for Senator Lonnrn:n, which I did. be elected without a. contest. Mr. Browne in his testimony gives his reasons for insisting on that condition. He says: There you ha·rn the first introduction of this subject to Mr. I made up my mind to vot~ for him, providing there would be enough Lee O'Neil Browne, through Mr. Shurtleff. votes, combined Republican and Dem{)eratic, to elect him ; and I never Mr. lAnBLE. What did JI.Ir. Browne say to you when you asked him for a moment conaidered the proposition of myself, a lone Democrat, to vote for Senator J_,oRHIER? voting for him, because no such contingency could arise or be possible. Mr. SHURTLEFF. Well, he discussed the thing. He said be had voted for me for speaker, and that the Democrats in the district had been Senator KENYON inquired: very well satisfied with it; that is, there had been no trouble over ·When you made up your mind to vote for 1iim, did you not at the that; and that he had thought they could vote for me for Senator, same time make up your mind to get enough Democrats to vote for inasmuch as they had voted for me for ~aker ; but the question of him so that you could elect him? Senator LoRn.rnn was a dlfl'erent proposition. He would have t-0 con Mr. BROWNE. I made up my mind, Senator, to use hatever influence sider it. He wanted to talk with the men in his district. I had with my friends to legitimately influence tilem to vote for Senator Mr. '.\!ARBLE. He gave you no answer positively, then, at the time of Loar~, provided it would not hurt them or injure them politicalJy; the first conversation? and I can cite you one instance where I expressly advi ed one of my Mr. SHURTLEFF. Ile gave me no answer positively. followers not to vote for Mr. Lon.nrnn, and he did not do it, because he said it would burt him at home. I said to him "If that is the case, l\Ir. Browne's version of the interview with .Mr. Shurtleff is don't you vote for him, and don't you let anybody persuade you.'' as follows: Senator JONES. Wbo w!ls that? Mr. Shurtleff asked me what I thought of WILLIAM LoruMEB as a Mr. BROWNE. George Meyers. candidate for the position of United States Senator, or asked me Senator Jmrns. Do you know whether that is the Meyers who testified whether I could support him-I can not tell you which, but it was here? something in substance to that effect-and also how many of the M1·. BROWNE- That is the Meyers who has been here and testified; Democrats of my crowd, or my faction, so· called, I thought would yes, sir. suppvrt him. I said to him ·that I had never given the matter any l\Ir. Browne testified as to what Mr. Shurtleff advised in this thought or consideration, that I could not speak for anybody but my self, and that as fa.r as I was concerned I would have to think it over regard. Mr. Marble asked him this question: before I could determine or would determine whether I would be And what did Mr. Shurtlefl' say? willing to vote for him myself or not. As to the others, if I voted Mr. BROWNE. He agreed with me that the contingency that I placed for him myself, or concluded to supPQrt him, I would have to talk in my answer was a perfectly reasonable one. He agreed to it and with the members individually in order to ascertain or know anything said that he would not think of starting a roll call under any other relative to the matter. He asked me if I would do that, if I would circumstances, and then he suggested that I ascertain how many of the think it over. I told him I would and would give him an answer rela- Democrats of my faction would vote for M.r. LoRU.fER. I told him I tive to myself first. . would do so, and I suggested to him that I be informed at as early a I also said to him at that time, " Why do you not become a candi day as possible about how many of the so-called Tippit faction would date yourself, Ed r" He said, "Well, I am not h."!lown at Washington support fr. LoRn.IER. at all. I would be a stranger. I would not have the acquaintance there which Senator LoRIMER has, and especially if I was sent down Mr. Browne and Mr. Tippit were leaders of the rival factions there by virtue of any Democratic votes at all, being a stranger I would of the Democratic membership of the house during that entire have no foree there as a Senator. Besidesh I do not believe I could get session. enough votes to elect me." I said, "Neit er do I." That is the sum and substance of that conversation. Mr. Browne testified that at the time he advised Speaker Shurtleff that he would support l\Ir. LoBIMER for the senator Mr. LoRIMER's recollection is us follows: ship he made " it a point of honor with both him and Mr. Senator KERN. Have you any recollection as to what occurred be tween ~ ou and .Mr. Browne at that first conference? LORnrEB that no roll call for l\Ir. L-ORIMER should be started Senator LoR.D!ER. No; I do not recall the language. I talked with until it was an absolutely assured fact that there were votes him about the friends in Chicago that were supporters of Browne, enough to elect him." Mr. Shurtleff ga-ve this promise for him and he knew they were supporters of his, and he knew how friendly they were to me-such men as Cermak, and Sullivan, and We.rdell, self, and Mr. Browne then told Mr. Shurtleff that he would and Griffin, and John Walsh, and George Hilton-men that I was very exact the same promise from Mr. LoRIMER, which he did at their well acquainted with, and that were my friends, and had been for a first meeting thereafter, according to the testimony of Mr. great many years. He said he knew that what I was saying was cor rect, and finally agreed to support me. Browne. Senator KENYON inquired: " Then when did you e:xaet Senator KERN. Did be ever make any inquiry as to whether Roger it from Mr. LoRHIER? " Sullivan would support you or not? Mr. BROWNE. Just a.s soon as I had any -conversation with him in Senator LORillER. Yes; since you mention that, Senator, he did. regard to the matter, which was shortly after I saw Mr. Shurtlelr He said this to me: "Now, you and Sullivan are very close personal very shortly, becau-se the conferences relative to that campaign com friends," as we are_ Our families are very friendly, and his boy and menced to take place in those rooID!l very shortly after my telling Mr. my boys went to Andover together. The only sport that I follow is Shurtle:tr what I would do. sailing, and his boy was a sailor, and had a boat, and my boys always have had boats, and we follow the regattas and we were very intimate, We are now at the point where the deadlock had continued for and that was known to everybody. He said, in substance, that there was not room enough for Roger Sullivan and him and that I could not four months, and the legislature would soon adjourn without be his friend and Sullivan's friend, too. He said : " I am not going choosing a United States Senator unless a compromise candi to help a man, even though my friends are anxious to have me help date could be agreed upon. him, and · put him into a place where he will have power, and then have that power used for the benefit of my enemy and to destroy me." LORIMER BECO:uBS A CANDIDATE. I said to him that Mr. Sullivan had not indicated that he was going I have examined all the evidence bearing upon political con to support me, and I did not think he would help me, and I said : ditions affeeting the election of a United States Senator, and "You can depend upon it that if I am elected Senator, while I will .not be unfriendly to Mr. Sullivan on account of your supporf, I will never down to the 10th or 12th of l\Iay, practically four months after do anything that will injure you. I will never do for Mr.· Sullivan the first ballot was taken, n.nd wUhin two weeks of his election, • 8734' CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. JULY 9,- I can find no instance in which l\Ir. LORIMER wavered in bis wish there were more Senators present in the Chamber to hear refusal to become a candidate. It was not until it became it discussed, because it will throw a flood of light on the situa-· perfectly evident to every observing person that the legislature tion as it existed when l\Ir. LoRIMER consented to become a ' would take an adjournment without the election of a United candidate.· States Senator unless he would consent to become a compromise Mr. President, I shall now take up the question of the con candidate, that he even considered the proposition. - No one ditions existing in the legislature of Illinois at the. time Mr. testified that he had been a candidate, or that he had indicated LORIMER authorized a canvas to be made to ascertain his by word or action up to that point that he would become a strength. candidate. On the contrary, it appears in the evidence over NO HOPE FOR THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE. and over again that he had persistently refused to entertain I have already called attention to the fact that the Demo any suggestion of the kind. But when the crisis was reached, crats were bitter in their opposition to the reelection of Senator and it appeared that Illinois would be represented by only one Hopkins. . They knew that they could not elect the Democratic Senator, be faced a responsibility, and urged by gentlemen from candidate designated by their primaries, Mr. Stringer, who is every wing of the Republican Party, he jnstituted inquiries to a high-minded, candid man and one of the fairest witnesses I ascertain the real situation. He absolutely refused to publicly have ever seen upon the stand. On the other ha..nd they lived announce his candidacy, or to permit his name to be presented in fear lest there be brought about a union of forces which to the legislature, until be could be assured that his election might result in Mr. Hopkins's election, and they were willing would follow without a contest. He never intended to go before to do almost anything to prevent such a result. To that end that legislature as a candidate with any doubt about his elec they were willing to vote for some other Republican who might tion. He did not care enough about it. He had become poten be elected. I suppose that they were governed by the same tial in the House of Representatives in connection with the consideration that has controlled the opposition in many State great project to connect the Lakes and the Gulf by a deep legislatures under similar circumstances. waterway, and was beginning to see the successful accomplish ment of that gigantic undertaking to which he had devoted I recall the fact that when I was elected to this body for large sums of money and long years of hard work, and he the first time after a sharp contest, more than one-half of the doubted much whether in this body he would possess the same Democrats in the Vermont Legislature-having become con power and influence with which he was loath to part. At that vinced that they could not elect their own candidate-voted for time he understood and believed that Gov. Deneen was sup me, because as between the two Republicans they preferred me. porting him. He was acting under the advice of three mem My colleague [.Mr. PAGE] received every Democratic vote at his bers of the governor's military family. He was sending them last election by the Vermont Legislature. My friend, a member and others to Gov. Deneen to inquire of him in relation to of this committee, tlle Senator from Tennessee [Mr. LEA], re the matter, and while he had no personal· assurance from Gov. ceived, at his election, a large number of Republican >Otes, Deneen that he was then supporting him, he had been strongly because they preferred him to some other Democrat as a Sena urged by the governor to enter the lists, and from interviews tor from that State. Such incidents are not unusual among the between his supporters and Gov. Deneen and because of the States of the Union. friendship that had been renewed between them during the ~EMARKA.BLE STATEMENT BY DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE Fon SENATOR. conferences covering a period of four months, he was led to The conditions in the Illinois Legislature at that time were believe; and did fully believe, that Gov. Deneen would favor not only peculiar but most astonishing. Mr. Stringer, in his his election. He discovered nothing to the contrary until the testimony, tells a sad story of his desertion by the members of Sunday night before the Wednesday upon which day the elec his own party in that body. I think I never heard of a condi tion occurred, when he heard in the city of Chicago tha_t the tion in political life more pathetic in its nature than Ul:lt of governor was not for him ; he returned at once to Springfield Mr. Stringer as a candidate of the Democratic Party before the and in response to inquiries among his friends learned that Illinois Legislature. In his testimony he reveals the hopeless such was the fact ness of his cause when he says: Now, what were the peculiar and controlling conditions exist As I have said before, I was not In the confidence of any o:f those ing at that time in and about the General Assembly of the State who were mana~ing ntra.irs at that time. I barely bad an acquaintance of Illinois? Mr. Hopkins had been defeated in the primaries in with Mr. Shurtleff', nnd I had no conversation whatever with him. I do not think I talked with Mr. Browne more than three tlmes during Cook County ~nd also in his home county of Kane. George W. the entire contest, and those conversations were very brief. AJschuler, whom I have already mentioned, a resident of hia home city, a Democrat, had been elected to the house, his This reference was to :Mr. Browne, the Democratic leader of avowed object in taking the electio;n being to defeat the reelec the house, and Mr. Sh·inger testified that during the entire con tion of Mr. Hopkins to the United States Senate. He had ex test he did not have more than three conversations with him. erted himself days and nights during the entire session to accom Sena tor KERN asked : plish this purpose. Col. COPLEY, now a Member of CopgrE'ss Why did yon have no conversation with him? Mr. STRINGER. I did not think that Mr. Browne's theory of the from Mr. Hopkins's district, a Republican, was opposed to him. Democratic position was the correct theory. . All testified that they did not know a Democrat to whom l\Ir. Senator KER~. What was his theory? Hopldns was not offensive politically. He had carried the pri Mr. STRI 'GER. I judged that his- notion was to cast the Democratic vote for some Republican with a view, as I understood it, of dis maries by a small plurality, but the testimony shows there was rupting the Republican organization. I could not sec, however, where a strong impression existing thht he did not intend to abide by the election of any Republican whoever be was, was going to disrupt the result of the primaries, ha:d he then been defeated. Whether the Republican organization, when they were in a deadlock from which they could not extricate themselves except by Democratic assistance. there was any foundation for that impression I do not know, Senator KERN. Did yon ever talk with him about that policy of his? but that was the talk in Springfield. At that time Gov. Deneen Mr. STRINGER. No. sir; I never dld, Senator. Mr. Browne did not was actively opposing Mr. Hopkins, though not openly. Speaker confer with me at any time during the contest. While my relations Shurtleff was consistently supporting Mr. Foss and was known with him had been friendly, yet I did not feel at liberty to talk with to be opposed to Mr. Hopkins. Gov. Yates was opposed to both him. Hopldns and Deneen. Think of it, Mr. President, he, the primary candidate of the The feeling of Gov. Yates toward Gov. Deneen had, as before Democratic Party, and Mr. Browne the leader of that party in stated, been extreme. When it came to his knowledge that Mr. the house, yet Browne never conferred with him during the LORIMER was conferring with Gov. Deneen, offering his support entire session, nor did he feel at liberty to seek conferences with for the Senatorship, he was displeased, and he testifies that he l\fr. Browne. wrote to Mr. LORIMER from Florida, between February 15 and Senator KERN. Why not? Mr. STRINGER. I dld not feel that he was looking at the matter of April 8, saying in substance: policy as I looked at it. I see by the papers that yon and your friends have definitely deter Senator JONES. Yon did not try to convert him to your theory? mined to support Gov. Deneen for United States Senator. Mr. STRINGER. No ; I did not, Senator, because M:r. Browne is a man Yon and your friends may have it in your power to do this ; but after o:f very positive convictions, and 1t he arrives at certain convictions you have done it, and it is all settled, I want you to do me the favor It is almost useless to endeavor to argue a proposition with him. to call Mr. Deneen aside and tell him that yon have one friend who says Senator J0.1\"ES. Yon understood that he had reached definite conclu- that he is a liar still, and I am the man. sions in regard to that matter? Mr. STRINGER. I judged that he had; yes. All this indicates the disruption of Republican Party harmony Senator KERN. Before the election of Senator LORIMER? which was evident everywhere. Mr. STRINGER. Yes. The Democrats, as I have said, were the bitter opponents of • * • • • • • Mr. Hopkins, and they knew they could not elect their candi Senator GAMBLE. Do yon think his views were well known ·io mem· date-Mr. Stringer. No one considered that a possibillty. bers of the legislature? I am ('Oming to the question of Mr. Stringer's attitude and And what I am about to read shows that this was determined standing, as Democratic candidate for the United States Senate, as a policy early in the session, early in the history of the - before that legislature. It is an interesting subject, and I deadlock. 1912. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-- SEN~L\..TE. 8735' Mr. STRINGER. I do not know as to that. I felt this way, Senator, Senator.GAMBLE. With the 53 Democrats, to elect him? that he was the l~ader of a large number of Democratic members, that Mr. STRINGER. Yes, sir. they had a great deal of admiration for him and would do just about as Senator GAMBLE. That was the point. That is all. he said. · This demoralization In the vote took place along about the middle of February, in which they would give complimentary votes Senator KENYON came in at that point with this inquiry: to one another. . You say it was conceded for four or five days before his election that he would have 53 Democrats? Within a month, and it was nearer than that, as I shall show Mr. STRINGEil. That seemed to be the general understanding, Sena later on. Mr. Stringer says: tor; yes. This demoralization in the vote took place along about the middle Senator KENYO~. It was not just sprung the day of the election, of February, in which they would give complimentary votes to one then? . another and to varlQus Democrats throu~hout the State, and it seemed Mr. STRINGEl.l. Oh, no. I think I heard, four or five days before to me that he was not desirous of keepmg up the party organization. that there would be in the neighborhood of 45 or 50 Democrats that I felt that way about it. Consequently I did not feel at liberty to would support Mr. LORIMER. I heard that frequently. talk: with him, and he did not come to me and talk with me or consult with me. Occasionally I would hear him on the floor suggest to dif He was inquired of further, and in answer to Mr. Hanecy's ferent members: "We will give So-and-so a complimentary vote questions testified as follows: to-day." He would do that without any consultation with me; -and, Mr. HANECY. And I think you said yesterday, and probably again of <'ourse, not giving me his confidence, I did not feel at liberty to go this morning, that it was understood about 10 days or 2 weeks before to him. Mr. LORIMER was elected United States Senator that he could be elected ls it to be wondered at that he closed his headquarters, as at any time by Democratic votes? Mr. STRINGER. Yes; that was the general understanding. he did, just about a month after that contest began? He had Mr. HANECY. And there was no secret about that at all, was there,. headquarters at the beginning-the candidate of the Democratic at any time within two weeks or so before his election? Party-yet within a month he closed such headquarters and Mr. STRINOE.R. Oh, I think it was the general understanding that Mr. ne-ver reopened them. LoRJMER could possibly get enough Democratic votes to elect him. Mr. KERN. Did he not remain there until the very last, And he adds: begging the Democrats to vote for him? I think everybody was expecting it. l\fr. DILLINGHAM. Three days in a week. I think that a proper understanding of the actual coD to compel Mr. Kohlsaat to testify; and the public press an printed pages ; the time consumed in the consideration of this nounced that he was facing imprisonment should he continue in evidence has been so great as to become a burden to those who contempt of the committee's authority. drew the report. Those who have done the committee the honor FIRST INTIMATION OF ANY CORRUPTION Ji'UND. , to read its report have found there recorded the salient facts of As a result of this situation, Clarence S. Funk, general the case, with a reference to the record where evidence bearing manager of the International Harvester Co., the person from upon each question may be found, as well as the opinions of the whom he had received that information and whose name up to committee founded thereon. In the views of the minority, also that time and for more than a year he had concealed, came presented to the Senate, further light and suggestion is to be forward and announced that he was the author of the statement. found. Mr. Funk appeared before that committee and testified, and this But to a.id the Senate in coming to a correct solution of the was the very first definite suggestion even that ever came to the questions inYolved I have thought it best to review a little more public of any specific fund that could have been used to promote in detail some of the more essential features of the case and to the election of Mr. LORIMER, and this was the first intimation call attention to some of the more important testimony. the Senate had concerning such a fund. THE JACK POT. The testimony given by Mr. Funk before the Helm committee, It may be best, in the first instance, to take up this question as reported by that committee to this body, was as follows: of the jack pot, which has excited so much interest, and ascer That in the latter part of the month of May, 1909, or the early part tain what the evidence discloses in respect of its existence and of the month of June, 1909, and shortly after the election of WILLIAM its uses. Loanrnn to the United States Senate, he had a conversation in the city of Chicago with Edward Hines, of the Edward Hines Lumber Co., in The Senate will appreciate, I think, the difficulty of securing which conversation l\:Ir. Hines informed him that, with others, he had evidence of the existence of a jack pot; that is, by any direct succeeded in electing Mr. LORIMER to the United States Senate at a testimony, because men who contribute to such a corruption cost to him and the other unnamed persons of about $100,000. That the money so used had to be raised quickly and without nny fund are loath to testify, and men who have been participants opportunity to consult persons who mil?ht have been willing to con in it will not willingly disclose the facts. The committee has tribute to such election, and that he, said Hines, was then engaged in been compelled to receive more or less of hearsay testimony, and seeing people who might be willing to reimburse and pay back the said sum of $100,000, and that in pursuance of such purpose he sought Mr. to treat it for what it i~ worth in the light of the surrounding Funk with a request that ·the company of which Mr. Funk was general circumstances. When we called as witnesses men .whom we manager should contribute $10,000 toward the reimbursement of the supposed might have more knowledge of the subject than others, advancement theretofore made by Mr. Hines and his unknown associates, with the added direction that said contribution should be sent to Edward because of their interest in the question and their efforts to Tilden, at Chicago. · ascertain the truth as to the alleged existence of such a fund, ACTIO~ OF THE SENATE. there was a pretty general consensus of opinion among them The newspapers teemed with accounts of the testimony given that for many years such jack. pots had been formed in the by l\fr. Funk before the Helm committee, and on the day follow Illinois Legislature. Many members of that body in 1909 testi ing Senator LA FOLLETTE introduced a resolution into this body fied that they had never heard the question discussed; others providing for a new investigation of the case. that while it had been discussed, it was in a joking way; that, The press of the country, as I have said, gave great publicity if a man changed his vote on any question, or if a bill passed to Mr. Funk's testimony before the Helm committee, and in or failed to pass, some one would ask, "What was in it?" or support of his resolution Senator LA FOLLETTE made an address make other inquiry of that character; but there were thoughtful occupying parts of several days, e~ibiting an interest in this witnesses who testified to gossip and common report to the matter which was honorable to himself and to the credit of the effect that in ,previous legislatures and in the legislature of 1909 body in which he served, showing an earnest desire to go to the corruption had been practiced either to secure or to retard. very bottom of the question and to ascertain the fundamental legislation. facts. In the resolution which he offered he referred to this Mr. Hinman, editor of the Chicago Inter Ocean, testified that, newly discovered evidence which had appeared through the while having no personal knowledge on the subject, it was a public press. matter of common report, and that in his opinion and belief, Other resolutions were introduced, but the debate in the there had been a jack pot in every legislature since he had Senate relnted more to the question of the composition of the lived in Illinois, a period of 12 years, and that common report committee than otherwise, and a resolution was adopted which connect~d the liquor interests with the jack pot. committed the investigation to the committee of which I have Mr. Keeley, manager and editor of the Chicago Tribune, the honor to be the chairman.· testified that he heard cha.rges that there were jack pots; that The ground upon which the case was reopened, as stated by · various bills were "hold-up" bills; that money had been paid all of the resolutions and by almost every speaker, was that of or solicited before their passage; that the liquor interests had newly discovered evidence, the story of Mr. Funk being its contributed to it; that it was a matter of common gossip, but subject matter, coupled with the request of the Illinois Senate not of know ledge, and that, in his experience of 20 years in thnt this body take further action. I was of the opinion that the newspaper business, it had been common gossip, but appar the case ought to be reopened upon the grounds mentioned, that ently incapable of proof. the Senate had authority to reopen the case, whatever one Mr. Kohlsaat, editor of the Chicago Record-Herald, testified might think of the doctrine of res adjudicata and its applica that it was the general impression that a jack pot had been an tion to cases of this character. I had in my mind, and in the established institution in the Legislature of Illinois for years, few remarks which I then made I cited, the du Pont case, in although he had no definite knowledge on the subject. which the report of the committee was drawn by the late Sena The speaker of the house, l\fr. Shurtleff,. ~n his testimony, tor Hoar of Massachusetts. In it he said: states that during his service in the legislature he heard many "\Ye do not doubt that the Senate, like other courts, may review its statements regarding corruption, some of which he thinks were own judgments where new evidence has been discovered, or where by seriously made and others in a jocular way; but, to be more reason of fraud or accident it appears that the judgment ought to be specific, he says that in the spring of 1909 he was invited to a reviewed. The remedy which in other courts may be given by writs of review or error or bills of review may doubtless be given here by a dinner by certain gentlemen from different parts of the country simple vote reversing the first adjudication. We have no doubt that a who were connected with railroads at which the subject of rail legal doctrine involved in a former judgment of the Senate may be road legislation was discussed, and a protest made against the overruled in later cases. But there is no case known in other judicial tribnnnls in which a final judgment in the same case can be rescinded nature of bills that were introduced in the legislature, and they or reversed merely because the composition of the court has changed 01· sought his cooperation, as speaker in the assembly of 1909, because the members of the court who originally decided it have changed against bills and proposed legislation which they deemed radi their minds as to the law or fact which is involved. cal. He does not remember the language used, but says that he THE PllECISE QUESTIONS TO BE INVESTIGATED. absorbed the idea that in years back the railroads had felt that The resolution which was finally adopted by the Senate con they had been blackmailed or compelled to pay tribute, and that tained two specific provisions. The precise question submitted the dinner was by way of a declaration of independence from to the committee for investigation was whether in the election such legislation, and to ask his assistance in the offort they were of 'VILLLUI LORIMER as a. Senator of the United States from making to protect themselYes against being held up and black Illinois there were used and employed corrupt methods and mailed. No particular bill was discussed and no specific in· practices. The committee was further and specialiy instructed stance alleged. to inquire fully into and report upon the sources and use of the Gov. Deneen had become very much interested in this question alleged jack-pot fund, or any other fund, in its relation and of a j~k pot, and in one of the political campaigns since l\h'. effect, 1f any, upon the election of WILLIAM LoRTMER to the LoBIMEB's election had made that a topic of discussion in some Senate. parts of the State. He testified in substance that there is a ·Under the instructions contained in this resolution this com general understanding that the jack pots bega.n in 1897 and mittee spent in taking testimony alone•102 days. The evidence have continued ever since. Concerning the existence of jack .submitted to the Senate covers between eight and nine thousand pots he did not profess to have any .Personal knowledge or to be Ill.:.\ 1912. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 8739 able to state uny definite facts, but he testified that it is the they had· sent him to Springfield in 1907 as their representative general understanding in Illinois that money is paid; that it to look after legislation there; and he was allowed $6 a day and accumulates in the hands of several men; and is distributed his expenses, as against $65 a month, which he had received as according to the judgment of tb.e men who control it. a conductor. · He further testified that he did not know upon what principl~ He spent that session without profit to himself. The evidence the pot was distributed, but assumed that the men who gather all shows th.at he fell into dissipation and all manner of ex the fund, certain leaders, have the determining power as to cesses. He came in contact with men whose influence upon how it shall be done. He testified that he had heard that rail him was such that his mind was filled with the thought of se roads had contributed for years to protect themselves against curing mone without labor. legislation. He ·also mentioned gas companies, or the gas com .At the end of that session he returned to O'Fallon, but was pany of Chicago; also electric-light companies, the liquor inter not happy working for $65 a month. He interested himself at ests, stock-yard companies, and elevator companies; and he once in local politics, and through the influence of his labor thought that the Pullman Co. and the street-car companies organizations he secured an election to the General Assembly have contributed; that such is the general rumor; that he does of Illinois which convened in January, 1909. not know that it is based on facts at all; that he never made Link and Beckemeyer, whom I have mentioned, were also an investigation; and that he has no power or facility to do members of that legislature. Each one of these three received that-and yet that was his judgment, standing in the intimate from the jack pot of that year $1.