LIBRARY OF THE 
 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 
 AT URBANA-CHAMPAICN 
 
 IcH.S
 
 EERATA. 
 Page 97. First line: Change "I" to "he." 
 
 Page 109. Eleventh line should read: "That mem- 
 orandum you called the Lorimer case." 
 
 Page 109. Line 27: Change " (608) " to " (867)." 
 
 Page 114. Telegram from Edward H. Thomas should 
 read- "Reminders sent January twelfth 
 to Charles E. Ward there via American 
 Express. Tra ^ AED H> TH OMAS. " 
 
 Page 138. Ninth line: Change "29th" to "19th." 
 
 Page 144. Paragraph three: Change January "21" 
 to January "20." 
 
 Page 162.

 
 EDWAED HINES TO THE UNION 
 LEAGUE CLUB 
 
 A STATEMENT OF FACTS RELATIVE TO 
 
 CHARGES CONSIDERED BY ITS 
 
 BOARD OF DIRECTORS 
 
 "It is not proved that Edward Hines received $100,000 or 
 any other sum, or that he contributed any sum whatever to aid 
 in or obtain the election of William Lorimer to the United 
 States Senate. The evidence is that he did not raise, contribute 
 to or expend said sum or any sum of money whatsoever to aid 
 or assist improperly in the election of Senator Lorimer." 
 
 Resolution passed without a dissenting vote by the Dillingham 
 Committee on March 28, 1912. 
 
 "I have never known or heard of anything in Mr. Hines' 
 habits or in his personal life that could be subject to the least 
 criticism." 
 
 Testimony of Clarence 8. Funk before the Dillingham Committee.
 
 After the most searching inquiry the Committee is unable to 
 find any evidence that any sum of money was raised or con- 
 tributed by Mr. Hines, or through his suggestion, or with his 
 knowledge, to be used corruptly in securing the election of Mr. 
 Lorimer as a Senator of the United States from the State of 
 Illinois, or that Mr. Hines participated in any corrupt practices 
 of any nature in connection with such election, nor can the com- 
 mittee find that any such fund was raised by any person or 
 persons to be so used. The Committee goes further and reports 
 that it finds no evidence that any such fund was ever contem- 
 plated by Mr. Hines, or suggested to him by any of the gentle- 
 men with whom he conferred before the election of Mr. Lori- 
 mer regarding the election of a Senator of the United States 
 from the State of Illinois, and in fact there is no proof that Mr. 
 Hines raised or furnished or spent improperly any money to aid 
 in the election of Mr. Lorimer. 
 
 Extract from Keport of the Dillingham Committee made on May 
 20, 1912.
 
 w r~, i 
 
 32-4,773 
 H ^ $ " 
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE UNION LEAGUE CLUB. 
 
 CHICAGO, JUNE 17, 1912. 
 
 THOS. H. SMITH, 
 
 4407 Lake Ave., Chicago, 111. 
 
 Dear Sir: 
 
 In my letter to you of March 23, 1912, regarding the action 
 of certain directors of the Club in expelling me, I said I would 
 send you a "Statement of Facts" which I believed would con- 
 vince you and any unprejudiced member that such action was 
 grossly unjust to me, unwarranted by the evidence and that 
 the hearing given me was a biased one. 
 
 The delay in presenting these facts has been caused by two 
 reasons. First ; Nearly a month passed after the hearing before 
 the officials of the Club would consent to supply me with the 
 record of the proceedings on which my expulsion is alleged to 
 have been made. Second; I have insisted that my attorneys 
 should make an exhaustive study of that record and compare it 
 with the official record of the proceedings of the Dillingham 
 Senatorial Committee, and that every precaution be taken so 
 that a review of the proceedings might be presented against 
 which no criticism could be directed. 
 
 The motive of your officers in hesitating to grant my demand 
 for a copy of this record will be disclosed to you when you 
 have read the pages that follow. Not until Mr. Marquis 
 Eaton, my attorney in that hearing, and an honored member 
 of your Club, had made repeated and insistent demands for 
 this record, was it reluctantly yielded to him. In order that 
 you labor under no misapprehension concerning this strange 
 attitude of certain of your officials, I refer you to the following- 
 correspondence, and ask you to note that it is indicative of a 
 desire to deny me an opportunity to present to you the record of 
 those proceedings: 
 
 3
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 LAW OFFICES DEFREES, BUCKINGHAM, RITTER, CAMPBELL & 
 
 EATON. 
 
 CHICAGO, FEB. 28, 1912. 
 Mr. Walter D. Herrick, 
 
 Secretary Union League Club, Chicago. 
 Dear Sir : Mr. Edward Hines has asked us to obtain for 
 him immediately a record of the proceedings before the 
 Board of Managers of the Union League Club, in the 
 matter of the charges filed against him under date of 
 June 2, 1911. 
 
 Will you please authorize the official stenographer to 
 prepare, at the expense of Mr. Hines, and to deliver to 
 Mr. Hines a copy of the record of such proceedings, 
 
 Respectfully yours, 
 
 DEFREES, BUCKINGHAM, RITTER, CAMPBELL & EATON. 
 
 By Joseph H. Defrees. 
 
 It was assumed that this request would be granted without 
 hesitation or the imposing of conditions. When the hearings 
 were over, my attorney was promised a transcript of the pro- 
 ceedings and was given to understand that he might have three 
 copies thereof if he would pay for them. We agreed to pay 
 for them, but when he tried to get the transcript for me the 
 matter was delayed time and again. 
 
 After repeated attempts to obtain a copy of the record of 
 the proceedings, Mr. Eaton was told he might have a copy 
 on this remarkable condition: That I should not show it to 
 anybody, or leave it around where it might be seen, and that I 
 should make no use of it for any purpose! Can you imagine 
 what I would want with this record, especially three copies of 
 it, and be willing to pay for them, unless I wished to make some 
 use of them ? Finally an excuse for not letting me have these 
 copies was made by one member of the Board, who stated that 
 he had learned from some source that I intended to prepare 
 a statement therefrom to send to the members of the Club ! 
 What do you think of that? 
 
 When you have read these pages you will understand why 
 this course was attempted. Mr. Eaton brought matters to a 
 crisis on March 13, through the following letter: 
 
 4
 
 EDWARD MINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 LAW OFFICES DEFREES, BUCKINGHAM, RITTER, CAMPBELL 
 & EATON. 
 
 CHICAGO, MARCH 13, 1912. 
 Mr. Wm. P. Sidley, President, 
 
 1007 Tacoma Building-, Chicago. 
 
 Dear Sir: Your telephone message of yesterday, in 
 which you advised Mr. Eaton that the Board of Directors 
 of the Union League Club regarded the copy of the record 
 of the proceedings against Edward Hines" as delivered 
 under injunctions of the utmost secrecy with respect to 
 its use," has been the subject of consideration in this 
 office. 
 
 We are of the opinion that it is desirable to avoid 
 possible misunderstanding by a formal statement of our 
 position in the matter. 
 
 (1) We have no information with respect to the use 
 Mr. Hines proposes to make of the record in question. 
 The fact that he directed us to order two extra carbons 
 for his attorneys, Judge Farrer, Judge Hynes, Judge Page, 
 and Messers. Herrick, Allen & Martin, is one, the sig- 
 nificance of which, if it has any, is as readily interpreted 
 by you as by us. 
 
 (2) Our Mr. Defrees, in his letter of Feb. 28th, re- 
 questing on Mr. Hines' behalf a copy of these proceedings, 
 did not leave ground for any impression that we were 
 undertaking to control the use of such record in the 
 hands of Mr. Hines and his General Counsel. 
 
 (3) We had no doubt then and we have no doubt 
 now that Mr. Hines is entitled as a matter of right to 
 the copy of the record requested on his behalf. 
 
 (4) Because of our relation to the Union League Club, 
 we felt that the proprieties would be better served if we 
 retired as counsel in the matter at the conclusion of the 
 proceedings before the Board. Our views in this respect 
 were strengthened by the vote of the Board to give Mr. 
 Hines (as we supposed, unconditionally,) a copy of the 
 proceedings. We felt that this copy would enable Mr. 
 Hines' General Counsel to represent him understandingly 
 in future litigation, if any, and that the retirement of the 
 Counsel who directed the proceedings in his behalf would 
 therefore work no injustice to Mr. Hines. 
 
 (5) Having reported to the General Counsel the exact 
 facts with respect to our unconditional request and the 
 Board's unconditional compliance, we are humiliated and 
 
 5
 
 EDWARD MINES TO THE U. L CLUB 
 
 embarrassed by an intimation that the Board expects us to 
 be responsible in any way for the use of the record by 
 others over whose actions we obviously have no control. 
 
 (6) For the reasons stated, we must stand in this 
 matter solely on our letter of Feb. 28th. Mr. Hines and 
 his General Counsel have regarded that letter as a legal 
 request for a copy of the proceedings and they will natu- 
 rally insist either on the unconditional compliance which 
 we assumed was authorized, or upon a refusal by the 
 Board of what Counsel all regard as a wholly just request. 
 
 (7) We are writing this letter without consultation 
 with Mr. Hines or his Counsel. We think Mr. Hines is 
 absolutely entitled to have a copy of these proceedings 
 delivered to him unconditionally, and we must, of course, 
 decline the covenant against any acts other than our own. 
 
 Very Respectfully, 
 
 DEFREES, BUCKINGHAM, RITTER, CAMPBELL & EATON. 
 
 By Marquis Eaton. 
 
 This letter had on March 22nd, the desired effect, and 
 rendered unnecessary the contemplated bringing of legal pro- 
 ceedings against the Board to secure the record to which I 
 was entitled, but which had been withheld for weeks. If your 
 officials have any just reason for attempting to impose secrecy 
 on me, ask them to name it. I eagerly embrace this oppor- 
 tunity to present to you a fair review of the facts developed 
 before your Board and found in the record of my trial before 
 it. That record affirms, not my guilt, but my absolute 
 innocence. 
 
 SOME PRELIMINARY HISTORY 
 
 The events leading up to the action against me are here 
 briefly summarized. The dates are important. 
 
 May 26, 1909, William Lorimer was elected Senator. About 
 Sept. 20, 1910, a sub-committee of the United States Senate 
 came to Chicago and remained till about Oct. 8, taking evidence 
 in regard to Mr. Lorimer's right to his seat. During all that 
 time it held its sessions just across the street from the offices 
 of C. S. Funk and the International Harvester Company. The 
 newspapers had full accounts of its hearings, and Funk and 
 those connected with him knew the purpose of the same, but 
 
 6
 
 EDWARD HIKES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 none of them went before or communicated with that Com- 
 mittee, although Funk undoubtedly passed where it was sitting 
 every day. 
 
 The sub-committee returned to Washington, and about Dec. 
 21 made its report. The United States Senate declared Mr. 
 Lorimer entitled to his seat. Up to that time no one, to my 
 knowledge, had even intimated that I improperly aided in the 
 election of Mr. Lorimer. 
 
 Jan. 17, 1911, what is known as the Helm Committee, was 
 appointed to investigate charges of improper conduct of 
 members of the Illinois Legislature. 
 
 On March 28, 1911, I was called before that Committee and 
 extensively questioned in regard to having solicited, contributed 
 to, raised or having any knowledge of a fund to aid in the 
 election of Mr. Lorimer. There under oath I denied having 
 done any of these things or having any such knowledge of 
 them. At that time I was utterly ignorant that Funk claimed 
 to have had any conversation with me in which I said I finan- 
 cially aided in that election, or that I had asked him for a 
 contribution. After testifying I was permitted to return home 
 without any suggestion of the existence of such a claim or 
 that such claim was then known to the Committee or to its 
 attorney. But in the light of what followed, it is clear that 
 the Helm Committee and its attorney had such knowledge in 
 advance of the testimony of Funk; also that their calling me 
 first and not asking me specifically about the Funk claim was 
 part of a prearranged plan. The natural and fair way would 
 have been to have called Funk first, or at least to have specifi- 
 cally questioned me concerning that claim. 
 
 / never had asked Funk for any contribution, did not know 
 he made any such claim, and therefore when before that Com- 
 mittee I had no such thing in mind. Some time later the 
 court held that the Helm Committee was acting illegally, and 
 thereupon it discontinued its investigation. 
 
 June 7, 1911, the U. S. Senate appointed the Dillingham 
 Committee to investigate the new charges against Senator 
 Lorimer. It consisted of eight Senators, evenly divided 
 
 7
 
 EDWARD MINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 politically, four Democrats and four Republicans. Long before 
 its appointment it was understood throughout the country that 
 such a committee would be appointed and would make such 
 investigation. 
 
 IGNORING THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 
 
 June 2, 1911, a communication signed by seven members of 
 the Union League Club was presented to the Board of Direc- 
 tors, citing the Helm Committee report and asking the Board 
 to take such action with reference to me as would seem 
 appropriate. On the same day the Board voted to have me 
 appear before it on June 5, and notified me to then appear 
 and make a statement. 
 
 On that day Mr. Charles L. Allen, my personal attorney, went 
 with me to the Club and said to the Directors that as the Senate 
 Committee was about to investigate the matters in question, 
 it would be improper for the Directors to take up the matter 
 while that investigation was pending, and that action by the 
 Board should be deferred at least until that Senatorial Com- 
 mittee had passed upon the matter. The Board held a con- 
 ference, and announced to us that it would not proceed at 
 present; leaving the inference that it recognized the manifest 
 impropriety of taking any action while the Dillingham Com- 
 mittee was investigating and that the Union League Board 
 would not proceed until that Committee had finished. I relied 
 upon this. 
 
 Over four months later, to my surprise, I received from 
 the Secretary of the Board, a letter dated November 15, 1911, 
 as follows: 
 
 "SECRETARY'S OFFICE, 
 UNION LEAGUE CLUB, CHICAGO. 
 Edward Hines, Esq. 
 
 Lincoln & Blue Island Ave., 
 
 Chicago, 111. 
 
 Dear Sir: At at meeting of the Board of Managers 
 of this club, held November I3th, it was voted to hold a 
 special meeting of the Board on Monday, November 20, 
 1911, at 4:30 p. m., for the purpose of considering certain 
 charges against you, embodied in a communication from 
 
 8
 
 EDWARD MINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 certain members of the Club, dated June 2, 1911, relative 
 to your conduct, a copy of which communication was sent 
 to you on June 3rd. At this meeting of the Board you will 
 be given an opportunity to be heard in your defense, pur- 
 suant to Section 9 of Article n of the By-Laws. 
 
 I enclose herewith copy of certain statements made to 
 the board at its meeting of November I3th by Mr. Clarence 
 S. Funk, and I desire to say that, if you so desire, you will 
 be given an opportunity to question Mr. Funk before the 
 Board with reference to such statements. 
 Very truly yours, 
 (Signed) WALTER D. HERRICK, 
 
 Secretary. 
 November 15, 1911. 
 
 Enclosure. Reg. Mail." 
 
 When the charges of June 2nd and June 5th were presented 
 to the Board it was announced that the directors would not 
 proceed. This was an evident recognition of the fact that 
 the matter was formally under consideration by the Dillingham 
 Committee. The above action of the Board, taken four months 
 later without notice to me or my counsel, was a violation of 
 my rights and a disregard of all precedent. The Board took 
 the evidence of Funk at a secret meeting to which I was not 
 invited. Neither was I permitted in person nor by counsel to 
 cross-examine my accuser. This ignored the understanding 
 which I supposed we all had. 
 
 Owing to absence from the city I did not receive the letter 
 of November 15 until Saturday the i8th, just two days before 
 the Board was to meet. I at once called upon the President 
 of the Club and informed him I had just returned, that my 
 counsel was out of the city, and requested that the matter 
 be temporarily put over. He told me this could not be done. 
 He gave no reason whatever, but arbitrarily insisted that I 
 appear. Thereupon I telegraphed my counsel, Mr. Charles L. 
 Allen, of Herrick, Allen & Martin and he arrived in Chicago 
 on the 2oth, and on that day I sent the Board the following 
 letter :
 
 EDWARD MINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 CHICAGO, NOVEMBER 2oth, 1911. 
 
 To the Board of Managers of the Union League Club, 
 Chicago, Illinois. 
 
 Dear Sirs : I have received by mail from Mr. Herrick, 
 the Secretary of the Club, a communication of the I5th 
 instant, stating that at a meeting of the Board of Managers 
 of the Club, held the I3th instant, it was voted to hold a 
 special meeting of the Board on Monday, the 2oth instant, 
 at 4:30 P. M., for the purpose of considering certain 
 charges against me, embodied in a communication to the 
 Board from certain members of the Club, dated June 2nd, 
 1911, relative to my conduct, and that, at the proposed 
 meeting I would be given an opportunity to be heard in 
 my defense, pursuant to Section n of Article 9 of the 
 By-Laws. The letter also enclosed a copy of certain state- 
 ments made to the Board, at a meeting held on November 
 I3th, 1911, by Mr. Clarence S. Funk, and stated that if I 
 desired I would be given an opportunity to question Mr. 
 Funk before the Board. 
 
 Owing to my absence from the city I did not receive 
 Mr. Herrick's letter of the I5th instant until after my 
 return on Saturday, the i8th instant. 
 
 I at once communicated with the President of the Club, 
 and informed him that I had just returned, and also that 
 my counsel was out of the city, and I requested that the 
 matter be temporarily put over. He, however, told me 
 that this could not be done. I thereupon telegraphed to 
 my counsel to return to the city, as I wished to confer 
 with him, and he arrived in Chicago today and I have 
 had an interview with him. 
 
 I am willing at any time to appear before the Board, 
 and have any proper charges that are made against me, 
 investigated. I am, however, advised that, under the By- 
 Laws of the Club, I am entitled to have charges made 
 against me in proper form and to be furnished with a copy 
 of such charges and given a reasonable opportunity to 
 defend. 
 
 I am also advised that the communication from certain 
 members of the Club to you, dated June 2nd, 1911, above 
 referred to, does not constitute such charges as I am in 
 reason and in law entitled to have preferred against me 
 before I can be required to appear before your Board in 
 my defense. 
 
 I will add that if any of the matters referred to in the 
 
 10
 
 EDWARD MINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 communication of June 2nd, 1911, are to be put in such 
 shape as to constitute charges which I am to answer, it 
 may be necessary for me to bring before you, in addition 
 to witnesses residing in this State, a number of important 
 witnesses who have no personal interest in the matter, and 
 who do not reside in this State, and whose presence at 
 such hearing I have no legal means of compelling. In 
 such case, I should endeavor to have them present as soon 
 as practicable, but you will understand that, to a certain 
 extent, I would have to consult their convenience and 
 their other engagements. 
 
 I am also advised that if any charges are preferred 
 against me, I am entitled to be represented by counsel at 
 any hearing of the charges. I will add that the fact that 
 I am not a lawyer myself, and that there are leading 
 lawyers among your number, and the further fact that a 
 proper hearing of the matter may require the cross exam- 
 ination of the witnesses against me, and the examination 
 of many witnesses on my behalf, are additional reasons 
 why I should be represented by counsel, and that it does 
 not seem to be fair that under the circumstances I should 
 be asked to conduct the hearing myself. 
 
 I think it proper for me to further state that the entire 
 subject matter of the communication dated June 2nd, 1911, 
 and of the report of the Illinois Committee, from which 
 it quotes at length, have been under investigation by a 
 Committee of the United States Senate, in the matter of 
 the proceedings relating to the election of William Lorimer 
 to that body. In the course of those proceedings, the 
 Committee had power to compel the appearance before it 
 of all witnesses necessary to enable it to arrive at the 
 exact truth of the situation, and a large number of wit- 
 nesses were examined. This Committee has not concluded 
 its investigation, and I am informed that it is expected 
 that other witnesses will be examined by it touching the 
 particular subject matter, but that a report of the com- 
 mittee may be expected soon. While I am not a party to 
 those proceedings, the report of the Committee, which will 
 be in its nature a judicial finding, will no doubt determine 
 many of the points referred to in the communication of 
 June 2nd, 1911, including any points which may be con- 
 sidered as referring to me. 
 
