The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
“ No ele&ion of a Senator clearly shown to have been based in any degree upon bribery or corrupt practices should be allowed to stand. I think the election of United States Senators should be made and kept above suspicion.” R EM A R K S OF Hon. Robert L. Owen A United States Senator from Oklahoma ON The Right of William Lorimer to a Seat in the United States Senate. , January 9 1911. Mr. Owen said: Mr. President, on May 21, 1908, I introduced Senate joint resolution No. 91, for the submission o f a constitutional amendment providing for the election o f Senators by a direct vote o f the people. On May 23, 1908, I urged the Senate to act, showing that 27 States had at that time sought relief in this matter. Senate resolution 91 was never reported by the Committee on Privileges and Elections. A fter the convening o f the Sixty-first Congress I introduced another Senate resolution, No. 41, for the submission to the States o f the Union o f a constitutional amendment provid ing for the election o f Senators by direct vote o f the people. On May 31, 19x0, I again urged this reform on the attention o f the Senate, and was prevented the privilege o f a vote, and the committee has never reported on Senate joint resolution 41. The House o f Representatives on five different occasions has passed a bill providing for this reform— in 1892; July 21, 1894; May 11, 1898: April 13, 1900; and February 13, 1902, the last vote unanimously, or no one opposing. On May 31, 1910, I pointed out to the Senate that every State in the Union had acted favorably in this matter, except the New England States, New York, Delaware, and West Virginia, by passing resolutions addressed to Congress seeking for this reform, or by actually nominating Senators by a popular primary vote. And that even in the 9 States excepted there were many evidences that the people favored election o f Senators byjdirect vote. The Democratic Party in Connecticut, Massa chusetts, New Hampshire, New y ork , and Rhode Island,exnresslv declared for it in 1910. The National Democratic Party, the National Prohibition Party, the National Peoples Party, have all declared in favor o f i t ; the American Federation o f Labor, the National Grange, the Society o f Equity, the Farmers’ Educational Cooperation Union, and other great organizations o f the country have declared in favor o f it. And I insisted, Mr. President, that this reform was needed for the following reasons, among others: First. That it would prevent deadlocks in State legislatures. Second. It would compel candidates to be subjected to the severe scrutiny o f a cam paign before the people and promote the selection o f the best qualified men. Third. That it would prevent interference with State legislation by violent ocntests over the Senatorship. / 2 Fourth. That it would prevent improper use o f maney and the corruption o f legislatures. These matters I now refer to in the light o f the report o f the Committee on Privileges and Elections on the Senate resolution directing an investigation o f certain charges made against Mr. W illiam Lorimer, o f Illinois, where it is obvious these evils have occurred. (Proceedings, p. 638.) On June 20, 1910, the Committee on Privileges and Elections was directed by Senate resolution 264 to report to the Senate whether in the election o f Mr. W illiam Lorimer as a Senator o f the United States from the State o f Illinois— There were used or employed corrupt methods or practices. On December 21, 1910, the report o f the committee was submitted to the Senate and will be found in the Record o f that date. (S. Rept. No. 942, 61st Cong., 3d sess.) The Committee on Privileges and Elections has reached the conclusion that the election of Mr. Lorimer was not invalidated by any sufficient evidence of corrupt practices. I can not acquiesce in the conclusions o f the committee. In the first place the committee concludes as a principle o f law, upon the precedents o f cases heretofore before the Senate, that in order to invalidate the election o f a Senator on account o f bribery it must be made to appear: First. That the person elected participated in one or more acts o f bribery, or attempted bribery, or sanctioned or encouraged the same, or, Second. That enough votes were obtained for him by bribery or corrupt practices to change the result o f the election. In my judgment the better ethical rule, upon which the Senate should properly stand, is that no election o f a Senator clearly shown to have been based in any degree upon bribery or corrupt practices should be allowed to stand. 