~00. How did they receive it? relation to the legislature compelled by his duties. Each one of them received $1,000 from Lee O'Neil Browne; Gov. Deneen became more specific in his allegations as the each one of them received $900 from one Robert E. Wilson. The testimony went on, and testified that in the forty-sixth general money came from the same source, and must have belonged to assembly, that of 1909--the assembly which elected Mr. LoRI a common fund, and the nature of that fund must determine the MER to this body, railroad presidents from different parts of the controversy in this case. If that was an ordinary jack-pot fund country asked him to meet them, saying that bills were being that had been raised to control legislation, contributed to by presented that went to the length of confiscation of their prop parties who were interested in specific measures, either to re erty, and that under the Federal laws their books were ex tard or to give impulse to the passage of the same, it was the amined to such a.n extent that they could not do what they were jack-pot fund to which the governor rtnd the speaker referred going to be asked to do, even if they wanted to ; the implication in their testimony, which, after the close of the session, was being that their books, under the Federal law, were so ex divided among those who had been faithful followers of the. amined that they could not make contributions to the Illinois leaders who had collected such fund. On the other hand, if Legislature, even if they wanted to do it, without discovery; that fund was raised to elect WILLIAM LoRIMER, then the that they were against such practices, except in self-defense, case is altogether a different one; and that is the question to when men lield them up at the point of a gun. which the attention of the Senate should be directed. And I .The governor testified that he told them that the only way want to call attention to the fact that nowhere in the record, to do would be to call in the leading men, to have them go down from beginning to end, can there be found a word of testimony to Springfield in such numbers as to o-vercome the influence of indicating that the fund from which these payments were made, the other men, and that they said they intended to make a either in its origin or application, had anything to do with the stand against the practice, and that they would cease to be election of WII..LIAM LoRIMER to the Senate of the United States. held up by them. Charles A. White is the only witness who makes the charge Gov. Deneen further testified that, according to the news that any money was raised or paid to anyone for voting for papers, they sent a thousand men down there at one time; that WILLIAM LoRIMER. He says that Lee O'Neil Browne, when he they were greatly excited about the matter, and appealed to him paid him th.at thousand dollars, paid it to him because he had for aid. Further testifying, the governor said that the implica promised on the night of May 24, 1909, to vote for WILLIAM tion was that the railroads had been previously held up :md LORIMER, but even he admits-that the $900 that came from Wil that they took that method of defeating legislation instead of son was jack-pot money. contributing to a jack pot. There you have from the chief witness in this case the ad From this evidence the committee found that the term "jack mission of the existence of a jack pot in that legislature, a pot " as used by: the people of Illinois and by the newspapers legislative jack pot, a corruption fund to control legislation. of that State referred to a supposed fund created by contribu White admits it, and says the $900 came from that fund. tions of persons and corporations for the purpose either to secure or defeat pending or proposed legislation; such fund to On the other hand, Link and Beckemeyer admitting that they, be corruptly used for one of those purposes and divided, ordi like White, got the $1.,000 and the $900, both say it had nothing narily, a considerable time after the adjournment of the legis to do with WILLIA.AI Loru:ruER, but was all jack-pot money; a lature. So, without having any direct positive proof of the fact which I will demonstrate before I complete these remarks. existence of this jack pot and nothing except what could -be And I want to say to Senators that when they determine this gathered from the circumstantial evidence adduced, but which case they will be compelled to do so upon the claim made by satisfies me, personally, as to the existence of specific jack pots, White, that on the night of May 24 he was bribed by Lee O'Neil ·the committee could only report that a general belief existed Browne to -rote for Mr. LoRIMER in consideration of $1,000, to among many classes of people in Illinois that corruption funds, be paid him in consideration of such vote. The case stands or which had recently come to be known as "jack pots," have falls upon the truth or falsity of his statement. been more or less common in connection with the legislature of When the Senate comes to face the question in the light of all that State. As I have said before, personally I am fnlly con the record contains, it will be forced to determine whetller, upon vinced of that fact from the circumstances which have come the testimony of Charles A. White, they will blast a fellow to my attention. Senator's reputation and depri-ve the State of Illiiiois of the THE ;rACK POT OF 1909. services of one whom its legislature has elected to this body. This brings us to the question of whether there was a jack What kind of a man was White? He had drawn in about pot in the legi lature of 1909, which eleded a Uni~ed States seven weeks, and had spent his entire salary, mileage, and Senator. This is not only confessed, but it is asserted by men stationery allowance, amounting to $2,132. He admits that who know. Three members of that legislature have been before during the session he had communicated to .1\!r. Browne his investigating committees and before courts-Mr. White, Mr. embarrassed circumstances; he was a spendthrift; he was given Link, and l\.Ir. Beckemeyer. Link is dead, but his testimony to dissipation; and he says that Browne had said if things has been preserved. There ls, as has been suggested by my worked out all right he thought White would be able to make a friend the Senator from Indiana [.Mr. KER:N] in his speech the little side money out of the session, as he did. He admitted other day, reason to suspect that a considerable number in that $900 of it was from that fund, and I will demonstrate addition to those namoo were participants in this fund, but there that the whole amount, $1,900, was also from that fund. is rio satisfactory evidence of that fact. In the case of these When and how was this money paid? White was so hard up three men, however, there can be no doubt about it, because of that he went to Browne before the legislature adjourned in their own confessions and their own actions. order to get help, and he received $100 fi·om him before he left Before we go further let me state who Mr. White is. He is Springfield. a young man. When he came to the legislature he was 28 years Then White went to Chicago and received the balance of the of age. He had been in various employments until he became thousand dollars, $50 on the evening of June 16, and $850 on a street car conductor at O'Fallon, 11L, and the largest wage he the following morning, June 17. Now, what follows? On June had ever received was $65 a month. In the preceding legislature 21, four days later, Mr. Browne went to St. Louis, out of he bad been a "legislative representative," as he called himself, the State, and there paid $1,000 each to Beckemeyer and of certain labor organiz:ations. He was a young, bright, and Link. White was not present on this occasion, he having been ene~tic fellow; he had made himself popular in labor_circles ; paid the same amount as the other men who say it was jack- 8740 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. pot money and that it had nothing· to do with the election of As I have said, up to that time he had been a street car con Senator LORIMER. ductor at $65 a month; in 1907 a legislative agent at $6 per day A few weeks later, and on July 15, at the suggestion of and expenses, and during that session he lived at a first-class Browne and Wilson-when you speak of one you must speak hotel and fell into habits of extravagance and of dissipation. of the other, because they were acting fully in concert-all of We have the testimony of William M. Rossell, secretary of the these parties, including White, went to St. Louis, and there they Iegislati"rn committee of the Chicago Federation of Labor and were paid $900 apiece by Wilson. vice president of No. 208, International Association of Machin Now, then, if there is any fact in the world that can be ists, who had been appointed by Gov. Deneen on a committee firmly established it is that these three men stood upon the to investigate and prepare a bill for the health, comfort, and same plane; that they were paid precisely the same sums of protection of employees in factories. He testified to a wiid money by precisely the same persons and at substantially the scheme that White had suggested to him, to the effect that same time. Link and Beckemeyer not only confess, but as they secure pictures of members of that legislature under com sert it was jack-pot money, and White admits that $900 of it promising circumstances, give public entertainments about tile was from that fund. It was a common fund and equally di State, one of them exhibiting the pictures and the other de vided among these men. livering. a lecture regarding them, out of which, according to Through whom did it come? I have already said that it White's plan, they would make a "barrel of money." What came through Lee O'Neil Browne, the leader of the Democratic ever importance may be attached to that testimony, it simply minority. Who Mr. Browne is will more fully appear as the indicates the character of White's mind and the direction in discussion proceeds. which it was running. Now, then, how was this fund raised? Who were its con He went home and says that he heard one Pratt, a man con tributors? The committee received little light on that sub nected with labor organizations, make a statement, in which he ject. It ls not easy to say how men are influenced in a legis said that he had accepted a bribe of $5,000 and had usecl it lature. The corruptionist does not confess his crime. He who himself, spent it for his own purposes. His justification of the receivl?S the corrupt fund does not confess his guilt. But here act was that .be had disclosed the fact to his associates; there is a suggestive incident taken from the testimony of Mr. Hull, was nothing wrong in taking it; that he had not done it who was a . follower of· Gov. Deneen. He is a bright man, a secretly; that he had not been influenced by it, but he wtis lawyer, and from Chicago. He referred to a bill introduced boasting of it to his associates, and it was very evident that into the legislature to prevent brewers from having an inter that story inspired White. est in saloons which dealt in their products. That bill was White was elected to the legislature of 1900, and he admits considered by the committee on licenses and was favorably that he went to Springfield with such a purpose in . view. reported to the legislature-it was a unanimous report. He Listen to his own statements : Mr. WHITE. I did not say I had made the statement that I would descriQed how vigorously and earnestly the measure was sup accept bribes. ported; how the bill was urged on to its second reading in the The CHAIRMAN. What was 1.n your mind? afternoon of a certain day. It appeared as though it would :Mr. WHITE. That was in my mind when I did it; yes:, sir; that I would. be rushed to a third reading and to the question of its passage Think of the character of that man's mind. In his testimony with the greatest possible speed. It received its second reading before this committee he attempted to justify boodling upon the and went to the calendar. Mr. Hull suspected that the urgent ground that when bribes were given they were given by what support of the bill wouid ha,ve accomplished its purpose and he called "the interests "-I suppose he refers to corrupt in that the bill would be allowed to die. In the evening he dis terests-and he justified such action on his part on the ground cotered it was not called up for a third reading by those who that the money having come from such sources he had a perfect had previously pushed it so vigorously, so he arranged with the right to take it, because he could put it into circulation where speaker to do so, and himself called it up for a third reading. it would do the common people some good. Those are the What was the result? What was the vote on it? The commit· morals of the man upon whose testimony you must depend if tee, comJ_)Osed of 24 members, had unanimously reported the bill, Senator LORIMER is to be turned out of this body. On the question of its third reading only 2 of the 24 voted in What was the relation between i\fr. Browne and :Mr. White? favor of it, while 14 members of the committee voted against it. l\Ir. Browne, as· soon as he was elected to the legislature, was Eight were absent or not voting. a . candidate . for minority leader. Whi~e wp.~ a new member What was the inference? The inference was that after the with a defimte purpose. The senatorsh1p wa~ not a question. bill had reached its second reading, having been pushed to that There was not a man in Illinois at that time who did not be point with vigor, the matter was "arranged." It is surmised lieve that one of the three candidates voted for in tlle pri that this bill may have been one of the source~ of the jack pot maries-that is to say, Mr. Hopkins, Mr. Foss, and l\1r. l\fason of 1909. That is as far as the committee could go in securing would be elected, and the suggestion of 1\Ir. LoRIMER's name evidence in connection with that measure, but the facts already was not made until nearly six months after fr. Browne an stated are eloquent in and of themselves; and if corruption nounced his candidacy nml began canvass for the position of existed in connection with liquor legislation, what can be ex minority leader. The acquaintance between Browne and White pected in connection with other classes of legislation coming began on the 20th of November, 1908, when l\Ir. Browne wrote before that body? Mr. White, addressing him as "Dear sir nnd fellow Democrat," White, in his jack-pot story, tells of a trip ta.ken by him congratulating him upon his election and announcing his can- • upon the Lakes in the following summer with Lee O'Neil didacy and asking for White's support. In this letter he uses Browne and others friends, while he was living a life of dissi- this language. If I am honored by _your support, I can assure you that that support 11ation; that Browne stated to him at that time that ·had it will be appreciated sincerely and that you will find me ever ready to not been for the veto of a certain bill by the governor at the meet you fully along friendship's lines. If elected leader, I wlll do a ll close of that session there would have been $35,000 more paid in my power to be a leader for the good of the minority and its indi vidual membership. I shall have the best interests and the record o.f into the legislative jack pot. He did not know what bill it was. that minority constantly at heart. This came to the attention of Mr. Keeley, of the Chicago Tribune, Then in a. postscript he suggests a meeting at St. Louis at when he first read the White story. He went to Gov. Deneen for the Southern Hotel, Friday, November 27: counsel. That circumstance was mentioned, and the governor I shall be there at that tlme, and hope you will make it a point and thought he identified it as Senate bill No. 286, known as the find it possible to meet me and the others. I believe it to be somewhat "corporation bill," a measure which proposed to revolutionize a important. policy of Illinois, . which had been in existence for 50 years, On the following day White received a letter from .l\f. S. Link, limiting the powers of corporations to absorb one another. By whom I have mentioned. He had served in a previous Jegisl::i.. the terms of this measure any corporation might own stock in ture. He congratulates Mr. White upon his election to tlle another corporation and might organize, as Gov. Deneen ex house of representatives and says : pressed it, as a barber shop- and proceed to run a railroad. I I think Lee O'Neil Browne, of Ottawa, \\ill be chosen Demooratic will have more to say about this in another connection as we leader, and a worthy one he will make; and, my friend,- I assure you that it is far better to be with the majority than on the outside. Take proceed. Its only bearing at this point is to indicate one of my advice and be for him. the ways in which jack pots are supposed to have been created. November 23 Mr. White wrote to Mr. Browne saying that WHITE'S STORY IS A FABRICATION. he has received several letters from members who desire to Charles A. White's p1·esent story of having been bribed by the become the leader on the Democratic siue, "but ha;e not payment of a thousand dollars to yote for Mr. LoRIMER is a pledged myself to the support of anyone." The evidence does fabrication to carry out the purposes of a corrupt mind. The not show that there was a large number aspiring to that posi evidence is conclusi;e upon this point. tion. Mr. Tippit was a candidate. Mr. White continues: I am inclined to believe you would make a worthy leader, because Why did he invent this story'? I think you have the ability and firmness that such position requires. . His experience as a lobbyist the year before had opened his I will try and see you at the Southern Hotel, St. Louis, Friday, and eyes to what was going on. He was a man of corrupt instincts. have a talk with you. 1912. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. Between November 23 and December 3, 1908, they ne1d the White followed it up the next day, as the following testimony meeting at St. Lo\1is. of Mr. Doyle indicates: December 23 Browne called his supporters to Chicago for a It was, if I am correct, the next -afternoon. I was on 'the Dem Mr. REED. What is the date of that letter? Returning to the question under discussion, when Mr. White Mr. DILLINGHAM. The date of that letter is June 9. tells about taking that thousand dollars from Lee ·O'Neil Four days later Browne wrote to White at the Briggs House, Browne he gives himself away in the statement he makes, and Chicago, saying : I want the Senate to give attention to the.fact. He shows that FRIEND CHARLES: Your letter did not reach me till too late to do any it was a part of this general corruption fund to control legisla good. I was in Chicago, but could not have remained longer had I got tion. Continuing his t~imony, he says: your letter. Got home here this evening and am due in court to-morrow a. m. But, Charlie, I will be in Chicago Tuesday or Wednesday sure Durinf this conversation he said that some of the Chicago members (this is under your hat, though, for I do not want to be bothered by ~a~~~elf. handle the Chicago end of it, but that he was going to handle e>ery job hunter in Chica.go). If you can wait, I'll do my best to see you. I'll be at the Briggs when there. What fs the " Chicago end" of a case of bribery between Three days later, June 16 and 17, White was in Chicago and Browne and White? I wish somebody would tell me. · met Browne at the Briggs House, and in the evening Browne During this conversation he said that some of the Chicago members ga Ye him $50 in money and the next morning he paid him $850, IT:a~f!~e~~- handle the Chicago end of it, but that he was going to handle which, with the $100 paid him in Springfield, made the thousand dollars which he says he received from Browne; and this was What does. it mean? It means the fund from which that only four days before Browne went to St. Louis and paid the thousand dollars came. same. amount to the other men. It was a common fund which He went on to say that a little later on, about the 15th of July, he he was dividing. White was simply one of the participants. would be able to give me that much or a little more. · Mr. REED. I dislike to interrupt the Senator, but I should To what did it relate? To the $900 that was paid him on tht:i like to have him answer another question. 15th of July; and that was a part of the same fund that he Mr. DILLINGHAM. Certainly. was receiving at that time. l\Ir. REED. Is it conceded that Browne did pay this sum of He told me that he expected to be in St. Louis in a. few days and money-a thousand dollars-to White? meet these members from southern Illinois and give them their money. l\Ir. DILLINGHAM. Absolutely; and he paid a like sum to It was all one fund, l\Ir. President. There were Chicago three or four others ; probably more. parties; there were those he was to meet at St. Louis. He had Mr. REED. And that was a corruption fund of some kind? just paid White $1,000. "Next month I will pay you $900 Mr. DILLINGHAM. That is what I think. more." It was all one fund. It had nothing to do with LORI Mr. REED. Now, is it not true that Senator LORIMER con MER, and I want Senators to understand, if they are to sit here tributed $10,000 to the defense of this man Browne who, you and Yote according to their oath of office and on the evidence in admit, and who the record clearly shows, had been guilty of this case and as they would act if sitting in a court of justice corruption? that they have no evidence but the uncorroborated story of Mr. DILLINGHAM. He did; and I will explain the circum Charles A. 'Vbite upon which to unseat :Mr. IA>nIMER; an Keeley had not bought the story; he was trying to find out believe the truth to be- in relation to this matter. I will try to whether the \ enue of any prosecution for bribery would be in treat it fairly, and when I come to that point I will try to Chicago, in Cook County, er whether it would be elsewhere. elucidate it, so that the Senator will see at least what my The Yalue of that story to him depended almost wholly on thought is about it. whether the ca · e would be tried in Chicago or whether it must Mr. President, when interrupted I was speaking of the jack bo done at Springfield. The Tribune is published in· Chicago. pot and demonstrating that the $1,000 paid White was not paid Gov. Deneen testifies regarding his interview with Editor in consideratfon that he vote for LORIMER. He admits it over Keeley: and over ngain. Note the following: H e outlined in a general way the character of it; that money was Senator JONES. Did Mr. Browne ever indicate to you how much he put In a jack pot; that men were voting and receiving money for it: had distributed-- tha t they were voting; that they did not know for which ballot they Mr. WHCTE. No, sir. were receiving money; that the leaders would not tell them; that they Senator Jo~"ES. Out of the jack-pot fund, or to whom he had dis- voted for bills that they supposed had money in them when there was tributed it except yourself'! not, and the reverse. Mr. WHITE. No, sir; I stated-be might have stated- Senator JONES. I do not want what he might have said. In other words, they followed their leaders in the legislature. Mr. WHITE. Well, as I remember it, he did state at one time that he had treated all his fellows alike-new members and old-all the Mr. CUMMINS. l\fr. President-- fellows alike In that respect. The PRESIDING OFFICER (l\fr. OLIVER in the chair). Does the Senator from Vermont yield to the Senator from Iowa? He had been just to the new men as well as to the old. It Mr. DILLINGHAM. I do. was the common fund that he was distributing. Mr. CUMMINS. 'l'he Senator believes, I think, that Mr. l\ir. White admits that he followed Mr. Browne generally. White was one of Mr. Browne's followers, and that he voted Here is his testimony on that point: Mr. 1\1.urnLE. With whom did you affiliate and work during that ses- according to 1\Ir. Browne's wishes. sion of the legislature? · 1\Ir. DILL! TGHA.1\I. I will show that later. Mr. WHITE. I was one of the Browne supporters. I recognized 1\Ir. CUMMINS. What was it that made l\Ir. White one of Browne as the leader. They had had trouble there in their organiza tion. Mr. .Tippit organized a body of men, of 26 or 27, in what was Mr. Browne's followers? known as the Tippit faction. They withdrew from the leadership of l\fr.-DILLINGHAM. That is a story which I will tell before Mr. Browne, and I remained with tbe leadership of Mr. Browne. I get through, for I intend to tell the whole story. * * * ::: * · * * Mr. CUMMINS. I understand from what the Senator has Mr. :MARBLE. Were you governed in your vote upon any measure by his direction, or advice, or leadership? just stated that the money that "as paid by Mr. Browne to Mr. Mr. WHITE. Well, not in every instance. I pursued Mr. Browne White was at least one of the considerations for the leadership upon matters I was not thoroughly familiar with. I followed him w)lich Mr. White recognized on the parf of Mr. Browne. along those lines somewhat, but then on other questions I did not vote Mr. DILLINGHAM. If the Senator will permit me, I will with him. Mr. MARBLE. How did you determine what your vote should be upon tell him just what my thought is about that and what I think questions where you felt you bad no knowledge of yom; own? the testimony tends to establish. I think that in: the house of Mr. WHITE. I usually followed and voted with Mr. Browne and the other members from the rank and file of labor. Mr. Morris was the representatives of 1909 there was much antagonism between the i;ecretary-treasurer of the Illinois State Federation of Labor, and hLs two factions, the Browne and Tippit factions, but that each vote came before mine. became more cohesive as a faction as time went on, until it came at last to a point where each followed, almost without When this combination was formed it was simply, in my ;iudg· ment, a continuance of the old system, concerning which Gov. qu~stion, the leader in legislative matters. I do not find from the evidence anything tending to show any Deneen and others testified. Mr. LoRIMEB's candidacy at that corrupt bargain between l\Ir. Browne aud any one of those men, time had not been thought of. Everyone expected that l\lr. except that one remark of Mr. White's, where he told Browne Hopkins would be elected, or, if not, that Mr. Foss would be how hard up he was and he promised that if things worked elected. They had not at that time begun to consider the possi out all right he thought he would be able to make a little bility of any other candidate, nor to talk about any other can side money out of the session. I think it is just the way Mr. didate; and l\Ir. LORIMER long after that, three months after Wayman put it after be talked with these men in the grand-jury that, even when it was urged upon him, was declaring that he room; that they trusted their leaders without a word having did not want the office of Senator, as he preferred to remain in the been spoken between them expecting after the legislature was House; in fact, Mr. Lo&IMER was never mentioned in connection over and everything had passed by that if "there was anything with the senatorship so that it got"into any newspaper until l\Iay in it," as some of them expressed it, it would be. divided fairly. 14, four months after the organization of that house, when the l\Ir. CUMMINS. That is the precise point to which I desire announcement was made in the Chicago Tribune correspondence to call the attention of the Senate and the Senator from Ver that his name was being suggested. He testifies that it was about mont. Mr. Browne established a leadership. He was unable to the 12th of l\Iay that he began to tell his friends that, if he maintain it without paying his followers, and he did pay for could have the nomination without a contest, perhaps ne would their implicit obedience to his wishes. Mr. Browne voted for take it; but during that entire session not a suggestion looking Mr. LoRIMER, and because Mr. Browne voted for him Mr. White to his election was made, and, however corrupt the legislature voted for Mr. LORIMER. may· have been, no one dreamed of attaching fraud to Mr. LoRI MEB's election. l\:Ir. DILLINGHAM. The evidence does not show that. I am It was not until he had been in the Senate a year that this coming to that in a moment, if the Senator will give me time. man White came out with his story. The Tribune publication l\Ir. CUMMINS. I was wondering whether the Senator dif was based entirely upon White's story, and that hating been ferentiated between the vote Mr. White cast for Mr. LORIMER- disproved by his own statements, as well as those of his a:::so Mr. DILLINGHAM. I say that emphatically and I will make ciates who, like him, received $1,900 from the jS"ck pot, the it clear. Senate, as I said before, is left to stand on White's declaration Mr. CUMMINS. And the vote that he cast for the other alone that $1,000 was paid to him as bribe money for voting measures following Mr. Browne. I never have been able to see for Mr. LoRIMER. that if he was- There is the evidence just as it would go to a jury. That . Mr. DILLINGHAM. If the Senator will be patient I think man White's mind is so corrupt that he can not think straight. I will demonstrate it to him before I get through. Although he knew that he had voted for Senator LoRIMEB with Mr. CillIUINS. That if he was pald for following Browne, out corruption, he was fearful that some one might have re and if in following him he voted for Mr. LoRIMEB, and if ceived something in which he had not shared, and the very day enough men to change the result were like l\Ir. White in that after the election he went to Mr. Curran, the chairman of the respect and followed Mr. Browne for money, and following him committee on labor, with whom he served, and the man whom :voted for Mr. LoRIMER, I never have been able to see how we he had approached corruptly, but unsuccessfully, to ascertain if could escape the conclusion that the election was secured anything had been paid for Lorimer votes. He explained his th L'Ough inlProper means. inquiry by the remark that he did not want to be "double Mr. DILLINGHAM. If the Senator will sit patiently by- crossed." This clearly indicates that he had received nothing Mr. CUl\Il\HXS. . I will. for voting for Mr. LORIMER the day before, and he was wonder . l\fr. DILLIKGHAl\f. A.nd my strength holds out and the ing if others had. In other words, if he had been " double weather does not overcome me, I will try to differentiate along crossed." the lines the Senator has suggested and tell just how the evi WHITE FULLY INTE~ED TO VOTE FOR LORIMER. dence appears to .me. I am trying to help the Senate get at Now, let us go a step further. Charles A. White fully in the truth of tllis matter. While I have met Mr. LORIMER a tended to vote for Mr. LoRIMER. He was advised to do so. He great many times since this hearing began, I have never spent did do so. l\Ir. John O'Neill, a friend of his and business agent 30 minutes with him in my life. I hold no brief for him; I of the Firemen's Association, who represented the Chicngo Fed hold uo brief for the Sennte: I s.tap.d here as the chairman of a eration . of Labor before the forty-sixth general assemblY. in committee; and I am trying. to place before' the Senate what I 1909, and who became acquainted with White during that time, 8744' CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. JULY 9, testified that in conversation with White, about" a week before by blackmail. The letter · is dated .May 29, · 1909, three days the election, he expressed the wish that they might break the after the election, and is addressed to Hon. Fred J. Kern, deadlock because all their legislation was tied up by it. White Belleville, Ill. : said he thought it would not last much longer and inquired: SPRrNGFIELD, ILL. ., May 29, 1909. Wbo do you think will be the man 'l °MY DEAR MR. KERN: I receive1 the copy of your paiter, the News Democrat. and read with great interest your editorial relative to the To which Mr. O'Neill replied: position of the Democratic members of the legislature taken in settling I do not know ; but, if you ask me1.-.. Charlie, as a Democrat, I Will the longest drawn-out senatorial contest ever experienced in the his tell you what I think. If I was a uemocrat and a member of the tory of the State of Illinois. house, knowing Mr. LoRIMER a.s I do, and from what I hear of Senator It gives me pleasure to know that there are men in public life promi Hopkins, I certainly would not hesitate in voting for LORIMER, if there nent in the Democratic Party who ca.n work upon a situation of this is not any possible chance of electing a Democrat. character with a.s broad and liberal views as you have expressed your White then asked him if he knew 1\Ir. LORIMER very wen, and self through the editorial of your valuable paper. he replied: Further along in the letter he snys: I have known him pretty nearly all my life. I felt it a public duty, after careful conference with older and more ex:perienced workers in the Democratic rank , to cast my vote for the White said: Hon. William H. Lorimer for United States Senator. A great many of the boys seem to think the same of him, and I I will not read the whole letter, which is lengthy. nut in con would not be surprised if a great many of them Will vote for him- clusion he says: meaning the Democratic members. You may state, if you desire, the substance of my communication For more than a week prior to the election of l\Ir. LoRIMEB, to you through your press, that there may be no misunderstanding as and before his alleged interview with Browne, it had been the to the motivti of not only my elf but of the 53 loyal Democrats that if voted for a Republican for United States Senator. intention of White to vote for l\Ir. Lo&IMER an opportunity CHAS . .A. WHITE. to do so occurred, as is shown by other evidence. WHAT INSPIRED WHITE TO BECOME A BLA.CKMA.ILEil 'l l\Ir. LORIMER testifies ·that about 8 or 10 days before he was elected he met White in the house of representatives, and White Havirig shown that all the money this man received came volunteered the statement that he was going to vote for him. from some source wholly disconnected with the election of Mr. White said to Mr. LoRIMER that he understood he was going to LORIMER; that' it ,was his full intention to vote for WILLIAM be a candidate, "and said that if he was he would vote for him. LoRn!ER ; that he did ·rnte for him, and that after be had done Mr. LORIMER stated, in that connection, that 95 per cent of the so he thanked men who approved his course, it behooves us street car men in Chicago always voted for him, because of the to look about and see why, through what infiuence, by what fact that be had been one of them, and he received the impres combination of circumstances Charles A. White came to con sion that White intended to vote for him for the same reason. cei"rn the villainous cour ewhich he has adopted to rob WILLIA¥ We have further testimony of his purpo e which is absolutely LoRIMER of his reputation and of his place in the Senate and. of con-vincing. It comes from Homer E. Shaw, a Democrat, a his standing in the world. The evidence shows that it was born banker at Dement, IIL Mr. Shaw is a man of sterling char of greed and of avarice, and pursued with a wicked disregard to acter and an estimable citizen. He was chairman Zentner remarked that he must have a lot of money to spend. About centennial week, in St. Louis, 1£09, White told Miss White said : Woods: No; I bave not a lot of money, but I am going to get it, and I am I have got it in for Lonnrnn, Senator LonnrnR and bis bunch, and going to get it without working. * .;. . • Tbat Lorimer crowd and they will have to come across or I will make them pay dearly for it. our old pal Browne, too, have got to "come across" good and hard I have spent $5,000 this session having a good time and lookin~ up the when I say the word, and I am going to say it. dope on them. I have a friend in Chicago who will back me up and Mr. Zentner then asked him if he had anything on them furnish me all the money I want. that is, any evidence against them. 1\Ir. White replied: Throughout all this, as I have said, he was looking for some No; I aint. I got the worst of it down there in Springfield, but chance to get money, but never by honest employment. that makes no difference. I voted for LORIMER, and I am a Democrat, It was the one idea in his mind. Very soon after his tn.lk and I can say I got money for voting for LORI.MER. with .l\Iiss Woods, having failed to secure from Ur. Sulli1an There was the inception of this charge that is embodied in any promise of a large sum of money to conduct his campaign, the Tribune story: "I am a Democrat, and I voted for LORI having failed also in his efforts with Everybody's Magazine and MER, and 'r can say I got money for voting for LORIMER." White Doubleday, Page & Co., . on December 4, 1909, White, pursu.ant continued : "Do you suppose they can stand for it a mo~ to the same plan and in accordance with his avowed purpose, meut? I guess they will cough up when I say the word to addressed to Senator LoRIMER a letter, which has been published them." JHr. Zentner said : " God, you would not treat Browne far and wide. I presume it is familiar to every Member of t}lat way, would you?" To which White replied : "I am look this body. ing out for Whita, and, besides, Browne would not have to pay. The letter referred to is as follows : '.rlrnt bunch behind him would have to, and it would not hurt O'FALLo~, ILL., D ecember 4, 1909. him." Hon. WILLIAM LORll\IER, These men ·Zentner and Sturmer, considered this an idle Washington, D. 0. boast. They knew White had not fully emerged from his intoxi MY DEAR Sm: I am preparing to place before the people of this country an article I have written giving my true experience as a mem cation, and they looked upon it as the utterance of a man who ber of the Illinois Legislature. The article will appear either in book had not recovered his balance. But it appears, as a matter of form or will be published in one of the largest magazines in the United fact that the iden did have foundation in White's mind, and States. I have just completed the manuscript, whjch contains about 30,000 that he saw iu·the circumstance that he, a Democrat, had voted words, giving in detail my absolutely true experiences as a member of for a Republican, coupled with the payment to him of $1,900 the forty-sixth assembly. As yet I have not closed a deal with any from the jack pot by Drowne, a basis for fabricating the charge publishing house, but when my terms are acceptable will dispose of it. I have been offered a sum sufficient to value the manuscript at about that he had been bribed by Browne to vote for Senator LoRIMER, $2.50 per word. because immediately thereafter he began the preparation of his Believing that you would be more deeply interested in the works and "jack-pot" story. White testified that he commenced to write actions of the members of the last session of the Illinois Legislature, owing to the fact that possibly your experience with that general the story the last of August, or the first of September, and as assembly will be one of the questions freely discussed, and assuring early as September 7, only three weeks after the conversation you that I have severed all connections with the party leaders, as well wherein he first asserted his purpose, he wrote to Doubleday, as am to be independent in the future in all my political dealings, I am, Respectfully, yours, Page & Co. to make inquiries as to the manner in which they CHAS. A. WHITE. published articles. of that character; and in other letters he Note this passage: informed them of tlle nature of his manuscript. He also car I have