 Under these circumstances, it seems to me fair that you
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 should await the result of the Senatorial investigation 
 before proceeding in this matter. 
 
 I will add that the statements by Mr. Clarence S. Funk, 
 of which a copy was enclosed in your Secretary's letter, 
 were made, as appears from the statements in answer to 
 questions asked by one of the members of the Board, at 
 a meeting of the Board at which I was not present, and 
 of which I had no notice, and at which Mr. Funk had 
 been invited by the Board to be present, and that I am 
 advised that if any charges are preferred against me, I 
 have the right to be present, and also to be represented 
 by counsel, when any witnesses are examined in support 
 of them. 
 
 Yours very truly, 
 
 EDWARD HINES. 
 
 The Secretary replied under date of Dec. 5 as follows : 
 UNION LEAGUE CLUB, CHICAGO. 
 
 SECRETARY'S OFFICE, 
 
 DECEMBER 5, 1911. 
 Edward Hines, Esq., 
 
 Lincoln and Blue Island Ave. 
 
 Chicago, 111. 
 
 Dear Sir: Referring to my letter to you of November 
 i5th, 1911, and to your communication of November 2oth, 
 1911, addressed to the Board of Managers of the Union 
 League Club, I beg to advise that the Board regards the 
 communication of June 2, 1911, as well as the statement 
 of Mr. Funk before the Board, as sufficiently specific 
 to advise you as to the matters relative to your conduct, 
 which the Board has decided to investigate. 
 
 As to your request that you be permitted to be rep- 
 resented by counsel, the Board considers that the By-Laws 
 of the Club do not contemplate this as a matter of right, 
 but has nevertheless decided to accord you this privilege. 
 The Board will sit in the Club house Saturday, Decem- 
 ber 16, 1911, at 2 :oo p. m., for the purpose of affording a 
 hearing upon the matters in question and at that time 
 the issue will be confined to the alleged interview between 
 yourself and Mr. Funk in the Clubhouse, referred to in 
 his statement before the Board and in the communication 
 of June 2, 1911. 
 
 You are hereby notified to appear before the Board at 
 the time and place as above stated, and to produce such 
 
 12
 
 EDWARD MINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 testimony as you may desire to offer with reference to the 
 single issue above referred to. 
 
 Very truly yours, 
 
 (Signed) WALTER D. HERRICK, 
 
 Secretary. 
 
 Upon Dec. 16 the hearing was postponed as per the following 
 letter of the Secretary of the Board, dated Dec. 20, 1911 : 
 
 UNION LEAGUE CLUB, CHICAGO. 
 
 SECRETARY'S OFFICE. 
 Edward Hines, Esq., 
 
 Lincoln and Blue Island Ave., 
 
 Chicago, 111. 
 
 Dear Sir : At the request of your counsel, the hearing 
 set for December i6th was again postponed, and we have 
 succeeded in arranging for such a hearing at the time 
 suggested by your counsel; namely, Tuesday, January 2, 
 1912, at 3 =30 p. m. 
 
 The Board of Managers will sit in the Club house at 
 this time, and you will be required and are hereby invited 
 to appear before the Board at such time and produce such 
 witnesses and testimony as you may desire to offer, in 
 regard to the alleged conversation between yourself and 
 Mr. Funk at the Club house. 
 
 Very truly yours, 
 
 (Signed) WALTER D. HERRICK, 
 
 Secretary. 
 December 20, 1911. 
 
 Up to this time I had as my counsel Mr. Allen, who had 
 full knowledge of these matters. He was not a member of 
 the Club. The Board did not want counsel to appear for 
 me who was not a member, and especially requested that I 
 have counsel to represent me who was a member. In pursuance 
 of that request and to show my willingness to act in harmony 
 with the views of the Board, I retained other counsel, and 
 was represented by Mr. Marquis Eaton, of the firm of Defrees, 
 Buckingham, Ritter, Campbell and Eaton, who was a member 
 of the Club, but up to that time wholly unfamiliar with these 
 matters. On December 22, Mr. Eaton sent the following letter 
 to the Board : 
 
 13
 
 EDWARD MINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 DECEMBER 22, 1911. 
 Mr. Walter D. Herrick, 
 
 Secretary Union League Club, 
 Chicago, Illinois. 
 
 Dear Sir: Mr. Edward Hines personally and through 
 his General Counsel, Messrs. Herrick, Allen and Martin, 
 made the request of us on Wednesday, December 2oth, 
 that we represent him in any hearing before the Board of 
 Managers of the Union League Club growing out of a 
 certain statement addressed to the Board of Managers 
 purporting to bear date June 2, 1911, and to be signed by 
 F. B. Johnstone and others. 
 
 Although our firm has had no previous acquaintance 
 of any kind with the matter in controversy, and although 
 this lack of acquaintance is manifestly somewhat to the 
 disadvantage of Mr. Hines, he feels, as do his general 
 counsel, that it best accords with the proprieties of the 
 situation for him to be represented in this matter by coun- 
 sel who are members of the Union League Club. 
 
 We accordingly advise you that we shall appear for 
 Mr. Hines in connection with any hearing before the 
 Board of Managers. We beg, however, to suggest with 
 all respect to the members of the Board of Managers, 
 that the pendency of a formal investigation by a com- 
 mittee of the United States Senate of the precise matter 
 which appears to be the subject of inquiry by the board, 
 ought to be deemed a compelling reason for the Board's 
 deferring its consideration. 
 
 As has been stated to your board, Mr. Hines is pre- 
 pared to proceed with the hearing on January 2, 1912, or 
 at any other time the Board may fix. However, the 
 reasons for the postponement seem to us to be of such 
 weight and importance that we desire to submit them in 
 detail to your Board, and we shall do so by a separate 
 letter within the next two or three days. 
 Very truly yours, 
 
 DEFREES, BUCKINGHAM, RITTER, CAMPBELL & EATON, 
 
 By Marquis Eaton. 
 
 On the 26th of December, 1911, Mr. Eaton sent another letter 
 to the Board, as follows :
 
 EDWARD MINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 DECEMBER 26, 1911. 
 Mr. Walter D. Herrick, 
 
 Secretary Union League Club, 
 Chicago. 
 
 Dear Sir: In the matter of the inquiry by the Board 
 of Managers of the Union League Club with respect to 
 certain charges against Edward Hines. 
 
 In accordance with our letter of December 22nd, we beg 
 to submit to the Board of Managers the following sug- 
 gestions in support of our request for a continuance of the 
 hearing in the above matter. 
 
 The alleged conversation between Edward Hines and 
 Clarence S. Funk referred to in your letter of December 
 2oth, addressed to Mr. Hines has been since June 2oth, 
 1911, the subject of most searching inquiry by a committee 
 of the United States Senate, composed of Senators Dill- 
 ingham, Gamble, Jones, Kenyon, Johnston, Fletcher, Kern 
 and Lea. 
 
 This inquiry has been conducted under a resolution of 
 the United States Senate adopted June 7th, 1911. In 
 pursuing the inquiry the Committee has had the assistance 
 of most able counsel, who, with the approval of the Com- 
 mittee, has made it a matter of record in that proceeding 
 that he considered it his duty to get in touch with any 
 man "who pretends to know anything about" the matter 
 under inquiry. 
 
 It is a matter of common knowledge that the investi- 
 gation by the Dillingham Committee was inspired by the 
 report of the special Investigating Committee appointed 
 by the Senate of the State of Illinois, known as the "Helm 
 Committee." The charges under consideration by the 
 Board of Managers of the Union League Club on their 
 face relate to the same report. When these charges were 
 filed under date of June 2nd, 1911, they stood of record 
 without formal answer ; since that time sworn answer, 
 definite to the least detail, has been made by Edward 
 Hines in his examination before the Dillingham Com- 
 mittee. This Committee has conducted its examination of 
 all witnesses under oath, and every witness, whose infor- 
 mation could have any possible bearing in the developing 
 of the facts with reference to the conversation at the 
 Union League Club, has been searchingly examined. 
 
 It had been supposed that the Dillingham Committee 
 would conclude its hearing before January ist, 1912, but 
 
 15
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 this was found to be impracticable, and the Committee 
 will, on January 8th, 1912, resume at Washington its 
 sessions for the purpose of examining Senator Lorimer, 
 and such other witnesses as the Committee shall itself 
 designate. 
 
 Mr. Hines has been notified that his presence in Wash- 
 ington during the final session of the Committee is required 
 by the Committee, and in obedience thereto he has arranged 
 to be in Washington for conference with counsel a few 
 days prior to January 8th, and he will remain there until 
 the Committee releases him. 
 
 The investigation at Washington is judicial in its char- 
 acter. The Senatorial Committee has taken jurisdiction 
 of the entire subject matter. So far from excusing Mr. 
 Hines from further attendance, it has indicated that it 
 desires him to be on call until its final session. Without 
 doubt it will make a formal finding of fact with respect to 
 the identical matter under consideration by your Board of 
 Managers. While this finding might not be deemed con- 
 trolling in the disposition of the charges, so far as the 
 Club is concerned, it appears to us that fair consideration 
 to Mr. Hines, as well as reasonable courtesy to the Sena- 
 torial Committee demands postponement of the Club 
 inquiry until the deliberations of the Dillingham Commit- 
 tee (and the consequent obligation of Mr. Hines to that 
 Committee) are concluded. 
 
 If the matter is called for hearing by the Board of Man- 
 agers on January 2nd, as your letter of December 2Oth 
 indicates, we shall appear for Mr. Hines and urge with 
 earnestness and candor the postponement of the hearing. 
 As counsel in the matter, we take full responsibility for 
 advising that Mr. Hines' request and urge the propriety 
 of a postponement, and with the indulgence of the Board 
 we shall orally amplify at that time the suggestions made 
 herein. 
 
 Mr. Hines will personally attend before the Board on 
 January 2nd, and will testify if the Board of Managers 
 insist, against our objection made on his behalf, that the 
 inquiry proceed at that time. 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 DEFREES, BUCKINGHAM, RITTER, CAMPBELL & EATON, 
 
 By Marquis Eaton. 
 
 Again, on Jan. 2 when we appeared before the Board in 
 
 16
 
 EDWARD MINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 accordance with the notice from the Secretary informing me 
 that the hearing would commence on that date, Mr. Eaton 
 informed the Board that I was already under summons to 
 appear before the United States Senate Committee, and urged 
 the Board to consider that the Dillingham Committee was 
 investigating these matters, and that the matter sought to be 
 inquired into should be reserved for presentation to that 
 Committee, that I had been so advised by my general counsel, 
 that there was no emergency existing which required the Board 
 to proceed while the Dillingham Committee was investigating, 
 and that I should not be put under the pressure of having to 
 answer both to the Board and the United States Senate 
 Committee. 
 
 SUSPICIOUS HASTE OF THE BOARD 
 
 What was the occasion for haste by the directors? They 
 had waited from June 2 to Nov. 13 without taking any steps, 
 and the time then passed until Jan. 2, and during these periods 
 the Dillingham Committee was pursuing its investigation 
 assiduously and had nearly completed the same. That Sena- 
 torial Committee had ample power to compel the attendance 
 of witnesses from all parts of the country, and to put these 
 witnesses under oath to get at the facts, and its investigation, 
 which was practically completed at that time, was of the most 
 extensive and thorough character. The Dillingham Committee 
 was exercising judicial functions, and its findings in these 
 matters would be in a sense judicially authoritative. 
 
 On the other hand, the Board of Directors of the Union 
 League Club had no such powers or authority. They could 
 not compel the attendance of a single witness from anywhere, 
 not even in the City of Chicago. They had no power to 
 administer an oath to a witness nor could I compel the at- 
 tendance of any witnesses before the Board on my behalf. As 
 you will see later, I did have to bring many witnesses from 
 outside the State and from as far away as Washington and 
 Baltimore, and I had to defray the expense of securing their 
 attendance. All this placed an unnecessary burden upon me, 
 to say nothing of my own loss of time and expense for the 
 
 17
 
 EDWARD MINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 services of counsel. No harm could come from the Board 
 waiting a little longer and getting the decision of the Senate 
 Committee. Despite all this, the Board refused to wait and 
 compelled me to proceed. But for the circumstances which I 
 have set forth, I should not have objected to going ahead and 
 would have been perfectly willing to do so. Under those 
 conditions the Board's action was grossly unjust to me. 
 
 Prior to the beginning of the hearings certain members of 
 the Board came to me and asked me to resign. I unhesitatingly 
 refused. I construed this request to mean that those making it 
 had been misled into assuming that I was guilty as charged. 
 I was so sure of my case, so certain that the evidence at my 
 command could not be questioned that I was eager to present 
 it to my fellow club members, never doubting for an instant 
 that it would result in a speedy and unanimous acquittal, and 
 relieve me of suspicion in the minds of my fellow members. 
 / realize now that those who asked me to tender my resignation 
 desired, not to spare me, but to evade the personal responsibility 
 of decreeing my expulsion. 
 
 The hearings proceeded. The Board admitted a great mass 
 of improper and frivolous evidence against me and pure hear- 
 say testimony, which I am advised is not proper evidence. It 
 allowed Funk and his counsel free reign in introducing any 
 kind of testimony that they desired, whether it was proper or 
 not. The Board raised and permitted to be raised questions 
 which compelled me, with scarcely any notice or time to do 
 so, to procure witnesses from various distant points of the 
 country with reference to facts which the Board at one time 
 conceded to be true, and later pretended to doubt and arbi- 
 trarily opened up again. 
 
 MANIFEST BIAS OF THE BOARD 
 
 In fact, certain members of the Board, from the very begin- 
 ning until the end of the hearing, manifested distinct 
 unfriendliness to me personally and maintained an antagonistic 
 attitude towards my side of the case, including witnesses for me. 
 Even when Funk's lawyers had cross-examined me and my 
 
 18
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 witnesses all that they could, certain members of the Board 
 then undertook to cross-examine further in the evident effort 
 to discover something unfavorable to me. Their antagonistic 
 spirit was markedly apparent. 
 
 On the other hand, their attitude toward Funk and his 
 witnesses was friendly and noticeably favorable! Many of the 
 questions put and the comments made by certain members 
 clearly indicated that they had prejudged my case and were 
 eagerly seeking a pretext to support a determination against me 
 which they had already made! All the way through, it was 
 quite evident to my mind, and I think will be to yours when 
 you have read this statement of facts, that my expulsion was 
 predetermined by certain members of the Board, and that they 
 carried out their program. In pursuance of that program, 
 after apparently letting the matter drop on account of the 
 pendency of the Senate Committee proceedings, they, without 
 any notice to me, secretly invited Funk to appear and give his 
 testimony in the absence of myself, the accused person ! This, 
 I claim, was in violation of all principles of fairness to me, and 
 showed a deliberate intention on the part of those members 
 to forestall the evidence on my side. 
 
 Whatever may be said of the method of conducting such 
 proceedings in a Club, the least that can be truthfully said 
 is that the Board should be fair, and that it should be just as 
 careful as a court to protect the rights of one fellow member 
 as those of any other. The best interests of the Club, to say 
 nothing of common decency, would require that. 
 
 But all through the hearing it was noticeable that certain 
 members took it for granted from the beginning that I was 
 guilty of something, and the burden was placed upon me to 
 prove myself innocent! This was a complete reversal of the 
 doctrine which everybody understands, that a man is presumed 
 innocent until he is proved guilty. 
 
 MY TRUE RELATION TO THE SENATORIAL ELECTION 
 
 I never, directly or indirectly, contributed, nor did any com- 
 pany in which I am interested, contribute a dollar to any fund 
 
 19
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 to aid in the election of Senator Lorimer, nor did I solicit any 
 contribution to such a fund, nor did any such fund ever exist 
 to my knowledge! 
 
 I was not in the city of Springfield, Illinois, at the time of 
 nor for five years before that Senatorial election! 
 
 Some weeks before Mr. Lorimer had been mentioned as a 
 candidate for the Senate, I was in Washington. I was in the 
 lumber business and naturally interested in the tariff on lum- 
 ber. By reason of this I was at different times before com- 
 mittees of the Senate and House of Representatives, and thus 
 came in contact with the members of those committees, 
 amongst others, Senators Aldrich and Penrose. What is 
 known as the Senatorial deadlock at Springfield occurred, and 
 "Administration" Republicans at Washington became anxious 
 to have that deadlock broken. Both Senator Aldrich and 
 Senator Penrose spoke to me upon that subject, showing a 
 desire in case Senator Hopkins could not be elected that 
 the Republicans of the Illinois Legislature should find some 
 man upon whom they could unite and elect ; and it was desired 
 that I exert myself towards securing such a result. I suggested 
 at different times the names of ex-Congressman Boutell and 
 Mr. A. C. Bartlett, both of Chicago, but it was learned that 
 they would probably not be available. 
 
 THE SENATORIAL DEADLOCK 
 
 The deadlock in Springfield continued. The anxiety to have 
 it broken increased as the time for consideration of the tariff 
 approached, and it was suggested that I ascertain from Senator 
 Lorimer whether he would become a candidate. I communi- 
 cated with him, but he declined. Later, the suggestion was 
 again made and efforts were renewed to have him announce 
 himself as a candidate, but while he refused to so announce 
 himself, the belief was becoming general that he would become 
 a candidate. What followed in Washington was testified to by 
 myself, Senators Penrose and Aldrich before the Dillingham 
 Committee. I testified : 
 
 About May 18 or 20 Mr. Aldrich sent for me again 
 
 20
 
 EDWARD MINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 said that the conditions in Illinois indicated that no Sen- 
 ator would be elected, and the Legislature would end in a 
 deadlock; and either from what he had heard from some 
 source, or upon his own idea I do not know which he 
 said that it seemed to him that Congressman Lorimer could 
 be elected from that State. He wanted to know if I would 
 see or telephone Congressman Lorimer and urge upon him, 
 if it was a possibility, to become a candidate, or assist in 
 electing some Republican at the earliest date possible. That 
 conversation occurred in his office. The next day or two 
 afterward he telephoned me to meet him at his house in 
 the evening. 
 
 I went there by appointment and he left word that he 
 was called suddenly to a night session of the Senate 
 Finance Committee, down in the rooms of this building, 
 and for me to come there. I went down in the evening a 
 little after 9 o'clock and waited until he got through. I 
 should judge it was somewhere close to 10 o'clock. Then 
 he came out from the Finance Committee room and told 
 me he had sent for me to discuss the Illinois situation. He 
 said: "I should like to have you go to the White House 
 this evening with me and discuss with the President the 
 Illinois situation." * * * He finally telephoned the 
 President, in my presence, and asked if he could see him 
 if he went there at that time. This was half-past ten. I 
 remember distinctly his stating : "It is now half -past ten ; 
 if I come up now can I see you for a talk on an important 
 matter?" He did not mention the subject. I do not know 
 what the reply was, but when he got through he said that 
 the President was practically through with his I think 
 he said his appointments, and that he was free to see him ; 
 and he asked me to go to the White House with him. I 
 replied and stated that I felt that it would be better if I 
 did not go to the White House with him. I said : "Pos- 
 sibly the President might be somewhat embarrassed to talk 
 over the situation with me, and I think it would be better 
 if I do not go to the White House and you go alone/' 
 He replied, urging me to go with him. Finally, upon my 
 stating again my thought that it would be better if I did 
 not go, he said: "All right, you come to my house and 
 wait until I get back from the White House." He and 
 I went up to his house in his car and I waited there until 
 some time about 12 o'clock, when he returned. When he 
 returned he told me he had had a long talk with the Presi- 
 
 21
 
 EDWARD H1NES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 dent about the situation. * * * He said that the ad- 
 ministration was very anxious to have a Senator elected 
 before the Legislature adjourned, and that they felt that 
 Congressman Lorimer might be elected Senator, and they 
 wished to have me emphasize to him the importance if 
 there was a possibility of it of his becoming a candidate 
 and doing all he could to be elected at the earliest possible 
 moment. 
 