1 think that the election o f United States Senators should be made and kept above suspicion. In my opinion no elected officer in city, State, or Nation should be allowed to take his seat or to hold it where it was proven he was the beneficiary o f any corrupt practice. The Senate is in honor bound to set a high example in this matter, and I refuse emphatically to acquiesce in any lower standard than this. The country is in serious need o f a good example. Look at Adams County, O h io; over a thousand citizens indicted for selling their votes. Adopting the doctrine I suggest will tend to put an end to corrupt practices. The need is obvious. Mr. President, in Great Britain if a single vote is bribed or any money unlawfully spent in electing a member o f Parliament, his election is absolutely annulled. W hy should the United States Senate, which is regarded by our people as the most distinguished legislative body in the world, adopt a lower ethical and moral standard than the British House o f Commons ? In the second place, I think the evidence, even on the very narrow theory o f the com mittee that it must be shown that enough votes were obtained by bribery to change the result, would justify the invalidation o f the elecion o f Mr. Lorimer. Mr. Lorimer was compelled to have 103 votes as a constitutional majority. He received 108, and o f these at least 10 are already shown not to deserve to be counted on account o f corrupt practices, and in my judgment the investigation was by no means as searching and complete as it should have been, no examination having been made into the jackpot conspiracy, a coalition obviously in numbers strong enough to obtain or defeat measures, which was confessed by White to be a consideration moving him to vote for Lorimer, and so forth. I submit a brief abstract o f the evidence filed in the proceedings, referring to pages o f the record by number. In considering the evidence o f bribe givers and bribe takers and their evasions and falsehoods, I have endeavored to ascertain the actual truth as evidenced by circumstantial evidence, sound reason, and common sense. !n spite o f all denials the witnesses corroborate each other in the essential facts. ( 1 ) D. W. HOLSTLAW AND ( 2 ) JOHN BRODERICK. D. W . Holstlaw was a senator from the forty-second district in the Legislature o f Illinois. He appeared before the Senate committee and on his oath declares that Senator John Broderick, another senator ( o f the forty-sixth district) in the General Assembly o f Illinois, promised him money if he would vote for Mr. Lorimer (p. 198), and the next morning after this promise, on May 26, 1909, he voted for Mr. L orimer, and that there- f 3 111 after, on the 16th o f June, 1909, in Chicago, ., John Broderick paid him $2,500 in currency,, and he deposited the same with the State Bank o f Chicago, ., to the credit o f the Holstlaw Bank, o f Iuka, . (p. 201). He is confirmed by the bank officer who received the money, Mr. Jarvis O. Newton, and by the deposit slip o f the State Bank o f Chicago, ., June 16, 1909, showing that this amount was deposited in currency (p. 411). John Broderick was twice called before the committee and withdrawn without testify ing (pp. 422, 508), and finally was summoned at the instance o f Albert S. Austrian, counsel for the Chicago Tribune, who assumed the burden o f presenting evidence (p. 547). Broderick refused to answer questions (p. 557) on the avowed ground that he might incriminate himself, and is under indictment at Springfield, ., for bribery in the Lorimer case. His testimony was obviously insincere and untrue. D. W . Holstlaw further testified that he received $700 additional from John Broderick, who told him that there was that much coming to him. In my judgment, if it were merely a question o f counting votes neither the vote (1 ) o f D. W . Holstlaw nor o f (2 ) John Broderick should be counted; but, in my opinion, it is not a question o f counting votes; it is a question o f invalidating the election o f a United States Senator, where gross corruption and bribery is established in one or more instances. 