just completed the manuscript, which' contains about 30,000 ried on a correspondence with Everybody's Magazine, to which words, giving in detail my absolutely true experiences as a member of he wrote on the 9th of September, two days after writing the forty-sixth assembly. As yet I have not closed a deal with any pub lishing house, but when my terms are acceptable will dispose of it. Doubleday, Page & Co., and fully informed them of the nature I have been offered a sum sufficient to value the manuscript at about of his manuscript. This correspondence with these companies $2.50 per word. continued from time to time down to February 11, 1910, at There are two lies in that statement. He now admits that · which date Ile turned over the manuscript to Doubleday, Page & he had not finisb.ed the manuscript at that time, he adullts that Co. for examination. he had not received an offer for it at that time. It was an While he was engaged in the preparation of this story White unblushing attempt to blackmail WILLIAM LORIMER, and to ex on two or three different occasions talked with Kathei·ine A. tort money from him-to extort $75,000 from him. " ' cod~. the owner of a cigar stand in the Illmo Hotel, at East; He attempts to explain this by saying that he hoped to bring St. Louis. He was ·oa friendly terms with Miss Woods, and from Mr. LORIMER some admission that he could use against occasionally took her out to dinner and to the theater, etc. him. Why? Because he admits in his testimony that he had He told her over and over again of this scheme of his, and she nothing against him. But all the evidence goes to show that it undertook to dissuade him. was not to get an admission from Mr. LoRIMER. It was to Ile told her that he was writing a history of his life and of ~he Illinois Legislature; that he expected to make a fortune out of it; extort money from Mr. LoRIMER that he wrote that letter. and that the Lorimer bunch would have to pay him enough money to Mr. LoRIMER with the rare understanding of human nature, keep him the rest of his life, and if the Lorimer bunch did not do which evidently he possesses, judged the man accurately, and it be would make it bot for LoRIMER; that he was going to run for Congress; that rich people of Chicago were backing him; that he bad in replying to this letter used the following language : spent $3,000 and a lot of time in making the history of his life and I am in receipt of your letter of December 4, in which you advise of the Illinois Legislature, and that he was going to get it back. me that you have manuscript ready to place with the publishers treating on your experience as a member of the Illinois Legislature. i Surely he had that purpose in mind. The only thought the would be very glad, indeed, to .note your success as an author. man had was that he must rehabilitate himself financially in With kindest personal regards, I am, some way. Conscience did not oppose inclination, and he Yours, very truly, WM. LoRn.mn. entered upon a scheme to secure money, and by blackmail Think of that proposition! That man testifies that between if necessary. Meantime he conceived an additional plan. He the time he conceived that story .and the time he attempted to wrote a letter to .Hon. Roger C. Sullivan, Democratic national blackmail WILLIAM LORIMER he remained in Chicago, trying to committeeman from Illinois. It shows another scheme on the ferret out something that he could work into a story against part of White to obtain money. In it he says : Lee O'Neil Browne or Mr. LoBIMER. He did not find it. He :My friends by the score are urging me to enter the race in this admits before the committee that at the time he undertook to congl'essional district for Congress. blackmail WILLIAM LoRIMER he had received no offer for the Two of the leading daily newspapers have been urging me to enter the race, and want to begin booming me as a probable candidate. manuscript, but that he hoped to receive a reply from Mr. What is your opinion of the matter? LoRIMER that would be of advantage to him. nut tlle point of the letter is in the following passage: White says over and over again that he had no evidence of I realize it will take a large sum of money to put up the right any character against Senator LORIMER, and had no deil.lings kind of a fight and do not know that much money could be raised here. with him. He testified before the first investigating com I would not consent for the use of my name unless there was the if proper· assurance of sufficient funds to carry on a stampede campaign. mittee that Senator LoRIMER had met his demands and had paid him $75,000 he would have surrendered the manuscript to l\fr. Sullivan replied to the letter very politely, but says in him then, and thus admitted that it was a blackmailing propo closing : sition. In reference to finances, will say the State committee has no funds whatever to give to any condidates, the treasury being completely ex The case against l\!r. LoBIMER stands on the testimony alone hausted, and I know of no place outside of your district where funds of that blackmailer. There you have a picture of the only man could be secured. who claims or admits bribery in connection with the election of So that scheme for making money failed. Mr. LoRIMER, and should the Senate adopf the testimony of We come down to Thanksgiving time, when he has another Charles A. White and deprive Senator LORIMER of his seat in inter>iew with ~liEs Woods, in which White told her- this body, that day will mark the greatest act of injustice, in to watch the Chicago papers, for be was going- to make out of the Lori mer bunch enough to live comfortably, and that when he got the my judgment, that has ever been recorded in any parallel case. KEn,,"'i] no~~~: started he was going on a trip to Europe knd to let them fight The Senator from Indiana [l\1r. in his argument the other day, in an effort to find something good to say of Mr. 8746 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE.. JULY 9, White., in the kindness of heart wnich prompts '.him in every plisb .his R'Vo-wed :purpose. The testimony shows that he e0n thing he does, spoke of the pleasant correspondence that bad ferred with labor leaders, among them I\Ir. Edwin iR. Wright, passed between Lee O'Neil Browne and M:r. ·wntte during the preSident ot the Illinois Federntion o'f Labor and member of months of July, August, and September, 1909, ·during which time employers' .liaffility rcommission, by -a..ppoi:ntment of Gov. Deneen, White was secretly concocting llis "3ack pot stoi:y," when, who suggested the Chicago Tribune, and as a result, ernntually, it is true, he was writing Mr. Br-0wne affectionate letters -tell White went .to the Tribune offic~ in Chicago to .dispose of his ing him that he was without funds; letters in which White jack-pot story. U;p rto tha.t time that story never had been called represented himself to be in such dire need that he was unable ~ything ,but the ""jack-pot" stocy, ·and. it is so described in the to get clothes which he had ·order.ed from the tailor; letters in receipt gi'>en for it by Mr. Keeley .on March 11, 1910. which he appealed to Mr. LolllMER to intercede for him and Why dj,d he go to tbe Tribune·? He was sent there by 1\Ir. help him to secure some sort of position rin ithe -Go~nment Wright, aeconding to the testimony, and he reached the right Secret Service, or anything that would ,place him on his -feet place. The rtruth is-there is no denial of it in the evidence again and relie-ve him from his distressing situation ; letters to anywhere-that the policy ,of -the Trilnrne for 20 years had been Mr. Browne of the same charaeter which led to efforts on the antagonistic .to Mr. LORIMER. Mr. Keeley -does not disguise the part of Mr. LoRIMER to get some kind of employment for him. fact that 'if ·at any time be .could have 1'ound anything which be But all these were written while he was concocting tile plot, and could use to drive l.1r. L01n.M..ER 011t o-'f the politics of minois he preparing t.his story against Lee O'Neil Browne and ·agamst would have been Tery glad to do it. He looks upon anything l\1r. LORIMER. that could be used for that :purpose, like the story of White, Were these the letteTs ·of a friend? Were they honest? What as merchandise which he has -a perfect right to purchase and does he say in his testimony about them.? I want the ·senate a perfect right to use. to understand who and what this man "Whlte is. I want Sen The salient features of the White story were: ators to note the quality of his character and :how easily .he First. That there had been a legislatiTe jack ·pot from which substitutes craft for conscience in .all bis -dealings :with men. .he ha.d Tecei ved $900. Note the following -examination : -Second. That ·on May 24, 1909, two days before the .election Why did you wi·J.te the letters to Lee -O'Neil Browne and. to S Page & Oo.1 or frGm -Senator LoBllIER tlrnough. 1J:i'.is ·a·ttempted , rto proc.ea.d .at ronce ;without wa1ting for -cooperation -0n the part blach."Ill.ail, and where he had failed ill nny way to accom- of the Federal Goverrunent. Senator LORIM ER believed that if 1912. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. the expenditure of that $20,000,000 was begun in Illinois with at which time Mr. Keeley told Mr. Wayman that he had . out a corresponding appropriation on the part of the Govern White's jack-pot story; that it would require a prosecution ment the money would be wasted. And he further. in.aisted and wanted to know where the venue would lie. Keeley was that faith should be kept with the people, because it was anxious about the venue. It was his first inquiry of 'Gov. distinctly stated from every platform during the campaign for Deneen, and his first question of Mr. Wayman. To his mind the adoption of the constitutional amendment providing for it was not as important that a prosecution should be had, as the $20,000,000 bonds that not one penny of it would be ex that it should be had in Cook County. Mr. Wayman told him pended until Federal cooperation and an appropriation had been he would haTe to see the witness and know details of the story secured thus insuring the success of the great undertaking. before deciding, and the following morning Mr. Keeley sent to ~fore~ver, there was still a greater reason for the position of him the manuscript. Mr. LORIMER. It was that the water flowing into that canal The result of that interview must convince every candid from Lake Michigan was completely under the control of the mind that the pm-poses entertained by Mr. Keeley at that time Federal Government, and the State of Illinois could have nothing were to build up the Tribune through the exploitation of the whatever to do with it. Every ounce of water flowing through White- story, and at the same tim~, if possible, destroy 1\lr. there to-day in the drainage canal is by consent of the War LoRIMER's political influence and deprive him of the possession Department. of his seat in the Senate. Gov. Deneen proposed legislation which would allow him to Anyone would naturally think that these patriots, learning build three dams, the first, to cost $5,000,000, to be in operation from that story that there had been general corruption in the before the -others. That was put in the form of legislation. legislature and that jack pots had existed, would have united Mr. LORIMER oppo ed it. He opposed independent action. He in u strong movement to convict evt;ry guilty man, whether a wanted a 14-foot waterway all the way through to the Gu1f, contributor to or receiver of a corrupt fund. That an effort something that would be of real advantage to the great central at least would have been made to punish the offenders and West, as well as the termini, and he urged the fact that the drive them out of public life. Not a thing of that kind was State had no power to divert the water from the lake, and that done, and not a man has been prosecuted either in Cook County those operating the canal were using the water subject to a or Sangamon County for complicity in the jack-pot fund either revocable permit He went so far as to try to compromise with as contributor or receiver. Not a man who confe sed to receiv Gov. Deneen upon the proposition, and stated to him before ing money from such a fund! has ever been brought to trial, but, leaving Chicago that he was authorized to say to the members on the other hand, every man who had anything out of that of the general assembly who held the same- views that he jack-pot fund has been given full immunity, and all of them, (LORIMER) held on the subject that if he (Deneen) would agree although self-confessed participators, walk the streets to-day to a provision that no money except what was necessary for perfectly free men. plans and specifications should be expended until the Federal l\lr. HEED. Mr. President-- Government made an appropriation and adopted the plan, he The PRESIDEl~T pro tempore. Does the Senator from Ver would be willing to have the bill passed substantially as it was mont yield to the Senator from Missouri{ passed by the senate; that is, providing that the governor Mr. DILLINGHAM. I do. shouJd have all the power of appointing the board and be un Ur. REED. The Senator suggests that nobody has ever hampered in any sense of the word in the expenditure of the investigated the jack pot. If I recall aright one of the express money. The governor would not agree to that. He wanted to directions to the Senate committee of which the Senator was have the bill passed without any strings tied to it. That is the chairman was to investigate the jack pot. way he expressed it, according to Mr. LoRIMER's testimony. Mr. DILLINGHA.l\!. If the Senator had listened a little I have called attention to the political enmity of the Chicago more carefully. he woul attorney general of the State of Illinois tried to prevent the when the story was written. One other thing. I forgot this. I said, State's attorney of Sangamon County from inquiring into " This story coming to me through the Trjbune will also atrect the wheth~r or not corruption did occur in the Legislature of Illi- ~~~~b~~i~h~~t':t~~ii"a ~0 ;~dsi~i'il~ff the whole tlling, it could not nois? - But Mr. Keeley insisted, and the agreement was entered into Mr. DILLINGHAM. The Senator's mind, as usual, works between the State's attorney and the editor of the Tribune. more rapidly than mine; but I am coming soon to that point. Mr. Keeley agreed to all that, but said that the matter was in his When 1\Ir. Keeley and Mr. Wayman were discussing the ques hands and he proposed to investigate the story and print it. I told tion whether or not there was anything in the White story, it him to send the story to my office, that I would read it, take the matter under consideration, with the express understanding that if I will be seen that it was aimed at Senator LoRIMEB, not at cor undertook the investigation he would not print anything about it or ruption in the Illinois Legislature. Mr. Wayman testifies: hint at any thing about it, because if he printed it it would impair the We went into a discussion of the entire matter. I told Mr. Keeley investigation-that it would have to be carried on without any pub- _ thnt I hud been through one bribery case and that they were very licity. difficult cases ; that I did not want to undertake another one unless He then made the remark, " I am runnin~ a newspaper." I said, it was founded on pretty substantial evidence; that such n. case as " Yes; and I am running the State's attorney s office." I said, " If I that would involve a great many people; that it was a very impor undertake this investigation I will be willing that you have the exclusive tant matter and would have to be gone into very carefully. I told news value of the story." He said, "That is all I want." I said, "I him that the prosecution of the case would call In an array against will give you notice of whatever my opinion is, and if I do not prose the prosecution of the resources not only of the men who were im cute it I will announce that fact to you, and if I do prosecute it I will plicated in 1.he crime, but the resources of all those who were bene announce that fact to you before anybody else knows it." Tbnt was tlciades of the nllege · It can not be denied that the Tribune manager had ftlll .the State's attorney's office; that he willingly submitted to this knowledge of White's dissolute habits, despicable character, and extraordinary procedure, and remained in the charge of Cook evident contemptible purpose. Whether the Tribune people were County officers, wholly under their control, for u period of eight influenced by this threat of White does not appear in the evi months. dence, except by the fact, which is significant, that on the eve During that entire time, sleeping or waking, in court or out ning of this same 29th day of April, 1910, White had reached of court, Charles A. White never took a step or a breath ex Chicngo, and his contract of sale to the Tribune was signed cept in the pre8ence of an officer of Cook County. He testified and deli>ered, the consideration therefore being the payment to before the Cook County grand jury; he testified in the first trial him of $3,5.00, of which $1,250 was paid at that time. The con of Lee O'Neil Browne; he· testified in the second: trial of Lee trolling influence of his greed and ayarice, and the wickedness O'Neil Browne in August and early in September, and he testi of his intention is indicated by the fact, as Manager Keeley fied before the Burrows committee. Then it seemed that the testified, that in the first instance he d~anded $50,000 for his whole work of the prosecution had ended and that he had com jack-pot story, which offer was spurned as ridiculous. At the pleted his contract, but, notwithstanding that, Cook County con time of the signing of the contract White expressed a willingness tinued to keep Charles A. White in the custody of an officer to take $4,000, and finally, after much parleying $3,500 was during October, November, and December, and until after the agreed upon and the deal was consummated. Burro\YS committee made its report to the Senate on December When the Tribune managers purchased that story from White 21, 1910. Two days after that report was made to the Senate they did so with full knowledge of the character of its author; Cook county released its hold upon White, and during that eight the> had been advised by State's Attorney Wayman that, for months all of his expenses and the expenses of the officers at rea'Rcus stated by him, White at best would only be a 20 per tending him, amounting to $2,531.15, were paid by the county cent witness, and yet the Tribune paid $3,500 for this man's of Cook. There was some reason for this. uncorroborated story, upon which rests the entire weight of THE MOVEMENT TO U)ISEAT Mll. LORIMER IS LAU)ICH:ED. the movement to unseat Senator LORIMER, and in the execution Going back to the evening of Friday, April 29, 1910, following of this plan to unseat Senator LORIMER the alleged bribery of the purchase of the White story, great excitement prevailed in White by Lee O'Neil Browne was the only grourw upon which the Tribune office; all the machinery of that immense plant it could be successfully prosecuted. At this time the manager was called into action to insure its publication the following of the Tribune had brought into the moyement Gov. Deneen, morning, and on Saturday morning, April 30, 1910, the Tribune, as already shown, and State's Attorney Wayman, with all the under glaring headlines, printed the story, accompanied by an powerful machinery of the legal department of Cook County, interview with Gov. Deneen. The governor was in Chicago was strongly cooperating. that night, and in yiew of what has been said in Illinois and Friday, July 29, 1910, was a very important day in the his in Washington concerning bipartisanship combinations in Illi tory of this case. On that day Mr. Wayman called the grand nois politics, it is interesting to note in passing that Gov. De jmy to meet in Chicago the following Monday, May 2, and neen testified that he had attended a political conference that notified Mr. Keeley through his attorney, Alfred Austrian, that evening with Roger Sullivan, Democratic national committee the T1ibune might go ahead and publish anything it pleased man from Illinois, and others, relating to "the proposed appor concerning the White story. Austrian lost no time in com tionment" of the city of Ohicago, in order to determine whether munlca ting with Keeley, who was at his farm at Wheaton, and the Democrats and Republicans could agree. So that, if bipar the latter immediately returned to Chicago, went to the Tribune tisanship has flourished in Illinois politics, it has not been con office. where he held a conference with l\Ir. Austrian and De fined exclusively to the Illinois Legislature in the election of tecti rn McGuire, after which White was brought in by Mc Senator LoRIMER. Guire, and then and there the contract was entered into for the This publication was made, as I have said, in the Tribune sale and purchase of the White story. on Saturday, April 30. Other papers took the matter up, and What was that contract between the Tribune and Charles A. were filled with startling announcements. Excitement ran high White? It is as follows: throughout the State and Nation. Sunday, May 1, was a busy THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, OFFICE OF PUBLISHER, Chicago, Ill., April 29, 1910. day. Everyone in political life in Chicago who was opposed to To CHARLES A. WHil'E : Mr. LORIMER was roused to action. When he was elected Sen You offered to sell to us for publication a story written by you, which ator they feared his increased influence. Now he was attacked story gives your experience while a member of the House of Representa and his downfall predicted, and they were ready to 1·enew the tives of Illinois during 1909-10, and giving also certain information as to what transpired by reason of your voting for certain measures, etc., old contest against him. while a member of such house. APPEA.RA....--,CE OF INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. We refused to pay you for that story or to print the same unless such story was verified and corroborated by persons selected by the At this juncture of affairs the International Harvester Co., Tribune. through it general manager, Clarence S. Funk, makes its For more than four weeks we, with your cooperation, through dif ferent agencies, have caused your story to be fully investigated. appearance as a new element in the combination to drag Mr. For the sole and exclusive right hereby granted by you to the Tribune LoRIMER from his seat in the Senate. Co. to publish this story, or a revision thereof, or excerpts therefrom, Why did lli. Funk inject himself into the matter on that day? in the Chicago Tribune and copyright it either in your name or in that of the Tribune Co., but in which shall be at our election, and also in Why do I say he rushed in? Why did he do so? LM us look full compensation for the time already spent by you in assisting us in at the situation for a moment. For years before Mr. LoRIMEB's obtaining corroborative evidence of the facts contained in this story election to the United States Senate the International Har and in full payment for all your time which shall be devoted by you to further substantiate this story at any time, which time you hereby vester Co. had been his political enemy. With his election to agree to devote to that purpose as and when called upon so to do, the the upper House of the Congress he became a more potential Tribune Co. hereby agrees to pay you $3,250, of which said sum $1,250 power. It was then time to make peace with him. A meeting shall be paid upon the printing of the said story or the first install ment thereof, $1,000 30 days after said first payment, and $1,000 60 had taken place on the day following his election, l\fay 27, days thereafter. 1909, at the Union League Club, Chicago, between l\Ir. Funk, You i·eserve to yourself all book or other rights to the story other the general manager of the International Harvester Co., and than the exclusive newspaper rights hereinbefore referred to, which be long under the terms hereof to the Tribune Co. Edward Hines. They disagree as to what occurred on that J. K:EHJLEY, occasion. Mr. Hines's version is corroborated in every par Vice President Trioune Co. ticular. Three witnesses-Hall, Baker, and Carney-who were CHICAGO, ILL., April -, 1910. all present, corroborate Mr. Hines's statement as to the opening To the Chicago Tribune and the Tribune Co. portion of the interview. GE),-.rLEMEN: I have read the above and foregoing and agree to the VERSION OF MR. HINES. terms thereof and to accept the sums of money as therein set forth, Brie.fly stated, Mr. Hines says that Mr. Funk approached him and l further agree to devote my time and services to substantiate the story referred to as and when requested by you so to do and in such and sa· : manner as you may direct. I very glad to hear that lli. LORIMER has been elected Senator. CHARLES A. WHITE. d further said : NQte the agreement upon the part of White: would like very much indeed, at your earliest convenience, if you I have read the above and foregoing, and agree to the terms thereof ould arrange to introduce me to Senator Lonnrnn. I have never met and to accept the sums of money as therein set forth, and I further ·m, and I would like to have you introduce me to him. agree to devote my time and services to substantiate the story referred to as and when requested by you so to do and in 1mch manner as you And as they were about to separate Mr. Funk further said : may direct. The Senator must have been put to more or less expense in this con test for the senatorship, and he ought not to stand that. The business Another peculiar circumstance in connection with this trans interests ought to take it off his hands. We would like to contribute action, and one worthy of consideration by the Senate, is the to that expensi. ' fact that immediately after White entered into and signed the l\Ir. Hines testified: foregoing contract ·and agreement, before he moved from the I said to him that I di The evidence shows that Mr. Hines did call upon l\Ir. LoR LoRIMER; testifying that Mr. Hines approached him and said: IMER at his home the following Sunday evening; that he in "Hello! you are just the man I was looking for." That Hines quired concerning his expenses; was told by Mr. LoRI:MER that seemed to be feeling exuberated, and further said, "Well, we he had incurred no expenses sa-re his railroad fare; and Mr. put LoRIMER over down at Springfield, but it cost us $100,000 to - Hines reported to l\Ir. Funk that Mr. LORIMER had been to no do it." That he "then went on to explain that they had to act - expense whatever. .Mr. Ilines testified that his impression was quickly when the time came and did not have any time to con that l\Ir. Funk approached him in that way for the purpose of sult anybody." And that he further said: "So we put up the " currying favor," as he expressed it, with Senator LORIMER, money. Now we are seeing some of our friends to get the matter toward whom he had been opposed, but with whom, now that fixed np." That he inquired how much he was getting from he had been elevated to the senatorship, he desired to be upon different friends, and Hines said, "Well, we can only go to a better terms. few big people; but if about 10 of us would put up $10,000 apiece That Hines's version of that interview is correct is made evi we would clean it up." That he asked Hines why he had come dent by the surrounding circumstances. He says that at the to him, and Hines said, "Because you are as much interested time he had his interview with Senator LORIMER he told him as anybody in having the right kind of a man in Washington." that Mr. Funk was very anxious to be introduced to him, and That he replied, " I told him we would not have anything to do that Mr. LORIMER replied, "Mr. Funk is one of my acti:ve en with the matter." That he wanted to know why, and he said, emies, Mr. Hines, and I do not care to meet him particularly." "Because we are not in that kind of business." But after some discussion and Mr. Hines's statement that he Mr. Funk said Mr. Hines mentioned Mr. Tilden's name as had promised to present him, Senator LoRIMER consented to the man who handled the money. meet Mr. Funk. The evidence shows that Mr. Hines was un In doing this Mr. Funk fully intended, without permitting able to see l\Ir. Funk personally after his talk with Senator the story to reach any judicial tribunal where its truth or LORIMER, because he left Chicago early on the Monday follow falsity could be determined, to have it used, as it was used, as ing, but he sent word to him through Mr. Wiehe that there was it has been used from that hour to this, secretly but effectively nothing to that matter-meaning Senator LoRIMER's expenses in to bring about the destruction of Senator LomMER politically. connection with his election. During that week Mr. Wiehe And it was upon Mr. Funk's version of this interview with had occasion to communicate by long distance with .Mr. Hines, Edward Hines that the Senate of the United States reopened at Washington, and in the course of the conversation told him this case, and that is the sole basis for the claim that a cor that his message did not seem to suit Mr. Funk, who was ruption fund was raised and used to secure the election of anxious to meet him in Washington the following Saturday. Sena tor Lo RIMER. Mr. Hines could not tell about his movements at that time, and MR. KOHLSAAT BECOMES A PARTY TO THE MOVEMENT. the following Friday, June 4, 1909, he telegraphed to the Mr. Kohlsaat is a man of great ability; he has great in Edward Hines Lumber Co. at Chicago: terests; and he has done great newspaper work in Chicago. Will try. Have Funk meet me, Chicago, Saturday or Sunday. Could meet llim any time. Like to leave here to-day. Answer quick. He is a charming man to meet. He came into this contro\ersy just as James Keeley did; just as Gov. Deneen did; ai;id just What does that telegram mean? It means that Funk de as other men engaged in politics did-to unseat Senator LoRI sired to see him, and Hines would try to meet him. MER. Their whole stock in trade was the jack-pot story o:f Mr. Hines received a telegram in reply, stating: Charles A. White, unless it should appear that a corruption Funk New York to-day. Leaves this afternoon, Washin!?ton. There to-morrow. You can reach him to-day, George Perkins s office, or fund had been raised and used corruptly by Edward Hines to Judge Gary, 51 Broadway. aid in the election of WILLI.A.M LoRIMER. As a matter of fact, there was no such fund; there is not a shred of evidence to This incident is corroborated by the testimony of Mr. Wiehe. support the statement that such a fund ever existed. And yet Without waiting to meet Mr. Funk in Washington, Mr. Hines this story of Funk, secretly circulated, which never until now left for Chicago that afternoon. He testified that he had no was allowed to reach any tribunal where its truth or falsity_ business of a personal nature pending with Mr. Funk, and that could be tested, has, more than any other one element in this he knew of no reason why the latter desired to meet him beyond case, resulted in the great wave of public sentiment which what was expressed in the message of Mr. Wiehe to the effect has demanded Mr. LORIMER as a sacrifice. . that Mr. Funk did not seem satisfied with what he had said to This is the story which Mr. Funk told Mr. Kohlsaat at this him and wanted to see Mr. Hines personally. time, when it became necessary, as he believed, to join this The statement of l\Ir. Hines is further corroborated by the movement to oust Senator LoltIMER from his seat; he says he fact that during the deep-waterways convention. which was had never told it to any person except Mr. McCormick and Mr. held in Washington in the fall of 1909, Mr. Funk met him in Bancroft, the president and the counsel for the company of the New Willard Hotel and was taken by Mr. Hines to a room which he was general manager. Both of these men say they upstairs and introduced to Mr. LORIMER, as he had then and never mentioned it to any person, and had not even discussed previously requested. it among themselves, so that is was locked up in the mind of If the version of l\!r. Hines is not true, why was Mr. Funk Mr. Funk until he told it to Mr. Kohlsaat, and Mr. Kohlsaat pursuing him the next week seeking an interview with him~ says that he told it to l\Ir. Keeley, of the Chicago Tribune, and Why did he want to meet him in Washington? As the evidence to Mr. Lawson, of the Chicago Daily News, "in confidence," shows, there was no reason for it and no explanation of it ex giving to the latter Funk's name. cept for the purpose of carrying out his determination to estab Now mark the time: Monday morning, May 2, the -very day lish if possible, friendly relations with Senator LORIMER. that the grand jury convened in Chicago, the Tribune published Mo~ths later why was Mr. Funk renewing his request to be an editorial headed, "Was it sawdust?" followed by "Who introduced to Senator LORIMER, and why did he go with Edward furnished the dust, to use a colloquialism, to bribe the legisla Hines to his apartments in the Willard Hotel for the sole pur- ture?" And Mr. Keel ~y testifies that he personally wrote that . pose of being presented to Senator LoRIMER? editorial and ordered it to be published as the leading editorial CHA 'GED CONDITIO~S. in the Chicago Tribune of May 2: But now conditions ha\e changed! A year has elapsed. Mr. HANECY. When yon published the leading editorial in the Tribune, which you say you wrote yourself-- · With the publication of White's jack-pot story and the charge Mr. KEELEY. Yes, sir. that Senator LoRIMER occupied his position in the Senate as the Mr. HANECY. On the 2d of May-the one headed, "Who furnished result of b1ibery in tlle Ieghllature all the old opposing forces the sawdust "-you meant in that editorial Edward Hines, didn't you? Mr. KEELEY. Yes. sir. in politics immediately sprung into new life; they all joined in Mr. HANECY. And you wanted the public to understand that you organizing a crusade to drive this man out of the Senate of the meant Edward Hines, didn't you? United States, and Clarence S. Funk evidently wished to add his 1ifr. KEELEY. '.rhey could draw that inference; yes, sir. contribution to the swelling tide of opposition to Mr. LORIMER. Mi.". H,L'l'ECY. You wanted them to draw that inference? Mr. KEEI.EY. Why, possibly; ~es, sir. Immediately after the publication of the White story, being Mr. IIAKECY. Edward Hines is the only one that your paper men anxious to enter the lists of those planning the downfall of tioned as a lumberman or in connection with sawdust ln any of the articles in the Tribune, is be not? Senator LORIMER, Mr. Funk sought out his intimate friend Mr. Mr. KEELEY. Yes, sir. H. H. Kohlsaat, of the Record-Herald, who for 20 years had Mr. HA::IBCY. Whenever you mentioned anybody as a lumberman or been confessedly bitterly opposed to Mr. LORIMER politically, connected with the lumber business or who furnished the sawdust or any similar terms, connecting a prominent citizen with the lumber busi and to him, under a solemn pledge .of secrecy, unfolded bis ver ness, you meant Edward Hines, didn't you? . sion of the interview had with Edward Hines on May 27, 1900, Mr. KEELEY. Yes, sir. the day following the election of Senator LoRIMER. The manager of that great corporation knew that story, as the VERSION OF MR. FUNK. editorial shows, because it could not ha•e been ba ·ed on anything l\Ir. Funk ga\e to this committee his version of the inte~view else. He could not have recei>ed his information from any had with Edward Hines on the day after the election of Mr. other source than that which I ha\e described. Until he told 1912. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 8751 l\Ir. Kohlsaat, l\Ir. Funk had told it only to Mr. McCormick and testified before· the Helm ·cominittee at Springfield in April; 1911- l\fr. Bancroft, and they say they had not mentioned it even a month after the Senate had determined that Mr. LoRIMER's among themselves. election was valid. l\Ir. Kohlsaat now becomes a very impor Mr. Keeley got no response from that, and on the following tant figure in this movement against Mr. LoRIMER. He was the· Sunday, May 8, within six days of the publication of that edito custodian of that story. rial, he propounded these questions: ATTORNEY GENERAL STEAD IS BROUGHT INTO THE COMBIN.A.TIO:N'. Have you uny knowledge of a syndicate that underwrote the election Another party to this combination enters upon the scene at of Mr. LORIMER'( this time, and that is the attorney general of the State. Sena Putting it in the very language of Mr. Funk: tor Lo&TMER made a suggestion a few moments ago concerning Have you any knowledge of this syndicate advancing the money and the part he took to smother an investigation of legislative then, after the election of Senator LORIMER, sending certain members of the syndicate around and assessing corporations and friends of the graft in Sangamon County. It must be remembered that the Senator a certain proportion of the amount used? publication of the White story in the Tribune was on the Do you know anything about the identity of this· syndicate? morning of Saturday, April 30; that the publication of the How much did you con tribute toward any fund for the election of Senator Lor.a.um? Tribune's "sawdust" editorial, based upon Mr. Funk's story, Did you solicit any funds for the election of Senator LORU.IEJR? was on the morning of Monday, l\fay 2; that Funk must liave If you have anything further to say on the subject, Mr. Keeley, of communicated it to Kohlsaat as early as Sunday, May 1, and. the 'l'ribune, will be glad to hear from you to-night. that Kohlsaat must have communicated it to Keeley on that These questions cover every feature, every phase of Mr. same day. Funk's yersion of his interview with Edward Hines, which he On May 2, the same day that the Cook County grand jury m~t had communicated to Mr. Kohlsaat "in confidence." Mr. Kohl in Chicago, the Sangamon County grand jury met in Springfield. saat in turn told it immediately to Keeley and Lawson, thus The latter is the county in illinois in which it was charged all bringing these strong forces into the combination that was pur of the offenses had been committed. If there was bribery, it was suing Mr. LORIMER. in Springfield. If there was boodling, it was in Springfield. Mr. Hines told the reporter who called upon him in regard If there was any violation of the law in the legislature, it was to these questions that he would call on l\fr. Keeley and re committed in Springfield; and immediately after the publica fused to talk with the reporter. Mr. Hines did call on 1\Ir. tion in the Tribune on Saturday, the SU:te's attorney of San Keeley at that time. He was indignant. 1\Ir. Keeley says: gamon County announced that he would prosecute all of those • He repeated the fact that he had a reputation and a standing in cases, and issued subprenas for the witnesses whose names had the city of Chicago, and that if we printed anything about him thaf was libelous he would sue us for libel. I told Mr. Hines that whatever been made public. was true I would print about him, and he could sue and be banged, The attorney general of the State, 1\Ir. Stead, promptly vol under those circumstances, pointing out the fact .that the Tribune unteered his assistance to the State's attorney of Sangamon Bl1ilding was worth a million and a half dollars; and if we printed any lies about him or any libelous statements that he could get that County in prosecutions there. The State's attorney issued building, and doubtless be could use 1t in the lumber business. I then subprenas, and published in the papers the statement that asked him afaain if be desired to answer the questions, and be said he would proceed. But some potent influence began at once " No " ; and ended the interview right then and there. to operate to prevent a p1·osecution in Sangamon County. It turns out, however, that Mr. Hines did really answer the Gov. Deneen had been in this movement from the 16th of questions, and in response to a question of Senator FLETCHER March, when he had his first consultation with l\1r. Keeley. Mr. Keeley says: Re was with l\Ir. Keeley the morning of the publication of this He may have said, in a general way, "I have not any answer to story, April 30, and gave an interview which was published in these questions. I do not want to answer them. There is nothing in ttiem." Or something of that kind. I do not remember specifically the Tribune. He had returned to his home at Springfield, where what was said. the offices of Attorney General Stead are located. I have al Senator JoNEs inquired: ready said that 1\Ir. Stead came forward promptly on l\Ionday, Mr. Hines said to you that he considered the questions insulting? May 2, and volunteered to support Mr. Burke, the State's attor Mr. KEELEY. First a joke, and then insulting, and then libelous. ney, in the prosecution he was to begin in Sangamon County. In further substantiation of the fact that this story must Then what happened? Before that week had ended he sent have been known to l\Ir. Keeley at·this time, and that it reached his assistant, Mr. Dempsey, to advise l\Ir. Burke not to proceed him through Mr. Kohlsaat, Mr. Keeley testifies that Mr. Kohl with such investigation before the grand jury of Sangamon saat mentioned the names of Hines, Tilden, Conway, and Roger County. Why not? About the same time we find the governor C. Sullivan in connection with that transaction, and 1\lr. going to l\1r. Gillespie, an attorney of Springfield, concerning whom I will speak by-and-by, and telling him that be 1s not Mr. Keeley directed the questions to be put to Hines and Conway, and his evidence shows that these same question::; sure that the attorney general will prosecute those cases. He were carried to Conway as well as to Hines, and that he sent advised Mr. Gillespie not to engage in the defense, as there l\Ir. Austrian to see Roger Sullivan with the same questions. might be a legislative investigation, and he might be employed So that there can be no doubt that Mr. Funk was in that com by the State. He asked him to keep out of the so-called bribe bination on that yery Sunday before the "sawdust" article was c:uies. published Monday morning, May 2, the day the grand jury came Now, I repeat that before the end of tliat weeir and before together. a single witness had appeared before the Sangamon County If I needed any further corroboration, I would cite the fact grand jury, Mr. Dempsey, the assistant attorney general, went that on May 10, 1910, the Chicago Daily News published these to Mr. Burke and asked him not to proceed with the investiga same questions and answers. On that day a Tribune reporter tion in that county. Burke refused to comply with the request, called Mr. Hines at his home over the phone and asked if the and l\Ir. Dempsey threatened to invoke the aid of the courts to interview published by the News was. correct. Hines said he restrain him from doing so. had not read it. The reporter read it to him, and Hines said, The strength of this interference to preyent an investigation "That is correct," and that he had nothing to add to it. Ou of alleged offenses is evidenced by the fact that proceedings l\Iay 11 the Tribune under glaring headlines reproduced th? were actually begun by the attorney general in the courts News's interview with Hines. of that county to legally restrain the State's attorney fron:i And yet from .that day to this it has been stated that l\Ir. doing his plain duty by investigating through the grand jury Hines never denied any of these stories. He never had a the guilt of these parties, whose offense, if committed any chance to deny them in court or in any investigation, because where, was committed in that county-. l\fr. Burke was brought every time any of them told that story it was told " in confi in before the court and the attorney general appeared in dence " ; it must not go into court, it must not be heard in an person against him and urged the court to issue a restraining investigation, it must not be made public. He never had a order to prevent l\fr. Burke from proceeding with the investi chance to meet it until he met it before this committee, and gation. The court decided in favor of Mr. Burke's right to pro yet, as late as January, 1911, when this matter was under ceed and held that the attorney general had no authority to consideration in this body, Mr. Kohlsaat wrote a letter to interfere in proceedings pending before the grand jury. l\fr. the Senator from New York [Mr. RooT], which appears in Burke, therefore, having the authority, proceeded. the report of the committee, in which he states that he had But what produced this remarkable change of heart on the several times published editorially that $100,000 was raised to part of the attorney general and led pill to invoke the aid of buy LoRIMER's election without a protest from anyone. How the courts in an attempt to stifle the investigation? Could it could it be denied? No one knew the basis for such statements. have been anything but the influence of Gov. Deneen? ' The If Edward Hines saw these statements, he had no means of answer is easily found in the statement of Mr. Gillespie, whom knowing that they referred to him; and consequently, he could I have ri;ientioned, and it is a significant element of the conversa make no denial. The first time the name of any man was tion that he asked Mr. Gillespie what his relations were with connected with this. alleged fund was when Clarence S. Funk the attorney general, and was informed that they were friendly. XLVIII--550 8752 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. JULY 9, .And it is still more significant that immediately after, when The Cook Connty authorities did not want these men to tes '.Attorney General Stead appeared in court to oppose Burke's tify in any other county. It was not their purpose to have the investigation, he called Gillespie aside and asked if he had participants in the legislative jack pot punished. They even been employed or spoken to by anybody in connection with ,the granted immunity for that offense to induce these witnesses to defense of any of the cases. He stated to Gillespie that he did testify when the prosecution of Browne for bribery only was not know what his attitude would be, and asked him for the pending. Their sole purpose was to sm~tain the story of Charl~ time being not to participate in the defense, and Gillespie said A. White. In this they were not successful. These witnesses to him that he would not at that time. Thus it would appear did testify in the trials where Charles A. White was a witness, that the combination already referred to operating in Cook but no jury convicted Browne, because neither of ·these wit County, acting through Gov. Deneen, had swer-red the attorney nesses ever admitted to anybody and neither ever testified that general from his laudable purpose to aid State's Attorney the money he received from Lee O'Neil Browne had any con Burke to prosecute all the alleged legislative offenses in the nection with his vote for .Mr. LoRIMER. county where they were committed, and induced him to become Returning to proceedings in Sangamon County, Link ap their servant in attempting, through his high office, to block peared before the Sangamon County grand jury two or three such proceeding. times, and on the advice of State's Attorney Wayman, of Cook OBSTRUCTIO~ TO JUSTICE IN SANGAMON COUNTY. County. refused to answer questions propounded to him, on the How further did the Chicago combination seek to obstruct ground, as Wayman advised, that he might incriminate himself. the orderly course of procedure in the county where alone the Though Link wanted to answer the questions, still Wayman jurisdiction lay to investigate and punish legislative corruption? said, "Don't do it, Link; don't do it." l\Ir. Burke summoned White to appear before his grand jury, Mr. Link testified: but he did not respond to the summons. He also summoned Q. Did he tell you not to answer the questions of the State's att&r Link, Beckemeyer, and others. What was done? To prevent ney or the grand jury of San"amon County ?-A. If the senatorial eom mittee please, the question all hinged upon one answer, " No " or Mr. White from testifying in Sangamon County, the officers who " Yes," to one certain question, and that question was, " Did you re had custody of him, under the authority and by the direction of ceive or were you offered or do you know of anybody being offered any Mr. Wayman, the State's attorney of Cook County, took him out money in Springfield for voting on any question? " That was the question, and when I finally got permission from Mr. Wayman, which of the State of Illinois; they went with him from place to place I answered positively, right straight out, "No." I answered, "No:• in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan. The first direction That is all there was about that. He wouldn't let me answer the giyen by Mr. Wayman was to take White out of town, because question at all. · be did not want White to be subprenaed before the Sangamon In order to induce .Mr. Link to testify before the grand jury County grand jury. · of Sangamon County the State's attorney of that county went As I have already stated, immediately upon the signing of to the court and secured an immunity order in his favor, so the contract with the Chicago Tribune on April 29, White was that if he should testify he would not incriminate himself, n.nd put in the custody of Officer Turner; he was taken to the ev~n under those circumstances we .find him the.re in the custody Palmer House, where White had been stopping, and from there of an officer and accompanied by a legal adviser sent by the to the Grand Pacific Hotel. where they spent the balance of the State's attorney of C0ok County and at that county's expense. night, also Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. On May 2, the day Let me repeat, the purpose of the combination, as I call it, the grand jury met in Cook County, White was taken to State's of all forces mentioned was to secure evidence to sustain Attorney Wayman's office and put in charge of an officer from White's claim that the $1,000 paid by Browne to White was in that office. He does not remember exactly the places to which pursuance of an agreement with Browne to vote for Sena tor the officers took him, but among other places he was taken to LoRIMER. To this end every instrumentality known to the law the Del Prado Hotel, Hyde Park. Officer Kerr then took him and unknown to the law was invoked. ':(he charge has been • to Milwaukee with one Otis Yarbrough, and the three spent one shown to be unfounded by the courts of Illinois, where it was day at the Plankinton House. Then White, Officer Kerr, and fully and carefully and ably tried. This is all the more re Yarbrough went together to Madison, Wis. They were there markable when it is remembered that in the preparation of the for several days, after which they went to Minneapolis, Minn., Browne case and in the attempt to secure evidence that would where the three remained for two or three days. White swears: in some way connect fraud with the election of Senator Loxr I think Mr. Wayman called us in at that time. Mr. Wayman MEB methods were adopted and means employed more censur ordered us out of town; that is all I know. He ordered the officer to take me out. I! I remember correctly, he called up the room at the able in their natme than can be conceived by any student of hotel, and I answered the phone, and then he ordered Kerr to take history who has respect for human freedom. us out ·of town. · White, Beckemeyer, and Link, and without do,ubt others, had .Mr. Wayman himself testifies that he gm'e that order. He each received $1,900 from the "jack pot,'' made up of con was asked: tributions from corporations in the interest of special legis That was on your direction? lation. In each instance $1..000 was paid by Browne and $000 Mr. WAYl\IL">q. Yes. The towns were not selected by me, but the diree In it tion wus to keep out of the jurisdiction of Sangamon County for awhile, by Wilson. each instance came from a common fund and and out of lltin.ois. must have been for a common purpose. White's claim that What is true of Mr. White in that connection is true of Mr. he had been bribed to vote for Mr. LoRIMEB was wholly unsup 1,leckemeyer. In order to keep him away from Sangamon ported. The purpose of this combination was to make it appear County, Mr. Beckemeyer was sent to Indiana and kept there for that the payments to Beckemeyer and Link were for the same a week. He rebelled against being kept out of the State, and purpose, and so corroborate White's story. But neither Becke returning to Chicago told MI:. Wayman that he was not going meyer nor Link ever testified to any such thing. The story of Charles A. White was not only unsupported, but was dis to dodge in that way, and ~ spite of Mr. Wayman's wishes '\oluntarily went to Springfield to testify. credited, and Mr. Browne was discharged on a verdict of ac When Mr. Link was summoned before the Sangamon County quittal of the charge. grand jury at Springfield to testify, Mr. Wayman sent an officer METHQDS ADOPTED WITH WITNESSES IN COOK COUNTY. nnd a lawyer with him to prevent him from testifying there. Mr. President, I want to call attention to the way that wit This is a very strange thing, Mr. President, in view of the nesses were treated in Chicago when called before the grand fact that Cook County had no jurisdiction over l\Ir. Beckemeyer jury in this attempt to extort from them something that would or l\lr. Link or anyone connected with the-legislative corrup support White's story of bribery and something that would give tion, except Lee O'Neil Browne, and only over him because he color to the statement that the thousand dollars they had each paid a part of the $1,000 to White in Cook County. If any received from Mr. Browne was for the purpose of inducing offense had been committed by Mr. Beckemeyer or by Mr. Link, them to vote for 1\fr. LoBIMER. It appears that all these witnesses it was in Sangamon County, and it was in that county that went before the grand jury of Cook County and were asked they should haYe been prosecuted, and the State's attorney for the question whether· they were in St. Louis on July 15, 1009. that county was not only justified in directing rui investigation It is true that they had been there and that they had received there, but it was his duty to do so. $900 each from Wilson, but each of them denied being in St. What was the reason these witnesses were not allowed to go Louis that day. They supposed they would be prosecuted for there? Is it not apparent? Charles A. White claimed that Lee having received the money. What bappened? They were im O' ..(•en Drowne had bribed him in consideration of a thoumnd mediately placed under arrest. Let me refer to the testimony dollars to vote for Mr. LORIMER. If the Cook County authorities of State's Attorney Wayman. H.e certainly knows why this was could secure a witness who would state that Browne had pnid done. him the same amount, they would claim before the jury in the This question was put to him by Mr. Marble: Browne trial that it was paid for the same purpose. Their Why did you place these witnesses 1n custody or under this su.r velllanee? plan was to keep these persons in Cook County, in the custody Mr. WAYMAN. Well, there are different answers applying to the of oflicers, where they could control their movements and different witnesses. I will take them serlatim. · I placed Link 1n eus associations, and use them in the prosecution of Browne. tody because be had committed a crime in my presence. I placed 1912. OONGRESSIONA L RECORD-SENA TE. 8753 Beckemeyer in custody because be had committed a crime in my pres Q. That yon concluded yon would vote for him for United States ence. I placed Clark and Shephard in custody believing that they bad Senator?-A. Yes, sir; I thought he was the greatest man in Illinois. committed crimes in my presence, and I did so under the authority of Q. Was there any other fact that impelled you to vote for him? the statute of this State. A. Not any emphatic fact ; no, sir. The CHAIRMAN. 'l'o what statute do you refer? Mr. WAYMAN. Section 342 of the criminal code of this State. Q. Your• county,* the largest* county* in your* senatorial• district,* is Mr. :MARBLE. Were officers kept with these men against the will of Madison County ?-A. Yes, sir. It borders on the Mississippi. the men and against their consent? Q. And bordering on the Mississippi, it would be affected by thls Mr. WAYMAN. Yes; officers were kept with Clark, Link, Shephard, deep waterway ?-A. Yes, sir. and Beckemever on the afternoon of the 5th against their will. Of Q. You stated to the counsel on the other side on th~ direct exami course thev were placed in custody against thefr will, and they we1·e nation that you heard Senator LoRnrnR speak on the deep waterway ; held in custody involuntarily-all those four-until they were dis was that in your county or one of the counties in your senatorial dis charged from the custody, etc. trict ?-A. He spoke three times in the fall of 1908 in Madison County, and had charts with him explaining the plans, etc., and the practica Now, what was the authority under which the arrests were· bility, and I was deeply interested. I beard him at two places, and I made? T·he statute reads like this: heard him at Granite City and also at EdwardPville. Arrests without warrant. 4. An arrest may be made by an officer or Link makes further statements, and finally the following testi by a private person without warrant for a criminal oITense committed or attempted in his presence, and by an officer when a criminal offense has mony was given : in fact been committed and he bas reu.sonab.le ground for believing that Q. When for the first time did you vote for WILLIAM LORBIER for the person to be arrested has committed it. · United States Senator?-A. The 26th of May, I believe. Q. 1909, sir?-A. Yes, sir. Mr. President, the construction placed upon that statute by Q. In other words, the first time you ever voted for Mr. LORIMER the State's attorney for Cook County is that if he, sitting in for Senator was the day he was elected ?-A. Yes, sir. the grand-jury room, is of opinion that a witness has com Q. What, if any, talk did yo~ have with anyone-A. What do you refer to? mitted perjury he can place him under arrest for a crime com Q. --with respect to voting fer Mr. LoRIMER for United States mitted in his presence. What do the lawyers here say to that Senato1· prior to May 26, 1909 ?-.A. With Mr. LORIMER himself. proposition? If there had been a criminal assault upon the Q. When ?-A. Some 10 days prior to bis election. Q. What did be say to you ab.d what did you say to him ?-A. I per street, of course it could be done; but think of a State's attor sonally promised him my vote. ney sitting with t:he grand jury and placing men under arrest Q. 'Vhat else was said ?-A. " How do you do," and so forth. the moment he thinks they have sworn falsely, and under the Q. .Anything else?-A. Not to my recollection. Yon have got the authority of such a statute. substance of the conversation. ~ * * * * * * In each of these cases just as soon as the witness had ceased Q. Did you and Lee O'Neil Browne ever dlscuss your interview with testifying an indictment was filed again~t him for perjury. LORIMER ?-A. Yes, sir; to some extent. These men were placed and kept under arrest ; but if arrested Q. When ?-A. Some three or four days before LORIMER was elected, on those indictments or arrested under a statute of the State, to my recollection. · · why were they not committed! Why were they permitted to Now we reach his first interview with Lee O'Neil Browne, in go to hotels with an officer of and at the expense of Cook which he says: County? Why were they permitted to indulge in intoxicants A. He asked me if-do you want to know what be asked me? Q. I want the conversation.-A. The conversation was this, to my by these same officers, and why were the expenses of drinks recollection: He said, " Hello, Mike," and I said, " Hello, Lee." He charged in the same way? Why were they permitted to do says, "Come here a minute, !iiike,-I want to see you," and I said, "All anything and everything of the character indicated before being right." He says, "Mike, would you vote for a Republican for the United States Senate?" I says, "Lee, it is according to what Republi again brought before the grand jury? Officer Keeley, in whose can you have in view." He says, "How would Mr. LoRill!En suit you, cbarge these men were placed, answers these questions. He Mike?" I had the laugh on him rigllt there, and I said, "Lee, I have testified that his instructions from the State's attorney's office got the laugh on you; I beat you to it;" that I promised Mr. LORIMER a week or 10 days ago personally. That is all the conversation that 'were "to take them out and treat them right," which he under-. took place. stood to mean that he was to Get them in a condition where Mr. Link appeared before the grand jury of Cook County they would talk more freely be::;re the grand jury. May 5, and testified that he was not in St. Louis July 15, or any Why did they afterward admit their presence at St. Louis and other day that summer, to meet Wilson nor anyone else. the receipt of $900 each from Wilson? Been.use it was true and Friday, 1\fay 6, the indictment was voted against him and it because Robert E. Wilson was called before that grand jury, was in process of preparation. Link left the grand jury room and could not deny that he had been in St. Louis on that day, and was joined by Mr. Wayman, and a long conversation was because he was registered at a hotel. He told the grand jury held in which Mr. Wayman succeeded admirably in getting at he was there and admitted these men were with him, giving the situation. He said in his testimony : some apparently innocent reason for the meeting. Thereupon I called him to one side and said, " Mr. Link, you had better wire for these men went before the State's attorney and frankly ad your son to come to Chicago." I was under the impression that he had mitted being in St. Louis and receiving $900 each, under con a son. He said, "Unfortunately, I have no son." I said, "You had better wire for your brother." He said, "No; he can not do me any dition.s of which I will speak a little later. Shephard never good in the trouble I am in now." I said, "If there are any of your confessed that he received any money or anything of that kind, folks that yon want to notify to come up here, and I think they should although he admitted being in St. Louis. The same is true of we will notify them." He thought the question over- ' Clark. * • • • • • • WHY LIXK VOTED FOR MR. LORIMER. The bond is the thing that is bothering me. If I were down in my home town and county I could get all the bond that was wanted, but I Remembering that tlle payments to each of the three men, am up here a stranger and I do not know abouit a bond. White, Beckemeyer, and Link, were precisely alike, $1,000 to Then Mr. Wayman took the matter up in another light. He each from Browne and $900 from Wilson, and that White is .the said : only one who makes :rny claim that the first payment differed " I will tell you what I am going to do with you, Mr. Link. You from the second in character or purpose, it is important to need not let the bond proposition worry you at all. I have got a plan mapped out for you that I want you to follow. You take mv advice on know just what influence did operate to induce these men sev it. I am not going to have this capias served on you at all. ·r am going erally to vote for l\fr. LORIMER. Let it ever be remembered that to permit you to go back. to your home, and I will order the sheriff to Beckemeyer and Link llaYe never been driYen to the confessioll hold the capias. When you get down there, you consult the lawyer whom you have known the longest, or your warmest friend , and tell that the money paid them was from any source other than the them the exact situation. After you have done that, then you can jack-pot fund of the legislature-~nd even White admits that arrange for your bond and return here next week and give a bond." his second payment was from that source. He said, "Well, that is pretty fair." He then said to me, "What What did, in fact, move these men to vote for l\Ir. LORIMER? lawyer would yon recommend here?" T ake first the case of l\Ir. Link. As early as March it appears Mr. Wayman told him he could not recommend a. lawyer. that l\lr. Link wanted to Yote for l\Ir. LORIMER. Without stopping to read that testimony I will say that Mr. I read from his testimony : Wayman did everything in his power to get Link to seek the best Q. You were going to vote for him, even though you were a Democrat, advice obtainable and be governed by it. by reason of his views on the deep waterway; is that correct ?-A. Will Telling him that he should tell his lawyer the circumstances, you allow me to tell you when I made up my mind to vote for him? and then be guided By his advice, adding : Q. Yes, sir.-A. In March, 1009-provided we could not elect a Dem- ocrat. . Whether or not you should stand trial on thts perjury charge and Q. As eal"ly as March ?-A. Yes, sir. take the chance of going to the penitentiary (for that is the penalty Q. Had you voted for any Republican after March ?-A. No, sir. under tlie statute) in defense of the gang that got yon into this con Q. Now, Mr. Link you heard Mr. LORi i\IEI{ on the deep-waterway spiracy and are now ditching you, 01· whether you should tell the truttt, proposition when ?-a.1 You mean prior to tbe- purge yourself of this perjury, and help the State of Illinois to retrieve Q. To May 26 ?-A. I heard him and followed him in our county itself from the outrage that you and the other conspirators have when be came thcte. heaped upon her." I said, "Tell him ot· them the truth. That is all Q. When was that ?-A. In the fall of H>08, I think. I want you to do; and then return here." Q. 1!)08. It was by reason of his views on the deep-waterway propo They had further conversation which, according to Mr. Way sition that you concluded, if the occasion arose, to vote for Mr. LoRIMER for United States Senator, \';as it not?-A. Yes, sit- · I was opposed to man's testimony, was as follows. He, l\lr. Link, said: Illinois going it alone. I w:1nted the United States Government to give · " I want you to under.stand one thing now. I never was promised us help. . any money to vote for LORillIER." I said, "It does not make any Q. It was by reason of M1·. LonaIEn's expressions on the deep water difference what you were promised. What I am tryinp to find out is, way--A. (Interrupting.) His attitude; yes, sir. wby were you at St. Louis on July 15?" He said, ' I would like to 8754 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-. SENATE. JULY ·9, tell you~ but I don't want to hurt Lee. Lee was -pretty 'kind to me when I was in the 'legislature." I sald, "That is not material to the of 'that county., Mr. Burke, was attempting to .make, and where issue bere at all." He tinally said, "'How do you ·stand 1n St. in, if anywhere, Link's testimony should have been taken. Louis?" I said, "Mr. Link, tbe situation as I understand it ls you In all subsequent proceedings Link was governed by Mr. Way have committed no crime 1n St. Louis. No testimony .here shows the man, and the relations between them were of a cordial and commission of a crime in St. Louis." Ile said, "How do you stand in Sangamon -County? " [ told him I did not know the State'il attorney friendly character. Mr. Wayman thought he had done him a of Sangamon County, but that the State of Illinois was a big institu great favor in advising him to disclose the truth, and Link was tion." perfectly frank and outspoken in his declaration that he did not They llad further conversation until it came to the point. that receive the thousand dollars in consideration of voting for Mr. Link was assured of full immunity if he would tell the truth. Lo RIMER. Mr. Wayman testified that he said to him: . So it was with all these witnesses-they never got beyond " Why don't you tell tbe facts? " He said. " I will tell you what 1 that point. Not one of them, save White, ever said, however will do. I will tell you the -exact facts, with the understanding that pressed, that any consideration moved to them· by reason of if I conclude to stand trial on the perjury charge you will not use it against me." their 1ote for Sena tor LORIMER. Mr. Wayman admits that in making his confession Link WHY DID BECKEMEYER VOTE FOR 11IIl. LOilIMER? expressly denies that the payment to him had ·anything to do To those who have follDwed the history of this case I suppose with his vote for Mr. LoRIMER. , the name Beckemeyer is familiar. It is very important that He testifies : we examine Mr. Beckemeyer's testimony in the light of all the I agreed to that. That was Friday night. Before he left be said, circumstances under which it was giv-en, inasmuch as he is one " Well, I want you to understand "-and he repeated this at least of the men who is known to have Teceived $1,900 from this half a dozen times-" that I was promised no money to vote for common fund which I have before discussed, and one of the Senator Loxn.rEn/' and then when he agreed to tell the facts, he said that on July 15, at St. Loms,1 he was there. He told who was there witne3ses who testified before the Cook County grand jury and and said that he received $9-00 from R-0bert E. Wilson; that prior .to at both trials of Lee O'Neil Browne and before both senatorial that, on a date that be could not fix be• received a thousand dollars committees. from Lee O'Neil Browne in St. Loms,1 having on each occasion re ceived word to go to St. Louis, but that Lee O'Neil Browne did not '.Mr. Beckemeyer is comparatively a young man. He is the tell him what the money was for and be did not know what it was son of a prosperous banker. He is a lawyer by profession, but for. He said, " Now I have told you all 'I know." without a large practice; he is not a strong man, not a. virile Thereupon he was taken before the grand jury and testified man, and under ordinary circumstances not what would be as he had stated to l\Ir. Wayman. Mr. Wayman said: called a bad man. But in the legislature he fell into those .. Are yo11 going before the grand jury and tell the facts?,. He said currents which have been -disclosed in evidence, and was one • he was. I at once took him before the grand jury. That was Sat of the participants in the distrib-ution of the so-called jack-pot urday morning, the 7th. He there testified -ns he had "Stated to me. I fund of 1909. He admits it T"ery frankly. went at once into court with him before Judge Kersten and nolled the case in open court and Mr. Link left at once for his home in Madison Mr. Beckemeyer was a follower of Lee O'Neil Browne in thut legislature. It will be remembered there were two Democratic Co¥~~·C:HATRMA....,..-. Mr. Wayman, you stated what he told you about factions-one led -by Browne, the other by Tippit. Beckemeyer Mr. Browne, tbnt he paid him a thousand dollars, but did not tell what it was for? says he followed Browne's leadership generally through that Mr. WAYMAN. Yes. session. He testifies as follows in answer to Ur. Healy: The CHAIRMAN. Yon did not say anything regarding Mr~ Wilson. Was your Democratic colleague from that district a member of the Did he tell you what Wilson said the $900 was for 'l Browne faction ? Mr. WAYMAN. No; I do not think he did. MJr impression is that he Mr. 