 I asked Senator Aldrich what I could do in the matter. 
 He said : "I would like to have you go to a long distance 
 telephone and call up Congressman Lorimer at Springfield 
 and emphasize that fact." I said, "Supposing that the 
 Congressman would like to have that confirmed in a letter 
 or telegram? Am I authorized to do that?" He said: 
 "You are; and you can state further that if the Governor 
 or any of the leading people at Springfield question this 
 authority they can telegraph me or Senator Penrose, and, 
 if necessary, the President." 
 
 I went from his house to the Willard Hotel, some time 
 after 12 o'clock at night, and called Congressman Lorimer 
 at Springfield over the long distance telephone. I said : 
 "Mr. Lorimer, I have just returned from Senator Aldrich's 
 house. He has just come from the White House. The 
 President and he are very anxious to have you become a 
 candidate, and think you could be elected. They will do 
 all they can to assist. What can they do?" I can not 
 quote the exact words he replied, but he seemed to be 
 somewhat surprised over the mention of the President's 
 name. I said: "There is no question about the matter, 
 because I have just come from Senator Aldrich's house, 
 and he has just come from the President." 
 
 Mr. Lorimer said : "Mr. Hines, could you have Senator 
 Aldrich send me a telegram confirming this ?" He says : 
 "I might want to show that to the Governor or a few inti- 
 mate" I think he said "friends," or he might have used 
 some other term ; but I understood it as meaning the Gov- 
 ernor and two or three other people. I told him that I 
 was authorized to send that telegram. He said: "Please 
 send it." I said : "Will you become a candidate ? What 
 are your prospects?" He said: "At this time I can not 
 say. After the telegram I will give the matter considera- 
 tion." I immediately sent the telegram. 
 
 22
 
 EDWARD MINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 TESTIMONY OF SENATOR PENROSE 
 
 Senator Penrose testified before the Dillingham Committee 
 (p. 1791) that he met me during the tariff discussion and the 
 meetings of the committee concerning the duty on lumber; 
 that he was much interested in my views and saw me fre- 
 quently; that he discussed with me the Illinois Senatorial 
 election (p. 1792). Here is the gist of the testimony of Senator 
 Penrose : 
 
 Aside from Mr. Hopkins, the names of Mr. Lowden 
 and Mr. Boutell were mentioned; "Mr. Hines seemed to 
 favor Mr. Boutell" ; but afterwards said it did not appear 
 that a union could be made on him; (1793) and "then 
 within a little while it was suggested that Congressman 
 Lorimer might be the man. * * * ." Mr. Hines said 
 that Mr. Lorimer was so engaged in his waterways project 
 that it was doubtful whether he could be induced to go 
 into the contest, that he certainly did not want to go to the 
 Senate. "I probably urged Mr. Hines, as a citizen of 
 Chicago, to use his best efforts to bring about some 
 result"; that it was desirable to have the senatorial seat 
 filled; (1794) "Mr. Hines impressed me simply as being 
 interested in the matter as a business man and a citizen 
 who had the welfare of the Republican party at heart and 
 of the American government, I did not look on him as 
 a person who was active in politics or particularly identi- 
 fied with politics." In April, I think, I sent for Mr. Hines 
 and asked him to find out whether the Illinois Legislature 
 was liable to adjourn without electing a Senator. Mr. 
 Hines reported to me from time to time, as I met him on 
 the tariff legislation, as to conditions in Illinois. I may 
 have gone with him to Senator Aldrich's room, and prob- 
 ably did when the senatorial matter might have been dis- 
 cussed. "I think Senator Aldrich felt very much as I did 
 about the general proposition, that the senatorial vacancy 
 ought to be filled for- the good of the government." (1795) 
 I think Mr. Hines said something to me to the effect that 
 he might call upon me to verify in some way with the citi- 
 zens the interest which I and Senator Aldrich and Presi- 
 dent Taft had in this situation, something of that kind. 
 Under the circumstances, I would have been willing to 
 indicate a strong wish for Mr. Lorimer's selection. In 
 the month of May, 1909, shortly before the election of 
 
 23
 
 HOWARD H1NES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 Mr. Lorimer, I think Mr. Hines went to Chicago with the 
 thought that he could state, certainly so far as I was con- 
 cerned, that it was very desirable to have the vacancy 
 filled. I was for Mr. Lorimer at the last. 
 
 On page 1796 the Senator tells how he figured it, and 
 that his endorsement of Mr. Lorimer would assist in the 
 matter. "I have been in Senator Aldrich's committee 
 room with Mr. Hines, and talked over the * * * sen- 
 atorial matters. (1797) I think that Senator Aldrich occu- 
 pied pretty nearly the same position that I did. He wanted 
 to see the seat filled." 
 
 Q. (1798) "And you either said, or gave Mr. Hines to 
 understand, that if anybody in Illinois wanted to refer to 
 you, as to your feeling or disposition as to the election of 
 Mr. Lorimer as Senator, that it might be done?" 
 
 SENATOR PENROSE : "That they could telephone me, see 
 me, or write me." 
 
 "I early became impressed with Mr. Hines as a bright, 
 active business man, with a vast experience of conditions 
 all over the country, and I conceived the idea that his in- 
 terest in the transaction was entirely for the good of the 
 government and of the general proposition. / never re- 
 ceived the impression that he had any candidate, or any 
 political scheme to work out." 
 
 Q. "There was no secret about your position on any of 
 those questions, or as to Mr. Lorimer's candidacy, or your 
 desire to have him elected ?" 
 
 SENATOR PENROSE : "Not at all." 
 
 (1801) (1802) "I will say for Mr. Hines, that I think 
 that from the suggestions made to him by me and others 
 he acquired a bona fide and disinterested wish to have this 
 vacancy filled for the good of the Republican party and of 
 the government." 
 
 Senator Penrose speaks the exact truth when he declared that 
 the slight interest I took in the matter was inspired by himself, 
 Senator Aldrich and others who suggested that I might be 
 instrumental in breaking the deadlock and filling the vacancy 
 with any good Republican. 
 
 TESTIMONY OF SENATOR ALDRICH 
 
 Senator Aldrich confirmed this truth absolutely in his testi- 
 mony before the Dillingham Committee. The Funk prosecu- 
 
 24
 
 EDWARD MINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 tion harped constantly on the fact that there were slight 
 variations between the recollections of Senator Aldrich and 
 myself concerning the exact attitude of President Taft, but no 
 fair man can read his testimony without knowing that I was 
 authorized to undertake a perfectly legitimate mission, and that 
 I executed it to the best of my ability. Here is a condensation 
 of the salient points in the testimony of Senator Aldrich : 
 
 (1684) I had three or four conversations with Mr. 
 Hines, with reference to the President's attitude more espe- 
 cially. The first conversation, I think, was early in April. 
 He asked me what the attitude of the President was with 
 reference to the senatorial election. I stated that the 
 President was desirous that a Republican Senator should 
 be elected in Illinois. (1649) Mr. Hines said there was an 
 effort made to agree on Mr. Boutell, and asked if I would 
 learn the President's attitude in regard to him. I reported 
 to Mr. Hines afterwards that the President would be 
 agreeable to Mr. Boutell's election. About the 2oth or 
 2ist or 22d of May, Mr. Hines said it was impossible to 
 agree upon Mr. Boutell; that there was a prospect of 
 agreeing upon Mr. Lorimer, and was anxious I should find 
 out the attitude of the Administration towards his election. 
 I saw Mr. Hines again and told him Mr. Lorimer's candi- 
 dacy would not be objectionable to the President. Then 
 Mr. Hines asked if I was willing to say that (1650) to 
 any one he might suggest to inquire of me upon the sub- 
 ject, and I said that I was. The last part of this conversa- 
 tion was at my house. Mr. Hines said he was to leave 
 for Chicago that day or the next, and it was important that 
 he should know the President's precise attitude with refer- 
 ence to the subject. I told him that I was greatly inter- 
 ested in the election of a Republican in Illinois. (1651) I 
 told him that the President's attitude was as I have stated, 
 and if he needed any confirmation of that he could refer 
 any one to me. I was satisfied with Mr. Lorimer as a 
 Republican, and I believed the President was. (1653) I 
 think in our conversation Governor Deneen's name was 
 mentioned by Mr. Hines, not by me. My recollection is 
 that Deneen was an important party to this arrangement 
 upon a candidate, and his attitude would be more or less 
 influenced by knowing whether it would be agreeable to 
 the President. (1654) That is the impression I got as to 
 
 25
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 his statement. (1661) Mr. Hines told me he was going to 
 Chicago, and my understanding was he wanted this infor- 
 mation as to the attitude regarding Mr. Lorimer before he 
 went, and I understood that he was to use the fact that 
 there was no objection on the part of the President to 
 Mr. Lorimer's candidacy. / said (1662) he was author- 
 ised to use it, and if anybody questioned it, that they be 
 referred to me, and I would confirm it. (1665) I assumed 
 that Mr. Hines was going to Chicago or Springfield, as he 
 said that he was going, and I knew that he was going to 
 say to certain people in the Legislature, or people in Illi- 
 nois, that Mr. Lorimer's election would not be objection- 
 able to the President. There was no restriction upon the 
 use of that information by Mr. Hines that would exclude 
 him from saying that to Governor Deneen, certainly not. 
 
 Such is the sworn testimony of Senators Aldrich and 
 Pen rose, then the admitted leaders and spokesmen of the 
 Republican Administration. But my defense and justification 
 does not rest solely on their high prestige nor on the strict 
 accuracy of their recollections of these conferences. 
 
 SOME CONVINCING TELEGRAMS 
 
 You should know and keep in mind that / did not see Mr. 
 Lorimer from the time he decided to become a candidate until 
 after he had been elected Senator by the Legislature of Illinois. 
 My only communication with him was by long distance tele- 
 phone or by the sending of telegrams. I presented to the 
 Dillingham Committee the original copies of all these tele- 
 grams, and the official records of the time and duration of the 
 telephone communications, and certified copies of these were 
 presented to your Board in the recent hearings. Here is 
 the telegram which confirms the fact that Senator Aldrich 
 had authorized me to urge the candidacy of William Lorimer : 
 
 WASHINGTON, D. C., May 25, 1909. 
 William Lorimer, St. Nicholas Hotel, Springfield, 111. 
 
 Aldrich authorizes Governor calling him up telephone 
 confirm my message conference last night. Governor re- 
 quested co-operate bring about result. Can bring message 
 tomorrow. EDWARD HINES. 
 
 26
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 And I sent another telegram the same day as follows : 
 
 WASHINGTON, D. C., May 25, 1909. 
 William Lorimer, St. Nicholas Hotel, Springfield, 111. 
 
 Leaving for Chicago today. Can go direct to Spring- 
 field. Bring message confirming conference held last 
 night, showing highest authorities want you elected before 
 Legislature adjourns. Important Republican party have 
 strong, experienced man, friendly to powers that be, elected 
 immediately. Needed here now. Telegraph answer quick, 
 duplicate, care limited train, Harrisburg depot. 
 
 (Rec. 147-8.) EDWARD HINES. 
 
 I did not receive a direct reply to that telegram from Mr. 
 Lorimer. On my arrival in Chicago at 8:55 on the morning 
 of May 26, 1909 the day William Lorimer was elected Sen- 
 ator I was met at the railway station by C. F. Wiehe, my 
 brother-in-law and business associate, and informed by him 
 that Mr. Lorimer had telephoned from Springfield the evening 
 before stating that it would not be necessary for me to come 
 to Springfield and asking me to communicate with him by 
 telephone immediately on my arrival. 
 
 This changed my plans. I had intended to make a quick 
 connection and go on to Springfield and deliver my message 
 to Governor Deneen and others whom I thought would be 
 influenced by the views of the national Republican leaders in 
 Washington. I deferred to the judgment of Mr. Lorimer, went 
 directly to the offices of the Continental National Bank, imme- 
 diately put in a long-distance telephone call for Congressman 
 Lorimer, and, while waiting for the connection, sent the 
 following telegram: 
 
 CONTINENTAL NATIONAL BANK, 
 
 CHICAGO, May 26, 1909. 
 William Lorimer, Esq., Springfield, 111. 
 
 Just arrived. Trying to get you telephone. Aldrich, 
 Penrose and higher authority as telephoned you from 
 Washington want you elected. Authorized have gov- 
 ernor (and} others call Washington (to) confirm this. 
 (7) can be there tonight. EDWARD HINES. 
 
 The words inserted in italics give the unmistakable purport 
 of this telegram. 
 
 27
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 IMPORTANT TESTIMONY OF BANKER REYNOLDS 
 
 Prior to the sending of this telegram I had discussed the 
 purport of my political mission with Mr. George M. Reynolds, 
 then President of the Continental National Bank, and now 
 President of the Continental & Commercial National Bank of 
 Chicago. My judges in the Union League Club trial did not 
 call on Mr. Reynolds for his testimony affirming the details 
 and legitimacy of my mission, but it appears in the official 
 records of the Dillingham Committee, and my attorney was 
 permitted to read portions of it to your Board. I ask you to 
 read the following extract from it, and to decide for yourself 
 what motive then influenced me: 
 
 MR. REYNOLDS. Mr. Hines came to me that morning, 
 as I think, directly from the train, and said he was the 
 bearer of a message which would have an important bear- 
 ing upon the situation in Illinois politics. 
 
 MR. HANECY. Did he say from whom the massage was ? 
 
 MR. REYNOLDS. Yes, he did. The message came directly 
 as he stated to me, from Senator Aldrich. In the same 
 conversation, however, he explained that the message in 
 reality was coming from the administration, or from Presi- 
 dent Taft, through Senator Aldrich, and was to be deliv- 
 ered by him to Gov. Deneen. 
 
 MR. HANECY. What else did he say to you in that 
 respect ? 
 
 MR. REYNOLDS. He told me in substance that there had 
 been a conference of some of the leading Senators in 
 Washington upon the question of the election of a Senator 
 in Illinois, there having been one vacancy at that time; 
 and he stated that as a result of that conference he had 
 been commissioned to take this message to Illinois, which, 
 in effect, was that the leaders in the Senate, including the 
 President, had expressed a desire to have a Senator elected 
 before the adjournment of the Legislature in Illinois, and 
 that after a consideration of the situation locally they had 
 come to the conclusion that they could probably unite better 
 upon Senator Lorimer (or, rather, upon Congressman 
 Lorimer at that time) than upon anyone else; and 
 he stated to me that he had been commissioned to 
 carry this message to Governor Deneen, to the effect that 
 
 28
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 they would much prefer to see Senator Lorimer elected 
 than to have the Legislature adjourn without an election. 
 
 MR. HANECY. Did Mr. Hines say anything to you about 
 how he was to communicate that to Governor Deneen, or 
 how he wanted to convey that message to Governor Deneen 
 from the President and the leaders in Washington? 
 
 MR. REYNOLDS. I do not think there was any specific 
 discussion about that. He intimated, or rather indicated, 
 that he had expected to go on to Springfield direct, but for 
 some reason or other had been detained in Chicago, and 
 that it would necessitate the message being sent by tele- 
 phone. He said he did not know quite what was the best 
 way to do it, and asked my advice. I said to him that he 
 being the only party who could know anything about the 
 details of the message itself, I thought he was the only man 
 who could consistently undertake to do the telephoning. 
 Thereupon he asked me if we had a public telephone there, 
 and I told him there was a telephone in the room adjoining 
 mine which he could use. * * * Mr. Hines left my 
 office then and went into the adjoining room and was in 
 the booth for some little time, I do not know how long. 
 In the meantime people had begun to come in to transact 
 their business; and after some time he came back to my 
 office and said that he had talked to Mr. Lorimer and had 
 also talked to Governor Deneen. 
 
 MR. HANECY. Was there anything said by you or Mr. 
 Hines about the possibility of Governor Deneen not recog- 
 nizing Mr. Hines' voice, either before Mr. Hines got the 
 Governor or afterwards ? 
 
 MR. REYNOLDS. I think Mr. Hines intimated before he 
 went into the booth that in his proposed talk with Gov- 
 ernor Deneen he might not recognize his voice, and he 
 said: "I may have to bother you further to step to the 
 phone and identify me." 
 
 MR. HANECY. But he did not call on you ? 
 
 MR. REYNOLDS. He did not; no, sir 
 
 As President Reynolds says, I talked from the Bank with 
 Congressman Lorimer and Governor Deneen, and related to 
 him the purport of both conversations. Congressman Lorimer 
 urged me to call Governor Deneen on the telephone and convey 
 my message from Washington. I did so. The contemporary 
 telegrams and other evidence show fully the character of my 
 
 29
 
 EDWARD MINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 mission from Washington. The testimony of Senators Aldrich 
 and Penrose, of George M. Reynolds and others of high 
 standing confirms this so fully that no fair man can doubt my 
 motives or criticize my acts. 
 
 I desired Congressman Lorimer to know that I had delivered 
 my message to Governor Deneen. I therefore sent the follow- 
 ing telegram from the Bank : 
 
 CHICAGO, May 26, 1909. 
 William Lorimer, Esq., Springfield, 111. 
 
 Talked with Deneen over telephone ; says not necessary 
 my coming down; understands subject fully; glad I called 
 him telephone ; consider confidential. 
 
 (Charge Edward Hines.) CHICAGO PARTY. 
 
 This and the other telegrams quoted were submitted to 
 your Board of Directors. I accounted to them for practically 
 every moment of my time from the late night conference in 
 Washington with Senator Aldrich up to the hour when Senator 
 Lorimer was elected at which hour I was in the Union League 
 Club, a fact not disputed by the prosecution. I submitted 
 documentary evidence in proof of my every movement, and 
 established my motives by the testimony of men whose veracity 
 none dare call in question. 
 
 THE WIRT H. COOK EPISODE 
 
 While in the Bank I had been notified that Wirt H. Cook 
 and William O'Brien were at the Grand Pacific Hotel, that they 
 were anxious to leave the city on an early train, and that they 
 desired to see me on a matter of considerable business import- 
 ance. I was aware that the matter was of consequence, but 
 I wished first to talk with Mr. Lorimer and again to urge him 
 to take full advantage of the message I had conveyed to 
 Governor Deneen. My office again notified me that Mr. Cook 
 and Mr. O'Brien were waiting, for me. I decided to meet 
 them at the Grand Pacific at once, and instructed Miss Frances 
 Carroll, our chief telephone operator, that I was going to the 
 Grand Pacific at once, and to make connection with Mr. Cook's 
 room when Congressman Lorimer responded to my call. 
 
 36
 
 EDWARD HIKES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 The very fact that I made such an arrangement should be 
 conclusive proof that my intended talk with Mr. Lorimer was 
 on a legitimate subject. The business conference between 
 Messrs. Cook, O'Brien, Wiehe, Baker and myself was in 
 progress when the telephone bell rang. Mr. Cook responded 
 and informed me that I was called. 
 
 Bear in mind that this was the forenoon of the day that 
 Senator Lorimer was elected. Bear in mind that I had pre- 
 viously talked by telephone to Springfield with Governor 
 Deneen and Congressman Lorimer. Bear in mind that Mr. 
 George M. Reynolds was fully aware of the purport of these 
 conversations, and that this purport is confirmed by telegrams. 
 