111 111 111 111 (31 H. J. C. BECKEMEYER. H. J. C. Beckemeyer, member o f the Forty-sixth General Assembly o f Illinois and a member o f the Lee O’ Neill Browne faction, who voted for Mr. Lorimer, appeared before the Senate committee and made oath that on or about May 25 or 26, 1909, he entered into an arrangement that proved to be corrupt with Lee O’ Neill Browne (the leader o f the Browne faction o f 37 members o f the Democratic Party in the lower house) ; that he voted for Mr. Lorimer on May 26, 1909; and that he received, on June 21, 1909, in St. Louis, Mo., at the Southern Hotel, $1,000 from Lee O ’Neill Browne for his vote for Mr. LorimEr (p. 227), and that on July 15, 1909, at the Southern Hotel, St. Louis, Mo., he received $900 from Robert E. Wilson, the intimate friend and representative o f Lee O’ Neill Browne, on the same account (p. 228). Beckemeyer deposited $500 o f this money from W ilson in the Commercial Trust Co., St. Louis (p. 228). ( 4 ) MICHAEL S. LINK. Michael S. Link, a member o f the Forty-sixth General Assembly o f Illinois, a member of the Browne faction, under oath, stated in like manner before the Senate committee that he met Lee O ’Neill Browne in St. Louis at the Southern Hotel on June 21, 1909, and received $1,000 from him (p. 281) ; that he met Robert E. Wilson, the intimate friend and representa tive o f Browne, in St. Louis, Mo., on July 15, 1909, and got $900 from Wilson at the same time and place as Beckemeyer (p. 284). Link pretended to think this “ campaign money,” although it is obvious it was for the same purpose as that confessed by White and Beckemeyer. ( 5 ) CHARLES A. WHITE, ( 6 ) LEE O’NEILL BROWNE, ( 7 ) R. E. WILSON. Charles A. White, a member o f the house, Forty-sixth General Assembly o f the State o f Illinois, and a member o f the Browne faction, on his oath, appeared before the Senate committee. He stated that he had made an agreement with Lee O ’Neill Browne on May 25, J . to vote for Mr. Lorimer, for $1,000 and was to have as much more from other sources (P)) repeatedly referred to as the “ jack p o t;” that he was taken in on the money derived from other sources, the jack pot,” as a part o f the consideration for voting for Mr. Lorimer; that Browne paid him $1,000—first, $100 at Springfield, .; $50 in Chicago, .; and $850 in Chicago, . (p. 52), on June 17, I9°9> and that he received in like manner $900 from Robert E. W ilson (p. 81), a member o f the Browne faction, the intimate friend and representative o f Lee O ’Neill Browne, at the Southern Hotel, St. Louis, Mo., on July 15. 1909, in accordance with Browne’s previous promise. White’s testimony is corroborated by Thomas P. Kirkpatrick, who said that White deposited for safe-keeping a package o f money marked “ Eight hundred (800.00) dollars” with Mr. Hollender, cashier o f the Grand Leader Store in St. Louis, Mo., in the latter part 909 49 111 111 111 4 o f June, 1909 (p. 223), and White is otherwise corroborated by accounting for the time, place, and amount o f his various expenditures o f this money received by him from Browne and Wilson. For these reasons, I believe, that if it were merely a matter o f counting votes, which, in my judgment, it is not, that the votes o f Charles A. White, H. J. C. Beckemeyer, Michael S. Link, Robert E. Wilson, and Lee O’ Neill Browne should not be counted in favor o f the election o f Mr. L o r im ER. It is shown in the evidence that Robert E. Wilson wrote letters falsely dated back a year so as to appear to have been written to Beckemeyer on June 26. 1909; and to Link on June 26, 1909, arranging the St. Louis meeting for the purpose o f a banquet for Browne, when, as a matter o f fact, these letters were falsely dated and falsely conceived and agreed upon between them, having been written in 1910, after the disclosure of this corruption was threatened. White testified (p. 81) that Lee O ’ Neill Browne had on a blue cloth belt July 17, 1909. Briggs House, Chicago, the day he paid \V hite, in which he said he had $30,000. Thirty of the Browne faction voted for Lorimer (p. 639). Lee O’ Neill Browne was indicted for bribery o f Charles A. White in the Lorimer case (p. 618)— the first jury was a hung jury, and by the second jury he was acquitted, but it should be