'BECKEMEYER. No. sir ; he was not. just got the money, and that he had no information from any of them :Mr. HE1'LY. With which faction was he ldentified? as to what it Wail for, and I remember Mr. BECKEMEYER. No; I do not think I would, and I do not think cept that he had said from time to time that he would vote f or that there was any danger of Lee O'Neil Browne asking that at that time. anyone to defeat l\Ir. Hopkins. Senator KENYO!i. Would you have voted for Senator Hopkins if But, as I sa.id before, when he actually faced the proposition Browne had asked you to ? of supporting any particular Republican he was so much of a Mr. BECKmIEYER. No, sir; I would not. Senator KENYO:'f. Then, you would not have voted for anyone that Democrat that he hesitated to do so. He told a number of be asked you to? people, two or three days before the election of Senator LORI Mr. BECKJHJEYER. I would not have voted for anyone he asked me MER, that he was not going to vote for l\Ir. L ORIMER for Senator. to; no. He testified as follows : It appears from all the testimony of Mr. Beckemeyer that Mr. HANECY. You told a number of people two or three days before h e was opposed to Mr. Hopkins from the beginning. This was the election of Senator LoRilliER that you were not going to vote for true of all Democrats in that body. Beckemeyer was a seat l\lr. LoRIMER for Senator, did you not? mate of Mr. Alschuler, who represented the Hopkins district ?.fr. BECKEMEYER You say 1 told several people? Mr. HAl' • 8758 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. JULY 9, not mention here-and he said, ' I will be damned if I stand for the Bu~ what happened? ~ter midnight that officer, in charge of leaders of tbis gang getting away. I will tell tbe facts.' a prisoner and responsible for him, took him to a house of " I walked him into the gr:and jury room, and he then testified." ill-fame, where both spent the balance of the night. That The circumstances under which this came about were these: o~cer of the law from the State's attorney's office took that .All of the men who had received money :from Wilson in St. pr1so~er, as I say, to a disreputable place, and both of them Louis were going to deny that they were there at the time remamed there through the night Beckemeyer in a gross state named; but Wilson had registered at the Southern Hotel in of into~cation, and the bills wer~ all charged to Cook County St. Louis and the authorities knew he was there July 15, 1900, :;tnd paid by Cook County. If any Senator is curious to know and he could but admit it, although he denied paying money Just what was done with this prisoner by an officer from the to anyone. When Wilson disclosed the fact that they were there State's attorney's office of Cook County while in charge of him Mr. Beckemeyer made the remark to the State's attorney which let him read the record from pages 56D1 to 5605. ' has been quoted, and was immediately taken into the grand jury Beckemeyer was a wreck the day before, and he was more of room where he told the story on tlie promise that he should a wreck on the following morning; be· was so utterly shattered receiYe immunity from punishment because of any offense that tJ:at he had to have ti-vo drinks as soon as he was up to steady he had committed. · himself. .According to the testimony of Officer Keeley, Becke Mr. Wayman further testified: meyer could not remember to what he had testified the day Ilefore the grand jury he testified he was at St. Louis that day and be~ore, and he wanted to see the State's attorney. He was met Wilson and the other members who were there ; that he got $900 from Wilson ; that prior to that time he had met Browne-no ; that evidently. co?-fused, but he was taken to the State's attorney's prior to that time he had received a thousand dollars at St. Louis; had office, drmkmg more on the way. Before reachin(J' there the got it from the clerk of the hotel ; that be received a message the day liquor had braced him up, and he appreciated hi: situation· before he went to St. Louis, on Briggs House stationery, in handwriting that he thought was Browne's, but he was not sure about it, and it th~t ?e was in the hands of the Philistines. To all previously was signed in some anonymous way; that he went to St. Louis; that he ex1stmg causes for mental anguish there was now added his got a package from the clerk of the hotel, and in the package was a previous night's experience and ·the fear that his family would thousand dollars, and be did not know what it was for. That was the be broken up as a result. What did he do before reachin..,. the substance of bis testimony at 3 o~lock in the afternoon of the 5th. State's attorney's office? He begged the ~fficer not to tell ;here That is the second time he went before the grand jury. He he had spent the night. Is it to be supposed that that could be testified afterwards that tl;le reason for making that statement kept a secret? Not at all. about receiving the money from the clerk was that he did not .An interview followed between Mr. Beckemeyer and Mr. Way want Lee O'Neil Browne's name to come into it as having paid man. What occurred at that meeting we know only so far as him the money, and so he put up the subterfuge, but he admitted .l\lr. Wayman tells it. Mr. Beckemeyer says very little about it. receiving the money. But they both agree about one thing-that at that meetin"' he Concerning an interview which followed in the evening in the made this addition to his statement. He never swore to it be State's attorney's office, Mr. Wayman stated: fore the grand jury. But there, when he knew that he was in In the evening Mr. Beckemeyer was in my office and be said, "Now, there is one thing I lied about up there again." He said, "I got that the power of the State's attorney's office, an officer of which money from Browne and not the clerk of the hotel." I said, "Can you had taken him when a prisoner to a disreputable house the fix the date?" He £aid, "No; but it was after the 12th of June and knowledge of which incident, should it come to his wife ~ight before July 4." wreck his domestic life, he made an additional statement.' What The CHAIRMAN. 'l'hat was a thousand dollars? Mr. WAYJIUN. Yes. When he went out of the office I telephoned to was it? Referring to his interview of the day before, he testi the district attorney's office in St. Louis and asked them to go to the fied: Southern Hotel and get the register for June, 1909, and send an officer 1\lr. RANECY. You said that one reason why you told Wayman what to my office with it; and on the morning of the 6th the officer appeared he wanted you to tell him-one of the large factors in that-was that with the r~gister, and on June 21 "L. 0. Browne, Ottawa," was youy wife was. very sick and at the hospital and you did not want to registered. be mdicted while she was in tbat condition. · June 21 was the time this money was paid to Mr. Beckemeyer, 1\lr. BECKEMEYEB. Yes; I did. Mr. HANECY. That is right, is it? and he was called before the grand jury the third time, the next Mr. BECKEllEYEn. Yes. afternoon, to correct his testimony, to tell the truth and let the Mr. HANECY. Your wife was sick, was she? whole matter come out. Mr. BECKEMEYER. Yes. His third appearance before the grand jury was on Friday, Mr. HANECY. She was in· the hospital? May 6, at 3 o'clock in the afternoon, and the statement that he If that was true at the previous meeting, what was his rea had received the money from Browne at St. Louis, and not from son at this meeting, with this new record against him, and the the hotel clerk, was then made. knowledge of it in the possession of the officers of the State's That is the last time that Mr. Beckemeyer ever appeared attorney's office? Was ever such an inducement offered a man before that grand jury, and that is where the matter was left to go to any length to secure secrecy and immunity? when he had completed his testimony before that body. What did he do? He added nothing to his previous state ment except he said that when 1\fr. Browne handed him the DISREPUTABLE TREAT:liENT OF BECKEMEYER. package he remarked, "Here is your Lorimer money." That Beckemeyer went out after testifying that afternoon a physical is what he added to it under those conditions, and he never had wreck. The man had been torn by the consciousness that he had made that addition up to that time, either to Mr. Wayman received $1,900 from the corruption fund known as the jack pot; or the grand jury. Let us look at it. Senator JONES asks Mr. that his offense had been made public; that he had also been Wayman: indicted for per.jury; that his reputation had been blasted But does he convey in his testimony anywhere that he expected to and his career ended. Added to this, his wife was ill in a get something for his Lorimer vote when be cast it? hospital in East St. Louis and his children were being cared for Mr. WAYMAN. No; I do not believe he does. The grand-jury testi- among relati"ves. In this condition, still in the custody of an mony here is as clear on that as my memory. • • officer, he was taken from the courthouse and was permitted to Going along, concerning that Saturday afternoon's conver drink when and as often as he would. The testimony of the sation, when Mr. Beckemeyer had been brought in under the officer in charge of Beckemeyer is that "when they left the conditions I have described, Mr. Wayman quotes Beckemeyer criminal court building they went immediately to Cunningham's as saying that when l\fr. Browne handed Beckemeyer the thou saloon, where they had a drink or two; then to another saloon, sand dollars Browne said to him, " Ilere is a thousand dollars. where there was more drinking, and then to the Illinois Ath Here is your Lorimer money, and we can not make a distribu letic Club, where they dined, after which they went to the tion of the balance until something happe)ls." l\fr. Wayman Uniqn Depot, and then back to the Princess Theater. They were added: there only a short time when Beckemeyer wanted to leave, say What that was Beckemeyer would not tell or did not know. ing, ''I am nervous and I want to get a drink"; they got the The CHAIRMAN. Will you repeat that, please? drink and returned to the theater, but Beckemeyer was so un I want the clear, discriminating minds of the good lawyers in easy he could not remain. The officer said, "C~n you not wait this body to pass upon the value of this kind ot testimony as until the act is over?" and he said, "No; 1 can not stand it; I to a casual conversation had two or three years before, and see am nervous; I am all broke up." So they went out and re how a trained mind like Mr. Wayman's will fail to remember turned a third time .to the theater, remaining only about five with. accuracy what was said. Here is the testimony tbat he minutes, went out and met Welch and went to the Kaiserhof, gave: where Beckemeyer drank more whisky. The officer then took Here is a thousand dollars. Here is your Lorimer money, and we him to the Grand Pacific Hotel, where they settled down to hard can not make a distribution of the balance until something happens. drinking in the cafe. Beckemeyer seemed to have an unusual If that means anything, it means he was paying him Lorimer capacity to take liquor that night, calling for a .drink every five money and there was more Lorimer money to come to him, and minutes. At midnight the officer sent to the Briggs House for he could not pay it to him until something happened. Beckemeyer's bag, because he thought it prudent to spend the That is w.hei:e the matter was left by Mr. Wayman, an ex nig,ht at the Grand Pacific. perienced, strong man with a well-trained mind. No argument • 1912. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 8759 was had with him about it. I had not quite understood the ness I have ev.er seen on the stand; He had evidently recovered statement, and I simply said: from his anxiety and wanted to tell the truth, and I think, as a 1 1 matter of fact, he did tell the truth, except as to that one expres m~ i~i;.~~~~a&~~rBF~~:: had said to him when he gave him the him, thousand dollars, "This is your Lorimer money, or for your vote for sion extorted by the circumstances of that, to dreadful LORillIER "-- Saturday morning. A new passage comes in there--- WHITE, LINK, AND BECKEMEYER IN COURT. "or for your vote for LORIMER," and that the balance of the jack pot Having discussed the witnesses who were used to try to bol or the fund coul d not be distributed until something else was attended to; and that he had met Browne at Starved Rock- ster up Charles A. White's statement that he was bribed, and to produce some fact that would give color to the statement that And so forth. he had made, we must look for a few minutes at the result that How are we going to reconcile those two statements coming followed. from a ma:o like Wayman, with a trained mind, professing to Beckemeyer, Link, and White were witnesses in the Browne testify as to a declaration of a prisoner before him under con trial. The one important question in that prosecution was, ditions such as have been described? "Did Browne bribe Charles A. White? " They told all they In the first statement he made the fund a Lorimer fund. In knew regarding the circumstances. which I have examined. The the second statement he made it a "jack-pot" fund that was 0 verdict of the jury was that Lee O'Neil Browne did not bribe going to be divided. We would call that loose testimony if it Charles A. White, and he was discharged from custody. Since came from the ordinary witness who is brought into court. It that time the Senate has tried the same issue and r-cached the can be interpreted only by what was brought out from this wit same conclusion. ness at a later time, to which I will call your attention. Is it any wonder that the jury did not accept the story of Mr. Wayman says Mr. Beckemeyer at that time continued by Charles A. White, or that a majority of the Senate did not saying: accept it, when it is remembered that he went to the legislature That he had met Browne at Starved Rock on a trip he took down the canal prior to June 12, oi· just after June 12, in which Browne with the avowed purpose of getting something from "the in had · made un appointment with him, and said, "I will meet you in terests," as he termed them; that he is by his own confession St. Louis und hand you a package in a few days,'' or something like participator in a corrupt fund; that he has attempted to turn that. that fact to his own advantage by falsely connecting it in some A package? way with the election of Senator LORIMER for the purpose of Mr. 1\-IARBLE. It was after his grand-jury testimony he made these securing, through perjury, a still larger amount of money; that disclosures? Mr. WAYMAN. He never made the disclosure before the grand jury Ile spent $4,000 in six months in rapid living; that he deliber that when he received the thousand dollars from Browne that Browne ately concocted a plan to blackmail ~enator LoRn.IER, in which said it was for the Lorimer vote. He disclosed that immediately he dismaDy failed; that he was treacherous to the best friend afterwards to me. he had on earth; that he attempted to get money from Roger And he disclosed it under the conditions I have stated-when Sulfrrnn on the plea of running for Congress; and that his be had been brought into the office by Officer Keeley that morn "confession," so called, when made, was made to Senator LoRI ing. MEB's most persistent political opponent, the Chicago Tribune, Senator Jo::ms. Did be tell you whether or not he had had an un for a consideration of $3,500, besides which he received full derstanding with Browne before the vote that he should receive this money? living expenses for the year following? :Hr. W .A.Yl\IAN. No. He claimed be had not had an understanding. There was no hope of support for this wicked story except He claimed that both before the grand jury and to me. through Link and Beckemeyer, both friendly to Wayman at SenatQll" JONES. An How does this correspond with the testimony of Mr. LoBIMER? be here sitting in . judgment upon the election of Senator No man bas ever dared to sny that Mr. LonnrnR is not a mun LORIMER? of truth. On the contrary, he has an established reputation fol' DANIEL w. noLsTLAW. Teraeity. Mr. LoRIMER said he had an interview with .1\fr. The only other man whose testimony need be examined in Whltc nbont a week or 10 days before that time, when White connection with the claim of bribery in the election of l\Ir. assured him he would be glad to vote for him. Mr. Browne also LoBIM:EB is Daniel W. Holstlaw, who was in no way shown to be ·denie · the whol9 inteniew White claims to have had with him. connected with the jack pot, but a man who acted in his indi But White tries to bolster himself up with the statement that the vidual capacity, evidently, in securing for himself whatever Yarbrough brothers were there and that they saw Browne come advantage a dishonest man may secure when he becomes a mem- in. This is absolutely impossible. ber of the General Assembly of Illinois. Both Sidney C. Yarbrough and Otis V. Yarbrough were brought Mr. Holstlaw is a Democrat, a banker, a merchant, and a before the. committee, and both testified that they spent the jobber. He is wealthy, he is penul'ious, and he is -covetous-a night of May 24, 1909, in the room with Charles A. White in man who wishes to maintain a good reputation, but whose love the St. Nicholas Hotel at Springfield, and were there when Lee . for money is such that in securing it the end too often justifies O'Neil Browne entered the room and invited White to go to the means. Browne's room, where the alleged interview with Browne was As a senator he was unwaveringly consistent, in that he voted held. The production of these witnesses destroys the story of for 1\Ir. Stringer, I tl:).ink, 94 times; at all events, substantially White. Why? Both claimed to be there. Both tell ~e sall?e on every vote until the last one. But he was weary of the story. If only one was there, then both of these men hed, did deadlock. He had large business interests to which he desired they not? Of course they did. One was absent; therefo:e both to return; it was not a small ma~er with him that the added did lie about the matter, because they could not be mistaken expense of remaining in Springfield diminished his net income concerning it. • as a senator, inasmuch as he received no more salary if the How do I know one was absent? Why, both the Yarbroughs session was long than if it was short. A month before th~ testify that they went to Springfeld from East St. Louis on election was reached, at a time when the deadlock had con Monday, .l\Iay 24, 1900, Sidney bein~ positive t~at h~ ~ent up tinued three months, he went home and talked the situation on White's pass on the Illinois Traction, and Otis cla1mmg that over with his friends and supporters; among them being Mr. he probably went that day and met Sidney in the lobby of the J. J. Bell, a Democrat, and 1\Ir. John Eddings, a Republican, and St. Nicholas Hotel that evening about 9 or 10 o'clock, he told the latter that in order to break the deadlock he wou1<.l. Now mark that that they both went by separate conveyances vote for l\Ir. LoBIMEB if the opportunity came to do so. At that and th~t they met about 10 o'clock in Springfield. Also mark time he stated to several others that if a Democrat could not that White has them " lounging about the lobby," and " taking be elected he intended to vote for some Republican rather than a little fresh air" with him at the time they claim to be on remain in Springfield very much longer, and added if such an their way to Springfield. All the evidence in this case shows opportunity came he shQuld vote for 1\Ir. LonrMER. His reason that neither one of them had been in East St. Louis that d3;Y for taking that position may perhaps be found in the fact that or that evening. Not only does Browne absolutely deny .this Mr. J. B. Lewis, a resident of his district, editor of the l\Iarion story but the evidence clearly establishes the fact that White Democrat, had published an editorial advocating the election and both the Yarbroughs were in Chicago all day Sunday, of a Republican by Democratic ·rntes to defeat Hopkins. l\Ir. May 23 and l\fonday, May 24, 1909. They went up there on Lewis was a friend of Mr. Holstlaw and had personally re the pr~eding Saturday on one of their periodical sprees. They quested him to support Mr. LoRllIER if the time came when he were there Saturday night; they were there all day Sunday. could do so, and, coming as it did from a Democratie editor, The testimony shows they visited a disreputable house, and who was publicly advocating such a solution of the situation. . spent that Sunday night in it, and it shows that they were Holstlaw assured l\1r. Lewis he would d-o so. He returned to all in Chicago on Monday, and that none of them l~ft that cio/ Springfield with this purpose in his mind, that if in the chain of until 6 o'clock Monday night. Then it was that White and Otis events it became possible to solve that problem by the election Yarbrough took the 6 o'clock train, which was late, so that they of a Republican he would support Mr. LORIMER-. That he in did not reach Springfield until 11 o'clock and 41 minutes that tended to do so is also evident from the testimony of Mr. Stringer, night. . , for whom Holstlaw had voted on more than 90 different occa- How do these established facts comport with Whites story, sions, that for two weeks before Mr. LoRIMEB's election it had that he had been lounging with these two friends after dinner been understood, although Mr. Stringer was the Democratic that evening in the lobby of the St. Nicholas Hotel, in Spring- candidate for the Sen.atorship, that the Democrats of both field, going out and taking a little fresh i;tir, coming ii;i and go- houses intended to support 1\Ir. LORIMER. Everybody, Mr. ing to his room with them and then havmg a few ~rmks, and Stringer says, knew that fact. · · of Mr. Browne coming in? The evidence can not be impeache~. Not only that; it is shown by the testimony I have already it can not be disputed, that neither of the Yarbroug?s were m read from Ur. Beckemeyer that on May_25, the day precerling Springfield at the time fixed by all of them, and Sidney Yar- Mr. LoRIMER's election, Holstlaw entered into an understanding brough remained in Chicago and was not in Springfield a~ all. with .Mr. l\IcCollum and 1\Ir. Beckemeyer, the three represent He did not leave Ohicago until after supper on Tuesday rught, ing the same senatorial district, that they would all stand to May 25. There is not a particle of evidence in this case, aside gether on that matter and vote for Mr. LORIMER the next day, from the corrupt statements of the Yarbroughs and White, that and though Beckemeyer was wavering on the following morn tends to establish the presence in Springfield of these men on ing, Holstla w and McCollum refused to be moved. There the the evening of May 24. This tale was invented by White and matter rested. He voted for l\lr. LORIMER in pursuance of a was incorporated into the jack-pot story for the purpose of sal(' purpose formed at least a month before the election, provided or blackmail. It was upon that story, its falsity disclosed by cir- the opportunity offered. cumstances such as I have depicted, that the prosecution of A year lateT the White story was published, and l\Ir. Burke, Browne was founded in the courts of Illinois, and he was ac- State's attorney for Sangamon Co1mty, undertook to jnYesti quitted; and it was upon White's story that the .electio:r:i of l\Ir. gate its charges. He summoned Mr. White, . Mr. Beckemeyer, Lonn.IEB was investigated, and the Senate acqmtted h1Il1; anct now a third trial is had; and it is upon such testimony that l\fr. Link, and others to appear before the grand jury then in Members of this body are asked to say that the bargain with session, ·and when he was thwarted in his efforts by l\Ir. Wayman, the State's attorney for Cook County, l\fr. Burke White was made and carried out. then turned his attention to other matters and investigated the The money received by White, Beckemeyer, and Link during fish fund, so called. He also heard of a furniture deal in the that session was from a source entirely independent of the elec- legislature, in which a contract to furnish the statehouse with tion of Mr. LORIMER. No witness except Charles A. White has ever claimed to the contrary, and even he admits that substan- chairs and desks was to be giYen to a certain firm, and that that contract was secured by a promise of a rake-off to certain tially one-half of the money he received came from the com- membe1·s of the legislature. In probing this question a letter mon jack-pot fund. •tt b M H 1 tl d d"'" ed to His bitterest enemies •when testifying before this committee fell into his hands wri en Y r. 0 s aw an a ui.·es did not attempt to impute any knowledge of corruption to Mr. Knox, of Chicago, and dated January 12, 1912, saying: Senator LORIMER. Even G-0v. Deneen was most careful, and J°ANUARY 12, 1910. h d " . th . k t Mr. KNOX, Ohicago, Ill. took pains at the very outset, w en IScussmg e Jac ~ po ' MY DEAR srn: It has been arranged that I should see you. Will to particularly state: "I do not mean to imply now that I am it be convenient for you to meet me in Springfield Monday evening, speaking of Senator LoRIMER in this matter." say, about 8 o'clock. If so, wire or write me at my home (Iuka, Ill.). If the right to a seat in this body is to be forfeited at any Must see you not later than above date. time when it is claimed that some member of the legislatur.e Yours, respectfully, D. W. llOLSTLAW. :from which he received his election had been corrupted in some State's Attorney Burke issued a summons for l\Ir. Holstlaw, other and separate matter, how many Senators think you would who went direct to Springfield from a religious convention, 1912. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE. 8761 held at Balt'..more, at which he was a delegate, to appear before between him and Mr. Burke in order to secure immunity for the grand jury of Sangamon County. In his testimony he Holstlaw. That statement to that point I ask to have printed denied having written the letter. He was dismissed from the without reading. room and instantly placed under arrest, and -an indictment was The matter referred to is as follows: folmd against him for perjury in so swearing. STATEMENT OF D. W. HOLSTLAW. I wish that Senators might have seen Mr. Holstlaw when he Q. What is you name?-A. D. W. Holstlaw. Q. W~at is your age, residence, and occupation ?-A. I am 61 years testified and heard his description of his state of mind when old ; residence, Iuka, Ill. ; my occupation is banking, farming, and shlpper he fotmd himself under arrest charged with perjury. Fear got of live stock. hold upon him and his strength deserted him. In his terror his Q. You are a member of the General Assembly of Illinois ?-A. Yes, sir. Q. And senator from the forty-second district, are you ?-A. Yes, sir. memory was quickened, and he signified a desire to go back . Q. I. understand that you want to make a statement of your connec and correct his testimony, but met with no encouragement. tion with the purchase of furniture for the senate and house assembly The officer advised him to retain counsel, telling him he would rooms as a member of the committee appointed by the legislature for that ~urpose . -A . I do. need counsel, and, l\fr. Holstlaw being of that opinion, the officer Q . 1'h1s statement when made is to be ff!lbmitted to the State's inimediately put him in touch with the firm of Gillespie & Fitz ~~1J>::S~~'nlangamon County, as I understand ?·-A. That is what I gerald, of Springfield, whose services. he retained. That night Q. Who constituted the committee ?-A. Secretal'y Rose is chairman they arranged for his bail and for an interview with the State's and Representative Pierce is secretary, and Senator Pemberton and. attorney in the morning. ~JE;i~~ntative J. 0. S. Clark and myself were a part of the com- I think I never heard a more pitiful tale of m~ntal anxiety Q. You may state any conversation you may have bad with your than the testimony of Sena tor Holstlaw as he spoke of his con associates on the committee or any of them about whether you would dition during the long hours of the night that followed. He get anythlng out of letting the contract for yourselves.-A. They both says in a plainfrrn way, "Of course, I could not sleep very ~~tt~i~t. Pemberton and Clark, both said that we would get something much." He knew he had the promise of $1,500 from that furni Q. Did you afterwards have any conversation with Mr. Freyer or ture firm in consideration of his vote as a member of the com Mr. Johnson on the same subject; and if so, what was· said between you and them on that subject?-A. Mr. Freyer first asked me what mission having the authority to award contracts for refurnish I would want. I think that was what he said. I can not hardly ing the statehouse. He knew that his corrupt action was to be recall what he said to me. I do not know what I did say to that made public and his agony was increased by the fact that he but we never finished talking. But I ought to say-I do not know whether I told him or not; I think be asked me what I would want out was liable to criminal prosecution for his offense. When morn of it, and I think I gave him an evasive answer, and I did not want ing came he had reached a determination to secure immunity to do anything of that kind; then when he got ready to go out he against prosecution for his offense, and all his energies were di said, "You go ahead and fix it up with Mr. Johnson. Whatever he does is all right." That is all as I remember that he said. rected to accomplish that end. Immunity was what he most de Q. Did you afterwards agree with Mr. Johnson how much you were sired of all things in the world. Immunity was spelled in capi to have?-A. Yes. tal letters in his mind, and he could think of nothing else. He Q. Ilow much did Mr. Johnson agree to give you ?-A. $1,500. Q. When was it to be paid ?-A. After the furniture was received. says the first thing his counsel cJd that morning was to tele Q . Did Mr. Johnson say anything to you on the subject of what phone to the State's attorney that he wanted an interview with be wa8 paying anyone else on the committee ; and if so, what did be him. He did not even wait until the State's attorney was in his say?-.A. He said that was more than he was paying anybody else, and be said that, if I remember right, he said $1,000 was what he was office, but telephoned to his home and had Mr. Burke come to going to give Clark and Pemberton. the office of Gillespie & Fitzgerald; there they advised the Q. Did you have any talk with either Clark or Pemberton as to how State's attorney that Holstlaw was honestly mistaken, not hav much they were to receive ?-A. I did not. Q. Has anything ever been paid to you ?-A. Not a cent. ing remembered, in the first instance, that he had written the Q. Now, is there any other fact that you can state in connection letter, and that they thought, in "fairness and justice," he with this matter that you now recall without being questioned about ought to permit Holstlaw to go before the grand jury again and it ?-A. I do not think of anything else. correct his statement and so avoid answering to the indictment. Yet immediately following what has already gone into the Mr. Burke's reply was that "he would not allow that; that record there appeared in that statement the following, and it he had the goods on this fellow, and that under no circum is upon this particular portion of the statement that it is stances would he permit him to go before the grand jury unless claimed Mr. Holstlaw was guilty of receiving money for having he told the whole transaction; that is, the substance of it." voted for Ur. LORIMER. The question was asked, "Did you tell that to Mr. Holstlaw?" I read the section referred to: and Mr. Fitzgerald answered "I did." Q. You are a Democrat, are you not?-A. Yes, sir. As I said before, Holstlaw's whole purpose at that time was Q. Did you vote for LORI!IIER for United States Senator?--.\. I did. Q. Before the voting came off was anything said to you about pay- to secure hjs own safety. Ile swears to this o-ver and over ing you anything for voting for LORHIF.R ?-A. There was. again. He was impatient. He could think of only one thing, Q. Who talked to you on that subject, and what was said ?--A and that was to avoid prosecution. In accordance with Holst Senator Broderick, of Chicago. He said to me: "Mr. LORIMER is go ing to be elected to-morrow "-that is, as well as I remember the date- law's expressed wish Mr. Fitzgerald arranged with the State's and be said: "There is $2,500 for you if you want to vote that way"; attorney to }Jrepare a statement by Holstlaw to be submitted to and the next morning I voted for him. the State's attorney, which, if satisfactory, would be the basis Q. Did you tell Mr. Broderick that you would vote for Mr. LORI for an order of immunity. Before this was prepared Mr. Fitz MER ?-A. I do not know whether I did or not, but I think I did. gerald had another interview with Mr. Burke, with whom he How was this brought about? How did this get into that arranged more definitely the teTms under which he was to se statement, in view of all the evidence which I have just been cure that immunity for his client. He testifies: reviewing in this cuse? It appears that in the consultation be Mr. HANECY. Was there any talk. before you presented the state tween counsel and client, when all his statements were fully ment to Mr. Burke, about what Mr. Burke would do under the circum protected by the law, Holtslaw bad insistently and persistently stances if the paper was satisfactory or if it was not satisfactory? stated that he had no knowledge of any legislative corruption Mr. FITZGERALD. Prior to the time the statement was given to Mr. Burke I understocd from him that be would grant immunity to Mr. other than the furniture deal; and that was true, because it Holstlaw from any matter that might be testified to before the grand appears from evidence that can not be controverted that long jury and also would nolle the case that was pending. before the evening on which it is claimed he met Broderick Immunity "from :my matter that might be testified to." and agreed to vote for Mr. LORIMER-a month before-he had Mr. HANECY. The case that was pending against Holstlaw? promised the editor of the Marion Democrat, Mr. Lewis, to vote J\Ir. FITZGEnALD. Yes, sir. for Mr. LoRIMER. The following testimony of JI.fr. Fitzgerald Mr. HANECY. Did yon nnderstn.nd that from what Mr. Burke had shows that from the very beginning, however alarmed he was 0 1 tol~l°F1~i·o~~~o:'~~~~ ~t~~d~i. sii:r~~ ~~1g fo~~?me. at his own situation, Holstlaw had asserted that fact. Listen Mr. HANECY. Then Mr. Burke told you that if Mr. Holstlaw would to this testimony. Senator JOHNSTON questioned Mr. Fitzgerald make and sign a statement of what he knew, Mr. Burke would dis miss the indictment for pet·jury against him and would have an order as follows : of immunity granted by the court there releasing Mr. Holstlaw from Did you ever hear of Holstlaw receiving any money from Broderick any liab111ty to prosecution or any penalties thereafter on account of or being o!fered any until this examination in your office? anything that he might testify to in that statement or in any other 1'1Ir. FITZGERALD. No, sir; be had denied that he knew anything about place? anything else. Mr. FITZGERALD. No, sir; he did not say if he wo~ld sign a state Senator JOHNSTON. Denied it to you? . ment he would do that. He said that if Mr. Holstlaw would testify l\:lr. FITZGERALD. Yes, sir; he bad told me before. at the time I to the grand jury fully about any matters that he migb,t have infor talked to Mr. Burke, when he said he would prepare a written state mation upon, he would do that, and he asked that Mr. Holstlaw pr~ ment, that be did not know anything about any legislative corruption pare a written statement. other than the furniture transaction. Mr. JiANECY. And this was the statement? Mr. FITZGERALD. Yes, sir. That being the case, how did this alleged confession get into the Holstlaw statement? The testimony of Mr. Fitzgerald has The statement was prepared by Gillespie and Fitzgerald in the form of questions and answers, and was subsequently submitted been quoted. But in answer to Senator FLETCHER Mr. Fitz to Mr. Burke. The statement covering the furniture transac gerald also testified as follows : · Did you also tell him, after your return to your office to prepare tion was as follows, and according to the testimony of Mr. Fitz t.hat statement, that it was necessary for that statement to be full and gerald it was all that had been required in the agreement made complete a n d to contain matter that would satisfy Mr. Burke? 