 I first recognized the voice of Miss Carroll. She said : 
 "Here is Congressman Lorimer, in Springfield." I said: 
 "Hello! Congressman! I have just talked with Governor 
 Deneen and he said he would see you immediately." Mr. 
 Lorimer replied : "He has already seen me." I said : "Now, if 
 I can do any good I will come down on the afternoon train." 
 He replied and told me not to come to Springfield until he 
 telephoned me. He said: "If my name goes before the 
 Legislature today you could not assist in any way by trying 
 to come down here. If you can assist tomorrow, I will let 
 you know late in the afternoon by telephone." I then urged 
 him to make every effort to take full advantage of the fact 
 that the Washington Administration was with him, and proba- 
 bly mentioned the name of Governor Deneen several times 
 in that conversation. 
 
 MAGNIFYING A PETTY INCIDENT 
 
 More than a year passed when I learned that Cook was 
 relating a pretended version of my talk to Springfield over 
 the telephone in his room in the Grand Pacific Hotel. The so- 
 called "White Confession" had, in the meantime, been made 
 and there was a reaching out in every direction to get hold of 
 anything which might throw light on the election of Senator 
 Lorimer. I had nothing to fear personally from the part I had 
 taken in that election, but I disliked to be called before a grand 
 
 31
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 jury and forced to make public the fact that I had been the 
 bearer of a message from Washington to Springfield, which 
 I regarded in the nature of a confidential service. 
 
 The preposterous and admittedly false statements made 
 by Cook need not be discussed here. They were not entertained 
 before your Board of Directors, but I was charged with mis- 
 conduct because I admitted before the Dillingham Committee 
 that I had asked Mr. ^Viehe, one night in the early summer 
 of 1910, to go to the Grand Pacific Hotel and to ask Cook and 
 O'Brien to cease their promiscuous talk about the conversation 
 they had overheard in Cook's room in the hotel that forenoon 
 of May 26, 1909. I did not know then what Cook was claim- 
 ing, but I did know that I had conducted in his presence a 
 telephone conversation in which party leaders were mentioned, 
 and I did what I could to prevent Cook from dragging the 
 names of Governor Deneen, Senator Aldrich and others into a 
 partisan inquisition. 
 
 Certain members of your Board made a studied attempt to 
 magnify this petty incident into a crime, but abandoned the 
 effort when we asked that Cook be produced as a witness and 
 subjected to cross-examination. Cook was such an effective 
 witness against himself before the Dillingham Committee as 
 to render it unnecessary to discuss any incident with which he 
 was identified. 
 
 The facts thus far enumerated constitute my entire con- 
 nection with the election of Senator Lorimer, and were pre- 
 sented and proved by unanswerable documentary evidence 
 before the Board of Directors of the Union League Club. In 
 a paragraph, my connection was as follows: 
 
 As a Republican I desired to see the Springfield deadlock 
 broken by the selection of a Senator acceptable to the Admin- 
 istration. The Republican leaders in Washington honored me 
 with their confidence and authorized me to carry to Springfield 
 a message to the effect that Mr. Lorimer was acceptable as 
 a candidate. I delivered this message by wire and by telephone 
 from Chicago on the forenoon of the day that Mr. Lorimer 
 was elected, and that was the only part I played in securing 
 
 32
 
 EDWARD H1NES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 that result. In proof of the truth of these statements is the 
 sworn word of such men as Senators Aldrich and Penrose, 
 Governor Deneen, George M. Reynolds and a host of others. 
 
 FUNK AND HIS TALK TO ME AT THE UNION LEAGUE CLUB 
 
 Funk was the general manager of and stockholder in the 
 corporation known as The International Harvester Company. 
 Long before the Senatorial election that company wished to 
 close up one branch of the Chicago River. In this it was 
 opposed by numbers of property owners whose interests would 
 be affected because of their business along that river. Mr. 
 Lorimer, then Congressman, was opposed to the aims of the 
 Harvester Company, and took the side of those who wished 
 to keep the river open. This, of course, did not make that 
 company, or its general manager, favorable to Mr. Lorimer's 
 election as Senator, as in the latter position he would have 
 still greater influence. 
 
 The fact that the Harvester company did not want Lorimer 
 to be Senator was afterwards admitted by Funk when testify- 
 ing before the Dillingham Committee, where he said that Mr. 
 Lorimer would be more of an important factor regarding the 
 opening or the closing of the river if he became Senator than 
 as a member of the lower house ; and before the Union League 
 Club he said: "We were not particularly pleased with the 
 result of the election." Of course when Mr. Lorimer was 
 elected Senator "they" naturally felt that it was to their interest 
 to make it appear that they were frietidly to him, and no doubt 
 Funk was quite anxious to place himself on good terms with 
 the new Senator from Illinois. 
 
 The day after the election, I went to the Union League Club 
 with Mr. Baker and Mr. Hall, two business associates, to meet 
 Mr. Carney, a lumberman from the Northwest, who had come 
 to Chicago to discuss a lumber deal of considerable importance, 
 and who was registered on that day at the Auditorium Hotel 
 in this city. Mr. Baker was our general buyer and Mr. Charles 
 Hall was our Canadian buyer. An appointment had previously 
 been made for us to meet at one o'clock at the Union League 
 
 33
 
 EDWARD MINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 Club to discuss this business matter. When Mr. Baker, Mr. 
 Hall and myself reached the Union League Club, we found 
 Mr. Carney already there sitting on the long sofa in the north- 
 west corner of the lounging room. We immediately began 
 to discuss the business matter that brought us together, and 
 while we were talking Mr. Funk interrupted us. Concerning 
 this interruption I testified before the Board as follows: 
 (Rec. 68.) 
 
 "I looked up and saw Mr. Funk approaching the couch, 
 I should judge about seven or eight feet from where I was 
 sitting, and as he came up towards me he smiled in a rec- 
 ognizing way, and having got within about five or six 
 feet, I arose. He extended his hand and greeted me, and 
 I took his hand and greeted him likewise. He opened up 
 the conversation by stating that he was very glad indeed 
 to hear that Mr. Lorimer had been elected Senator. I 
 replied, stating that I was glad it pleased him ; that I felt 
 the Senator would prove a good man for the business in- 
 terests. The next thing he stated was: 'I have never 
 had the pleasure of meeting the Senator, and I would like 
 very much indeed to have you arrange to introduce me to 
 him.' I said it would afford me pleasure to do so. With 
 that he walked south about six or seven feet towards the 
 entrance as you go down the stairs towards Jackson boule- 
 vard. In a sort of familiar way he had me by the arm as 
 we walked along, and just as we got to the end of the 
 entrance or sort of a post there, he said to me : 'I suppose 
 the Senator was put to more or less expense in his cam- 
 paign, and it is hardly right that he should stand that, and 
 the business interests ought to take that off his shoulders, 
 and we would like to do our share.' I replied and said that 
 I did not know anything about the matter, but I was going 
 to see the Senator as soon as he returned from Springfield, 
 and would let Mr. Funk know. I don't think I was away 
 from these gentlemen over probably a minute or two min- 
 uts. I returned right to my seat. As I went and sat down, 
 as a sort of apology or excuse for getting up, I said to 
 Mr. Carney as I recollect I said: 'That is Mr. Funk, 
 the general manager of the International Harvester Com- 
 pany.' I said : 'He is a small man physically for a large 
 position' something of that sort, a complimentary re- 
 mark at the time. We continued our conversation for 
 
 34
 
 EDWARD HIKES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 fifteen or probably twenty minutes and then adjourned, 
 and as I recollect it we went out of the Club house, and at 
 the foot of the stairs Mr. Carney left us. I went over to 
 the Continental National Bank on some business that day. 
 Mr. Baker said he was going home ; he had not been home 
 for some time ; and our party dispersed." 
 
 SOME UNIMPEACHABLE TESTIMONY 
 
 Fred Carney, Jr., Charles L. Hall and Isaac Baker gave their 
 testimony before the Dillingham Committee. That testimony 
 stood unimpeached after the prosecution had subjected them to 
 a most rigid cross-examination. It was recognized that the 
 tale told by Funk would fall unless doubt could be cast on the 
 testimony given by Carney, Hall and Baker, but no fair man 
 who heard them before the Dillingham Committee or before 
 the Union League Club could doubt that they told the truth. 
 
 It would be difficult to select three men better fitted to typify 
 the straightforward, modern American business man. For 
 years these three men have been the active participants in great 
 business transactions. Their responsibility has been great, the 
 field of their operations has extended over a continent, they 
 have come in contact with thousands of men, all of whom 
 would, if necessary, testify to the high character and manliness 
 of Fred Carney, Charles L. Hall and Isaac Baker. 
 
 The following extracts give the essence of the testimony of 
 Fred Carney, Jr., before my judges in the Union League Club. 
 
 Mr. Carney said: 
 
 I was to meet Mr. Hines at the Club at one o'clock. I 
 went in and sat down on the lounge and waited till Mr. 
 Hines came. With him were Mr. Baker and Mr. Hall, 
 and we talked about our business. While sitting there 
 talking a gentleman came, apparently from across the room 
 to where we sat, and when he got within ten or fifteen feet 
 of us I noticed a smile on his face, and Mr. Hines got up 
 and stood three or four feet away and shook hands with 
 him. They stood there talking a minute or two and walked 
 away, and were gone two or three minutes. When Mr. 
 Hines came back he said, "That is not a very heavy fel- 
 low for a man holding down a big job, is it?" I said, "No, 
 
 35
 
 EDWARD MINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 sir. Who is he?" He said, "That is Mr. Funk, general 
 manager of the International Harvester Company. He was 
 just congratulating me on Lorimer's election." They went 
 to where the arch is, toward the entrance. This was the 
 27th of May, 1909. The lounge is on the left as you 
 come into the entrance. Four of us were sitting on the 
 lounge. 
 
 Mr. Hall next testified : 
 
 I sat on the sofa with Messrs. Hines, Carney and Baker, 
 discussing a lumber deal. It was interrupted by a gentle- 
 man coming up and speaking to Mr. Hines, saying to him : 
 "How do you do, sir?" Mr. Hines got up and shook hands 
 with him. They stood talking in front of us perhaps a 
 minute or less, and the gentleman said to Mr. Hines: "I 
 am glad Mr. Lorimer has been elected Senator." Mr. 
 Hines said he was glad, and the other gentleman says: 
 "I wish you would introduce me to Mr. Lorimer at your 
 first opportunity ; I never met the Senator." At that they 
 walked away towards the door and stepped over towards 
 the archway. I came to the Club with Mr. Hines and Mr. 
 Baker, and Mr. Carney was there waiting for us. When 
 Mr. Hines returned from talking with this gentleman he 
 said: "That is Mr. Funk, general manager of the Inter- 
 national Harvester Company. He is a small man phys- 
 ically (or words to that effect) for such a big job or 
 position." 
 
 Mr. Baker said : 
 
 I was in the Club house on the 27th of May, 1909. Went 
 there with Messrs. Hines and Hall, and found Mr. Carney 
 there. We sat on the lounge on the left as you come in, 
 and were talking about buying lumber from Mr. Carney. 
 A gentleman came up and spoke to Mr. Hines, who got 
 up and shook hands, and the gentleman says to Mr. Hines : 
 "I see that Lorimer has been elected Senator." Mr. Hines 
 replied: "Yes; I think he will make a good representa- 
 tive" ; and I understood Mr. Funk to say he had never met 
 the Senator and would like to be introduced to him. Then 
 they walked off towards the exit. In a couple of minutes 
 Mr. Hines came back and made the remark to Mr. Carney 
 that there was a small man for a large position, or a large 
 position for a small man, and that he was the general man- 
 ager of the International Harvester Company, and re- 
 
 36
 
 EDWARD MINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 marked about Mr. Funk being pleased because Mr. Lori- 
 mer was elected. There was some remark about that. 
 
 It is seen from the foregoing testimony that Funk came over 
 to me where I was sitting on the lounge with these gentlemen, 
 and that as I noticed him approaching with the evident purpose 
 of greeting me, I arose and shook hands with him, and that we 
 remained standing during our brief conversation at that place. 
 Funk did not sit down on the lounge at any time. 
 
 FUNK'S CLAIMS 
 
 Notwithstanding the foregoing facts, thus fully established 
 by competent evidence, Funk gives an entirely different version 
 of the affair, but he has never related even the substance of the 
 conversation in the same way to the various bodies before which 
 he has appeared and testified. Before the Board of this Club 
 he was asked to give his version of the conversation, and told 
 it thus : 
 
 "I was standing in the lounging room one day, right 
 after lunch, probably about two o'clock, and Mr. Hines 
 approached me and shook hands with me cordially, remark- 
 ing that I was just the fellow he wanted to see, and that 
 he had been looking for. He said he wanted to talk to me 
 a moment. We then sat down on the large couch on the 
 west wall, and he seemed to be feeling quite exhilarated, 
 and without any preliminaries he said : 'Well, we put Lori- 
 mer over down at Springfield. It cost $100,000 to do it, 
 and now we are seeing some of our friends to get it fixed 
 up.' I did not do much of the talking; I let him talk. 
 He seemed to want to talk and I listened. He went on to 
 say that there were only a few what he termed 'large peo- 
 ple' or 'big people' he cared to go to ; that he thought about 
 ten of the big people, if they would put up $10,000 apiece, 
 that would clean the thing up. I asked him why he came 
 to us. I used the expression 'us,' meaning my company. 
 And he said: 'Because you are as interested as any of 
 us in having the right kind of a man at Washington.' I 
 told him that I would not have anything to do with it. 
 He undertook to argue the matter, and I got up and left 
 him just that moment." (Rec. 19.) 
 
 In the giving of his latest version as above quoted he omitted 
 
 37
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 several features that he had incorporated in his testimony before 
 the Helm and Dillingham Committees, which omissions are 
 rather significant. Before the Helm Committee Funk's version 
 of this same matter was : 
 
 " 'Well, we put Lorimer over down at Springfield, but 
 it cost us about $100,000 to do it.' Then he went on to 
 say that they had to act quickly when the time came ; that 
 they had no chance to consult anyone beforehand. I think 
 his words were, 'We had to act quickly when the time 
 came, so we put up the money.' Then he said, 'We now 
 we are seeing some of our friends so as to get it fixed 
 up.'" (Helm Com.) 
 Before the Dillingham Committee he swore as follows : 
 
 "He said, 'Well, we put Lorimer over down at Spring- 
 field, but it cost us $100,000 to do it,' or 'About $100,000.' 
 Then he went on to explain that they had to act quickly 
 when the time came and did not have any time to consult 
 anybody, and he said, 'So we put up the money. Now we 
 are seeing some of our friends to get the matter fixed 
 up." (545 Dill Com.) 
 
 FUNK CHANGES HIS TESTIMONY 
 
 You will notice that in relating the substance of this brief 
 conversation Funk omitted before the Board three important 
 features that he emphasized before both the Helm and the 
 Dillingham Committees. These were that "We had to act 
 quickly when the time came;" "We did not have any time to 
 consult anybody ;" "So we put up the money." The significance 
 of these omissions will be developed later on, and you will see 
 that they were dropped by design, just as he radically changed 
 (as you will see) the time of an alleged "second talk" after the 
 introduction of my evidence in Washington. The omission of 
 these matters was noticed at his secret hearing before the 
 Board, and he was given an opportunity to supply them by 
 questions that were specifically put to him by a member of the 
 Board for that purpose, as follows : 
 
 Q. You gave this same testimony several times under 
 oath, have you ? A. I have twice. 
 
 38
 
 EDWARD HIKES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 Q. Twice; when? A. Before the committee at Spring- 
 field, Illinois, and before the Lorimer Investigation at 
 Washington. 
 
 Q. Have you had any occasion to change anything 
 which you have stated under oath at those investigations 
 in which you have made statements under oath ? A. No. 
 
 Q. Did you have any conversation with him that you 
 have not related on that occasion anywhere else, except on 
 the couch? A. No, it all took place right there within 
 about two minutes. (Rec. 23.) 
 
 Mr. Funk, however, in the light of the evidence as developed 
 at Washington, did not care again to incorporate in his testi- 
 mony these carefully omitted features. According to these 
 features I was "down at Springfield," [which I was not] quickly 
 putting, up the money in an emergency, with "no chance to 
 consult anyone beforehand." And not only that, but they 
 directly contradict the claim of Funk's friends and the partisan 
 newspapers that Senator Lorimer had produced the long dead- 
 lock in the Legislature for the very purpose of securing his own 
 election and that he and his friends had been for months- laying 
 their plans to effect this very object. 
 
 Before the Helm Committee he also stated that after he had 
 refused to contribute to this alleged fund "we had some aimless 
 discussion back and forth, and I remember I asked him how 
 much he was getting from his different friends." (Helm 
 Committee.) Afterwards, before the Dillingham Committee, 
 he converted this "aimless discussion" into an "argument" on 
 my part and said that I "undertook to argue the matter." 
 When, however, he was pressed to state what I said in "argu- 
 ing the matter," Mr. Funk replied, "I cannot go into them in 
 detail. In fact, before he got himself started on the subject 
 I got up and departed." No such thing having occurred, Funk 
 was unable on the spur of the moment to think of what he 
 could put in my mouth in the line of argument, and, as he 
 repeatedly did all through his examination when caught in a 
 hole, he simply "hedged," and told the committee that before 
 I started to argue he left. Neither logic nor consistency con- 
 trols Funk. 
 
 39
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 Before the Board Funk testified concerning the alleged use 
 of Mr. Tilden's name in the conversation as follows : 
 
 Q. Mr. Funk, did Mr. Hines at that time at that meet- 
 ing downstairs say whom this money was to be paid to? 
 A. Yes, he seemed to assume before he got through talk- 
 ing that we were going to send it, and he said : "Just send 
 the money to Ed. Hines," 
 
 Q. Who? A. I mean Ed. Tilden. 
 
 Q. Did you know Tilden? A. Never knew him. 
 * * * I knew of him. (Rec. 21.) 
 
 Before the Dillingham Committee Funk testified as follows 
 about this same matter: 
 
 Q. How early in the conversation did he mention Mr. 
 Tilden's name? A. I think he mentioned it in connection 
 with the contribution of $10,000 apiece. * * * He 
 talked rapidly and rather assumed that the thing was 
 going to be done, and he mentioned Tilden's name before 
 I had a chance to say anything. (546 Dill. Com.) 
 
 Q. You had not had any opportunity to say anything 
 to him before that? A. No. I let him talk. He wanted 
 to talk, and I was willing to listen until he got through. 
 (547 Dill Com.) 
 
 His testimony as above quoted was, as I have already 
 shown, given at a hearing of the Board at which I was not 
 present. At the next hearing of the Board the testimony of 
 Funk as he had privately given it was carefully read over 
 to him, and he was asked if he had "Any corrections to 
 make in this statement, or anything to add to it." And he 
 stated that he had no changes to make and nothing to add. 
 Later, however, he did change, and you will see how he 
 retracted and shifted his evidence from time to time and from 
 point to point as he deemed the exigencies of the case 
 demanded. 
 
 IS FUNK'S CLAIM BELIEVABLE? 
 
 Fiink's statement stands alone absolutely unsupported by 
 corrob oration. He gives several versions of this "two minute 
 conversation," as he described it, but in all his versions he has 
 
 40
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 maintained that "the entire conversation took place upon the 
 couch," and that we parted there at the couch. This couch is 
 the large one along the northwest wall of the lounging room. 
 You are no doubt familiar with its location. I have shown, 
 not merely by my own testimony, but by the testimony of 
 Messrs. Carney, Baker and Hall, that we four men were sitting 
 on that very couch at the time discussing a business deal. 
 Funk does not deny that these men were on the couch at that 
 time. He was questioned specifically about this at the hearing 
 of the Board, as follows: 
 
 Q. At the time this conversation took place in the Club, 
 did you observe anybody standing near you or near Mr. 
 Hines, or did Mr. Hines appear to have any conversation 
 with other people, or did he have other people that ap- 
 peared to be friends of his ? 
 