remembered also that out o f the second trial, at which he was acquitted, his attorney, Erbstein, was indicted for bribing the jury that acquitted Browne. Moreover, the venue of the cases above cited in which Browne had corruptly paid money to Beckemeyer and Link et al. was laid in the State o f Missouri, and that W ilson’ s payments were likewise in the State o f Missouri, the crafty purpose o f which seem sobvious, i. e., to prevent any indictment in Illinois. On the iloor o f the legislature, when the Lorimer vote was up, Browne, in his speech, said, “ You can not cash dreams,” to which Representative Engilsh replied, “ He might cash votes” (p. 636). (8 ) CHARLES w r* V » S. LUKE. Charles S. Luke, a member o f the Browne faction o f the Forty-sixth General Assembly He voted for Mr. Lorimer May 26, 1909. He met Lee O ’Neill Browne in St. Louis, Mo., at the Southern Hotel on June 21, 1909, at the same time Browne paid Beckemeyer and Link. It is shown that he exhibited $950 to his wife immediately afterwards without explaining its source (p. 495 ). It is shown that he met Robert E. Wilson, Browne’ s intimate friend and representative, at the Southern Hotel on July 15, 1909, when other bribe takers were paid. Charles A. White, in his original statement o f this case, declares that Charles S. Luke was angry at getting only $900 at St. Louis, and stated to him that he could have gotten $1,500 at the beginning o f the session and was sorry that he did not take i t ; that he intimated to Luke that he, White, had not received anything, but that Luke answered by saying: • o f Illinois, is now dead. Y e s; you did. You got ,$ 1, 0 0 0 , just what we all got except the leaders, and it is to be expected they got more than we (p. 1 1 ). Under these circumstances, if it were merely a matter o f counting votes, I do not think the vote o f Charles S. Luke should be counted for Mr. L o r im e r . (9 ) JOSEPH B. CLARK. Joseph B. Clark was also a m e m b e r o f Browne’s faction who voted for Mr. L o r im e r May 26, 1909. The evidence shows that Joseph B. Clark was in St. Louis at the Southern Hotel on June 21, 1909, although he denies it, and that also he was present and met Robert E. Wilson in St. Louis on July 15, 1909. He was present when Robert E. Wilson paid Beckemeyer $900; he it was who by agreement received Robert E. W ilson’s manufactured false letter of :9 io „ antedated about a year, and which was prepared with the intention o f establishing a false excuse for the meeting held in St. Louis on July 15, 1909. Beckemeyer testified that Mr. Clark agreed with him that it might be all right for Beckemeyer to deny having been in St. Louis on July 15 , 1909. showing that Clark agreed to false evidence in regard to the St. Louis meeting. D. W . H oltslaw states that Clark had told him that they would get som ething out o f the furniture deal, a grossly corrupt transaction for which Clark is now under aC 1 5 indictment. Under all the circumstances, I believe that Joseph B. Clark, as a member of the Browne faction, the “ gang” Beckemeyer referred to, in replying that he would' go with it wherever it went (p. 2 5 8 ), was also a bribe taker, and that his vote ought not to be counted. (I0 ) jspr* v« HENRY A. SHEPHARD. H enry A. Shephard, mem ber o f the Forty-sixth General Assem bly of Illinois, was a m em ber o f the Brow ne faction, w ho voted for Mr. Lorim er M ay 26, 1909. He also met Lee O ’ Neill Brow ne at the Southern H otel, St. Louis, on June 21, 1909, precisely the same place, and at the same time that the payments were made to those w ho have confessed, or w ho have been proven to be bribe takers and bribe givers. Imm ediately at the time, but before Beckem eyer received his $1,000 from Browne, and as he was goin g into B row ne’s room , H enry A. Shephard was just com in g out o f B row ne’s room (p. 227). Fie was at the m eeting with R obert E. W ilson with the bribe takers at the Southern Hotel, St. Louis, M o., on July 15, 1909, and went into the fam ous bathroom with W ilson just before Charles A. W hite went into the same bathroom and g ot $900, but Shephard attempts the silly explanation that his visit to the bathroom related exclusively to answerftig a question by R. E. W ilson as to the name o f a lady w ho had taken dinner with H enry A. Shephard months before at Springfield, . A