8762 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. Mr. E'ITZGERALD. I told him what Mr. Burke had stated about it; been bribed to vote for Sena tor LoniMEn and was paid $2,500 ye~r. HANECY. So that after the first, second, and third interviews for it, when he had been expressly told to the conh·aJ'Y by hi.s between you and Mr. Burke in relation to Mr. Holstlaw, and after client. you and Mr. Gillespie, your partner, got together with Mr. Holst!aw Senatou JoNEs asked this· question : to prepare this paper dated May 28, 1910, and down to the time where you asked the last question relating to the furniture deal, on · Before that, if you wl1.I allow me a moment, does not that statement the bottom of the second typewcitten page, you did not know of and indicate and almost state in terms that Mr. Holstlaw gQt $2,500 for neTer lleard Senator LORIMER'S name used in connection willi the mat voting for Senator LORIMEn ? ters in any way? Mr. GILLESPIE. It states that he got $2,500. i\lr. FITZGERALD. I do not remember whether I bad two or three Senator .TONES. For voting for Senator LORDIER? interviews with Mr. Burke before this· tl.me, but L had not heard Mr_ Gn.LESPIE. I do not remember the exact language. LOnI¥ER'S name mentioned in any particular by M.r. Holstlaw in con Senator Jom:s. Mr. Holstlaw, in his statement, made these answers: nection with the legislative matters- at that time exceI>t to deny gen " Q. Who talked t.:> you on that subject and what was said ?-A. e.rally that he knew anything about any legislative corruption. Senato1 Broderick, of Chica.go. He said to me, ' Mr. Lonn.nm is going to be elected to-morrow '-that ls as well as I rememb&r the date--and When examined concerning this incriminating portion of the he said, 'There is $2,500 for you if you want to vote that way,' and statement l\lr. Gillespie testified as follows, Mr. Hanecy asking the next morning I voted for llim." Now, did he not say to you before he bad answered that questio'n him this question: that this 2,500 was no consideration for his vote for LORIMER, and You knew that Mr. Holstlaw had denied1 whenever the question was that he had decided to vote for him before Broderick said anything asked or suggested, or intimation made m connection with it, that about money? "there was any bril:lery or corruption or improper practices connected Mr. GtLLlilSPIE. He said he had made up his mlnd to vote for LoRIMEil in any way with tne election of United States Senator by the forty- and he thought he might just as well get the money as not. sixth general assembly, did you not? . Senator JONES. He said that be had made up his mind to vote for Mr. GILLESPIE. I knew be had denied it; yes, sir; up to tliat trme. him and he might just as well get the money? Up to the point where he wag asked if he voted for l\lr. Mr. GILLESPIE. Yes, sir. Senator .TONES . Did be say to you in that conversation that he told LonrMER and he said he did, nothing had been said relating tu Broderick that he had decided to vote for LORI!IIER? any corruption aside from the furniture deal. Mr. GILLESPIE. I do not think he told me he had said that to Brod erick. Mr. Gillespie testified as follows : Senator JoNEs. Why did you not put that statement in in that way? ~fr. HANECY. Up to that time--that is, the finishing ot the ques Mr. GILLESP'IE. Because be did not answer it that way when the tions and answm·s-down to and including the last. line at the bottom questions were asked him. I asked him questions and be answered of the second page and the answei: on the top of the third page o.t them. this story, Mr. Holstlaw had denied that there was any other thing or Senator JONES. When you heard him answer that way you did not any other matter that he had any knowledge of in the way ot corrup call his attention to his former statement in reference to lt? tion or bribery or improper practices in or before or connected with Mr. GILLESPIE. No; I did not change his. statement in one particular. the forty-sixth general assembly1 did be not'/ The CHAIRll.dN. And stUl you understood from what he bad previ Mr. GILLESPIE. I think 1hat IS true, Judge. ously told you that the payment of that money was not an inducement Mr. HANECY. And he denied he knew anything a.bout any corruption, to vote for LoRnmn, but he intended to vote for him in any event? briber~" or improper practices in the election of a United States Sena Mr. GILLESPIE. Yes, sir; be stated he bad intended to vote for Mr. tor, did he not? LORHtIER and he thought he might just as well get the money as not. Mr. GILLEID'IE. Yes, sir. Senator JO?>"EB. But he gave you the impression that the money was 1\Ir. HANECY. And you knew your partner, Mr. Fitzgeral.d, had had no inducement to him to vote for LoRillIER? three interviews with State's Attorney Burke in_ relation_ to the Mr. GILLESPIE. Yes ; just as I have stated. ffolstlaw immunity matter and the dismissal of the indictment against Senator .TONES . Well, why did you not· suggest that thn.t statement him? go in? Mr. GILLESPIE. I knew he had two up to that time. Mr. GILLESPIE. r did not undertake to control his statement in any Mr. HANECT. He said this' forenoon that he had had three. particular. Mr. GILLESPIE. I do not remember about that. I knew what had Mr. H.A.NECY. It you saw that he was not stating It just as be had been going on in the office anyway. . stated it to you-- Mr. HANECY. You knew that Mr. Holstlaw had demed, whenever Mr. GILLESPIE. If he could have dictated th-a statement, we would the question was asked or suggested, or intimation made in connec have permitted him to dictate his own statement. When we found he tion with it that there was any bribery or corruption or improper could not do that, we examined him as I have stated. practices co~nected in any way with the election of United States Senator Jo~ms. But acting as his attorneys there, you did not deem Senator by the forty-sixth general assembly, did you not? it of importance to suggest to him that the language he expressed did Mr. GILLESPIE. I knew he had denied it; yes, sir; up to that time. not correctly state what he bad before expressed to you? Again: _ Mr. GILLESPIE. No; I did not consider it of any importance. Mr. HANECY. So that the first time Senator LonnIER's name was Think ot it! In that paper was a confession, signed by Holst ever connected by Holstlaw or anybody e~se in yom· office-you., or law, that he was guilty of a felony, and the counsel he had em your partner, or the State's attorney-with bribery, or corruption, or improper practices in connection with the election or a Senator by the ployed. to protect him testifies that he did not consider it of forty-sixth general assembly, was when· it developed in your office when any importance! Yet that so-called confession in th11t statc- you were making this starement? 1nen.t is the only evidence in this case upon, which can be predi Mr. GILLESPIE. Yes, S11'.. cated any ldnd of a claim, that .Holstlaw 1;oted for Senator Holstlaw tried to dictate a statement but "appeared to have LoruMm because of imprope1· infl'uences. He himself hus tes no capacity to do it, and Mr. Fitzgerald suggested that I ask tified repeatedly that he did not' do so. Everyone knew for a him questions an weak story, that he thought he might as well illlv7 the money. Mr. HANECY. When was it with reference to the publication of the story or the day when Holstlaw had appeared before the grand jm·y In his evidence in the Broderick case-the Broderick case was of Sangamon County? a prosecution on an indictment against Broderick for bribing Mr. MONROE. I can not give the exact time of it. My recollection Holstlaw to "Vote for Senator LORIMER-he told precisely the is .it was Just a few days after this statement of Holstlaw had been published In the papers. same story that he told before this committee. Mr. lliNECY. The. statement of Holstlaw as to--- Speaking of Broderick, in his testimony he says that on the M.r. MONROE. His confession, in other words, about the deal that he 'evening of May 25- had been into as to the furniture and other bribery charges. Mr. HA.NECY. During the forty-sixth general assembly? He was st anding out in front of the St. Nick, and I happened to Mr. MONROE. Yes, sir. st ep out and we were talking, and he said, " Senat:or LoRUIER will Mr. HANECY. Who was present at that conversation? be e lect~d - to-morrow." I said, "I think so, and I am going to vote Mr. MomwE. There was nobody there but Mr. Gillespie and myself. for him." He said, "You are?" I said, "Yes, ,~ir." He said, "If Mr. H.ll."ECY. What was that conversation? you want to vote that way, there is $2,500 for you. Mr. MONROE. The conversation came about by l\Ir. Gillespie ask Mr. MARBLE. What did you say? ing me if I was getting any business out of these bribery cases. In Mr. H OLSTLAW. I did not say a word. answer to that I told him that I was not. I said, "Are you getting Referring to what he claims Broderick then said, Ilolstlaw any of it?" He said that he was getting Into it or something like that; that was the expl'esslon, that he was getting into the business. further testified : Mr. HANECY. Proceed. I did not think very much about that, because I intended to vote Mr. MONROE. I said, " How did you get in? " He said he got Jn for LORii1rnn anyway, and that did not have any 1nfluence Whatever for the Chi-cago Tribune, through Gov. Deneen. I said, "How dld with me- you come to get in that way?" Be said that he had taken Mr. Holst and in response to the following question: law's confession., and that was about all that was said about it. Mr. lliRBLll. You would ha"e voted for Senator LbRI!'.IER if John .And there is another reputable witness to the same effect Broderick had not spoken to you the night before? l\Ir. HOLSTLA..W. I would, most assuredly. Mr. William H. Dillman, a lawyer and banker, who lives at Louisville, Clay County, Ill. He is a personal and professional It was a weak story, told doubtless to cover some n·ansaction friend of Mr. Gillespie, and has employed Gillespie in im which has never been revealed. However that may be. it has portant litigation. A.bout two weeks after Holstlaw's story not a corroborating circumstance in all the "Volumes of testi- was published, Mr. Dillman called upon Mr. Gillespie in his mony, but is disproved by testimony which is unanswer~1ble. · office and his testimony as to what occurred on that occasion 'l'he so-called "confession" which was incorporated in the is as follows: statement that went to the State's attorney of Sangamon Mr. HANECY. Give us the substance of it as nearly as you can. County was the direct work of Gillespie and Fitzgerald, Holst Mr. DILLMAN. Ileing friends, he said he had got in on this deal. law's attorneys. Gillespie had formerly been assistant to At Mr. HANECY. What deal were you talking about? Mr. DlLLML"'i. He was re!{!rring to the scandal that had come out ; torney General Stead. Gov. Deneen had advised Gillespie not that he had gotten employment as a lawyer, and that Mr. Holstlaw to take employment in the defense of any of the bribery cases, had made his confession to him. as there undoubtedly would be a legislative investigation, in Mr. H.AI\r1CY. Did he say anything about who wrote the paper? Mr. DILLMAN. I do not recall that he did. which he might be employed, and had asked upon what terms Mr. HANECY. What did he say about the person by whom, or the he was with the atto.rney general. company by whom he was employed? Gillespie says: Mr. DILLMAN. What did he say about that? The substance of the conversation was that there would be litiga Mr. HA.NEcY. Yes. tion growing out of it, and the mat ter would probably be inquired into Mr. DILLMAN. Nothing in particular that I can recall. by the legislature, and he suggested that I might be employed. In the Mr. HANECY. What did he say in general, Mr. Dillman? conversation he asked me what my relations were with the attorney l\Ir. DILLMAN. He said be was just employed by this Chicago paper. general, and I stated to him that they were friendly. Mr. llANEcY. The Chicago Tribune? Mr. DILLMAN. Yes, sir; to get evidence along that line. Further along Mr. Gillespie says: • • • • • * * On the day when Attorney General Stead made the motion in the Mr. HANl:CY. Was anything said by you or Mr. Gillespie about the Sangamon County Circuit Court- story or the paper that was signed by Holstlaw and given to l\Ir. Burke, the State's attorney, of Sangamon County? That was the motion which the attorney general made to re Mr. DILLMAN. I do not recall anything particular about a paper. strain Burke from investigating the White, Beckemeyer, and He just simply remarked that he had gotten Senator Holstlaw to con Link stories- fess, or rather, had advised him to confess. I happened to be in court, a.nd he called me aside and asked me if There we have the situation! It needs no comment! Any I had had any connection with the defense of any of those cases or had been employed or spoken to by anybody. I stated to him that I had per on who reads the testimony of Gillespie as to the man not. He stated to me that he did not know what his attitude would ner in which that so-called "confession" made its way into be, and a sked nie for the t ime being not to participate in the defense, that statement which was given to the State's attorney of and I stated to him that I would not at that time. Sangamon County will grasp the situation. There sat Lawyer He held out until the Holst1aw matter came up. Ile then had Gillespie in conference with his terror-stricken client, who had a further conversation with the go.-ernor. l\Ir. Gillespie said: placed his safety and interests in his keeping, arranging a most I stated to the governor that Mr. Ilolstlaw had been indicted for vital matter. He had full knowledge that his client, who was perjury, and Mr. Fitzgerald ha d been retn.ined to defend him, and that we we1·e going t o represent Ilolstlaw. making that statement, claimed and had stated to him that he Mr. HEALY. What did the governor say about that? had not been corrupted to vote for l\Ir. LORIMER, asserting that Mr. GILLESPIE. He said that was all right, that he understood the he had never received money because of that act, and yet that at torney general was not going to pa.rticil}ate. attorney, professing to act for his client, deliberately propounded It will be noted tha t this particular matter in no. way con questions and permitted answers which when placed in that nected itself with the jack-pot story, and that Gov. Deneen statement constituted a confession of a felony which he knew did not object to the employment of Gillespie and Fitzgerald in from Holstlaw's statement to him had no foundation. this matter, although he had asked· them not to accept em .And this so-called "confession,'' produced and incorporated ployment in the other matter. While it is denied by Gillespie in that statement in that way und under those circumsta!lces, that he was employed by the Chicago Tribune in the Holstlaw furnishes the only foundation there is for claiming that Holst or any other matter growing out of the corruption, or the al law received money for voting for Se:un.tor LORIMER. leged corruption, of the legislature, it appears from the testi It is a remarkable circumstance that almost immediately mony of Basil D. Monroe, an attorney at Louisville, Ill., who after the perpetration of this great wrong by Mr. Gillespie was judge of Clay County court for eight years, and formerly his relations to the Chicago Tribune should ha>e been re\ealed connected with the attorney general's office, that Gillespie told through the witness Monroe and Dillman, reputable citizens him that he, Gillespie, got in for the Chicago Tribune through of Illinois, both lawyers and both friends-- Gov. Deneen. The importance of this testimony-- . Mr. BRADLEY. What is that man's name? l\Ir. LORIMER. Mr. President-- Mr. DILLI NGH.A.l\l. Gillespie. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Ver JUr. BR.ADLE Y. Who is the man who said that? mont yield to the Senator from Illinois? Lir. DILLINGHAl\I. Basil D. Monroe, a man who had been Ur. DILLINGHAM. I yield to the Senator from Illin-0is. eight years the judge of bis county. The testimony will be Mr. LORIMER. I merely wish to add right there that Mr. found at page 4749 and other pages following, if the Senator Dillman and Judge Monroe en.me into my office in the Sen.ate desires to find it. That testimony was: Office Building on the morning of the da.y that they testified Mr. Ha~E C Y. Did you have a talk with Mr. G. B. Gillespie. of the before the committee and pleaded with me to go to you and firm ot Gillespie & Fitzgerald, about that time, and after Holstla w ask you to excuse them as witnesses, because the testimony that signed that paper that you say you saw in the papers? they would give against Mr. Gillespie, who was their warm per l\Ir. l\fo~i"IWE. Yes ; I think I did. Mr. lliNECY. Where was that conversation? sonal friend would result in his disbarment in Illinois if they Mr. MoxROE. The conversation was in his office. were compelled to make the statement. Mr. IIANECY. In Mr. Gillespie's office? Mr. MONROE. Yes. l\Ir. DILLINGHAM. Not only that, but Mr. Gillespie admits Mr. BAlfECY. In Spring11.eld? that there were publications in some of the newspapers in Illi Mr. MONllOE. Yes. nois to the effect that he represented the Chicago Tribune; and 8764 OONGRESSION.i_\L RECORD- SENATE. JULY 9, he mentions, if I rememb-er correctfy; the- Herald- and lhe Chicago Sunday Tribune containing a picture-of :Mr~ Ho-lstlaw; Springfield Record. columns and pages are given up to this matter, a full discus I have only to say that to permit a "confession" of the char sion of the wonderful disclosures that had been made, and acter of that introduced by him in Mr. Holstlaw's statement with headlines like this: to State's Attorney Burke, in the light of what he himself con ONE MORE SAYS HE WAs BRIBED FOR Lor:.rMEn. IloLsTLA w CoN fesses was said to him by Mr. · Holstlaw, was an inexcusable FESSEs HE TOOK $2,500 TO CAST THE VOTE " RIGHT"- act, and if it be true that he was at that time in the employ The word "right" being put in quotation marks- of the Chicago Tribune, it is all the more open to condemnation. NAMEs JOHN BRODERICK. Yet that "confession," so called, has been used by the Chicago TRUE BILL ALso RETURNED FOR PEMBERTON, JOSEPH s. CLARK- press to blacken Mr. Lonn.rER's character and to drive him out And so forth. of fYtlblic life. There is the use that was made of the work of Gillespie and Fitzgerald in preparing that statement. There are some other circumstances in connection with this l\fr. JOHNSTON of Alabama. 1\fr. President-- incident which are worthy of mention. The evidence clearly The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Ver shows that the sum paid by Broderick to B.olstlaw was not mont yield to the Senator from Alabama? $2,500, but that it was $3,200, paid in two installments, but l\fr. DILLINGHAM. Gladly. foi· the same purpose; and I should like to have any man con Mr. JOHNSTON of Alabama. I want to suggest another nected with this case who has beard any part or the testimony, fact that is significant. Gillespie charged $500 for his Yaluable account for that $700 if the $2,500 was paid him for voting for services 41 preparing that confession. He collected only $350 l\fr. LoRI mR. . and never called on Holstlaw for the balance. I merely suggest All the evidence shows that there was a corrupt deal be that to the Senator as showing, to my mind at least, that he tween Broderick and Holstlaw; but all the evidence goes to was receiving pay from some other source. show that it was in no way connected with Mr. LORIMER; that Mr. DILLINGHAM. And' before this committee, l\fr. Fitz it was an independent transaction on the part of Holstlaw gerald said that they " did not have sense enough to charge and Broderick, just as the $1,500 deal w.as an independent larger fees," and that they ought to have charged $2,500, in con transaction between Holstlaw and the furniture firm that was sideration of the value of their work. to refurnish the Illinois capitol. From an examination of the evidence to which I have called Mr. Pre ident, I call attention to the fact that while we are attention it can not be successfully maintained that Becke discussing these important questions, which the Senate sitting meyer, Link, or Holstlaw ever received a dollar for voting for in n. judicial capacity mu t determine there are, including the Mr. LoRIM:EB or that they had any knowledge or suspicion that presiding officer, the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. GAL money was paid to any other person for that purpose. The LINGER], 10 Senators in their seats. I want this to go into the case as made before the Burrows committee rested wholly RECORD. upon the testimony of Charles A. White, and the case as made Continuing, let me say that the $3,200 was paid to Holstlaw before this committee rests wholly upon the testimony of by Mr. Broderick for some reason which neither revealed. It Charles A. White. Unless the payment to him of $1,000 by has been detc1·m.ined by the courts of Illinois that it was not Lee O'Neil Browne differs in character from the payment of paid to Holstlaw for voting for LoRIMER. Let anybody who has the same am::mnt at practically the same time by Browne to beard the evidence account for the difference between $2,500 and Link and BQCkemeyer, there is absolutely nothing on which to $3.200. Mr. Holstlaw had not the nerve, liar that he was and base the claim that bribery was used in the election of Senator bribe-taker that he was, to allege that it was for his vote for LORIMER. And I think I have demonstrated beyond all ques Lon1MER. He says over and over again in his testimony that tion that the only circumstance upon which can be based any he does not know why it was given to him, and he made the claim that Holstlaw received money because of his vote for weak, sickly, childish plea that he supposed i~ was a g~t; Senator Lo&IM:ER is the so-called "confession," wholly without but he felt some delicacy about it and did not like to mention foundation and wickedly allowed to go into his statement pre 1t to his family. _ pared under the direction of his counsel, Mr. Gillespie, upon What object could this man have in shielding LORIMER? which to obtain immunity in the courts of Sangamon County. None whatever. 'rhe evidence clearly shows that the only ob NO CORRUPTION FUND WAS RAISED TO AID MR. LORil\IER'S ELECTION . ject in connecting LoRIMER's name with this Holstlaw trans Mr. President, I had intended at this time, having disposed action was to satisfy the State's attorney of Sangamon ·County. of the olcl case, to take. up the question of the newly discovered The immunity order was secured within a few hours, and for evidence upon which the case was reopened and sent to this that service this firm charged Mr. Holstlaw $500. · committee for investigation and to inquire whether there was I shall take no further time upon this phase of the case, in fact any fund raised by or through Edward Hines for the except to suggest one fact. ·we wanted to know why that purpose of in any way influencing the election of WILLIAM money was paid to Holstlaw by Broderick? Why the latter LoRIMER .to the Senate Qf the United States. It will take con received it? But all we found upon which to base a judg siderable time to do so. The report of the committee upon that ment was this: Holstlaw posed as what they call a " dry" on subject, which was drafted by myself, seems to me to be a the liquor question. His district was composed of four counties. clear and concise statement of the facts, and I ask permission .Marion his home county, and Clay were dry counties, but to insert at this point as a part of my remarks the report of the estimation in which he was held by his prohibition friends the committee bearing upon that subject. is demonstrated by the fact that he lost both of these counties The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection that by a majority of 5,556. · He posed as a "dry" and he lived in order will be made. a dry county, but he lost those counties by a maJority of The matter referred to is as follows: 5,556 ! In the " wet" c·ounties of Effingham and Clmton the WAS SUCH A FUND RAISED? majorities he received were sufficiently large to overcome the After the most searching inquiry the committee is unable to find any loss in the other two counties and elect him to the State evidence that any sum of money was raised or contributed by Mr. Hines, or through his suggestion, or with his knowledge, to be used senate. corruptly in securing the election of Mr. LORDIEn as a Senator of the It is admitted by all that the liquor interests in a~ four cou:i United States from the State of Illinois, or that Mr. Hines participated ties were Mr. Holstlaw's strong supporters and succeeded m in any corrupt practices of any nature in connection with such elec their purpose to send him to the Senate. When pressed to tion nor can the committee find that any such fund was raised by any pers'on or persons to be so used. The committee goes further and disclose what his election expenses amounted to, Mr. Holstlaw reports that it finds no evidence that :my such fund was ever contem said, "Well, I can not tell." He was soft and sweet and plausi plated by Mr. Hines, or suggested to him by any of the gentlemen with ble but he could not tell what his expenses were. We asked whom he conferred before the election of Mr. LORIMER regarding- the election of a Senator of the United States from the State of Illinois, hin'.i if they were $5.000. He replied, "Well, I do not think they and in fact there is no proof that Mr. Hines raised or furnished or were quite $5,000 "; nnd when we pressed him, suggesting spent improperly any money to aid in the election of hlr. LORI!IIEB. specific amounts, he did not think it was this or. that, b_ut when MR-. HINES'S INTEREST IN THE ELECTION. his examination ended the committee had the impression that In connection with this finding the committee thought best to in his election exnenses were from $3,000 to $3,500. corporate at this point a statement of what the evidence disclo es re garding the activities of Mr. Hines in connection with the election of I am not attempting to account for the money paid him ex Mr. LORIMER. cept, as the Quakers say, it was borne in upon us tha~ he was While Mr. Hines has had a general acquaintance with hlr.. LORI~ER covering about 19 years, he has never had any business relations with reimbursed for his election expenses, the money havmg come him nor has Senator LoRIMER been the owner of stock in any corpora through- John Broderick, who for 17 or 18 years has been the tion' in which Mr. Hines has been interested ; and although Mr. Hines proprietor of a saloon in Chicago. was a resident of Mr. LORIMER's congressional district about nino years, As showing the influence of that Chicago combination that he never took any interest in the political fortunes of the latter, be· yond voting for him, except in the year 1906, when horses a~d wagons united in the undertaking to drive l\fr. LoRIM:ER from the Sen of the Edward Hines Lumber Co. were loaned to the Lorimer com ate, I wish that Senators who are present would look at the mittee for a street parade, and Mr. Hines secured the signatures of 25 1912. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SEN.ATE. 8765 or 30 business men to a cireular which was sent out to voters, showing could be induced to enter the contest. Senator PENROSE also learned Mr. Lor.nIER to be a protectionist, and the value of his work in favor from other soUI·ces that Mr. LoRIMEn was the only available candidate. of deep waterways. Mr. Hi.- es does not remember whether he paid Just previous to the election of Mr. LORIMER by the Legislatru·e of fo..t" the printing of these circulars or not; but if so, that is the only the State of Illinois one or two interviews took place between Senator contribution ever made by him or any of the companies with which Aldrich and Mr. Hines regarding the candidacy of Mr. LoRI.MER and he was connected to any campaign fund to ald Mr. LORIMER. at any the attitude of the· President with respect thereto. Regarding one ot time. these, Senator Aldrich in his testimony says: A major portion of the- winter and spring of 1909, during which the "Mr. Hines then told me that it was impossible to agree upon Mr. Legislature of Illinois was in deadlock over the election o1 a Senator, Boutell, and he thought there was a prospect-he said a very good Mr. Hines spent in Washington, representing the interests of the prospect-of agreeing upon Mr. LORIMER; and he wus anxious that I National Lumber Manufacturers' Association, in connection with the should find out the attitude of the President, the administration, toward taritr legislation then under consideration. He did not visit ~pring Mr. LORH.IER'S election, and tell him what it would be." field during the senatorial contest, and had not been in that city for This the committee finds was .at Senator Aldrich's committee room, at least five years prior to his appearance as a witness before the late in the evening; that together they rode to Senator Aldrich s house, Helm committee in the spring of 1911. where Mr. Hines was left to await the return of Senator Aldrich from Mr. Hines apparently had no interest in the senatorial contest, and the White House, where he went to have a consultation with the according to the evidence did nothing in connec:t.ion therewith until President in relation to this matter. Senator Aldrich returned home the 1st of February, 1909, when, at the request iof Mr. Hibbard, of from this interview about midnight, and in his testimony says : the firm of Hibbard, Spencer & Bartlett, hardwar~ dealers in Chicago, " I told him that Mr. L0Rn1ER's candidacy would not be objection a codirector with Mr. Hines on the Continental- National Bank boud. able to the President. Then Mr. Hines asked me if I was willing to he teleg1·aphed l\Ir. LonrMEn, suggesting the candidacy of Mr. A. C. say that to anyone tbat he might sugJ?est to inquire of me upon the Bartlett, and followed this telegram by a letter, in which he said: subject; and 1 said that I was-that if I were asked in reference to "Mr. Hibbard came to me this morning about the candidacy of Mr. the matter I should say that Mr. LORI.l.IER's candidacy would not be A. C. Bartlett. • "' * I feel it might be good policy to nominate objectionable to the President." a mfl.n of this kind, if you have not committed yourself elsewhe1-e. Regarding the time of this interview, Senator Aldrich testifies: • • * Probably you ha>e already committed yourself along other "I know that it wus prior to the election, and my impression is that lines." Mr. Hines told me that he was to leave for Chicago either that da;y In response to this, some time prior to the 1st of April, Mr. or the next day, or some time very near that." LonIMER told Mr. Hines that the different factions could not, appar And on thls point Senator Aldrich's testimony is as follows: ently, unite on :Ur. Bartlett. "Senator KERN. Did you have any conversation with Mr. H~::is at During the next two months, from February 1 fo April 1, 1909~ all about Gov. Deneen, or the part Gov. Deneen was to take in the l\Ir. Hines, as representative of the National Lumber Manufacturers contest? Association, looking aft<.'r tariff legislation in Washington, was much " Senator ALDRICH. I think at this conversation Gov. Deneen's name occupied and paid no attention to the Illinois situation. In this work was mentioned. by Mr. Hines; not by me. he was brought frequently into contact with Senators Aldrich and • * • • • I'EmtOSE, members of the Senate Committee on Finance, which was then • .. conductin.,. hearings in connection with the tariff schedules. ." The CHAIRUAN. What did he say about Dene-en? · The legislative deadlock in Illinois naturally became a topic of con "Senator ALDRICH. My recollection is that Deneen was an important versation between them and was discussed first as a matter of political party to this arrangement, or agreement, upon a candidate, and that Deneen's attitude would be more Ol' less influenced by knowing whether gossip; then as the situation developed, the probability of the dead rt would be agreeable to the President. That was my general impres lock being broken was often discussed. Early in the month of ApriI sion with regard to that matter." Senator PENROSE sent for Mr. Hines and asked him if he knew the Both Stnators Aldrich and PENROSE corroborate Mr. Hines in all situation or could find out whether the legislature was ·uable to essential features of his account of what took place leading up to adjourn without electing a Senator; Mr. Hines replied that he did and including his activities in behalf of Senator LonnIER. not know but would try to find out. Endeavoring to carry out what he understood to be the desire upon To this end Mr. Hines talked first with Congressmen Bouten and the part of Senator Aldrich and the administration, Mr. Hines went lliDDEN, of Chicago, who told him they did not know the real situa from the home of Senator Aldrich to the New Willard Hotel, from tion, but that probably Congressmat\ LoRIMER could give him the whence, sometime after midnight, he called up Congressman LORH.rim infoi·mation, whereupon be telephone& to Mr. LOIUMER, who was in on long-distance telephone at Springfield and gave him Senator Chicago, and arranged to see him at hi.s..Qfficc upon his return to Wash Aldrich's message. Mr. LORillIER expressed some surprise at mention ington; at the interview then had Mr. Hines told Congressman LORI of the President's name, but Mr. Hines repeated the statement, telling MER that he was not personally interested in the matter, but that him there was no question about it, as he had but then finished talking Senator PENROSE appeared to be much interested, and had asked him with Senator Aldrich, after the latter's return from a con1erence with to make inquiries. Mr. LORIMER stated that the situation was indefi the President at the White Rouse, and that they would do all they nite; that he could not then say what it really was; but that he was could to assist in his election. Mr. LORillE:R asked if Senator Aldrich going to Springfield the following night; would return to Washing would send him a telegram to that effect, and Mr. Hines assured hirn ton in about a week and might then be able to speak with a .better that he himself was authorized to send such a message, and Mr. LOI'.l knowledge. Mr. Hines reported this conversation to Senator PE~osE. A week or two later Mr. Hines again talked with Mr. LORIMER,. who MER told him to send it. Mr. Hines then asked Congressman LORI.l.IER told him that the situation remained practically unchanged. Mr. if he would become a candidate, to which the latter replied: Hines then inquired particularly as to the men under consideration, "At this time I can !lot say; after I get the telegram I will give and 1\1.r. LORUIEB mentioned Congressmen McKINLEY and Lowden, the matter· consideration." Judge Grosscup, and Mr. Calhoun. Mr. Hines reported this convel.' Mr. Hines accordingly sent the telegram. Senator LORil\IER testifies sation1 as well as what he heard from other s.oUl·ces rego.rding condi that this was the fu-st word he reei!ived from Mr. Hines concerning tions m Illinois, to Senator PENROSE, as he met him in connection with his candidacy, and Mr. Hines says it was the first time the subject the tarilr matters. was mentioned betweei them after the talk in April when Congress About the last of April Senator PENROSE told Mr. IDnes that Sena man LORUIEn. told him he would not be a candidate for the senator tor Aldrich would like to see him and went with him to Senator ship. Senator LORIMER locates the date of this telegram between the Aldrich's office, and in a conversation between them the general sit 20th and 25th of May, and Mr. Hines puts the date May 23, 1900. uation in Illinois, including the election of a Senator, wa& discussed, Mr. Hines testifies that matters r:m on for a few days, and that during which Mr. Hines stated that in his judgment Senator Hop Senator Aldrich again sent for him and urged him to go to Springfield kins could not be reelected, and be asked Senator Aldrich what the and see the governor personally and Impress upon his mind the attitude of the President would be with reference to the matter. importanee to the administration of the election of a Republican, and Senator Aldrich replied that the Preside'ht was desirous that a if Mr. LORIMER could be elected to have him assist in accomplishing it. Republican Senator should be elected in Illinois, and while he was This was on the morning of May 25, 1909, and hfr. Hines left for naturally friendly to Senator Hopkins on account of the fact that Springfield via Chicago that afternoon. · the latter had received the primary nomination and perhaps for othei: · While the committee find some confusion in the testimony on the reasons, he did not intend to take any active pa.rt in influencing the question whether there were two interviews between Senator Aldrich action of the le!!islature; that his wi...sh was that a Republican ,1>hould and Mr. Hines regardincr the election of Mr. LORDIER and the mission be elected, but that he would take no steps in furtherance of Senator of Mr. Hines in C-Onni!ctfon therewith, they are of the opinlon that Mr. Hopkins's candidacy or that of any other person. Hines's memory is the more accurate, and that such was the ease; A little later Mr. Hines had another interview with Mr. LoRIMER, In but if, as Senator Aldrich thinks, there was but one interview, it must which he asked him the direct question whether or not he was a can have been on the night of May 24, 1909, for bef<>re leaving Washington didate for the senatorship ; and the latter replied that he was not, the following day, May 25, Mr. Hines sent the following telegrams to giving as the one important reason his great interest in the de-ep M~. LOruMER, who was at Springfield: waterway proposition which he felt he could best promote by remain " MAY 25, 1909. ing in the House. At that time Mr. LORIMER asked Mr. Hines if he "WILLIAM LORIMER, had anyone to recommend for the position, and Mr. Hines suggested . "St. Nicholas Hotel, Springfield, IZZ.:- Congressman Boutell, which met the approval of Mr. LoRIMER; but "Aldrich authorizes governor calling him up telephone. Confirm my be could not tell how Mr. Boutell's name would be received. Mr. Hines message."; con1erence last night; governor requested cooperate bring told Senator PENROSE of this, who, in turn, bad a talk with Mr. about result; can bring message to-morrow." Bouten. About the same time Mr. Hines had an interview with Senator Aldrich regarding the attitude of the President tow.ard the candidacy of Mr. Boutell, stating that an effort was being made to agree upon "WASHINGTo~. D. C., May 25. him as the successor of Senator Hopkins. "WILLIAM LODUIER, He asked Senator Aldrich if he would see the President,. ascertain "'St. Nicholas Hotel, Sprinufiela, Ill.: his attitude and advise him, and Senator Aldrich- afterwards in an " Li!aving for Chicago to-day; can go direct to Springfield. Bring other conversation reported to him that the President would be agree message confirming conference held last night, showing highest au able to Mr. Boutell's candidacy; that his anxiety was to have a Re thorities want you elected before legislature adjourns. Important Re publican elected, and that he was satisfied with Mr. Boutell's Repub publican Party Illinois politics have strong, experienced man, friendly licanism and would have no objection to his election. Mr. LORIMER'S to powers here, elected immediately; needed here now. Telegraph. candidacy was not suggested or discussed at that time. Mr. Hines answer quiek, duplicate, care limited train, Harrisburg depot." told Mr. Boutell what he had done, and suggested to him that he sec In both of which messages, as will be observed, he refers to a con the President. Mr. Boutell did so, and also wrote letters to Chicago ference held the night before. to ascertain how his candidacy would be regarded in Illinois ; late~ be These conferences between Mr. Hines and Senators Aldrich a.nd went to Chicago and after a careful investigation found that it would PEXROSE impressed Mr. Hines with the importance of the matters be impossible to get the different factions to unite on him ; and Mr. under discussion as well as the importance of his activities in con Hines told Senator PENROSE of the failure of that undertaking. nection with them. He understood that in the investigations and As time Biassed the names of Messrs. Bouten, Lowden, and others reports which he made to them he was carrying out their wishes, 10 that in the end they had reached the conclusion that Mr. LoIUl\IEB ~~~~~1!f1iminat~~~n::i~ ~r.w~e!ihi~ltie~~f!?