 A. He might have, I couldn't say as to that. * * * 
 
 Q. Were there any other people on that same couch, 
 sitting on the same couch there? 
 
 A. I don't think there was. I don't recall. (Rec. 23). 
 
 This is as positive and definite a statement as Funk could 
 ever be induced to make in my favor at any of the hearings. 
 It was at all times like drawing teeth to get from him an 
 admission which he recognized at the time as being favorable 
 to me. And you may rest assured when he took refuge behind 
 the statement : "I don't recall," that he had a distinct recollec- 
 tion Messrs. Carney, Hall and Baker were there. If Funk's 
 statement be true that the entire conversation took place on 
 the couch, these three men would have heard the "entire" 
 conversation as well as myself, and would have so testified. If 
 that were the fact, it is manifest that it would have been a 
 distinct advantage to me, because I would have had corrobora- 
 tion of everything that was said between Funk and myself. 
 
 Funk had given his version twice before my witnesses and I 
 were called upon to testify before the Dillingham Committee, 
 and we therefore gave our testimony with full knowledge of 
 Funk's claim concerning where the conversation occurred, and 
 with a full understanding of the benefit that would have 
 
 41
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 accrued to me if that entire conversation had taken place on 
 the couch. But I knew it was not the fact, and Mr. Carney 
 and Mr. Baker and Mr. Hall likewise knew that it was not 
 the fact. 
 
 I knew that there was nothing in the facts that would in any 
 manner reflect upon my honesty and integrity, and that those 
 happenings should be presented to the committee exactly as 
 they occurred and they were. The three gentlemen who 
 were with me on that occasion would not for a moment have 
 tolerated a suggestion from any source to testify save from 
 their memory and knowledge of the facts. 
 
 If Funk's statements were true, the entire conversation 
 necessarily occurred in the presence and hearing of these three 
 men who were there on the couch with me. The four of us 
 swear that Funk did not sit down on the couch, and that no 
 conversation whatever between the two of us took place upon 
 the couch. I arose as he approached me, and we stood standing 
 there as he expressed his pleasure over the election of Mr. 
 Lorimer and asked for an introduction to him. Messrs. Carney, 
 Hall and Baker heard this part of our conversation as testified 
 to by them. 
 
 If Funk was so absolutely in error about where the conver- 
 sation took place as the evidence conclusively shows that 
 he was would you not say (even if there were no other evi- 
 dence to show it) that he was equally wrong about the con- 
 versation itself? Funk's unsupported word is manifestly out- 
 weighed by the evidence of three witnesses (excluding myself) 
 whose reputations for truth and probity of character have not 
 been and cannot be assailed. 
 
 FUNK'S IMPOSSIBLE STORY 
 
 But aside from this direct contradiction of Funk by living 
 witnesses, the inherent improbabilities of his claim make it 
 unbelievable to any fair-minded man. Funk, in the various 
 statements that he had made at different times and before 
 different bodies, said in effect that while he knew me, yet I 
 was a comparative stranger to him. On one occasion he 
 
 42
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 testified that he never had any dealings with me but once, and 
 that was years before this alleged talk. 
 
 Before one committee, he swore that I had no reason to 
 believe that he or his company was friendly to Senator Lorimer 
 or would be likely to contribute to his election, and yet he 
 claims that when we met in the Union League Club on the 
 occasion referred to, I, a comparative stranger, at once and 
 without any preliminaries plunged into a proposition to have 
 him corruptly contribute to the expenses of the election of a 
 man to whom he was not friendly, and that / assumed, as a 
 matter of course, that he or his unfriendly company would 
 make the contribution, and immediately told him to send it to 
 Mr. Tilden ! Can you conceive of anything more improbable ? 
 Would any sane man under the circumstances assume as a 
 matter of course that Funk and his company, who were not 
 friendly to Lorimer's election, would contribute a large sum 
 of money, and, without any expression whatever on Funk's 
 part, immediately tell him the name of the man who was to 
 receive the fund, and request Funk to send the assumed con- 
 tribution to that man? 
 
 Mr. Tilden testified that he never heard of such a fund, and 
 if Funk had sent him a check as a contribution he would not 
 have known what it was for ! (Rec. 295.) The insinuation 
 that Mr. Edward Tilden had anything to do with the alleged 
 fund was thoroughly investigated by the United States Senate 
 Committee and found to be baseless. Would I be such a fool 
 as to assume that Funk and his company would send a contri- 
 bution to a man who would not have known what it was for if 
 he had received it? 
 
 The improbability of this feature of Funk's story no doubt 
 suggested the following questions put to him by the attorney 
 for the Dillingham Committee: 
 
 MR. MARBLE: Have you any reason other than this 
 conversation with Mr. Hines to associate Mr. Tilden with 
 this transaction? 
 
 MR. FUNK: Not up to that time. 
 
 MR. MARBLE : Have you any now ? 
 
 43
 
 EDWARD MINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 MR. FUNK: No nothing more definite than the fact 
 that I have noticed here at Washington that the gentlemen 
 seem to be friendly and together more or less, which 
 would probably indicate that they were well acquainted. 
 
 MR. MARBLE : You mean that you have seen Mr. Tilden 
 and Mr. Mines together here in Washington ? 
 
 MR. FUNK: I have noticed them about considerably. 
 
 MR. MARBLE : That is all. Have you any other reason 
 to associate Mr. Tilden with this matter? 
 
 MR. FUNK: No. (555 Dill.) 
 
 On cross examination he was sifted as to the extent of this 
 association to which he thus tried to attach significance, and 
 after specific questioning he said : 
 
 "I think I have seen them (Mr. Tilden and Mr. Hines) 
 here once or twice." 
 
 MR. HYNES : Do you mean in the witness room ? 
 
 MR. FUNK : It may have been in the hall or on the 
 sidewalk. 
 
 MR. HYNES : That is what you meant by that association ? 
 
 MR. FUNK: Yes; I had no it did not impress me as 
 being anything that was entitled to or had any particular 
 significance. 
 
 MR. HYNES: Well, you volunteered the statement. 
 
 MR. FUNK: It just came out as a passing observation. 
 
 MR. HYNES: Yes; a passing temptation. 
 (614 Dill. Com.) 
 
 It goes without saying that when he made that reply to Mr. 
 Marble, "Not up to that time," he meant to convey the impres- 
 sion that other reasons developed after that time. And when 
 he was pressed with the next question, he gave that alleged 
 association as the "other reason," and it was only when he 
 discovered how silly this "other reason" appeared to the com- 
 mittee as well as to everybody else that he pursued his usual 
 tactics of "hedging." 
 
 Is anything further required to indicate the mental attitude 
 of this man and his eagerness to draw unjust inference and 
 give improper color to trivial and innocent occurrences? Mr. 
 Tilden, like myself and others, was at the time in attendance 
 at the sessions of the Dillingham Committee as a witness. 
 
 44
 
 EDWARD MINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 FUNK VERSUS KOHLSAAT 
 
 But Mr. Tilden's name was not the only one that Funk men- 
 tioned in connection with this matter. Mr. Kohlsaat swore be- 
 fore the Dillingham Committee that besides the name of Ed- 
 ward Tilden, Funk gave to him the names of Mr. E. F. 
 Conway, Mr. F. Weyerhaeuser, Mr. Roger Sullivan, and of a 
 man then dead. (436 Dill. Com.) Mr. Kohlsaat also testified 
 that he gave these names to Mr. Healy, the attorney for the 
 Helm Committee, one night when Healy came to his office and 
 asked him if he could give him any information in regard to 
 the matter, and that Mr. Conway was called as a witness before 
 the Helm Investigating Committee and there denied all knowl- 
 edge of the matter; and Mr. Kohlsaat added, "I wish to say 
 that I have no doubt but that he (Conway) told the truth." 
 (437 Dill. Com.) Funk, however, contradicted Kohlsaat in 
 this regard and swore that the names of these gentlemen were 
 not mentioned by him, and that he knew nothing that would 
 justify bringing those names into the matter. (546, 554, 555 
 Dill. Com.) During the course of his examination before the 
 Dillingham Committee the following occurred : 
 
 MR. MARBLE : You say you did not repeat Mr. Tilden's 
 name or Mr. Hines' name or Mr. Weyerhaeuser's name 
 or Mr. Conway's name in that connection (referring to his 
 conversation with Kohlsaat) ? 
 
 MR. FUNK : I did not repeat Mr. Weyerhaeuser's name, 
 to the best of my recollection, nor any other name, except 
 Mr. Hines'. 
 
 MR. MARBLE : Do you think that on the occasion- of the 
 first conversation with Mr. Kohlsaat you mentioned Mr. 
 Hines' name? 
 
 MR. FUNK : I can not say whether it was the first con- 
 versation or the second. I am inclined to think it was the 
 second. (The two conversations were several days apart.) 
 (554 Dill. Com.) 
 
 MR. MARBLE : On one or the other of the occasions you 
 did mention Mr. Hines' name? 
 
 MR. FUNK: Yes. (555 Dill. Com.) 
 
 MR. MARBLE: What do you say to the mentioning of 
 Mr. Tilden's name on one occasion or the other ? 
 
 45
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 MR. FUNK: I do not remember whether I mentioned 
 Tilden's name on either occasion. (555 Dill. Com.) 
 
 If Kohlsaat told the truth in this regard, Funk did not. I 
 believe that Funk did on that occasion mention all these names 
 for the purpose of impressing Kohlsaat with his "inside 
 knowledge of affairs," never dreaming at the time that he 
 would be called upon before any investigating body to re- 
 affirm his false statement then made to Kohlsaat. But when 
 he found that an investigation had been started and that 
 everybody whose name was connected with the alleged trans- 
 action would be called upon to testify, Funk realized that 
 it would not do to increase the number of witnesses against 
 him by connecting too many names with the alleged transaction, 
 and therefore dropped the names of Conway, Sullivan, Weyer- 
 haeuser and "the man who since died," even though by so doing 
 he was obliged to contradict his friend Kohlsaat under oath. 
 
 However, Messrs. Conway and Sullivan were called before 
 the Dillingham Committee while that Committee was holding 
 a session at Chicago, and testified that they never heard of any 
 such fund as Funk mentioned, nor of any contribution thereto. 
 (603 Dill. Com.) 
 
 But this is not the only time that Mr. Kohlsaat was forced 
 to contradict the allegations of his friend Funk. In fact, if 
 you were to read the official testimony in this case as con- 
 tained in the records of the Dillingham Committee, you would 
 learn that even Funk's closest friends and associates contradict 
 practically every positive statement he makes. Funk told the 
 Dillingham Committee this: (Page 554, Dill.) 
 
 MR. MARBLE : Did you press any information on him ? 
 (Meaning H. H. Kohlsaat) 
 
 MR. FUNK : No, he pumped it out of me. 
 This would lead one to infer that Mr. Kohlsaat obtained 
 his first hint of this falsehood from some source other than 
 Funk, and that the editor laboriously "pumped" the alleged 
 details out of Funk. Let's see what Kohlsaat has to say on 
 this point. He addressed a letter to Senator Root on January 
 
 46
 
 EDWARD MINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 17, 1911, which was "pumped" out of Kohlsaat by the Dill- 
 ingham Committee. In that letter Kohlsaat thus enlightens 
 Senator Root concerning the manner in which the falsehood 
 
 first became known to him : 
 \ 
 
 "Some time last June I met a friend (Funk), who is 
 general manager of a 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 incident that 
 occurred right after Larimer's election.' ' : 
 
 Mr. Kohlsaat poses as the exemplar of truth. What motive 
 could he have had in telling an untruth to Senator Root ? The 
 language in the above letter is plain. It states positively that 
 Funk approached Kohlsaat, and repudiates Funk's claim that 
 the editor "pumped" the information out of him. Who told 
 the truth Funk or Kohlsaat? 
 
 FUNK VERSUS McCORMICK 
 
 But Funk not only contradicted Kohlsaat before the Dilling- 
 ham Committee; he even contradicted his superior officer, Mr. 
 McCormick, the President of the International Harvester Com- 
 pany, an illustration of which is to be found in the following : 
 
 MR. MARBLE: Have you been engaged in work before 
 State legislatures on behalf of the International Harvester 
 Company ? 
 
 MR. FUNK: No. (529 Dill. Com.) 
 
 Mr. McCormick, however, when he was testifying before 
 the Committee, directly says to the contrary, as shown by the 
 following : 
 
 SENATOR KERN : Did you ever have a person who was 
 authorised to go before the Legislature and Congress to 
 look after your interests ? 
 
 MR. MCCORMICK: Mr. Bancroft, the general counsel, 
 does that himself ; and Mr. Funk as the general manager; 
 or myself as President. 
 
 SENATOR KERN: Does Mr. Funk pay any attention to 
 legislative matters, that you know of ? 
 
 47
 
 EDWARD MINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 MR. McCoRMicK : He does. (22 Dill. Com.) 
 
 Who told the truth Cyrus McCormick or Clarence S. Funk ? 
 
 Many other glaring contradictions between the testimony of 
 
 Funk on the one hand and that of McCormick, Kohlsaat and 
 
 Bancroft on the other hand, in relation to their conversations 
 
 with Funk, as well as repeated contradictions of Funk by Funk 
 
 himself, appear from the record of the proceedings of every 
 
 investigating committee or body before whom Funk testified; 
 
 but to undertake to cite them all here would extend this booklet 
 
 into a voluminous record. 
 
 One of the numerous illustrations of the untrustworthiness 
 of Funk's statements (even when under oath) is found in his 
 testimony before the Dillingham Committee that "He (Hines) 
 was very active down at Springfield pulling wires for the 
 election of Senator Lorimer." When specifically questioned in 
 regard to this remarkable statement he said, "/ have a very 
 distinct recollection that he (Hines) was down there and he was 
 very busy there." He also said it was the common talk that I 
 was down there and that that fact appeared more or less in all 
 of the newspapers both before and after the election of Lorimer, 
 and that I was "very active down there in soliciting men to 
 support the Senator." (595 Dill. Com.) 
 
 A PALPABLE FALSEHOOD 
 
 This was absolutely false. I was not in Springfield at the 
 time of the election, nor for five years before that time, nor 
 after the election until March, 1911 (when I appeared before 
 the Helm Committee), nearly two years after the election, and 
 no newspaper ever printed a line to the effect that I was in 
 Springfield or connected me at that time in any way with the 
 election of Senator Lorimer. This was shown before the Dill- 
 ingham Committee and also before the Union League Club 
 Board, by undisputed and conclusive evidence. 
 
 This palpable falsehood on the part of Funk is very significant 
 when taken in connection with the rest of his story. Funk 
 testified before the Helm and Dillingham Committees, that I 
 said to him, "Well, we put Lorimer over down at Springfield"; 
 
 48
 
 EDWARD MINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 that "we had to act quickly, when the time came;" and that 
 "we had no chance to consult any one before hand." This 
 sworn testimony of Funk shows that it was based upon the sup- 
 position that I had been down to Springfield and was there on 
 the ground at and immediately preceding the election of Senator 
 Lorimer and actually took part down there in that election. 
 Funk took it for granted that I was in Springfield, and fabri- 
 cated his impossible story upon that theory. 
 
 When Funk was before the Dillingham Committee several 
 of the Senators could not understand if he really had such 
 knowledge as he then claimed to have why he did not appear 
 before the Burrows Committee when it was sitting right across 
 the street from his office in Chicago, and lay the matter before 
 that committee ; and the reason that Funk finally gave why 
 he did not do so was the fanciful one that he possessed the 
 knowledge as an officer of the International Harvester Com- 
 pany and not as an individual; and that he weighed his duty 
 to his company against his duty as a citizen and decided in 
 favor of the company! This showed the exalted character of 
 the citizenship of Clarence S. Funk! 
 
 FUNK'S WRONG TO THE UNION LEAGUE CLUB 
 
 The charge against me before the Union League Club was 
 that I held a certain interview within its walls with Clarence 
 S. Funk. According to his version of that interview I made 
 a criminal proposition to him. What was his plain duty under 
 the alleged circumstances ? It was his duty as a citizen and his 
 obligation as a member of an honorable organisation immedi- 
 ately to denounce and expose me. Did he do this? No. 
 
 What was his attitude according to his own testimony? 
 He has repeatedly testified that he did not consider my alleged 
 proposition a violation of the rules or principles of the Union 
 League Club. What do you think of a man who has that con- 
 ception of the lofty principles thus set forth in your Articles 
 of Association : 
 
 "The condition of membership shall be absolute and 
 unqualified loyalty to the Government of the United 
 
 49
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 States," and "that the primary objects of this Association 
 shall be: 
 
 "(i) To encourage and promote by moral, social and 
 political influence, unconditional loyalty to the Federal 
 Government, and to defend and protect the integrity and 
 perpetuity of this Nation. 
 
 "( 2 ) To inculcate a higher appreciation of the value 
 and sacred obligations of American citizenship. . . . 
 and to aid in the enforcement of all laws enacted to pre- 
 serve the purity of the ballot box. 
 
 "(3) To resist and oppose corruption and promote econ- 
 omy in office, and to secure honesty and efficiency in the 
 administration of National, State and Municipal affairs." 
 
 It makes no difference whether you accept what Funk says 
 as true or if you reject it as false he stands condemned out 
 of his own mouth as recreant to the high principles just 
 enumerated. 
 
 I am not the author of this charge against Funk he is 
 the author of it. It is spread on the official records of the 
 Senate of the United States. It appears on the official record 
 of my trial before your Board of Directors. It is affirmed by 
 the testimony of Cyrus H. McCormick and Edgar A. Bancroft. 
 Clarence S. Funk made his oath that he suppressed knowledge 
 of a crime committed against the people of Illinois because of 
 fear that money losses might result from bringing criminals 
 to justice! And I am expelled on the unsubstantiated word of 
 a man who gives himself that character! 
 
 WHEN FUNK WANTED FAVORS 
 
 You will remember that in our Union League Club talk he 
 asked me to introduce him to Senator Lorimer, and he says 
 (p. 55) that I afterwards did introduce him to Mr. Lorimer in 
 Washington, that he went up to Mr. Lorimer's room, was 
 introduced and had a pleasant chat with the Senator. This 
 shows that I was acting in exact accord with the promise I 
 had made to him at the Union League Club at his request so 
 to introduce him, and is corroborative of my statements in that 
 regard. 
 
 If Funk's present version of that Union League Club talk 
 
 So
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 were correct, not for a moment would I have thought of intro- 
 ducing him to Senator Lorimer, nor would he for a moment 
 have permitted such an introduction. This introduction was 
 in Mr. Lorimer's room at the New Willard Hotel in the fall 
 of 1910, at the time of the deep Waterways Convention in Wash- 
 ington. It is apparent from this that at that time Mr. Funk 
 had not yet put any sinister construction upon our Union 
 League talk, and this conduct shows that he regarded it of 
 the same innocent character that I did, and as it really was. 
 
 Mr. Funk testified that on March 4, 1911 (Rec. 58), he was 
 at Washington on the last day of the session of Congress where 
 there was an important matter in which his company was inter- 
 ested and which he was watching pretty closely; (you will 
 remember that he had testified before the Dillingham Committee 
 that he did not do that kind of business;) that when he sought 
 admission to the Senate galleries he could not get in, and he 
 said, "I found myself shut out," and explains that as he turned 
 away he met me and told me that he could not get in, and 
 said, "My pulls are all expended;" and relates that I (Hines) 
 said, "Come here with me; I can get you in." There was a 
 doorkeeper "whom Mr. Hines apparently knew, and he very 
 kindly told the gentleman to let me get in there," and he thus 
 got in. He admitted that he did not hesitate to accept this 
 favor. It appeared to me at the time that he was very glad to 
 accept it, and in fact he so expressed himself to me. 
 