ll o f the evidence will justify the belief that H enry A. Shephard, as a mem ber o f the “ gang,” was paid the same amount as the other mem bers o f the “ gang.” His absurd explanation o f his going to St. Louis to meet with this party o f men, o f his goin g into the bathroom to tell the name o f a lady with w hom he had taken dinner at a public hotel months before, is unworthy o f belief. H enry A. Shephard, however, explains his vote for Mr. Lorim er on the ground that Mr. Lorim er made him a personal prom ise (P roceedings, p. 318) that he would do all in his pow er to prevent Mr. Richards, the postm aster o f Jerseyville, ., or his deputy, Mr. Becker, from being appointed as postm aster o f that town. Shephard testified that he told Brow ne that he could not and would not vote for L orimer; that Brow ne ap pealed to him, stating that “ we have not g ot enough without y o u ;” and that Mr. Lorimer would make the prom ise he wanted. (P roceedings, p. 318.) That he, H enry A. Shephard, said to Mr. Lorim er, “ If you will prom ise me that neither Mr. Richards nor Mr. Becker shall be made postm aster I will vote for you.” And that he, Mr. L orimer, said. “ I will prom ise you to do all in my pow er to prevent them from being appointed.” I am advised that the statutes o f Illinois provide that— 111 111 whoever corruptly * * * gives any money or other bribe, present, reward, promise, contract, obligation, or security * * * to any legislative, executive, or other officer, * * * with intent to influence his act, vote, * * * or judgment * * * on any matter * * * which may be then pending, or may by law come or be brought before him, * * » shall be deemed guilty of bribery. (Sec. 31, :hap. 3 8 .) aCi If it were m erely a matter o f counting votes, I think that H enry A Shephard’ s vote should not be counted. Besides these cases, it is my judgm ent that in view o f the testim ony o f White that his right to participate in the “ jack p ot” was a consideration m oving him to vote for Mr. Lorimer, and that White, Holstlaw, Link, Luke, and Beckemeyer, who voted for Mr. Lorimer, appear to have received a pro rata part o f the “ jack pot,” and to have been “ taken in” on the “ ja ck -p ot” conspiracy, the com m ittee would have been justified in inquiring into the extent o f the “ jack p ot” and its relation, as an agency, in bringing ibout the election o f Mr. L orimer. There were 30 o f the Brow ne faction w ho follow ed B row ne’s leadership and sup ported Mr. L orimer. A lbert J. Hopkins had received 165,305 votes at the Republican prim ary; G eorge E. Foss, 121, n o votes; W illiam E. Mason. 86,596 votes; W illiam G. W ebster, 17,704 votes. Law rence B. Stringer was the only D em ocratic candidate and received the vote of his party at the primary. Mr. L orimer was not before the primary as a candidate. He received the vo-te of only one m em ber in the legislature on May 13. 18, 19, 20, 25, but on M ay 26 he sud denly received 108 votes. 5 or 6 in excess o f the o f the constitutional m ajority required. E very D em ocratic legislator was under the instruction o f the D em ocratic primary 6 to support Mr. Stringer and knew it meant great political danger to s u ^ o r t Mr. Lorimer. There was no mandate from the people to elect Mr. Eorim er. Every sound reason o f political expediency forbade it. It seems as if pecuniary consideration alone could accom plish it since this dangerous law -defying m ethod was finally resorted to, and I think that the best evidence obtainable that it was necessary to buy votes in order to elect Mr. Lorimer at all is the expert opinion o f those who bought these votes and paid as high as $3,200 for a single vote, as in the H oltslaw case. The above record o f bribery and corruption can not be broken down, in my opinion, on the theory that the men w ho received the bribes were unw orthy o f belief on their confession, and that their testim ony against the bribe givers is unw orthy of credit (because the witnesses are in fam ou s); for the reason that there is such a tissue o f substantial and circumstantial evidence surrounding the case that it is im possible to resist the belief that these confessions are substantially true. It does not suffice to say that a bribe taker is unw orthy o f credit. W ith the exception o f W hite, all the testim ony from the