~· s~~e~t!~ i:esJ>ii'~Foi~~~ was the only :person upon whom the different factions of the legisla ROSl!l that ¥1·. LORIMER might be the man upon whom the diff'erent ture could umte, and they were anxious that he should not only factions could unite, but because Mr. Loru:mm had previously informed consent to become a candidate but that he should use his best efforts him that he preferred to remain in the House it :Was doubtful if he to be elected. In these conferences Gov. Deneen's name had been 8766 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. JULY 9, mentioned as an important factor in the election of a Senator, and While they di.trer regarding many things which it is claimed were l\1r. Hines understood, after his last interview with Senator Aldrich said during this conversation, which is easily accounted for by the at the latter's house, that he was authorized to convey to Mr. LORIMER difficulty attending a long distance telephone conver, ation, they both the wishes of the enators named, the attitude of the President as to agree that no reference whatever was made to money matters, and his candidacy, and to urge Gov. Deneen to aid in his election. The that Mr. Hines said nothing about going to Springfield and taking telegrnms indicate his understanding of the situation and of his mis· with him all the money that was necessaq' to bring a.bout the elec sion, and he understood that in carrying this message he was repre tion of Mr. LORIMER as testified by the witness Cook. Gov. Deneen senting the gentlemen with whom he had been in conference, and that testified that on May 26, 1909, he did not see or communicate in any he was authorized to refer anyone wishing fol"' further information way with Mr. LORIMER until after his election, when the latter called as to their attitude or that of the President to Senator Aldrich. upon him about 2 o'clock. Mr. Hines was very much impressed with the importance of his On the contrary, Senator LORIMER testified that Gov. Deneen called selection as the medium through whom this message was to be carried him on the telephone on the morning of May 6, 1909, and said : to Illinois, and he entered with zeal upon the undertaking. "That he had talked with Ur. Hines over the telephone, and that The evidence indicates that Senators Aldrich and PENROSE were the Mr. Hines had delivered a message to him to the effect that Senators only persons with whom Mr. Hines was working or cooperating in the PENROSE and Aldrich and the President were anxious that I should be effort to break the deadlock in the Illinois Legislature by the election elected." · of a Republican Senator; that the only real interest he had in the And in answer to the question: "What response did you make" matter was aroused by his frequent interviews with those gentlemen; Senator LORil\iER testified: . ' the evidence also shows that neither he nor they had any candidate "I thanked him for it. I knew the interview Mr. Ilines had bad whom they specially cared to have elected-any Republican would with the governor had bad no influence with him." have been satisfactory, and their purpose was to discover some person And Senator LORIMER says in his testimony that the only reason upon whom the different factions in the legislature would unite, and he did not desire Mr. Ilines to go to Springfield was because he could to that end they called upon Mr. Hines for assistance. Concerning not reach there in time he having concluded to allow bis name to be this, Senator PENROSE in his testimony says : presented that day, and he understood the only assistance Mr. I:l.ines " If Mr. Hines had been staying at home and attending to his busi could render was to deliver the message; that the governor made no ness in Chicago, and the tarm had not been up, and he had never seen comment with reference to the message and in this respect testified. me or a lot of people who were interested in politics night and day-' I do Mr. LORIMER testified : not imagine he would ever have gotten interested in the senatorial nght." " I thought the governor just delivered a message. I got an impres-, Mr. Hines left Washington on May 25, 1909, and reached Chicago sion that the governor either felt that it was his duty to call me up between 8 and 9 o'clock on the morning of May 26, 1909. It had and let me know, or that he had been requested to call me up and let been his intention to continue the journey to Springfield, in order, as me know, what had occurred." he testified- Senator LORIMER further testified that up to the night of May 25, " to carry out the request made by Senator Aldrich and see the 1909, be had not been advised that the President or Senators Aldrich gov() rnor and see other leading Republicans, members of the legisla or PENROSE bad authorized anyone to verify their support or their ture, to impress upon their minds the ~mI?ortance of trying to unite desire in regard to having a Republican elected. Senator Lom:mm on some Republican as Senator from Illmo1s." · further testified that he got the impression from the way Gov. Deneen But upon reaching Chicago he was met at the station by M.r. Wiehe talked to him over the telephone on the morning of May 26, 1909, that with a message from Mr. LORIMER to call the latter on the teiepbone he was- · . from Chicago instead of continuing his journey to Springfield, as in "just doing what he regarded as a duty, or extending a courtesy to the tended. l\Ir. IIines therefore proceeded at once to the Continental Com person he bad previously spoken to over the telephone. mercial National Bank and from there put in a long-distance telephone " He dld not commit himself, and I knew from the way he talked call for Mr. · LoRil\I ER at Springfield. While waiting for this connec that the message had no influence over the governor." tion, he sent from the bank the following telegram : Senator LORIMER testified to a subsequent conversation with Mr. CHICAGO, May 26, 1909. Hines as follows : WILLIA!\! LORil\IER, Esq., 8pri1l[Jjiel_d, IZi.: "I talked with him over the telephone-quite a while after that and told him the governor had told me of the message that he delivered Just arrived; trying to get you telephone; Aldrich, PENROSE, and to him. When I say 'quite a little while after that,' I mean it may hi .... her authority, as telephoned you from Washington, want you elected; . have been 10 or 15 or 20 minutes." authorized have governor others call Washington telephone; confirm After his telephonic conversation with Gov. Deneen from the this; can be there to-night. Continental Commercial National Bank, Mr. Hines went to the Grand Eow ARD HINES. Pacific Hotel to meet Messrs. Cook and O'Brien upon a purely business Very soon thereafter ~fr. LORU.IER called him on the telephone and matter, which meeting had been arranged by his subordinates, and while in Mr. Cook's room had a second conversation with Mr. LORIMER sai,? j would like to have you immediately call up Gov. Deneen on .the over the telephone in which he said in substance : long-distance telephone, and emphasize to him as strong as possible "I have just talked with the governor, and he said he would see you what you told me from Washington. • • "' When you get through immediately. The Con~ressman replied, 'He has already seen me.' talking with Gov. Deneen, call me up on the telephone and let me I then said, 'Now, if 1 can do any good I will come down on the know what he says." afternoon train.' He replied not to come down until he would Referring to this telephonic conversation with Mr. Hines, Senator telephone me. He said, 'If my name goes before the legislature to-day, 0 you could not assist any in time to come here. If you could assist Lo.~\Mfo~dinhi!ist;:rig1e ~~a:;KsI: did not want him to go to Springfield to-morrow, I will let you know late in the afternoon by telephone.'" was that the governor was not friendly to my candidacyl, and that if At this point the activities of Edward Hines in connection with lbe came down to deliver the messnge it would be too ate before he the election of WILLIAU LORIMER ceased. He did not go to Springfield, hrrived but probably if he delivered the message to him over the long and the only person whose action be attempted to influence was Gov. distance telephone It might have some influence with him. I had not Deneen, and in doing that he simply undertook to deliver what he any idea in the world that it would, but I feel when you are in a cam understood to be the message from Senators Aldrich and PE~ROSE. · paign you ought to do the last thing, and in his case it was the last The significant facts brought out by all the testimony upon the thing." question of Mr. Hhes's connection with Mr. LORIMER's election are: Mr. Hines testified that he also called up Gov. Deneen from the (a) That he had no special personal interest in the matter, and did bank and said, as he remembers the conversation : not visit Springfield at any time durin"' the session of the legislature. " This is Mr. Edward Hines, at Chicago. I have just come in this Cb) That be was not urging the cana'.idacy of any particular person. morning on the limited train from Washington, and was on my way ( c) That during the two months in which the situation in Illinois to Springfield to bring that message to you from Senator Aldrich a?d was discussed between him and Senators Aldrich and PENROSE the the President urging upon you to do all you possibly can to assist names of several men of reputation and character were considered and in the· election of a Senator at the earliest moment possible. They dropped, and the name of Mr. LORHIER was not menticmed between understand that Congressman LORIMER can be elected if you wi11 them as a candidate until three or fow· days before his election, and assist." . not until after his probable candidacy had been under discussion in Mr. Hines testified that the governor did not seem to recogmze his Springfield and it was believed there that he would become a candidate. voice at first and there was some suggestion of calling Mr. Reynolds, It was practically certain Hopkins could not be elected. president of 'the bank, to identify him, but that finally the governor ( d) That the only object entertained by Messrs. Aldrich and PE~ appeared to recognize his voice and said that would be unnecessary, ROSE was to have tbe deadlock broken and a Republican elected. and continuing his conversation, Mr. Hines said then to him, "How (e) That to accomplish this Mr. LoRnrnn was not objectionable as a sooi'.t can you see Congressman LORUIElR?" that the governor replied, candidate either to the President or to them, and various names had "I will see him within 10 minutes;" and then Mr. Hines asked him been tested and it was found that Mr. LORIMER could command more the following question, " Can we rely on your assistance? " and under votes than any one considered. stood the governor to say, "Yes." (f) That Mr. Hines was authorized and requested to r eport these In regard to this Gov. Deneen testified: facts to Mr. LORIMER, Gov. Deneen, and other public men, and to refer ·•Mr. Hines called me up and asked me whether I had received a to both Senators Aldrich ancl PE:NR.OSE as his authority. mes age from the Pre ident-President Taft-in reference to Senator (g) That it flattered Mr. Hines to be consulted by Senators Aldrich Lom11rnn.. · He stated that President Taft had sent a message to me and PENROSE, and his sense of tba importance of the matter was greatly to support Senator Lonurnn, and asked me if I had received the mes enhanced when he knew that they bad been in conference with the" sage. I told him no. He said: "-Well,_ President Taft I?as sent. the President, and that 1\Ir. LonnrnR's candidacy would not be objectionable message, and I intended to come down myself. I have Just arrived, to him, and that to be intrusted with the responsibility of making this morning, in Chicago; " and my best recollection is that he stated known their wishes ~nd explaining the attitude of the President to Gov. that his train was late ; had a five-minutes' connection, and - the Deneen and to Mr. LORIMER was a great personal honor. · Pennsylvania train had missed connections. But, in any event, he (h) That he belleved when the election followed so closely these said that he had intended to come, and did not come ; could not come; events that he hacf been instrumental in bringing it about and was ancl he said President Taft had sent that message to me, and I would correspondingly elated. get it. I said: "Did President 'raft send that message to me? Dld The only testimony before the committee that in any way connects he tell you?" He said, "No." I said, :·That is a. rather remarkable the name of Edward Tilden with the alleged fund raised to aid in the message to send." He said, "Well, be is to send it through Senator election of WILLIA:U: LORIMER is incorporated in the statement reluc Aldrich." He said. "Of course, the President would not send a mes tantly made by Mr. Funk when be says: "Mr. Hines said, 'Just send sage to you on such a matter where it would become a public matter; the money to Ed. Tilden.' " Not a witness has testified to any fact but Senator Aldrich is · to convey the message to you." I said, tending to establish the existencf' of such a fund or to Mr. Tllden·s "T~rough whom?" He said, "1\Ir. George Reynolds, of the Conti connection with any such fund. But the committee saw fit to summon nental Commercial Bank, will call up and deliver the message." I Mr. 'l'ilden as a witness, and in bis testimony be denied with great said, "Very well." emphasis any knowledge <>f the existence of such a fund, or having any Gov. Deneen says he did not tell Mr. Hines that he would see Mr. connection with it, and stated that the first time he heard his name LoRnIEn within a few minutes, or within 10 minutes, and says there mentioned in that respect was when he read in the newspapers an was nothing in regard to calling Mr. Reynolds to identify his voice ; account of Mr. Funk's testimony before the Helm committee at Spring that he was not sufficiently acquainted with bim to recognize Mr. field. Hines's voice, and doubted personally whether Mr. Hines was tele To further determine the question whether Mr. Hines had been a phoning. c9~tributor to or had any part in it, and wJ:i.ether Mr. Tilden had 1912. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SEN~TE. 8767' received or disbursed the same, the committee employed the firm of tained in the testimony of Mr. Burgess as to the LORihIER case; that Barrow, Wade, Guthrie & C<>., certified public. accountants of New smoking compartment soon after the train left Duluth; that Mr. Wiehe, . York. Mr. Ritchie of that firm made an examination of the accounts and not to exceed 2 or 3 feet from Mr. Burgess. of the Edward Hines Lumber Co. and all its subsidiary branches and Mr. J"ohnson, a most intelligent witness, testified that he entered the of the companies controlled by it, including the North Wisconsin Lum smoking compartment soon after the train left Duluth ; that Mr Wiehe, ber & Manufacturing Co.; Hayward Mercantile Co.; First National he thinks, came in after he did; that he remained in the compartment . Bank, Hayward, Wis. ; Mason State Bank, Mason ; White River Lumber during all the time Mr. Wiehe was there, and followed him when he Co.; Iron River Lumber Co.; Virginia & Rainy Lake Co., covering the went out, as he desired to discuss a matter of business with him ; that period from April 1, 1909, to December 31, 1909, as well as the personal during the time he was in tho compartment nothiDJ? was said by either books of Edward Hines for the year ending December 31, 1909, and Mr. Wiehe or Mr. Burgess with respect to the election of Senator LORI rel?orted to the committee as follows : MER, nor about the existence of a jack pot or any fund of $100,000 being ' '(a) That there was no evidence of the Edward Hines Lumber Co. raised for the election of Senator LORIMER, or about any other amount or any of its subsidiary or controlled companies having received or dis of money being raised to aid the election of Senator LORIMER, and that bursed any moneys in connection with the election of Mr. WILLIAM Mr. Wiehe did not say that he had contributed to any such fund; in LORIMER, on May 26, 1909, to the Uni1;.ed States Senate from the State short, he demed everything to which l\Ir. Burgess testified. of Illinois. Mr. Price testified that upon entering the train he carl"ied his grip to "(b) That there was no evidence of Mr. Edward Hines as an indi his berth and immediately went to the smoking compartment where he vidual having received or disbursed any moneys in connection with the remained for perhaps half an hour, when he went out to look after aforesaid election. bis grip, and was gone just long enough to go to bis seat in the other " In order to ascertain whether or not Mr. Hines might have nego car and return; that be then remained in the smoking compartment tiated a loan from one or other of the banks in Chicago with which he until 10 or 15 minutes before the train reached Virginia ; that when he was connected, or with which he had business relations, I visited the went out to look after his grip Mr. Burgess, M1·. Johnson, and Mr. following banks and trust companies: Continental National Bank, Hiber McGowan were in the smoking compru:tment, and he tells where and nian Banking .Association, Fort Dearborn National Bank, Northern how they were sitting. He thinks . Mr. Weyerhaeuser was sitting with Trust Co., Corn Exchange National BanK:, Metropolitan Trust & Savings Mr. Cusson immediately next to him, and that when he returned Mr. Bank. Wiehe had taken his seat, and that he was obliged to stand for some "At each of these banks I examined their record of notes discounted time and until Mr. Wiehe was called from the room by l\fr. Hines. during the last week in May, 1909, and the first part of J"une, 1909. This 1s confirmed by Mr. McGowan, who testified that Mr. Wiehe was " I am able to report, therefore, that at none of these banks, in the called out by Mr. Hines. period under review, did Mr. Hines discount any note or notes, either In his testimony 1\fr. Price tells of other subjects which were dis as drawer or as indorser." cussed, but says nothing was saJd by any person present regarding the An examination was also made of the books peting corporatio~~ under its control and putting them out of business, has never been used where, under the law of the State or whether such other corporations be engaged in business of a private nature or in business affected with a public mterest. Nation, it could be tested 11.s to its weight or value until it came before this committ~e. There is the opinion of the attorney general as to the scope of The real purpose of this Chicago combination in the secret the authority given under section 31 of that act on which this use of the Funk story was to create public sentiment, which, veto was based. acting upon the Senate of the United States, would deprive . Further on, in this opinion of the attorney general, he says: WILLIAM LoRIMEB of his seat in this body and would drive him ;! Section 5 of the general incorporation act now in force provides: out of politics in the State of Illinois. To this end Mr. Kohlsaat, ~ "Corporations formed under this act * * * may own, possess, and enjoy so much real and personal estate as shall be necessary for who says that for 20 years he also has been the political enemy the transaction of their business, and may sell .and dispose *of the .~ame of Mr. Lo&r:MER-although .he speaks very kindly and in com when not required for the uses of the corporation. * * Prp-i;id~d, plimentary terms of his personal character-did teat to which howei;er That all real estate so acquired in satisfaction of any habihty · or indebtedness, unless the same may be necessary ai;id suiU;tble for the I am about to call attention. I say this with sorrow, because business of such corporation shall be offered at pubhc auction at least of the admiration I have entertained for Ur. Kohlsaat nnd be once every year at the doo1: of the courthouse of the county wh~r~in cause of the very agreeable personal relations I haye enjoyed the same be situated or on the premises · so to be sold, after g1vrng notice thereof for at 'least four consecutive weeks in some newspaper with him and the courtesies I have received at his hands. I of general circulation published in said county." do not say he was acting corruptly in this matter. He was act * * * * * * * lng under what I conceive to be a false code of honor, one "Provided furthet·, That in case such corporation shal! not, w~thin which he himself describes as being necessary to be observed on such period of . fiv~ years, sell such land either at, public or pnv8:te sale, as aforesaid, it shall be the duty of the States attorney to. pr_o the part of newspaper proprietors and conductors-that they ceed by information in the name of the people of the State of Ilbpo~s, must preserve with strictness the source of information that against such corporation in the circuit court of the county withrn comes to them; otherwise they never would be able to secure which such iands so neglected to be sold shall be. situated; and such courts shall have jurisdiction to hear and determme t!J.e fact and to news. If you wish to read his justification for this attitude, it order the sale of such land or real estate at such tIIDe and place, can be found on the second or third page of the report of the subject to such rules as the court shall establish." committee, where his testimony before the Helm committee is Than he says, speaking of the measure which the governor given. vetoed: I call attention to this because I do not like to appear to be This bill contains no provision whatever comp~lling corporations to saying unkind things of Mr. Kohlsaat; and yet I must, standing sell or dispose of real estate which may be acqmred by them beyond here to-day, tell how this story has been used, no matter upon whi.t is necessary and suitable for the business of.. such corporation at any time. Much real estate may be acquired by a C!Jrporation fro~ whom it may reflect. · time to time in a manner incidental to the transaction of its busi l\Ir. Kohlsaat told this Funk story, as he says, in confidence, ness-acquired in satisfaction of liabilities 01· indebtedness. They are authorized by this bill to lease, mortgage, or sell any or all of such to James Keeley, manager of the Chicago Tribune, and James real estate at pleasure, out of the State as wt;ll as within it, bu_t are Keeley used it the following day in what is known as the not required to otrer it or sell or dispose of it at all, and section 5 "sawdust editorial." of the general corporation act above quoted is expressly repealed. Mr. Kohlsaat immediately communicated the story-also in I discover nothing in the bill requiring corporations to sell a foot of the lands acquired during the lives thereof. . confidence, always in confidence-to Victor F. Lawson, of the There is no authority glven by this bill to the attorney general, to Chicago Daily News, going so far as to reveal to him the name State's attorneys or to any other officer of the State to take any action to compel the sale or disposition of real estate acquired and owned of Mr- FunY. as his informant, and Mr. Kohlsaat testified that by corporations in this State, domestic or foreign. the information so conveyed to Mr. Lawson thereafter influ To permit corporations to bold real estate in this State in per enced his editorial policy during the entire period of the Lori petuity is clearly contrary to the public policy of the State. Section him 5 of the general incorporation act now in force is a statute against mer investigation and gave confidence to be very specific perpetuity. Our .,.eneral assemblies have. from the ~:n:ganization o.f ~he in his editorials in regard to the belief that money was usccl Government manifested a clear and decided opposition to permitting to buy the election. corporate bodies to hold lands in perpetuity. The prejudicial el'l'ect This story was always given" in confidence," but in what Mr. of holding large bodies of land in perpetuity led to tJ;te enactmen~ of the laws of mortmain in Great Britain. The war agamst perpetuit;tes Kohlsaat calls "newspaper confidence "-that is to say, the has been carried on in this country and there has l;>een no rel:i;x:ation source of the information must not be disclosed. With that of this policy so well established in this State until the adoption of limitation the alleged facts may be sown broadcast wherever this bill. any desired purpose may be served; they may be published and What was the object of that bill, except to allow by law the the most damaging deductions may be drawn if so phrased that great, rich trust corporations of Illinois to swallow up smaller an action for libel will not lie. corporations, and, by removing those provisions of the present How could Senator LoRIMER protect himself under these cir law which compel corporations every five years to sell and dis cumstances? How could he answer publications of this char pose of the real estate not required in the management of their acter or refute base insinuations made day after day without business to enable these powerful " trusts " to acquire unlimited the slightest intimation as to their source? bodies of real estate and hold the same in perpetuity? I have given the Senate- the opinion of the attorney general IT COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED. of the State of Illinois upon that subject. I base all I have to Why all this secrecy; all this effort to keep this story out of . say upon that opinion, never having personally examined the judicial channels? Funk gives as a reason that it could not be laws of that State. sustained; that it would be "his word against Edward That bill had been pending in the legislature which elected Hines's." He was right in that. The time came when it was Mr. LORIMER to this body. White, without naming the bill, imperatively necessary that his story should be substantiated'. bad described it so that Gov. Deneen thought he recognized it. No one realized it more keenly than he. It was 20 months The governor disliked to veto the· }?ill, because it would have after his interview with Hines. l\!r. Kohlsaat, still protecting brought a revenue of a million dollars annually to the State of Funk and the Harvester company, had on the 15th of February Illinois, and the officials had counted upon that to meet the an editol'ial published in the Record-Herald, in which he made expenses of the State. Nevertheless, e\en at a loss of a this inquiry: Do we know all there is 'to be known concerning million dollars annually in State revenues, he saw fit to veto the $100,000 fund that was raised to pay for LoRIMER's votes? the measure, because it would have destroyed the policy of the To bolster up his own position Funk· testifies that l\Ir. Hines State which had been in existence for nearly forty years, and, came to him in a state of agitation and said that Funk had as he said in his testimony, would have given power to incor misunderstood what Hines had said to him in that interview porn te a concern for the ostensible purpose of running a barber away back 18 or 20 months before. shop and under that incorporation run a railroad. Mr. Funk's testimony on this point is: I do not know whether or not there was anything connected Mr. FUNK. Mr. Hines arrived at my office one morning shortly with the provisions of that bill, or with :Mr. Bancroft's part in after I got there, about 9 o'clock, and he was admitted to my room. preparing it, which Mr. Funk thought might_attract attention He seemed to be considerably agitated, and he immediately began to and work to the detriment of his stockholders if they were to talk with me about our former conversation. Mr. MARBLE. What did he say? become known. He says his motive in hiding his identity as Mr. FUNK. I can not repeat it verbatim ; but in substance be undeJ," the author of this story was that he wanted to protect his com took to refresh my memory as to what our previous conversation had been. pany and his stockholders; that he did not want to create Mr. MA.RBLE. As nearly as you can, give what he said. antagonisms or hostilities against his company. But whatever Senator KERN. It is important that we should have the substance the motive which governed his action, the fact remains that of that conversation if you can not remember the exact words. Mr. FUNK. The substance of it was that lie did not want me to secrecy regarding the authority for the statements it contained misunderstand our talk the other day ; that he had not meant to say · has been maintained in every quarter where divulging it could that any money was used, but that he was only discussing with me possibly result in an honest investigation of its truth or falsity. in a general way the situation down there; and that be got to think has been used everywhere with the same stealth that an ing about it afterwards and thought that I might not have under· · n stood it, and he was back there to clear it up for me. assassin would use a dagger, to bring death to WILLIAM LoRI * * * * • • # MEB's political standing and station. On the other hand, it Senator LEA. Did you express dissent? 8770 CONGRESSi-ON AL ltEOORD~SEN ATE. JULY :H, Mr. Fluxrr. My recollection is that "I told him -that I thooght ·1 ;of the evidence ·brought .against bim··, ,all .of .his contentions have -remembered the thing as it was. I disposed of him as quickly as 1 f ' could, because, as I remember it, we were having a direetors' meeting . ailed of substantiation. that morning, or a conference of some kind, which was of considerable WHY NOT us.ED JN .LEGAL CHAN:NELS. ·importance, and they were wiliting for me. And l got rid of him '8.nd Why nras _not .thi's Funk £!to.,...,. used ·n legal ch"·...... els, wh...,.e 4 1 left the room as soon as 1 could. I do not think he was .in the office .. · ~ " ~ "'" over three ·minutes. it might and should have been presented if true? The .grand ~at~~~-c~;~afofek.~ on friend~y terms that day? jm,-y was .in ·session in Chicago ifrom May 2 until Mnjr :20. Senator LE.A. Was he .satisfied with cthe 'Yisit, apparently, -when Nothing regarding the origin of a fund .from which White could lle left? ha:ve rec.eived bribery money,, except the story -of the "jack Mr. Fm.""K. 1 did not observe in particular -a.s ·to whether 'he -w.as po~,'' was ever brought to the attention of •that grand ·jucy~ or s~~;to~~.coiJ:~~~ ~oif at he was ·not. Thmk .of that ·for a moment. Think of the importance of 'it'! Mr. Fu -K. That is just an impression. 1 did not controvert his , -w.hite's ·story was that he had received $1,000 for voting for version of the thing. I beard him, and .got ou.t as soon as I could Lo.RIM.ER, ·and in addition he confessed that he had ·received wjthout mn:king any p.articula.r comment about it. $90 .,,_ · Senator LE.A . Was his manner calm -or excitea or agitated? · 0 '.ll.Olll a "jack pot;" the purpose of-which ·has been describell. Mr. .FU- ' K. It was xather agitated. .There 1912~ CONGRESSION.AL RECORD-SEN ATE~ 87711 2, when they change the form of the advertisement. Now . it the middle of August, Col. Roosevelt visited Chicago on his reads: . way to the West. I belie::re he was on his way to Cheyenne. FIVE THOUSAND D0LLABS REW ARD. During his short visit to Chicago, Mr. Kohlsaat says he ' Not over ha.If a dozen men, representing va·rious lines of business took him for an automobile ride through the parks and had " put up " the money that purchased the votes to elect wJLL.LUi him LORil\IER to the Untted States Senate. · to himself for an hour and a half, during which time he told him Funk's story, in confidence, of course, but gave him Now, there is a statement of alleged facts that has gone all Funk's name as hiB infarmant as well as Hines's name as over the United States. the .man who made the statement, and Col. Roosevelt proceeded These men, so the Tribune is told, were the "underwriting syndi-cate." After LORIMER was elected, members of the " syndicate " called on on his way to Cheyenne.. other business interests and said substantially as follows : Jn the month of August the second trial of Lee o·~ -en Browne "V7e" (naming the various members of the syndicate) "put up the came on and continued until September 9. Col. Roose\elt money to elect LoRIMER. It had to be done in a hurry and we ad ynncod the casn. · We .felt that you would be· willing to contribute returned. to Chicago on the 8th day of September, where, on your share, and we thmk $10,000 (or $5,000) would be the proper the evellillg of that day he was to be the guest of honor at amount for you to subsci:ibe.'' The Tribune will pay $5,000 for legal proof of the identity of a 'banquet giTen by the Hamilton· Club, of which club Senator " th:i syndicate." ~on~ wa.s a member. Col . Roosevelt was met in a neighbor There is the Funk story in its entirety. That adYertisement mg city on the morning of that day by a committee of the cluh, contains a direct statement, an allegation as of fact, of every including its president, to whom he announced that be would element of Mr. Funk's versfon of his interview with Mr. Hines. not attend the banquet if Senator LORIMER was permitted to be That was published in ·every issue of the Tribune from June 2 present, and he was so insistent in this 'demand that the presi to June 7, the very day that the jury was summoned to try dent of the club was compelled to telegrar>h Senator LOfilMER informing him of the situation and withdrawing his invitation 1Le:e O'Neil Browne on the charge of bribery. What was the influence of such an advertisement as that for that evening. upon the thinking people of Chicago,, alleging bald facts, edu It so happened that on this very day the presiding judge in cating everyone to such a belief?