 Again, on the 5th of March, 1911, when Mrs. Hines and I 
 were returning from Washington to Chicago, we were in the 
 dining car. Mr. Funk also was there, and he came to our 
 table and chatted with us for some time in a very friendly 
 way, and again expressed his great appreciation of the courtesy 
 that I had shown him the day before in getting him into the 
 Senate gallery. These facts also show that at that time he had 
 no feeling of indignation or resentment toward me, but quite 
 the contrary, and that he had no different idea of the innocent 
 character of our talk in the Union League Club. 
 
 If Funk at that time really considered that talk as of a 
 sinister character, would he as an honest man have conducted 
 
 Si
 
 EDWARD MINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 himself toward me as he did? Would he have solicited and 
 accepted these favors at my hands? At that time I had not 
 the faintest suspicion that Funk viewed our Union League 
 talk as being of an improper nature, and I don't believe he 
 did either. This occurred a long time after the Burrows Com- 
 mittee had begun its investigation and several weeks after the 
 Helm Committee was organized! 
 
 Funk did not change front until later on. 
 
 WHAT I NATURALLY ASSUMED 
 
 When Funk approached me in the Union League Club and 
 expressed himself as pleased over the election of Senator Lori- 
 mer I surmised at once that he wished to end the feud which 
 had existed for years between the Harvester company and Mr. 
 Lorimer. 
 
 Funk put the proposition that his company should assist 
 in reimbursing the campaign expenses of Senator Lorimer in 
 such a manner that I assumed that he meant a small contribu- 
 tion for legitimate expenses, but also recognized that this was 
 only a pretext for placating the victorious candidate. It was 
 generally known that the Harvester company was a liberal con- 
 tributor to campaign funds, and also that Funk had much to 
 do with details pertaining to legislation. Therefore, the sug- 
 gestion made by Funk that Senator Lorimer should not be 
 compelled to stand all the expenses of his campaign did not 
 surprise me. I had no thought that his aim was to corrupt 
 Senator Lorimer, but took it for granted that the new general 
 manager was eager to win the friendship of a man who had 
 been an enemy. 
 
 But I knew nothing about Senator Lorimer's campaign dis- 
 bursements, and told Funk so. I had been in Washington most 
 of the time for months. I had not seen Mr. Lorimer for weeks. 
 I knew absolutely nothing of "practical" politics, and had not 
 the remotest idea of how much the legitimate expenses of 
 such a campaign would amount to. I promised, however, to 
 ask Mr. Lorimer and to inform Funk on the matter. 
 
 I saw Mr. Lorimer on the following Sunday. Only on my 
 
 52
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 representation that I had promised Funk an introduction did 
 he finally consent to grant it not as a favor to Funk but to me. 
 Senator Lorimer informed me that his campaign expenses were 
 nominal, and made the remark : "You know I don't drink nor 
 smoke, and therefore have no expenses." 
 
 I was compelled to leave Chicago for Washington on the 
 following day and had no time to advise Funk concerning this. 
 I accordingly asked Mr. Wiehe, the Secretary of our company, 
 to notify Funk that there was nothing in the matter discussed 
 between us in the Union League Club. I did not inform Mr. 
 Wiehe the subject of that discussion. I was merely desirous of 
 informing Funk that there was no fund to reimburse. I as- 
 sumed that if I got word to him that "there was nothing in 
 the matter" discussed between us a few days before in the 
 Union League Club he would understand that Senator Lori- 
 mer either had no campaign expenses or declined to accept a 
 contribution from Funk. 
 
 Senator Lorimer was elected on May 26, 1909. The Union 
 League interview between Funk and myself was on May 27. I 
 saw Senator Lorimer on Sunday, May 30, and left for Wash- 
 ington on the following day. 
 
 FUNK TRIES TO SEE ME 
 
 Mr. Wiehe testified before your Board that before leaving 
 for Washington I had told him to see Funk and to tell him 
 "that there was nothing in the matter" that Funk had talked 
 to me about. Here is an extract from Mr. Wiehe's testimony : 
 
 "I attempted to see Mr. Funk, but was unable to do so, 
 he not being in his office, and the next day I telephoned 
 him. He said he would like to see Mr. Hines. I told him 
 Mr. Hines was out of the city, and Funk said he was very 
 sorry and wanted to know where he was. I told him 
 Washington. He said he was going to Washington via 
 New York and would try to see Hines there. 
 
 "Mr. Hines called me up every day or two from Wash- 
 ington on the telephone, and I think it was in one of these 
 conversations I told him what Funk said, and wires were 
 exchanged between me and Mr. Hines with reference to 
 
 53
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 this matter. One of these telegrams, dated June 4, ad- 
 dressed to Edward Hines, New Willard Hotel, Washing- 
 ton, D. C., was as follows: 
 
 " 'Funk New York today. Leaves this afternoon Wash- 
 ington. There tomorrow. You can reach him today, 
 George Perkins' office or Judge Gary, 51 Broadway, E. 
 H. L. Co.' " 
 
 I had planned to leave Washington for Chicago that day. 
 Not considering that Funk had any business with me of pressing 
 importance, I declined to change my plans, assuming that 
 we could meet later in Chicago. I therefore sent this telegram 
 to Mr. Wiehe : 
 
 "Washington, D. C., June 4, 1909. Edward Hines Lum- 
 ber Company, Chicago. Will try. Have Funk meet me 
 in Chicago Saturday or Sunday. Could meet him any time 
 late. Leave here today. Answer quick. Edward Hines." 
 
 I returned from Washington to Chicago but received no 
 further communication from Funk on the subject of Senator 
 Lorimer's campaign expenses, nor was the subject ever men- 
 tioned between us again at any time. 
 
 When questioned by the Dillingham Committee and before 
 your Board, Funk tried to make it appear that Mr. Wiehe had 
 not called at his office or telephoned him about the matter. 
 Under pressure of cross examination, Funk finally qualified 
 by stating that he "had no memory of it," that he "could not 
 recall it," but (p. 238) reluctantly admitted that his addresses 
 in New York, telegraphed by Mr. Wiehe to me, were correct, 
 and Funk also admitted that he had gone to New York and 
 was at those addresses at the time Mr. Wiehe had so advised me. 
 
 These telegrams tell a plain story. They were based on 
 contemporaneous information which could have been received 
 only from the office of the International Harvester Company. 
 If Funk were not seeking me, why did Mr. Wiehe wire me 
 Funk's addresses in New York? If I were seeking Funk, why 
 did I not remain in Washington and await his coming? It is 
 admitted that the contemplated meeting never was held, and 
 
 54
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 I can only surmise, of course, the motive Funk had in then 
 seeking a conference and in later dropping the matter. 
 
 The conclusion is inevitable that Funk was not satisfied with 
 the purport of the message conveyed to him by Mr. Wiehe, 
 and that he wished again to take the matter up with me. The 
 conclusion also is inevitable that I considered the incident 
 closed. I was not averse to conferring with Mr. Funk con- 
 cerning it, but did not rate it of sufficient importance to remain 
 an extra day in Washington. These conclusions are affirmed 
 by telegrams submitted to your Board. The negative evasions 
 of Funk are supported by nothing. 
 
 TWO MOST SIGNIFICANT FACTS 
 
 Before considering briefly the strange testimony of Herman 
 H. Hettler against me, I desire to call your attention to two 
 most significant facts: 
 
 First: In all of the hearings, formal and informal, not a 
 witness has testified against me who was not forced to admit 
 either personal enmity towards me, or that he was allied with 
 interests opposed to me. Not a line of disinterested testimony 
 has ever been given against me in any hearing. 
 
 Second: Even more remarkable and significant is the fact 
 that these biased witnesses confine themselves to a narration of 
 alleged statements made to them either by myself or by Mr. 
 Wiehe. They do not charge that they possess actual knowledge 
 that any wrongful act was committed, but picture Mr. Wiehe 
 or myself as relating to them the details of a grave offense. 
 You are asked by them to believe that I was so elated with the 
 success of a crime that I bored them with its recital. 
 
 THE SO-CALLED HETTLER INCIDENT 
 
 I would not dignify the testimony given by Herman H. 
 Hettler with any consideration, were it not for the fact that 
 it throws a sharp light on the methods and absurd extremes 
 used by the prosecution to make a case against me. 
 
 Hettler does not like me. He informed the Helm and Dill- 
 
 55
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 ingham Committees to that effect, and also stated that he was 
 my "business rival." He gave certain testimony before those 
 investigating bodies. When I was called before the Dilling- 
 ham Committee I gave certain of the reasons which account 
 for the enmity of Hettler towards me. I shall not repeat them 
 here. These disclosures naturally deepened his resentment, 
 and he had his innings before your Board. You will find his 
 testimony in full in the official record of those proceedings, 
 which should be on file in the Union League Club. Read it 
 and judge of his motives in giving it. Here is a digest of 
 the facts: 
 
 On the day of the senatorial election Mr. Wiehe and I 
 went to the Union League Club, remained at luncheon and 
 were there several hours. We met and conversed with many 
 of the members, among them Herman H. Hettler. Shortly 
 before meeting Mr. Hettler I had called up the local office of 
 the Associated Press and had learned that Mr. Lorimer had 
 been elected Senator. I informed Mr. Wiehe and others to 
 that effect. I was pleased with the result and probably showed 
 it in my manner, but only one man has come forward and put 
 a false construction on what I said that afternoon, and that man 
 was Herman H. Hettler, who admits his enmity to me and who 
 describes himself as my "business rival." 
 
 Is it not a most remarkable thing that all of my alleged in- 
 discretions have been made to men whom I recognised as 
 unfriendly, and against whom I naturally would have been on 
 guard in making statements of any nature? 
 
 Mr. Wiehe and I met Mr. Hettler and passed a few words 
 with him. He said to. me: "You seem to be pleased. What 
 is new?" I told him I had heard some good news; that the 
 Associated Press had informed me that Mr. Lorimer had been 
 elected Senator, and that I was very glad to hear it. 
 
 Mr. Hettler was called before the Board and gave his version 
 of the conversation as follows : 
 
 I was at the cigar stand getting some cigars. Some 
 one touched me on the shoulder. I saw it was Mr. Hines. 
 He asked me if I knew the name of the new Senator, 
 
 56
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 and told me it was Mr. Lorimer; that he had just been 
 elected ; that he had just come out of the telephone booth, 
 where he had been holding a conversation with Mr. Lori- 
 mer. Mr. Hines said he had elected him. He said, "I did 
 it myself personally." He seemed to be quite pleased. I 
 have no distinct recollection of any more remarks. He 
 spoke in a very loud tone. I did not consider it confidential 
 (pp. 252-255.) / attached no importance whatever to the 
 conversation. I did not think he intended to convey to me 
 any information further than possibly showing me he was a 
 powerful man. This was months or a year before there 
 were any newspaper articles or intimations of any irregu- 
 larity as applied to that election. Mr. Hines and I were 
 not considered very friendly (p. 255). 
 
 I made no such remarks, but even if I had made them they 
 would have had no bearing whatever on the question of my 
 alleged conversation of the following day with Funk. Hettler's 
 own version of this incident indicates nothing beyond the fact 
 that I was pleased over the election of Senator Lorimer, and 
 felt that I had helped bring, it about in the way I have told you. 
 It was not significant of anything zwong on my part. I did not 
 call Mr. Lorimer on telephone from the Club that day, as the 
 records of the Club and the telephone company certify. 
 
 But look at the inherent improbability and absurdity of cer- 
 tain details of Hettler's statement! He has me boasting in 
 a loud tone of voice that "I elected Lorimer personally," and 
 we find Hettler explaining, that he "attached no importance 
 whatever to the conversation." Let us see about that. 
 
 This conversation was alleged to have occurred at the cigar 
 stand and in the presence of the Club attendant at the stand, 
 a young man named Donald Frame. Hettler was directly in- 
 strumental in securing this Club servant as a witness against 
 me, and you can judge of the character of the methods em- 
 ployed by Hettler from a reading of his testimony and that 
 of the cigar clerk, as found in the official record of the hear- 
 ings, from which these extracts are taken : 
 
 DONALD FRAME: I was showing Mr. Hettler some 
 cigars at the time, and Mr. Hines approached the case 
 
 57
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 from the back part of the house, and when he got to Mr. 
 Hettler he made the remark that he had elected Mr. Lori- 
 mer. There were a few other words but I didn't get all 
 
 of it. They moved away just as soon as that was said 
 
 As near as I can recollect he said : "I have elected Lori- 
 mer our next Senator." (270) 
 
 More than- two years passed before Donald Frame was 
 produced on the witness stand before the Dillingham Com- 
 mittee to fortify the testimony given by H. H. Hettler. The 
 methods employed to make him available as a witness can best 
 be determined by a study of his cross-examination : (Dill. 1413) 
 
 MR. HYNES : When were you first spoken to about this 
 after its occurrence? 
 
 MR. FRAME: Possibly 8 or 10 days afterwards, by Mr. 
 Hettler. 
 
 MR. HYNES: What did he say to you then? 
 
 MR. FRAME: He said it was a peculiar remark, and 
 asked me if I had heard it. 
 
 MR. HYNES: Did he state what the peculiar remark 
 was? 
 
 MR. FRAME: No; he did not say just the exact words. 
 
 THE CHAIRMAN : Give your best recollection of the 
 interview. 
 
 MR. FRAME (after a pause) : / cannot give you the 
 talk that we had. I do not remember it. 
 
 MR. HYNES: In what connection did he say it was a 
 peculiar remark? Was it in trying to refresh your recol- 
 lection? Did he not say: "It was rather a peculiar re- 
 mark. You ought to remember that"? Did he say any- 
 thing like that to you ? 
 
 MR. FRAME: No; not at that time. He said something, 
 about it being a peculiar remark shortly after Mr. Hines 
 had said it after Mr. Hines had left the Club. 
 
 MR. HYNES: Did he talk with you after Mr. Hines 
 left? 
 
 MR. FRAME: Yes, sir. 
 
 MR. HYNES: Did he ask you whether you heard it or 
 not? 
 
 MR. FRAME : Yes, sir. 
 
 MR. HYNES : How did he put the question to you when 
 he asked you whether you had heard it or not ? 
 
 58
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 MR. FRAME: He said: "That was a peculiar remark. 
 Did you get it?" 
 
 MR. HYNES: Did Mr. Hettler speak with you on this 
 subject at any time since that occasion, which you fix at 
 about 10 days after the occurrence ? 
 
 MR. FRAME: Why, when he would come in, maybe, he 
 would speak to me and possibly smile, or ask me how I 
 was, or something- of that kind, but he never spoke 
 
 MR. HYNES: On this subject? 
 
 MR. FRAME: A few words might have passed on the 
 subject. 
 
 Here you have the picture of my fellow Club member, 
 going repeatedly back to this employee and talking with him 
 concerning a conversation which this Club servant was pre- 
 sumed to have overheard. Hettler had two years in which 
 to "refresh the memory" of young Frame. It must have been 
 a delectable task for "my business rival." Why did he do it? 
 You could never imagine. We are coming to the explana- 
 tion which Hettler gave before your Board (U. L. 256) : 
 
 QUESTION : Have you any reason to suppose that any 
 man who was serving at the cigar stand heard that remark ? 
 
 MR. HETTLER: Yes. 
 
 QUESTION: Heard it at the time? 
 
 MR. HETTLER: He certainly ought, because he could 
 not help but hear it. 
 
 QUESTION : Was anything afterwards said between you ? 
 
 MR. HETTLER: Not at that time. 
 
 QUESTION : Was anything afterwards said between you 
 
 MR. HETTLER: Yes. Some time after that, I don't 
 know how long. 
 
 QUESTION : Can you fix it approximately ? 
 
 MR. HETTLER: I am sorry to say that I cannot. 
 
 QUESTION : Was it a year ? 
 
 MR. HETTLER: / couldn't say. 
 
 You cannot fail to note that the two important witnesses 
 in this stupendous affair do not agree. You have read what 
 young Frame said before the Dillingham Committee. Now 
 read what he said recently before your Board (U. L. 271) : 
 
 QUESTION: When did Mr. Hettler mention it to you? 
 
 59
 
 EDWARD HIKES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 MR. FRAME : Well, we spoke about it immediately after 
 well, when he came back to buy cigars we said something 
 about it, and I believe when he returned in about ten or 
 twelve days after this occurred. 
 
 You can judge as well as I concerning the veracity of H. 
 H. Hettler and your Club employee. One of them certainly 
 told an untruth. We will now resume a study of Mr. Hettler's 
 testimony before your Board. Bear in mind that Donald Frame 
 testifies that Hettler repeatedly brought up the subject of 
 my alleged remarks. Bear in mind that Hettler assured your 
 Board that he "attached no importance whatever to the con- 
 versation, at that time." (U. L. 258) Bear in mind that I con- 
 ducted it in "a loud tone of voice," and that I was talking to 
 my "business rival." Now let us see why Mr. Hettler was so 
 solicitous concerning the recollections of Donald Frame : 
 
 MR. HETTLER : It was some time after this that I asked 
 him (Donald Frame) about it, and the real reason I had 
 at the time for doing so, it appeared to me that the young 
 man tvas somewhat embarrassed. I suppose the Club eti- 
 quette is that employees do not hear conversations between 
 members. But in my small way I ivish to absolve that 
 young man from any blame in that connection, because it 
 wow impossible for him to avoid hearing it. After I tes- 
 tified at the Helm Committee I then spoke to him, at one 
 time and asked him if he recollected the conversation. He 
 said that he did. I purposely avoided asking him any ques- 
 tions on the subject, referring to it in any way, and I also 
 avoided the possibility of knowing the young man's name, 
 for I inferred there might be unpleasant consequences for 
 him if he were drawn into the case by subpoena. At 
 Springfield they asked me the question, and I told them 
 of the young, man that heard it, but I didn't know his 
 name. 
 
 QUESTION : You cannot fix the date of it ? 
 
 MR. HETTLER: I think I spoke to him prior to the 
 Helm Committee in a casual sort of way once or twice. 
 and then after I came back from the Helm Committee, in 
 buying a cigar or something of that kind, I would ask him 
 if he was still in the city, not referring to anything, and 
 I did not know whether the things were the idea in my 
 
 60
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 mind all the idea in my mind was I was wondering 
 whether he would be subpoenaed. (257-258) 
 
 Even Funk was unable to beat that! Hettler starts out 
 with the premise that he "attached no importance whatever 
 at that time to the conversation." The alleged conversation 
 was addressed to him. It was overheard by the cigar clerk, 
 and according to Hettler, Club etiquette prescribes that em- 
 ployees "do not hear conversations between members." What 
 then happens? According to young Frame, Hettler's support- 
 ing witness, Hettler immediately proceeds to discuss with the 
 Club employee a conversation he was supposed not to hear, 
 or at least to ignore and try to forget. 
 
 What do we then learn from Hettler ? He tells your Board : 
 "It appeared to me that the young man was somewhat em- 
 barrassed." In the name of common sense, WHY? Why 
 should young Frame be ''embarrassed" over a conversation to 
 which Hettler attached "no importance whatever?" To re- 
 lieve the "embarrassment" of the young cigar clerk, and to 
 make him conform strictly to the requirements of "Club eti- 
 quette," Hettler continues to greet him pleasantly, smile and 
 ask him how he was, and occasionally bring up the alleged 
 conversation to which Hettler asserts he "attached no import- 
 ance whatever." 
 
 Note the tender solicitude of Hettler and his fear that young 
 Frame would be subpoenaed ! Note his apprehension that 
 "there might be unpleasant consequences for him if he were 
 drawn into the case by subpoena!" Consider that despite 
 all the precautions taken by Mr. Hettler, his young associate 
 was subpoenaed, and his pitiful plight before the Dillingham 
 Committee moved all who saw and heard him to pity! 
 