bribe givers and bribe takers came with extrem e reluctance and was obtained only by the exercise o f the pow ers o f the Governm ent. In my judgm ent the attempt to rebut and break down the force o f these con fes sions failed. It is extrem ely difficult to expose conspiracy where every man concerned has a powerful interest to conceal his own wrongdoing. L ee O ’ Neill Brow ne and his friend and Representative R. E. W ilson , \tfho was indicted for perjury before the grand jury (p. 731), deny making the payments to W hite, Beckem eyer, Link, and Luke, but they are overw helm ed by both the direct and circumstantial evidence and in m y opinion are unw orthy o f credit (p. 732). It has been suggested that Lee O’ Neill Browne has been vindicated, having been reelected to the legislature. In my judgment, this is no proof o f vindication, in the presence o f the evident bipartisan system o f corruption in Illinois, where votes can be easily bought under a defective form o f corrupt-practices act, which permits o f easy evasion. I f a man has behind him large capital interested in his vindication, vindication is easy. Particularly is this true in Illinois, where under the plumping system or accumulative voting one-third o f the votes in Mr. Browne’s district would suffice to elect and where under the bipartisan system he had both a Republican and Democratic following. In his evidence he stated that he probably got nearly as many Republican votes as he did Democratic (p. 585). The dangerous extent to which bribery o f voters has gone in this Nation is exhibited by the indictment o f over a thousand citizens in Adams County, Ohio, a State in which there is a defective corrupt-practices act and machine rule. The Republic can not last if such a system is permitted to continue. The time has come for reform and the establishment of honest government and o f the people’ s rule and the overthrow o f machine rule. I again call attention to the code o f the people’s rule (S. Doc. 603, 61st Cong., 2d sess.), which shows the easy pathway to righteousness in government. ATTEMPTS TO BRIBE. (11) George W . Meyers was one o f the seven members o f the Browne faction who refused to vote for Mr. Lorimer. He made oath before the Senate committee that Lee O’Neill Browne urged him to vote for Mr. Lorimer and suggested that there would be some good State jobs to give away and plenty o f the “ ready necessary,” meaning money; that he refused, however, to vote for Mr. Lorimer (p. 312). J A C O B GROVES. (12) Jacob Groves, a Democratic member o f the house who did not vote for Mr. Lorimer, testified that Douglass Patterson, an ex-member o f the house, came to him after he had retired, on May 25, 1909, the night before Mr. Lorimer’s election, and requested an interview, stating that he wanted him to keep quiet about the matter; he wanted to know if Groves was an Odd Fellow or a Mason, and referring to the Lorimer matter, said: “ It may be a good thing for both o f us if you, Groves, were to vote for Lorimer.” T o this pro posal Groves replied “ that there was not money enough in Springfield to hire him to vote for Lorimer.” The proposal excited Groves and he talked very loud, and Patterson urged him “ to put down the transom,” and immediately denied that he intended any bribery (P- 4 1 5 )- HENRY TERRILL. H enry Terrill, w ho was a Republican mem ber o f the house, testified that ( 13 ) John Griffin, D em ocratic m em ber o f the Brow ne faction, w ho voted for L orimER, asked him [Terrill] to vote for Mr. Lorimer. Terrill testified that he asked him “ what there would be in it,” and he said “ $ 1 ,000, anyway.” Terrill says this occurrence took place one or tw o nights before Mr. L orim er’s election (p. 498). Griffin denied the guilty suggestion, but is less credible than Terrill, because Terrill had no reason to conceal the truth or tell a falsehood, while Griffin did have. I think Griffin’ s vote should not be counted. It should be rem em bered that 53 o f the votes for Mr. L orimer were D em ocratic votes, instructed by the unanimous prim ary vote o f the D em ocrats of Illinois to stand for Mr. Stringer. Th ey abandoned Mr. Stringer, the Dem ocrat, and suddenly at a given m om ent solidly supported Mr. L orimer, the Republican. I do not believe this conduct was the simple exercise o f honest personal