- And yet e1ery one of these the case again.st Lee O'Neil B:cowne wa.s delivering his final men carefully kept any information they had as to the authority instructions to the jury. upon which that story was predicated from the grand jury of All the Chicago newspapers exploited the incident in a most Oook Ccmnty. Mr. President, I want every Senator in this sensational manner, devoting .column after column and page body to face that proposition when he consider the story of after page to that purpose. The wires were crowded with mes Mr. Funk and attempts to base hls action upon it. In all my sages to the principal newspapers throughout the United States experience in the trial of causes I never have been connected b'iving startling accounts of the incident, and spreading broad~ with a case wherein I found a determination more perfeetly con cast among all the people tills public denunciation of Senator ceived and more carefully carried out than the determination of Lo.RIMER by this exalted personage. It may be said in all truth. Mr. Kohlsaat, Editor Keeley, and Clarence S. Funk to use that that Col. Roosevelt's refusal to sit at meat with Senator story secretly wnere1er it would injure Mr. LORIMER and wher JfoRIMER on that occasion has done more to excite a strong ever it would injure anyene connected with Mr. LoRn.IER as his public sentiment against Senator LoRIMER throughout the friend or his :mpporter. Nor ha1e I ever had knowledge of a United States and to create a belief that there was some real more determined purpose than fueirs to keep this story a way fundamental ground for such action than any other one cil·cum frem any legal or investigating body that might test it and as stanc~ that coilld have been used or has been used to accomplish certain its truth or falsity. that purpose. One need only examine the newspapers published Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I wish to make an inquiry at that time and note the nnmber of columns devoted to that of the Senator from Vermont. Wa-s this Funk statement made occurrence, the number of public and influential men who were to the Tribune before the fust repo.rt in this case? interviewed concerning it_, and what was published editorially Mr. DILLINGHAM. Oh, yes.. in connection with it to understand the ,Profound sensation it 1\Ir. BRADLEY. Was it called to the attention of the produced, not olliy in Chicago where it occurred but e-very committee? . where through the country. Mr. DILLINGHAM. ·Never in the world. It was carefully In view of the tremendous influence it has bud, we may well kept from the committee. Of course it never came to the com inquire the reascn for this action. 'Vhy could not Col. Roose mittee. velt sit at meat with Senator LORIMER? The investigation by the Oook County grand jury began in The ·answer is found in .a letter addressed by 1\Ir. Kohlsaat May. The first trial -0f Lee O'Neil Browne followed in June; to Senator RooT of this body, also "in confidence," in which he the second trial of Browne in August and September ; the Bur- says: 1·ows committee sat in September and October, and during that When Col. Roosevelt was here on his way to Cheyenne I told him of the incident, and it was the prime motive that prompted him to de whole time Funk's story was in the possession of the gentle cline to sit nt the Hamilton Club banquet with LoRil'llER. men I have mentioned, was used by them wherever and when ever it would create public sentiment, but it never was brought Mr. Kohlsaa.t's testimony before this committee shows tllat before any tribunal of any kind anywhere. Not until a month it wa.B not due to any personal knowledge upon tile part of after the Senate had decided that 1\fr. LoRIMER was entitled Col. Roosevelt, nor to any preconceived noti6ns he had of to his seat was it disclosed except as indicated, and then to the Senator LORU.lER's chnracter or of the circumstances of his Helm investigating committee. election, but that it was the Funk story told by Kohlsaat to I said these advertisements based upon the Funk story were him on th:tt drive through the parks a month earlier that in continued in the Tribrme up to J"une 7, when Mr. Browne was duced this unwarranted attack upon Senator LORIMER. Re placed on trial. I have called attention to the Tribune's at ferring to Col. Roose1elt, Mr. Kohlsaat testified: "He wrote me tituda and the manner in which these a.dTer.tisements were a letter subsequently that that was the reason he declined to displayed and why they attracted attention. I do not charg~ attend the dinner," and in order to maintain his reputation that they were published with a purpose to control the result and preach the cause of righteousness Col Roosevelt went to of the trial which was coming on. Senators must judge for that banqu~t that night, and in his speech made a violent themselves what the purpose of the Tribune was in keeping assault upon Senator Lo-RIMER which was published the length such statements of alleged fact before the public eye of Chi and the brendth of the land. cago immediately preceding the trial of Browne, which trial Do not forget that it is the testimony of Mr. Kohlsaat, that was to determine the question whether Bro-wne had in _fact the Funk story told by him " in confidence" to Col. Roosevelt bribed White to vote for Mr. LoRIMER. was the basis of and " prime reason" fo1· this unwarranted attack upon Mr. LORllfER. It was used secretly but with deadly But Funk's story was not permitted to be tested in that trial. effect. Yet in that trial of Lee O'Neil Browne, then drawing Even though it is the only statement that haB e1er been mude to a close, no effort had been made by any of these men who in any way suggesting that there was a fund raised for the weTe engaged in s'-1.rengthening this attack on the 1aJidity of 1\lr. purpose of electing Senator LORIMER, and even though it was in LORIMER's election to have this story, that had so bitterly poi the }1ossession of the avowed enemies of l\fr. LORIMER, they soned Col. Roosevelt's mind, and so madly incensed him against would not allow it to be in1estigated either before the grand Mr. LORIMER, tested before the jury in that case. And do jury that indicted Browne nor in the court wheTein he was not forget that the story had never been permitted to come to tried. That is a most significant fact. the ears of Mr. LoRIMEE, and he was suffering these attacks in COL. ROOSEVELT'S USE OF THE STOTIY. entire ignorance of their ca use. Let us go a little further. That trial resulted in a dis I hnve had brought in the Chicago Record-Herald and the agreement of the jury. August 4 .a seeond trial of Lee O'N~il Tribune and the other Chicago papers giving an account of Browne was begun, and while that h·ial was in progress, about Col. Roosevelt's return, the indignation he felt, and the address ------11111111111 . • ··.~ :. ·~ _~ t..;. .;.,... ~ .. ' •• 8772 CONGRESSIONAL ·RECORD-SENATE. JULY 9, .-I .------;------be made, and the interviews of prominent citizens on the sub The IJ!an who gave me this information is absdlutely reliable. Ile had ject of his action. Any Senator who is interested and wants no obJect in telling me a falsehood, and I believe him thoroughly. Whe~- Col. Roos.evelt was here on his way to Cheyenne I told him of to look them over has the privilege of d~ing so. the inciaent, and it was the prime motive that prompted him "to decline i· \ STORY WITHHELD FROM FORMER Sl':NATEl COMMITTEE. to sit at the Hamilton Club banquet with LoRIMER. Hoping that ~his may be of some value to you, believe me, Remember, now, that that was the 8th day of September. In Yours, smcerely, the meantime this Senate in response to a resolution that was II. H. KOHLSA.AT. offered by Senator LORIMER himself, had directed the Commit Referring to Funk's story, Mr. Kohlsaat says: tee on Privileges and Elections to investigate the regulai-ity On the strengt;h of this s~tement the Record-Herald has explicitly and yali!lity of 1\fr. LoRIMER's e!ection. Senator Burrows, then stated several times, editonally, that $100;000 was raised to buy chairman of the committee, appointed a subcommittee to make ~~~~~ER'S election, and we have never had a protest from anybody the investigation, and went to Chicago for that purpose. The com nittee began its work September 20 and remained in ses Consider the plausibility of that statement. "We have ne·rnr sion for three full weeks. The Chicago Tribune appeared and had a protest from anybody on it." Why should they have a aske.d to be represented by counsel. It wanted to prosecute the protest, and from whom? Who could answer to that sort of charges of corruption in connection with the election of Sen suggestion? · ator LoRIM.ER. The committee knew no better means of secur The story had never been told except where it could injure ing all the facts than to allow those who made the charges WILLIAM LORIMER, and then under a pledge of secrecy or com to conduct the prosecution. It consented to this arrange pletely veiled. l\Ir. Kohlsaat had told it at a club to Walter L. men.t. 1\Ir. Austrian, one of the brightest lawyers in Chicago, JJ'isher, now Secretary of the Interior. He bad told it to Man appeared for the Chicago Tribune. The Tribune actually ager Keeley. He told it to Victor F. Lawson, his friend who conducted the prosecution before the committee. Its attorney, made it the basis of his editorial policy throughout the ~ntire 1\Ir. Austrian, furnished the list of witnesses, and, although in time. It. was known within a small ciJ:cle of friends, all op full possession of the Funk story, Manager Keeley, according posed to Mr. LORIMER, and it waS" used whenever an opportunity to his own testimony, having told it to him previously, he failed offered to aid in bringing about the downfall of WILLIAM to name Edward Rines as a witness; he failed to name Mr. Lo1tIMER; it was used with that object in view and used with an Kohlsaat as a witness; he failed to name Mr. Keeley as a wit art and with an ability which I have never seen equaled. ness. Although the hearings of that committee were held just Senator RooT did not make this letter public in the Senate. across the street from the Harvester Co.'s office, neither Mr. He replied to it February 11, strongly urging Mr. Kohlsaat to Funk nor 1\Ir. 1\f'cCormick nor the attorney for that corporation, ind_uce 1:1is friend who had given him the information upon Mr. Bancroft, presented themselves with the information now which his letter was based to disclose his identity. Upon the claimed to haye been in their possession. Neither the Tribune, receipt of Senator RooT's letter l\1r. Kohlsaat sent for Mr. Clar the Record-Herald, nor the Daily News, although within five ence S. Funk, general manager of the International Harvester minutes' walk of the committee's meeting place, gave any intima Co., the friend to whom he referred in his letter to Senator nooT tion concerning the Funk story. Its existence was never even as his informant, but whose name he had not revealed showed hinted at by anyone in the presence of that committee, where it him the letter, and told him he was the only man who could might and should have been investigated, thus saving the enor settle that question. 1\fr. Funk, after full consideration refused mous cost in time and money of this investigation. to allow his name to be given, and of this Mr. Kohlsaat informed That committee returned here and made its report to'the Sen Senator RooT in the following letter, dated February 15, Chi ate without ever having heard a suggestion of such a story, cago, Ill.: and the Senate was permitted to go on for two months, to de DEAR S~NA-i:on ROOT: Your favor of the 11th at hand. I agree with you my frien~ s ~estimony would greatly help at this time, but it would bate this matter and to take action upon it, without any knowl absolutely rum hllll to take the stand. He was approached as an officer edge whatever of this story. Not a member of the Committee of the company, not as an individual, and could not come out in the on Privileges and Elections had heard a breath of it, and only tEe:Loii'f~~~~ the consent of the directors, some <>f whom are friendly two Members of the Senate had been informed of it, and they under an obligation of secrecy, which they observed. • I -do not know whom- REFUSAL TO DISCLOSE IT TO THE Sl'l:-IA.'.rE. You can imagine the situation be is, and wo~d bG, in. I know some of the forces at work to keep LORDIER in the Senate. If you will turn to page 4 of the committee's report, you will If they s~cceed, God help us ; a day ot reckoning will surely come to find that January 17, 1911, the very day that the Helm com the American people. mittee was created, Mr. H. H. Kohlsaat wrote a letter to Senator . The weakness of tbe anti-Lorimerites is that the Chicago Tribune is back o~ the fight to unseat LORIMER. That paper is rendering a ELirru RooT at Washington, in which he says: great service to the people of these United States. . MY DEAR SENATOR: I have just received a call from some well-known Your speech made a great impression throughout the West. It was a people here, among them Mr. Walter L. Fisher, asking me it I would wonderful plea for the right. not write you and telJ you of an incident in the LORIMER senatorial Yolli's, faithfully, H. H. KOHLSllT. election. My friends thought that if you had this personal knowledge To Senator ELIHU ROOT, it wouid b~ of assistance to you in strengthening your belief that money Washington, D. 0. was used to elect LORIMER. The information was given to me in con fidence, and, as I} newspaper man, I feel the same obligation . to main On that same day, February 15, 1911, Mr. Kohlsaat published tain secrecy that a priest does of a confession. _ in the Record-Herald an editorial in which the following The information conveyed in that letter had been used to language was used : · poison the public mind everywhere, as I have described. It had Do we kn_ow all there is to be known concerning the $100,000 fund been used secretly, whenever and a.soften as opportunity offered that was r::used to pay for LORUIER's votes? to destroy l'ifr. LoRIMER's reputation and deprive him of his seat ~ote the dates. Think of it. February 15, 1911, Kohlsaat in the Senate, as secretly as an assassin would use a dagger writes to Senator RooT that Mr. Funk will not permit his name ·or a murderer would use poison. Now, at the last moment, to be used, and yet he himself that very day used in the when this body was sitting here as judges in a judicial pro Record-Herald the same old poison, spreading it broadcast ceeding, he writes a confidential letter to a leader of this body, throughout the United States, poisoning honest minds and to one of the judges, but under a pledge of secrecy, a secrecy as creating sentiment against Senator LORIMER which he was strong as that which would be observed by a priest when he powerless to meet. receives a penitent's confession. That editorial attracted wide att_ention everywhere. It The letter continues: caused inquiries to be made of Mr. Kohlsaat by Senator Some time last June I ·met a friend who is general manager of a LA FOLLETTE and others who wanted to know the truth, who Chicago corporation with a capital of over $25,000,000. He said, " I have been intending to call on you for some days to tell you of an were anxious to ascertain upon what authority such a state incident that occurred right after LoRIMER's election a year ago. I had ment and inquiry was made, and what the facts were with a visit from Edward Hines, the lumberman, and he told me that respect to the raising of the alleged fund. Senator LA FOLLETTE LORIMER'S friends had had the opportunity of electing him to the Sen ate by putting up $100,000; that they had only a few days before the telegraphed Mr. Kohlsaat asking for information regarding the adjournment of the legislature, and could not take . the time to go allegation of the existence of a fund of $100,000 and received around and raise the money, so a half dozen of LoRIMER's friends under in reply the following telegram : wrote the $100,000 and gave it to the proper agent. LORIMER was CHICAGO, Febt·uarv 21, 1911. elected, and we are now asking some of the corporations to pay in their share. I am taking care of the down-town district, and another man Senator LA FOLLETTE, Washington, D. 0.: (mentioning his name) has charge of: the stockyards. We figure that If I had all the details of the raising and disposition of the $100,000, your share will be $10,000." My friend answered substantially as would not have asked the editoriu~ question. * * * follows : " I can not give you any money for two reasons : First, we are not in ·that kind of business; and second, if you have gotten your Think of it-putting that out in the form of a declaration selves into a hole why should you expect us to pull you out?" which everybody would believe, and then telegraphing Senator On the strength of this statement the Record-Herald has explicitly stated several times, editorially, that $100,000 was raised to buy LORI LA FOLLETTE that if he had the facts he should not have asked MER's election, and we have never had a protest from anybody on it. -the question. 1.912. - CONGRESSIONAL RECORD'-. SENATE. 8773 That $100,00{) was raised for that purpose I have absolutely no Mr. President, the only apology I have to make for the great shadow of doubt, BUT CAN NOT PROVE- length of time which 'f have occupied in addressing the Senate 1\fark the words- upon this subject is that I have given a year of work to this· :BUT CA~ NOT PRO>E. We have made the assertion a number of times investigation. The committee was almost constantly in session editorio.lly. The assertion bas never been challenged. You are the first person to ask for particulars. for a period of firn months; and to take the vast volume ot H. H. KOHLS.UT. testimony_ gathered, sift it, digest it, reconcile discrepancies, Why did they not put that story where it could be proved? to determme what parts of it are h·ue and what false and what portions of it are pertinent to the· question to be has .All they had to do was to summon Clarence S. Funk and Edward d~cided, HineB, jnst as_ they were summoned. before this committee; but beei: a J?OSt laborious and time-consuming undertaking, and to me it will be the happiest moment of the session when discus they dld not do it. Why did they not do it? They were en sion ends and the questions involved are determined by the gaged in a.. g;ra.nd project to secme the expulsion from this body Senate. · of WII.LIA.M LORIMER. They were educating the public mind, As chairman of the committee I have- felt compelled to aid and that work was going on not only in the Central West, but any seeker after essential facts brought out in the investiO'ation · it extended' to the Pacific and to the Atlantic coasts.. by placing in the record something like a conse.cutive sta t~ment Senator LA FOLLETTE was very anxious to secure information. of the circumstances of 1\Ir. LoRIMER's election and of the his was He so anxious that he tried to in.duce Mr. Kohlsaat to come tory of subsequent developments and to bring into the light to Washington, and failing to do that, he wired his friend, some of the salient features of the case which may help seek=- Charles R. Crane, to see Mr. Kohlsaat and try to induce him to ers after truth in this inquiry. · come. Mr. Crane visited Mr. Kohlsaat, exhibited the telegram, and urgea him to come. Mr. Kohlsaat repea ted to Mr. Crane I would not have discussed some_ phases of this case- as ear the story he. had written to Senator RooT, but refused either to nestly as I have were it not for the fact that I haxe pei:sonnlly visit Washington or to reveal the name of his informant. Dn felt the force of the public opinion that lills been crea.ted by the. mediately thereafter, February 22, 1911, l\Ir. Kohlsaat sent the combined influence of the Chicago press and the effect it hns following telegram to Senator LA FOLLETTE. I will read. only had upon the determination of this question. The criticism. the body of it: which I make, and L think it has good foundation, is, that no Please ask.. Senatoy ROOT to show you my letters of January 17 and opportunity was ever given to either Senator LoRnIEB or Ed Febrnary 15: Iifeave Charles Crane this morning my reasons for not ward Hines to meet and refute the F"unk story, which was in ~ "1 o n~;~. e agreed with me that it would not be just right or the possession of Editors Keeley, Kohlsaat, and Lawson from the _beginning, and which. was used by them secretly, but with And that is the newspape:i; conscience to which he testified terrible effect, to arouse public sentiment against Senn. tor before the Helm committee. LoRIMER!s right to ~ retain his seat in this body. It was only Throughout the long debates in. the Senate neither of those when the Helm committee compelled it that Funk was revealed Sena tors made public this story. as the author of the stor-y. During all the time it had been Action was taken on the 1st of March, 19ll, by whioh Mr~ doing him such.- deadly injury Senator LORIMER was not afforded LoRIMER was- declared to be entitled to his s-eat. A month an opportunity to meet the secret accusations. This story, later the. Helm committee did that which Mr. Wayman should used in the manner I have described this- afternoon, has led have done a year before. Mr. Kohlsaat was summoned before God-fearing, conscientious, honest people throughout the length that committee and the disclosure of the authorship of that story and breadth of the United' States to believe that a coJ.?.ruption wn s forced, Mr. Funk being compelled to testify in order to save fund of $100,000 was raised to eleet WILLIAM' LORIMER to the his friend from jail, and upon his testimony, incorporated in the United States· Senate, and yet the evidence not only fails to report of the Helm committee to this ~ body, this Senate took ac support such a contention, but absolutely disproves it. As a.. tion and the case was reopened. result of such underhanded efforts, good people can not under RESULTS OF Th'"VESTIGATION. stand how men whom. they have elected to serve in this body, The case. was reopened on the ground of newly discovered men who at home stand for that which is right, for that which e-vidence. That evidence was the Funk story and to whatever is manly, for that which is honorable-men who have lived it might lead. This committee has given all of the evidence lives which have led people to trust them-they can not under adduced most ca.reful consideration. It has found, in the. first stand, I say, how such men ca.n sit here and vote in favor of' place, that Mr. Funk's story of his interview with. Mr. Hines permitting Senator LoRIME& to retain. his seat in the Senate. is without foundation. This feeling has been entertained by some of my stanchest Not only that, all the circumstances of Mr. Hines's life dur friends. in Vermont, and after my vote on the first day of ing the entire period of the Senatorial deadlock in the Illi March, 1911, against the resolution decfaring that Senator_ nois Legislature were examined, and the committee finds, and LORIMER.. was not entitled to his seat, hardly a newspaper in states, explicitly, that he had nothing to do with raising. a Vermont, however friendly their attitude toward me.,. personally, fund of $100,000 or any other fund to be used in connection could c~mmend my action-they could not understand it....:...-and with the election of WILLIAM LORIMER, and that there· is not while they treated me with the grea.test possible consideration a particle of· evidence, direct or indirect, that such a fund was and. with a confidence in my integrity which I never shall contemplated by unyon~. or that such a fund was needed to forget, I was conscious that they were disappointed. Because of aid in his election. There are absolutely no newly discovered this, and because of my unbounded respect for the opinion of facts in this case that are adverse to Senator LoRIMER's right my constituents I have wanted to place in the RECORD, that to his seat in this body. ·.rhe so-called newly discovered evi they may judge of my motives, some of the reasons for the posi dence only ser-rns to strengthen and make clear his right to bis tion which L have felt compelled to assume in this case. seat. If standing for what I believe is right and true and just, foi:: We have opened up a new field of evidence ·in this case, which that which in my judgment is established by the evidence, must I discussed a.t an early period in these extended remarks. I subject me to criticism, i~ will cause me the deepest regret, but refer to the political situation existing in the Illinois Legis bound by the- solemn obligation of ~ the oath I ha-ve taken L lature at the time Mr. LoRIMER was elected. That is all new can but act upon my judgment and render my decision fu to the Senate, and it sheds a flood of light upon the occurrences accordance with the evidence before- me. Sitting- as a judge, in that body. It shows beyond doubt, when candidly studied, I am obligated to determine my action, as I have done, upon that he was elected by the force of natural conditions ex:istinO' the merits of the case in the light of all the· facts disclosed in the Legisla ture of Illinois at that time. The old case upo~ and upon the evidence as a whole. It is of more importance to which Mr. LoRIMER was adjudged entitled to a place in the Sen me to preserve a good1conscience and: be at peace with myself ate has been •astly sh·engthened by a study of the situation at than to occupy a seat in this distinguished, body. the time of the deadlock. And in view of this fact and of the Because of the position in which I have been placed, and be ~rther ~act tha~ the.fund of $100,000 mentioned in Funk's story cause of my desire to aid the Senate by bringing to its- atten is a fict10n of his mmd, and was never dreamed of by another tion the facts in the case as I view them, I must apologize for person, the time has come when the Senate of the United States the time I. have occupied, and in closing I wish to express my should apply the principle of i•es adjudicata and refhse fur grateful appreciation... of the patience which has been exercised ther to consider the resolution. I have spoken at great length by those of my associates who have done me the honoi: to and have, I fear, wearied the patience of the Senate and i listen to my remarks, sh~ll not ~urther discuss· that question. It was ably discussed l\Ir. President, without having any. knowledge which I can this mo1'Il1~g by;, the Senator from Florida [Mr. FLETCHERl state with authority, I was informed that the other- side ot this: and will be taken up by the Senator from Washington [Ur. question would proceed with this discussion. The Senator fi.·om JUNES) before the debate closes. Tennessee [l\Ir. LE.Al and the Senator from romi [Mr. KmsYUN] · 8774 OONGRESSION AL RECORD-HOUSE. JULY 9, desire to be heard, and I had supposed they would- follow the MESSA.GE FROM THE HOUSE. addresses made by the Senator from Florida [Mr. FLETCHER] A message from the House of Representatives, by J. 0. South, and myself. I do not see either of them present this afternoon, its Chief Clerk, announced that the House had passed the fol and I do not know whether there is any Senator here who is lowing bills: ready to proceed with the discussion. S. 23. An act to authorize the extension of Underwood Street Mr. CULLOM. I ask for a call of the Senate. NW.; and The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois S. 5271. An act to confer concurrent jurisdiction on the police makes the point of uo quorum. The Secretary will call the roll. court of the District of Columbia in certain cases. The Secretary called the roll, and the following Senators an The message also announced that the House hall passed the swered to their names : bill (S. 2004) to confer upon the Commissioners of the District Ashurst C!'ane Kenyon Reed Be rah Cullom Lea Sanders of Columbia authority to regulate the operation and equipment Bourne Curtis Lorimer Simmons of the vehicles of the Metropolitan Coach Co. with amend Bradley Dlllingham McCumber Smith, Ariz. ments, in which i_t requested the concurrence of the Senate. Brandegee Dixon Martln, Va. Smith, Ga. - Bristow du Pont Myers Smith, Md. The messagefurther announced that the House had passed the Brown Fletcher o ·Gorman Smith, S. C. following bills, in which it requested the concurrroce of the. Bryan Gallinger Overman Smoot Senate: Bmton Gamble Page Stephenson Cnfron Gronna Penrose Thornton H. R. 6083. An act to amend an act entitled "An net for the (;lapp Heyburn Perkins Warren widening of Benning Road, and for other purposes,'l approved Clark, Wyo. .Johnston, Ala. Pomerene Williams May 16, 1908 ; Clarke, Ark. .Jones Rayner Works H. R. 21710. An act to amend section 842 of the Code of Law The PRESIDEJ\1T pro tempore. Fifty-two Senators have an for the District of Columbia; swered to their names. A quorum of the Senate is present. The H. n. 21712. An act to amend section 808 of the Cade of Law resolution submitted by the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. LEA] for the District of Columbia; is before the Senate. The question is upon agreeing to the H. R. 22010. An act to amend the license law, approyed July resolution. 1, 1902, with respect to licenses of drivers of passenger vehicles Mr. BORAH. On that question I ask for a yea-and-nay vote. for hire; and The yeas and nays were ordered. · H. R. 22648. An act to authorize a change in the loeation of Mr. LORIMER. Mr. President, my understanding of the Fourteenth Street NE., in the District of Columbia, and for debate has been that alf the members of the committee are go other purposes. ing to discuss this question, and I have felt that I should not RECESS. enter into a discussion of the subject until the members of the Mr. SMOOT. Evidently no Senator desires to speak this committee had finished expressing their views on this investiga afternoon, and it would be manifestly unfair to compel the tion. I understand that there are other Senators who intend Senator from Illinois to proceed. I therefore move that the to devote some time to the question, and I should prefer very Senate·take a recess until to-morrow at 11 o'clock. much that they would go on. Because I have held that opinion The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah mo-res and have been led to that opinion by what I have heard stated thnt the Senate take a recess until 11 o'clock to-morrow morning. in pri,ate conversation among Senators, I have not at hand Mr. CURTIS. I move to amend by makint; it 10 o'clock. the notes I wish to use in discussing this subject, and I think This case has been pending many, many weeks, and any Sena on a question of such importance common fairness would sug tor who desires to speak has had ample opportunity to pre gest to the Senate that time should be gi"ven under those cir pare himself. cumstances for gathering the minutes that I have prepared The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is not de before we proceed to a vote on the matter. batable. The Senator from Utah moves that the Senate RECESS. take a r~ess until 11 o'clock to-morrow, and the Senator from Mr. SMOOT. l\Ir. President, I move that the Senate take a Kansas moves to amend by making it 10 o'clock. The que tion recess for 30 minutes. is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Kansas. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah [Putting the question.] The ayes appear to ha-re it. moves that the Senate take a recess for 30 minutes. Mr. BACON. I make the point of order that, under the rule, Mr. BRISTOW. Mr. President-- the longest time is always put first, regardless of the order in The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The motion is not debatable. which it is proposed. That is the rule. The question is on the motion of the Senator from Utah. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Will the Senator from: Mr. REED. Mr. President, I have been trying to get the at Georgia point the Ohair to that rule? tention of the Ohair. Mr. BACON. I can do it without the slightest difficulty. The PRESIDENT pro teinpore. Does the Senator from Utah It is a general rule of parliamentary law. 'l'he longest time is withdraw his motion for the present? always put first. Mr. SMOOT. I withdraw the motion for the present. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Ohair assumes that the The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Missouri. Senate is acting under the rule of the Senate. Mr. REED. I move that we -take a recess until to-monow l\fr. BACON. There is no rule of the Senate to that effect. morning at 11 o'clock. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Ohair announces the. Mr. SMOOT. Mr. President, I withdrew my motion for the motion to amend as being carried, and the question is on agree purpose of a statement to be made by the Senator and not for a ing to the motion of the Senator from Utah as amended. motion to be made. . '.rhe motion as amended was agreed to; and (at 3 o'clock and l\lr. REED. I do not want to take advantage of the Senator. 53 minutes p. m., Tuesday, July 9) the Senate took a recess I was going to move that as an amendment when I tried to until Wednesday, July 10, 1912, at 10 o'clock a. m. attract the attention of the Ohair. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Ohair observed the Sen ator standing, but the Senator did not address the Ohair. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Mr. REED. I did, but the Ohair did not hear me. TuEsD.w, J'ltly 9, JDn. The PRESIDENT pro tempore.. The Ohair did not hear the Senator. The House met at 12 o'clock noon. l\Ir. REED. I would not take advantage of the courtesy of Prayer was offered by the Rev. A.H. Thompson, of the Waugh the Senator who made the motion in that form, but if the Sena Methodist Episcopal Clrnrcll, as· follows: tor's motion is before the Senate I will move to amend by O Lord God, our he:n-enly Father, in humble recognition of making the hour to which the recess shall be taken to-morrow our dependence upon Thee, we come to Thee this dny for help morning at 11 o'clock. and guidance. Upon these Representatives of this greatest The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Missouri Nation n11on the earth rest grnrn :rnd solemn responsibilities; moves to amend the motion of the Senator from Utah by pro the issues of the ages perhaps depend upon their decisions here. vidjng that•the Senate take a recess until 11 o'clock to-morrow vVe pray Thy blessing upon them. De consciously ucar to them, morning. The question is on that amendment. guide their deliberations and so direct the decisions of this great The amendment was rejected. body and of the American people that g0Ycrnu1ent by tlle people, The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question now is upon of the people, and for the pcorl1c shall not perisll from the ear~b. the motion of the Senator from Utah [l\Ir. SMOOT] that the Graciously regard the Spea kcr of this House and ea ell of. its Senate take a recess for 30 minutes. Members· bless them in their personal 11\·es. Guat·d anu shield The motion was agreed t<'>; and (at 3 o'clock and 21 minutes and prot~ct their Joyed ones, nu<) so guide us al'! tbat finally we p. m.) the Senate took a recess for 30 minutes. . . may be gathered into the home alJoye through Christ our Lord. At the expiration of the recess (at 3 o'clock and 51 mmutes Amen. · p. m.) the Senate reassembled. The Journal of the proceedinf;S of yesterday was read.