 Herman H. Hettler made a fitting close to his testimony 
 before your Board. One of the verified facts in the so-called 
 Hettler incident is that Mr. C. F. Wiehe. my brother-in-law 
 and business associate, was with me in the Union League Club 
 that day. We took luncheon together, and his signed slip 
 for the luncheon was submitted in evidence. Your Board 
 admitted that both of us were there. Mr. Wiehe was with me 
 
 61
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 when I held that brief conversation with Hettler. Mr. Wiehe 
 participated in it, and so testified under oath. Now listen to 
 H. H. Hettler as he closed his testimony before your Board : 
 
 MR. HETTLER: There was no one present at this in- 
 terview on the outside of the cigar stand with the excep- 
 tion of Mr. Hines. Any statements that are made here 
 that Mr. Wiehe, or any other employee or associate of 
 the Edward Hines Lumber Company, was within hearing, 
 is a misstatement of fact." 
 
 Why is Hettler so strangely positive concerning an incident 
 to which he "attached no importance whatever ?" He describes 
 me as talking "in a very loud tone of voice by a descriptive con- 
 versation which sometimes possibly you may have known people 
 to hold with any other person zvhen they were elated over a 
 situation," and has the brazen insolence to insinuate to your 
 Board that Mr. Wiehe or any of my associates are liars if they 
 assert they were "within hearing" of this vociferous conversa- 
 tion to which Hettler "attached no importance!" 
 
 In this connection I want to say that while Mr. Hettler (a 
 business rival who admits he is unfriendly to me) is the only 
 person who makes claim to having heard me boast of partici- 
 pation in the election of Senator Lorimer, the prejudiced news- 
 papers have seized that statement and made it the basis of 
 article after article in which it has been asserted in varying 
 form that I repeatedly boasted of having elected Senator 
 Lorimer. I deny that I ever made that claim to Hettler or 
 to anybody. 
 
 SUPPRESSING THE TRUTH 
 
 At the time of the Helm Committee proceeding, its attorney, 
 Mr. Healy, asked if our company would be willing to have an 
 examination of its books, bank accounts, and also of my 
 personal records. We promptly agreed to this. Mr. Healy 
 made that examination, and after doing so told me that he 
 found nothing to show my connection with the disbursement 
 of any funds for the election of Mr. Lorimer, although Mr. 
 
 62
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 Healy claimed that he was not an expert. I later told him to 
 select any firm of registered accountants, and that I would give 
 them full freedom to examine all the accounts both of myself 
 and my company, and of the Banks where we did business, 
 and offered to defray the expenses of the examination. But 
 Mr. Healy said he was personally satisfied and that he would 
 report accordingly to the Helm Committee. 
 
 The officers of my company and myself believed that in fair- 
 ness and justness to us that report should have been made 
 public, and after waiting a considerable time the Secretary of 
 my company sent the following telegram to Mr. Healy : 
 
 J. J. Healy, Attorney for Helm Committee, Leland 
 Hotel, Springfield, 111. Understand Helm Committee has 
 met since your investigation of books and checks issued 
 by Edward Hines Lumber Company, Edward Hines and 
 C. F. Wiehe, but that you have been entirely silent as to 
 your findings. In all fairness and in justice to us and our 
 associated companies, do you not think that the results of 
 your findings should be reported to the Helm Committee 
 and made public? C. F. WIEHE. 
 
 Receiving no reply to this telegram, another was sent, em- 
 bodying the first and asking about report, as follows : 
 
 J. J. Healy, Attorney for Helm Committee, Leland 
 Hotel, Springfield. Understand Helm Committee has met 
 since your investigation of the books and checks issued 
 by Edward Hines Lumber Company, Edward Hines and 
 C. F. Wiehe, but that you have been entirely silent as to 
 your findings. In all fairness and in justice to us and our 
 associated companies, do you not think that the results of 
 your findings should be reported to the Helm Committee 
 and made public? I have yet received no reply to this 
 telegram and would be pleased to have you advise me if 
 your Committee has received this report. 
 
 C. F. WIEHE. 
 
 Telegrams were also sent to Chairman Helm, urging that 
 in all fairness the press should be informed that our books had 
 been examined. 
 
 No reply was made to any of these telegrams, and the Com- 
 
 63
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 mittee, so far as I have ever heard, never gave out that informa- 
 tion for publication. In its report the Helm Committee (312) 
 does say, with reference to Mr. Healy's examination of our 
 books : "That the said Hines and the said Wiehe exhibited to 
 its (our) counsel, so far as he could ascertain, all of the books, 
 papers and accounts of said individuals and said Edward Hines 
 Lumber Company, together with the books, papers and ac- 
 counts of many subsidiary companies, and gave to your (our) 
 counsel every then present means and opportunity to make any 
 and every investigation which might then occur to him, and 
 produced checks, papers, book accounts, etc., when the same 
 were asked for." But the report failed to show the further 
 very -important fact that we had offered to have qualified and 
 expert accountants go over all of our matters, and we would 
 pay the expense thereof. 
 
 VINDICATING REPORT OF AUDITORS 
 
 When the Dillingham Committee was conducting its in- 
 vestigations it appointed one of the most noted firms of expert 
 accountants in the world, Messrs. Barrow, Wade, Guthrie and 
 Company, to make an examination, and they did make a most 
 thorough investigation of the accounts of the Edward Hines 
 Lumber Company, its subsidiary or controlled companies, and 
 my personal accounts, and after weeks of investigation, re- 
 ported November I, 1911, to the Honorable W. P. Dillingham, 
 U. S. Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections, amongst 
 other things as follows : 
 
 I hand you herewith my report on the following matters 
 which I investigated under instructions received, viz. : (a) 
 Accounts of the Edward Hines Lumber Company and its 
 subsidiary or controlled companies, including the personal 
 accounts of Mr. Edward Hines. (b) Certain personal 
 records of Mr. Edward Hines. The purpose of the exam- 
 ination of the books of the Hines Lumber Company was 
 to determine, if possible, what part, if any, this Company 
 had in the collection or disbursement of the fund alleged 
 to have been raised in connection with the election of Mr. 
 William Lorimer to the U. S. Senate in May, 1909. 
 
 In addition to the accounts of the Edward Hines Lum- 
 
 64
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 her Company proper, my examination embraced the ac- 
 counts of the following", branches and companies owned or 
 controlled by it, viz. : 
 
 Edward Hines Lumber Company, Vessel Department. 
 
 Edward Hines Lumber Company, Lumberman's Mill Co. 
 
 Edward Hines Lumber Company, Wood Street Planing 
 Mill. 
 
 Edward Hines Lumber Company, Evanston Branch. 
 
 Edward Hines Lumber Company, Glen View Branch. 
 
 Edward Hines Lumber Company, Rose Hill Branch. 
 
 Edward Hines Lumber Company Cusson Logging Opera- 
 tions. 
 
 North Wisconsin Lumber & Manufacturing Company. 
 
 Hayward Mercantile Company. 
 
 First National Bank, Hayward, Wisconsin. 
 
 Mason State Bank, Mason, Wisconsin. 
 
 White River Lumber Company. 
 
 Iron River Lumber Company. 
 
 Virginia & Rainy Lake Company. 
 
 I was also granted access to the personal books of Mr. 
 Edward Hines for the year ending Dec. 31, 1909. As a 
 result of my examination of the books of the Edward 
 Hines Lumber Company and the personal books of Mr. 
 Edward Hines for the entire year ending Dec. 31, 1909, 
 and of the books of the various branches and subsidiary 
 or controlled companies (as hereinbefore enumerated) 
 for the nine months from April I, 1909 to Dec. 31, 1909, 
 I am able to report as follows : 
 
 (a) That there was no evidence of the Edward Hines 
 Lumber Company or any of its subsidiary or controlled 
 companies having received or disbursed any moneys in 
 connection with the election of Mr. William Lorimer on 
 May 26, 1909, to the U. S. Senate from the State of Illi- 
 nois. 
 
 (b) That there was no evidence of Mr. Hines as an 
 individual having received or disbursed any moneys in 
 connection with the aforesaid election. 
 
 In order to ascertain whether or not Mr. Hines might 
 have negotiated a loan from one or other of the banks in 
 Chicago with which he was connected or with which he 
 had business relations, I visited the following banks and 
 Trust Companies: Continental National Bank, Hibernian 
 
 65
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 Banking Association, Fort Dearborn National Bank, 
 Northern Trust Company, Corn Exchange National Bank, 
 Metropolitan Trust & Savings Bank. At each of these 
 places I examined their record of notes discounted during 
 the last week of May, 1909 and the first part of June, 
 1909. I am able to report, therefore, that at none of these 
 banks in the period under review did Mr. Hines discount 
 
 any note or notes, either as drawer or endorser 
 
 Yours very truly, 
 
 ALFRED A. RITCHIE. 
 
 The same firm of auditors also made an exhaustive exam- 
 ination of the books of Edward Tilden and made a report de- 
 claring that his books and records contained no indication that 
 that he had been concerned in the plot outlined in Funk's testi- 
 mony. The report of the auditors on Mr. Tilden's books and 
 records concluded as follows : 
 
 "That Mr. Tilden would not co-mingle trust moneys 
 with his own funds . . . That, from the records ex- 
 amined, and on the assumption of the correctness of the 
 above theory, there was no evidence that Mr. Tilden had 
 been custodian of the fund alleged to have been raised in 
 connection with the election of Mr. William Lorimer to 
 the Senate of the United States from the State of Illinois." 
 
 It would be impossible to conduct a more thorough exam- 
 ination than that given to my books and records. You will 
 recall that the testimony given in Washington fully developed 
 the fact that Senator Lorimer was not an active candidate until 
 May, 1909. I gave the auditors access of all books and records 
 back to April, at which time I am on record as having been 
 interested in the candidacy of candidates other than Mr. Lori- 
 mer. 
 
 Funk quotes me as saying to him that when the time came I 
 had to raise the money quickly. He had me down in Spring- 
 field a few days before the election, hurriedly collecting or 
 openly advancing $100,000. I actually was in Washington, 
 and the report of the auditors disposes of the remaining frag- 
 ments of Funk's fiction. 
 
 The testimony introduced before your Board relative to the 
 
 66
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 interview of May 27, 1909, did not differ widely from that 
 presented under oath before the Dillingham Committee. Funk 
 purposely omitted from his testimony those details which 
 caused him trouble when under oath in Washington, but it was 
 easy to confront him with his sworn statements made in 
 Springfield and in Washington, and thus to exhibit his lack 
 of candor as a witness. 
 
 In a court of law I would not have been compelled to set up 
 a defense. There was nothing to defend. Funk did not have 
 a witness, a scrap of paper, an authenticated date, nor could 
 his attorney point to one fact which indicated a possibility that 
 I was or could have been guilty of the charge made by Clarence 
 S. Funk. 
 
 FUNK'S OTHER CLAIM 
 
 It will not be surprising if you find it impossible to believe 
 that the things about to be recorded actually took place within 
 the precincts of the Union League Club. I will admit that they 
 sound impossible. But this testimony and these incidents do 
 not rest on my word. They are taken from the official record 
 of my trial before your Board of Directors. That record was 
 compiled by them. It is a transcript of notes taken by a re- 
 porter employed by them. That record was yielded to me 
 only after every effort had been made to impose secrecy on me, 
 and only after my attorney had taken steps to secure for me my 
 legal rights. 
 
 On January 17, 1911, the State Senate of Illinois appointed 
 a special investigating committee to inquire into certain new 
 charges involving the right of Senator Lorimer to his seat in 
 Washington. This body is known as the Helm Committee. It 
 met and organized in Springfield on February 24, 1911. It held 
 a short session on March 2 and did not meet again until March 
 28, when I testified before it. I gave the substance of my slight 
 connection with the election of Senator Lorimer, the confer- 
 ences with Senators Aldrich and Penrose, and my trip to Chi- 
 cago with the message I was authorized to convey to Governor 
 Deneen. When questioned by counsel of the Helm Committee, 
 
 67
 
 EDWARD HhNES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 I denied that I had any knowledge of any fund used in secur- 
 ing the election of Senator Lorimer. 
 
 I assumed that the Committee desired only to know the pur- 
 port of my conferences in Washington and my attempt to 
 convey the message to Governor Deneen. I disliked to dis- 
 close these confidential political matters, but did so truthfully 
 and frankly, and had every reason to assume that this ended 
 my connection with the matter. 
 
 The Helm Committee was at that time, of course, in posses- 
 sion of the allegations made by Clarence S. Funk, as told by 
 him to Mr. H. H. Kohlsaat. The latter was called before the 
 Committee on March 29, 1911, and questioned in detail about 
 his authority for the charges made in a Chicago Record-Herald 
 editorial of February 15, 1911, which editorial read as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 BAILEY'S FALLACY WITH APPLICATIONS 
 
 Senator Bailey has almost convinced himself that there 
 was no corruption at all in the Illinois Legislature which 
 sent Lorimer to the Senate. His grand "forgery" climax 
 was cruelly spoiled, but undaunted he asserted that there 
 was little except suspicion and talk in the Lorimer and 
 "jack-pot" scandals. Generalizing, he contends that there 
 is much less corruption and graft in the country than many 
 people, misled by muckrakers, have been led to believe. 
 
 Now, this general statement may be true without lend- 
 ing any force whatever to Bailey's view of concrete cases. 
 Do we know all that we might about the Illinois jackpot? 
 Do we know all there is to know concerning the $100,000 
 fund which was raised to pay for Lorimer votes ? Do we 
 know the true inwardness of the Browne, Erbstein, Kelley 
 trials? 
 
 In some instances there is undoubtedly more cry than 
 there is wool in muckraking affairs. In others, like the 
 Albany Allds-Conger scandal, the Illinois Lorimer affair 
 and jackpot, the facts are much graver than the average 
 voter in certain districts realizes, or men like Browne, 
 Broderick, and Wilson would never have been re-elected. 
 If all the facts were known about Springfield and Albany 
 graft a good many men would be moving penitentiary- 
 ward. In cases of bribery, perjury, looting of public 
 treasuries, it is not easy to get the "parties" to talk, for 
 
 68
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 obvious reasons. What loose writers here and there say 
 about unspecified graft has no bearing on concrete cases. 
 In such cases the question is one of evidence its quantity 
 and quality and of inference, probability or reasonable 
 interpretation. 
 
 This editorial set in motion a momentous series of events. It 
 was the direct cause which precipitated the second Lorimer 
 investigation. It split the Republican Party in Illinois into 
 warring factions. It has occupied the attention of the United 
 States Senate for nearly a year, and brought about an investi- 
 gation with the most voluminous record in the history of 
 American legislation. 
 
 CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS? 
 
 That editorial of February 15, 1911, was the direct cause of 
 forcing Clarence S. Funk to take the stand before the Helm 
 Committee and to tell the false story implicating me. Funk 
 was the man who, according to his own testimony, gave Mr. 
 Kohlsaat the data on which that editorial was based, and yet, 
 mark this: 
 
 Clarence S. Funk declared to the Board of Managers that 
 he never saw or read that famous editorial until it was called 
 to his attention by his attorney, Frank Loesch, which was on 
 January 13, 1912, at which time my trial before the Union 
 League Club was nearly ended. 
 
 To believe this statement is the supreme test of credulity. 
 Funk says that he did not see it after his friend Kohlsaat 
 wrote it. He says he did not see it when it had forced him to 
 go to Springfield where he told his astounding story. He says 
 he did not see it when it was called to his attention time and 
 time again when he was on the witness stand and under oath 
 before the Dillingham Committee in Washington. He says he 
 did not take the trouble to read it during all the months that 
 intervened before I was confronted with charges in the Union 
 League Club. Do you believe that ? It appears on the records 
 of your Club. 
 
 Mr. Kohlsaat disclosed to the Helm Committee the name of 
 
 69
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 his informant and named Clarence S. Funk as the man re- 
 sponsible for the Record-Herald editorial of February 15, 1911. 
 Funk appeared before the Helm Committee on April 5. That 
 portion of his tale relative to our interview in the Union 
 League Club has already been given. I shall now give in full 
 his version of the alleged second interview. 
 
 Bear in mind that Funk gave this testimony on April 5, and 
 that he was questioned about an editorial that appeared on 
 February 15, and that EXACTLY SEVEN WEEKS HAD 
 ELAPSED ! Bear in mind that it was not SEVEN MONTHS, 
 or SEVENTEEN MONTHS, or TWO YEARS, but a tri- 
 fling matter of forty-nine days. Keep this fact in your mind. 
 I shall refer back to this page once in a while when I come 
 to analyze some of Funk's conflicting stories, and my object will 
 be to call pointed attention to the fact that this is the story that 
 Clarence S. Funk told when he was under oath, when he was 
 subject to the penalties of perjury, when the topic presumably 
 was fresh in his mind, when he occupied the center of the stage 
 with the lime-light of publicity turned on him. 
 
 I will show you later what Clarence S. Funk said when he 
 was my accusing witness before the Board of Directors of the 
 Union League Club ; when he was not under oath ; when the lie 
 he told in Springfield had been shattered and torn beyond 
 recognition by unanswerable proof and testimony. I will show 
 you what he then said before a friendly court; when my dis- 
 grace was the price of his safety or his conniving, and when 
 he imagined that no word of what he then said would be per- 
 mitted to penetrate the walls within which I was unfairly tried 
 and unjustly condemned. 
 
 FUNK'S FALSE TESTIMONY 
 
 Here is the testimony in full given by Clarence S. Funk on 
 April 5, 1911, before the Helm Committee and relative to the 
 alleged second interview between himself and me an interview 
 which never occurred and Funk cannot escape the responsi- 
 bility which attaches to this testimony : 
 
 QUESTION : You remember, do you not, Mr. Funk, the 
 
 70
 
 EDWARD H1NES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 publication of an editorial in the Chicago Record-Herald 
 on or about the month of February, 1911, in which there 
 was specific reference to a $100,000 corruption fund? 
 
 MR. FUNK: I don't think I saw the editorial at that 
 time. 
 
 QUESTION : Well, did anyone talk with you, or did 
 anyone see you in reference to that editorial, or about that 
 time, in reference to this conversation you had with Mr. 
 Hines at the Union League Club ? 
 
 MR. FUNK : Do you mean anybody besides Mr. Kohl- 
 saat? I saw Mr. Kohlsaat. 
 
 QUESTION : Did you see Mr. Hines about that time ? 
 
 MR. FUNK : Yes ; Mr. Hines came to my office in a day 
 or two, or a short time ; it may have been more than a day 
 or two, but a short time after that editorial appeared. 
 
 QUESTION : What conversation did you have with him 
 upon that occasion ? 
 
 MR. FUNK : Well, he was very much disturbed at that 
 time, and undertook to refresh my memory as to what our 
 conversation had been. 
 
 QUESTION : What did he say ? 
 
 MR. FUNK : Well, I cannot repeat his language exactly, 
 but in substance it was to the effect that his former con- 
 versation with me had been merely a general discussion 
 of the situation down there, and that he had not asked me 
 for any money, and that he did not know anything about 
 any money having been raised. 
 
 QUESTION : Well, had you any prior conversation with 
 him in which you accused him of having raised any money? 
 money ? 
 
 MR. FUNK : No. 
 
 QUESTION : Or being concerned with any fund of that 
 sort? 
 
 MR. FUNK: No. 
 
 QUESTION : You had not communicated with him in any 
 way about that time? 
 
 MR. FUNK : No, sir. 
 
 QUESTION : And did he pretend to have any other busi- 
 ness or other thing to discuss with you when he came to 
 your office in February, 1911? 
 
 MR. FUNK: No. 
 
 QUESTION : So you had never discussed with him the 
 matter of the existence of that corruption fund after the 
 Union League Club meeting, which occurred in May or 
 
 71
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 June, 1909, until about the time of the publication in the 
 Record-Herald, which was some time in February, 1911? 
 