judgm ent on the fitness o f the candidates, and I think the mem bers o f the jack pot should have been ascertained and examined. T h ey evidently were num erous enough to control or block legislation. O f the 149 Republican m em bers voting, Mr. L orimer on ly received 55 , about a third, show ing that as a candidate o f the Republican Party he was not acceptable to the Republican mem bers o f the legislature, and, not having been a candidate at all in the primaries, there was no popular mandate whatever to support his candidacy. Under all the circumstances, 1 do not think he really represents the will o f the people of Illinois. If the people o f Illinois want him, and will give him popular approval in the primary, I think he m ight then be entitled to a seat in the Senate; otherwise not. He should seek vindication in his ow n State. Mr. President, under the circum stances I believe it m y duty to the people of Oklahoma, to the Senate o f the United States, and to the A m erican people to m ove the Senate to declare the so-called election o f Mr. L orim er void, on account o f the corrupt practices above set forth, a resolution as to which I have already introduced. I believe that there was wholesale corruption and bribery used in procuring the election o f Mr. Lorim er, and that it has been abundantly proven, and that the effort to break dow n the corroboratin g mass o f interwoven evidence above cited by rebuttal has failed. I believe if Mr. L o rim er should retain his seat under these painfui circumstances it w ould low er the United States Senate in the esteem o f the Am erican people. believe the. time has com e when the Am erican people will approve stern measures in dealing with bribery and with corrupt conduct in public affairs, and I think it better for all the people that there should be an end made to the election o f Senators by the sinister com m ercial forces o f the Republic. Mr. President, I submit to the Senate that the time has com e for the adoption ot a constitutional am endment for the election o f Senators by the direct vote o f the people, under the safeguard o f an honest and thoroughgoing corrupf-practices act and publicity pamphlet such as O regon has adopted, which gives an equal chance to the rich man and the p oor man, and strictly limits the use o f m oney in the election of Senators. In view o f the fact that many seats in the United States Senate are about to be determined in various legislatures, it is o f the highest im portance that the Senate of the United States should give the country to understand that the election o f Senators shall be absolutely free from bribery or corrupt practice. In m y opinion Mr. L o r im e r was not the choice o f the Legislature o f Illinois nor of the people o f Illinois, and his election, so called, is entirely vitiated by the corrupt practices o f his supporters, was illegal and void ab initio, and does not merit present recognition. It is no longer W illiam L orim er on trial but the Senate itself is on trial before the bar o f the Am erican people. I submit the follow in g resolution for the consideration o f the Senate: 1 , ftesolved, That the so-called election of W IL L IA M LO R IM R R , on May 2 6 1909, by the Legis lature of the State of Illinois, was illegal and- void, and that he is not entitled to a seat in the United States Senate. E X T R A C T OF R E M A R K S M A D E M A R C H 1, 1911. Mr. O W E N . Mr. President, it is for the purpose o f having the influence o f the Senate o f the United States thrown upon the right side o f this great contest between 8 the sinister, secret, crafty, m ost pow erfu l and trem endous com m ercial interests o f the Republic and those dem anding integrity o f governm ent that I have th ou gh t fit to express m y views in this case. It is not because I w ould be w illing to w ound the feelings o f the sitting M em ber. If he w ere m erely a sinner, so are all men, and so am I, and I w ould be glad to give him a friendly, b roth erly hand. A ll men make m is takes. I have made grievous ones, and grievously have I repented them. When men com m it w ron g, they do it in ignoran ce o f what is best for them selves. N o man w ould w illingly do him self a con sciou s injury. A n y man w ho does w ron g does him self a personal injury. T h is is not a question o f personalities. T h e question is, Shall we by our vote on this case establish a p olicy o f govern m en t that w ill by exam ple and precedent put an end- to bribery and corrupt practices or prom ote it? T h at is the question, and that is the on ly question o f any great im portance in this case. It is true that if the Senate decides erroneously in this matter it will impair its high standing before the people o f the United States, and this I should deeply regret, but that is not the m ost im portant question. Mr. President, the C om m ittee lays dow n the doctrine, that if the sitting M em ber has a m a jority o f the untainted votes he has a title in law w hich can not be disputed either in law or in m orals. I want to exam ine w here that leads. Mr. L o r i m e r had 108 votes. Seven votes are practically con ced ed to have been corrupt. T h at will reduce his num ber to io i so-called untainted votes, n ot enough to elect. It required 102 votes to be a m ajority o f 202, w hich w ere present and v otin g in that legislative assem bly. In order to enable a m a jority to be obtained, therefore, it is n ecessary to argue that the m a jority o f the untainted votes w ill suffice; that is, that the 7 bribed votes must not be counted as v otin g at all. T h is th eory w ould require 15 tainted votes to have been proven to have been bribed to unseat Mr. L o r i m e r , and when you prove 15 votes to have been tainted, that argum ent w ould admit a larger num ber to be bribed in order to seat the sitting M em ber; and when you prove a larger num ber, that again will perm it still m ore to be tainted, and it w ould be im possible to unseat any M em ber on such a basis until you exhausted the quorum . L et me explain in a m om ent. Take the case o f Mr. H opkin s. Pie had 70 untainted votes. Suppose som e bad friend o f Mr. H opkin s— suppose this indeterm inate, unknow n thing called the L um ber Trust, for exam ple— had been so friendly w ith Mr. Idopkins and so wanted to seat him that it had gon e into the open m arket and bou gh t 24 v otes b elon gin g to Mr. Stringer and had bou gh t 39 v otes b elon g in g to Mr. L o r im e r , then Mr. L orimer w ould have had left on ly 69 untainted votes, and Mr. H opkin s, with 70 untainted votes, his bad friends having bou ght in the open m arket 63 votes, w ould have a title so pure and so stron g under the law that it could not be disputed either in law or in morals. W h at kind o f doctrine is that? That is the log ical consequ ence o f the doctrin e of a m ajority o f the untainted votes being sufficient to establish a valid title. Is it g ood p olicy ? I am sorry that the Senate, at the closin g m om ents o f this debate, does itself the h onor to absent itself from this Cham ber. I wish there cou ld be a p h otogra ph o f these vacant seats sent out to the A m erican people. I appeal against the prop osed judgm ent o f the Senate as prophesied by the Senator from N ew H am pshire. [M r. G allinger], w ho advised the Senate on this floor there w ere sufficient votes to seat Mr. Lorimer. I am not speaking now to the Senate: I am speaking to the masters o f tKe Senate,— to the people o f the United States, to the American people. * * * * * * * 1 call the attention o f the coun try to the rem arkable doctrin e o f the C om m ittee on Privileges and E lection s— that a m a jority o f the untainted votes shall suffice. H ere is an editorial from the N ew Y o rk E ven ing Post, from w hich I read the fo llo w in g : If on February 22 , when Mr. Sheehan lacked 12 votes of an election in the New York legislature, his friends had, without his knowledge or consent, bribed 23 of his opponents to vote for him or absent themselves, would the people of New York have regarded this as a valid election in spite of clear proof of the bribery? . Under the rule laid dow n by the C om m ittee on Privileges and E lection s that w ould have been g o o d law. That title o f Mr. Sheehan under such circum stances could not be held invalid either in law or in m orals. I will not stultify m yself by g ivin g my vote for such a doctrine. It is not on ly unreasonable; it is not on ly absurd; it is not on ly preposterous, but it is im m oral, because it p rom otes im m orality, and I w ill have none o f it. • Press of the Sudwarth Company, Washington.
@FedFRASER