 MR. FUNK : No. 
 
 QUESTION: How long did this second conversation 
 with Mr. Hines at your office last? 
 
 MR. FUNK : Oh, not over five minutes. 
 
 QUESTION : Did he ask you at that time whether you 
 had given anyone information with reference to the first 
 conversation ? 
 
 MR. FUNK: No. (Helm 71) 
 
 A child can understand the plain purport of that testimony. 
 Funk was given clearly to understand that the editorial was 
 published in February, 1911. He says he had conferred with 
 Mr. McCormick about his duty to Kohlsaat, and here he was 
 in Springfield telling under oath of an occurrence alleged to 
 have taken place not more than seven weeks before. He now 
 says before the Union League Club that he had not then read 
 the famous editorial, and that TWO YEARS AND NINE 
 MONTHS PASSED BEFORE HE FINALLY DID READ 
 IT. Do you think that possible ? 
 
 FUNK BEFORE THE DILLINGHAM COMMITTEE 
 
 On June 26, 1911, Clarence S. Funk testified under oath be- 
 fore the Dillingham Committee. This was less than four and 
 one-half months after the publication of the Record-Herald 
 editorial of February 15, 1911. During the fourteen weeks 
 which had elapsed since his appearance before the Helm Com- 
 mittee, Funk was in a position to mass such proof as he had to 
 confirm the story then told by him. Funk was fully aware that 
 he was the central figure in the greatest political scandal ever 
 exploited in the United States. He was well aware that his 
 testimony had instigated the second Lorimer investigation, and 
 he realized that the burden of proving the charge against me 
 was on him. 
 
 Funk was the star witness for the prosecution. It may be 
 assumed that the attorneys for the prosecution made every 
 move which legal skill could suggest to bolster the Funk evi- 
 dence. It may confidently be assumed that every effort was 
 
 72
 
 EDWARD MINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 made to secure witnesses and documentary proof to add weight 
 to the allegations made by Funk. We have a right to believe 
 that repeated conferences were held on this matter, that every 
 detail was carefully considered and that a plan of campaign 
 was mapped out. 
 
 Funk knew, and all concerned knew that he would be sub- 
 jected to a thorough cross-examination before the Dillingham 
 Committee. It was recognized that Funk's testimony before 
 the Helm Committee must stand as the foundation of the charge 
 against me, and it was known that if he wandered far from 
 his Helm testimony any new story would fall of its own weight. 
 Why? Because the Helm testimony was given under oath 
 when the subject was fresh in his mind; because it was the 
 testimony on which was based the second Lorimer investi- 
 gation. 
 
 Funk's story before the Dillingham Committee differed in 
 certain details from that given before the Helm Committee, 
 but THE SUBSTANCE OF HIS TESTIMONY WAS THE 
 SAME. It had to be. He dared not change it. The eyes of 
 the nation were on him. Here is the essence of his testimony 
 relative to the time of the alleged second interview between 
 himself and me an interview which never occurred : 
 
 MR. MARBLE: Did you have any further conversation 
 with Mr. Hines relative to the first conversation? 
 
 MR. FUNK: Yes; I had a second conversation with 
 him. 
 
 MR. MARBLE: When? 
 
 MR. FUNK : As near as I can fix it, it was a few days 
 after the publication of the Record-Herald editorial. It 
 may have been more than a few days. I cannot say defin- 
 itely; but it was after the Record-Herald editorial was 
 published. 
 
 MR. MARBLE: What do you mean by the Record- 
 Herald editorial ? 
 
 MR. FUNK : The one that brought Kohlsaat to Spring- 
 field ; the editorial in which he said that $100,000 had been 
 used. (Dill. 557) 
 
 I take it that this is plain testimony. You cannot escape its 
 
 73
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 meaning. It was an unequivocal declaration that the second 
 alleged conversation took place shortly after February 15, 1911. 
 Funk pretended not to know the exact date of the editorial. 
 He was probably the only man present who did not know the 
 date if he really did not know it. However, his own counsel 
 pinned him to the date a minute later: 
 
 MR. MARBLE: Assuming that the Record-Herald edi- 
 torial was printed on the I5th of February, 1911, when 
 would you say that conversation was held ? 
 
 MR. FUNK : I think it was a short time after that. 
 
 This and other testimony by Funk, Kohlsaat and others 
 positively fixed February 15, 1911, as the approximate date on 
 which the second conversation was alleged to have been held. 
 I shall consider that matter later in detail. The point I wish 
 now to emphasize is that the Dillingham Committee was given 
 to understand that this was the date. No other date was even 
 hinted at. The Dillingham Committee and the public has not 
 had the slightest official information that there was any other 
 date suggested or offered for consideration. 
 
 EXPOSURE OF FUNK'S FALSEHOOD 
 
 Despite the fact that this accusation rested solely on the word 
 of Funk, I was in duty bound to defend myself against his im- 
 putation. I did so. I placed before the Dillingham Committee 
 an overwhelming mass of documentary and oral evidence which 
 proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that 7 was not in Chicago 
 from February 7, 1911 to March 5, 1911, and that during this 
 period I could not have held in Chicago the interview charged 
 by Clarence S. Funk. 
 
 The Chicago newspapers suppressed all mention of this abso- 
 lute repudiation of Funk's charge, but the Dillingham Com- 
 mittee knew that it was true, Funk's lawyers realized that he 
 was a discredited witness, and Funk knew that he had been de- 
 tected in an open falsehood. 
 
 It was not my fault that the Chicago newspapers suppressed 
 the truth which vindicated me. It was not my fault that these 
 press tactics prevented my fellow members in the Union League 
 
 74
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 Club from knowing that my word had been affirmed and that of 
 Funk repudiated. I assumed that the Board of Directors 
 would be governed by the facts when they learned them. They 
 were not so governed. 
 
 I was curious to know what course Funk would pursue be- 
 fore the Board of Directors when he came to fix a date for the 
 alleged second interview. It was intimated to me that Funk's 
 lawyers would not permit him to again confront the unassail- 
 able proof in my possession that I was not in Chicago on or 
 shortly after February 15, 1911. There seemed to me no way 
 of escape for my false accuser, but I was unprepared for the 
 astounding effort made by him in his original testimony before 
 the Board. Funk thus testified before the Club judges who 
 have seen fit to accept his word and to reject mine: 
 
 FUNK'S ASTOUNDING TESTIMONY 
 
 (The first two questions in the following testimony refer to 
 the Union League Club conversation between Funk and my- 
 self, held on May 27, 1909, and are inserted here to give the 
 proper relevancy to Funk's reply to the third question.) 
 
 QUESTION : You ended the conversation right there ? 
 
 MR. FUNK: Yes, sir. 
 
 QUESTION: By getting up and leaving him, did you? 
 
 MR. FUNK: Yes, sir. 
 
 QUESTION: But you had no other conversation with 
 him on that same subject after that; with Mr. Hines, I 
 mean? 
 
 MR. FUNK: Yes. He came to my office A FEW 
 MONTHS AFTERWARDS, evidently considerably at 
 that time agitated ; he came in one morning just before 
 just as I was going into a director's meeting, or some con- 
 ference which was quite important and which I could not 
 delay, and undertook to talk to me about that conversation 
 and to refresh my memory on the suggestions in it. I 
 talked to him only a minute. I told him I thought I re- 
 membered it, and excused myself and went into my meet- 
 ing. 
 
 QUESTION : That is, after the meeting at the Union 
 League Club? 
 
 MR. FUNK: I think IT WAS FOUR OR FIVE 
 MONTHS AFTER. 
 
 75
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 QUESTION: How long ago, can you fix it? 
 
 MR. FUNK: No, I cannot fix it definitely. (U. L. 21) 
 
 This is the testimony of Clarence S. Funk as it appears 
 on the official records of the Union League Club. I offer it 
 for your consideration. The Senate of the United States is 
 as yet officially unaware that Clarence S. Funk thus brazenly 
 repudiated his sworn testimony given before the Dillingham 
 Committee on June 26, 1911. Funk first made this statement 
 to your Board of Directors at a secret session held on Novem- 
 ber 13, 1911. I was not permitted to be present or to be repre- 
 sented by counsel when Funk thus changed his testimony. 
 
 It was not until January 2, 1912, that I appeared before your 
 Board and heard read the new version of Funk's testimony 
 against which it was demanded that I prove my innocence. 
 Funk was also present. His secretly given testimony of No- 
 vember 13 was slowly read to him. He made a few slight 
 corrections. The following then ensued: 
 
 A MEMBER : Mr. Funk, if you have any corrections to 
 make in this statement or anything to add to it, you are at 
 liberty to do so now. 
 
 MR. FUNK: THAT STATEMENT IS SUBSTAN- 
 TIALLY CORRECT. There appears to be a few gram- 
 matical errors that are of no consequence. The state- 
 ment is substantially as I made it. 
 
 A MEMBER: You have nothing to add to it? 
 
 MR. FUNK : No, sir. (U. L. 24) 
 
 That "substantially correct" and complete statement will be 
 analyzed fully later. I now desire to direct your attention to 
 the fact that Clarence S. Funk came before your Board of 
 Directors on November 13, 1911, and again on January 2, 
 1912, and OPENLY REPUDIATED HIS SWORN TES- 
 TIMONY BEFORE THE HELM COMMITTEE IN 
 SPRINGFIELD, GIVEN ON APRIL 5, 1911, AND ALSO 
 HIS SWORN TESTIMONY GIVEN BEFORE THE 
 DILLINGHAM COMMITTEE ON JUNE 26, 1911. 
 
 76
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 A "MISTAKE" OF SIXTEEN MONTHS 
 
 Before both of these committees, with the subject fresh in 
 his mind, with full realization of the responsibility which was 
 his in making a criminal charge against me, CLARENCE S. 
 FUNK TOOK OATH THAT I CAME TO HIS OFFICE 
 SHORTLY AFTER AN EDITORIAL PUBLISHED IN 
 THE CHICAGO RECORD-HERALD IN FEBRUARY, 
 1911, OR ABOUT SEVEN WEEKS BEFORE HE MADE 
 HIS PUBLIC CHARGE BEFORE THE HELM COM- 
 MITTEE. 
 
 BEFORE THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE 
 UNION LEAGUE CLUB HE MADE NO MENTION OF 
 ANY EDITORIAL. WHEN ASKED THE DATE OF 
 THE ALLEGED SECOND CONVERSATION, HE STAT- 
 ED IT AS "FOUR OR FIVE MONTHS" AFTER THE 
 UNION LEAGUE CLUB INTERVIEW, WHICH ESTAB- 
 LISHED A NEW FUNK DATE IN SEPTEMBER OR 
 OCTOBER, 1909, IN PLACE OF FEBRUARY, 1911, A 
 SHIFT OF DATES OF NOT LESS THAN SIXTEEN 
 MONTHS! 
 
 And I was expelled from the Union League Club on the tes- 
 timony of Charles S. Funk! Sixteen months is a mere detail, 
 a trifling matter, to Funk. I was compelled to account for 
 every hour of the day for a period of months. I did so, and 
 was then expelled on the word of a man who lacks either 
 memory or morals. 
 
 Select your own excuse for Funk, and then judge this action 
 of your Board. Assume, if you will, that Funk made an hon- 
 est mistake in setting this astounding new date. Would you 
 like to be expelled from the Union League Club on the word of 
 a man who makes a "mistake" of SIXTEEN MONTHS in 
 a vital date? Assume, if you will, that Funk has no memory 
 for dates. How comes he to be general manager of a great 
 corporation? How would you like to be placed at the mercy 
 of a man afflicted with a memory like that ? 
 
 You will not give Clarence S. Funk the benefit of any such 
 assumptions when you have finished these pages. You will 
 
 77
 
 EDWARD MINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 know why the Dillingham Committee gave me an unqualified 
 vindication, and you will understand why that Committee de- 
 clined to accept the impossible assertions made under oath 
 by Funk. 
 
 Why did Funk fix that new date? Why did he place the 
 time of the alleged second interview in September or Oc- 
 tober, 1909, instead of February, 1911. You may be sure he 
 had a reason, and here it is : 
 
 When I was called before the Dillingham Committee I 
 showed by a mass of evidence, overwhelming and conclusive, 
 that I was not in Chicago at or near the time of the editorial 
 of February 15, 1911 ; that I was not in Chicago from the 7th 
 of February, 1911, to the 5th of March, 1911. When Funk 
 made his various statements before the Helm and Dillingham 
 Committees he did not know my whereabouts during the period 
 in question, but apparently assumed that I was in Chicago on 
 or shortly after the I5th of February, 1911. 
 
 It was not until I took the witness stand in Washington and 
 proved absolutely that I was not in Chicago at any time dur- 
 ing that period that it dawned on Funk and his attorneys that 
 they were confronted by facts which could not be ignored. 
 
 FUNK SHIFTS 
 
 Now see what follows: Did Funk go before the Dilling- 
 ham Committee and explain that he had made a "mistake" in 
 setting that date ? Not at all ! He permits his false testimony 
 to stand on the Dillingham Committee records without a word 
 changed. It was not until the I3th of November, 1911, that 
 Funk gives a new version of his tale and sets a new date for the 
 alleged second interview. He does this in a private hearing 
 before your Board of Directors. He does it in full knowledge 
 of the fact that he cannot stand on the testimony he gave un- 
 der oath in Washington. He seems to have had confidence that 
 any version or any date would be accepted by your Board, and 
 that his direct impeachment in Washingon would be ignored 
 by those who had decreed in advance a verdict of expulsion 
 against me.
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 Deliberately ignoring his sworn testimony in Washington 
 which was accepted as fixing the date of the second alleged 
 interview after an interval of approximately twenty-one 
 months after the first or Union League Club interview, Funk 
 now coolly informed your Board that it was "a few months 
 after," and finally that it was "four or five months after." 
 
 Funk's motive was plain. It was his purpose to get clear 
 away from the date which he had given under oath, the date 
 fixed by the Record-Herald editorial of February 15, 1911, and 
 to fix a new date back to some indefinite time in the fall of 
 1909, a date not associated with any editorial, in the hope that 
 I might not be able to meet the new and vague period. 
 
 Funk had had months in which to map out his plan of pro- 
 cedure before the Board of Directors of the Union League 
 Club. You can judge as well as I whether he acted on his 
 own initiative or if he accepted the advice of others. The reck- 
 lessness of the expedient adopted to avoid impeachment is ex- 
 ceeded only by its stupidity. The new date fixed by Funk was 
 one prior to the filing of any charges against Senator Lorimer, 
 and in a period when there was nothing to indicate that he 
 would be compelled to fight to retain his seat. Funk must 
 have known that. His sole desire seems to have been to get as 
 far away as possible from the date he had fixed under oath, 
 and he seemingly relied on the credulity or bias of the Board 
 to accept without question any statement he cared or dared to 
 make. It developed, however, that his new tale was so pre- 
 posterous that it had to be discarded in part and remodeled 
 in vital details and later totally abandoned ! 
 
 FUNK'S HUMILIATING RETREAT 
 
 The task which confronted Funk, his attorneys and certain 
 members of the Board was to assume some date on which / 
 could not prove my innocence. The attempt to prove me guilty 
 was now openly abandoned. From this point on a desperate 
 attempt was made, not to prove a date, but to make me dis- 
 prove any date which Funk or other of my persecutors might 
 
 79
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 care to assume! The official record contains the proof that I 
 was subjected to that injustice. 
 
 On cross-examination, when Funk was confronted with his 
 testimony, given both before the Helm and Dillingham Com- 
 mittees, which directly contradicted his new statement, Funk 
 sought to escape from the embarrassing position in which he 
 found himself by falling back to his original testimony before 
 the committee which fixed the editorial of Feb. 15 as the time 
 of the alleged second talk. The following then occurred : 
 
 MR. EATON : You desire to connect it with the read- 
 ing of this Record-Herald editorial, do you? 
 
 MR. FUNK: It happened somewhere along that time; 
 I cannot say definitely. 
 
 MR. EATON: It is important to the Board, because in 
 your testimony the other day you nowhere connected it 
 with that editorial, did you? 
 
 MR. FUNK : I was not asked that question. (U. L. 40) 
 
 Read that last answer and judge of the candor and frank- 
 ness of Clarence S. Funk! Why was he not asked that ques- 
 tion ? Because he did not wish to answer it. Because he wished 
 to evade being confronted with the proof which had over- 
 whelmed him in Washington. Because he wished to leave the 
 alleged date so indefinite that I could adduce no proof to repu- 
 diate his unsubstantiated word. Because your Board protected 
 him by not asking that awkward question. That was why. 
 
 WHAT FUNK CLAIMS I SAID TO HIM 
 
 Let us now consider the words which Funk ascribes to me in 
 that second conversation which never occurred. We will, as 
 usual, go back to his original story as told to the Helm Com- 
 mittee. (Page 71, Helm Com.) 
 
 QUESTION : What conversation did you have with him 
 upon that occasion? 
 
 MR. FUNK : Well, he was very much disturbed at that 
 time and undertook to refresh my memory as to what our 
 conversation had been? 
 
 QUESTION: What did he say? 
 
 80
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 MR. FUNK: Well, I cannot repeat his language ex- 
 actly, but in substance it was to the effect that his former 
 conversation with me had been merely a general discus- 
 sion of the situation down there, and that he had not asked 
 me for any money, and that he did not know anything 
 about money having been raised. 
 
 His narration of this alleged incident before the Dilling- 
 ham Committee did not vary much from the above. He said : 
 (Page 557, Dill. Com.) 
 
 MR. MARBLE : Now tell us what the conversation was. 
 
 MR. FUNK : Mr. Hines arrived at my office one morn- 
 ing shortly after I got there, about 9 o'clock, and he was 
 admitted to my room. He seemed to be considerably agi- 
 tated, and he immediately begun to talk with me about 
 our former conversation. 
 
 MR. MARBLE: What did he say? 
 
 MR. FUNK: The substance of it was that he did not 
 want me to misunderstand our talk the other day; that 
 he had not meant to say that any money was used, but 
 that he was only discussing with me in a general way the 
 situation down there ; and that he got to thinking about it 
 afterwards and thought that I might not have understood 
 it, and he was back there to clear it up for me. 
 
 Before the Board of Directors of the Union League Club 
 Funk gave this version of my alleged conversation : (Page 21, 
 U. L.) 
 
 MR. FUNK: He (Hines) said substantially that he had 
 been thinking about that last talk we had and wanted me 
 to understand the situation, and that he did not intend to 
 say that any money had been used, etc. And I told him 
 I thought I did understand the conversation, and mean- 
 time they were calling me and I excused myself with him. 
 
 I desire to call your attention to several very peculiar things 
 which must be deduced from this testimony of Funk's. 
 
 Study that explanation of Funk's and ask yourself if it 
 sounds reasonable. You remember his account of our first 
 meeting in the Union League Club. It was most specific in 
 
 81
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 character, and left no room for any misunderstanding concern- 
 ing what was meant by the words which Funk put in my mouth. 
 He declared that I specifically stated to him that "It cost 
 $100,000 to put Lorimer over," that "we had to put the money 
 up in a hurry" without time to consult anybody, and that I 
 asked him for a contribution of $10,000 to help make up the 
 fund, and that I directed him to send the money to Edward 
 Tilden. 
 
 CAN YOU EXPLAIN THIS? 
 
 There was nothing vague about those alleged statements. 
 They are susceptible of only one meaning, and, if they were 
 true, would leave me without the slightest hope that I could 
 delude Funk into believing that I had said something which 
 might be construed, "I had not meant to say that any 
 money was used," and that "I was only discussing in a general 
 way the situation down there," and that he (Funk) "might not 
 understand it." How on earth could he fail to understand a 
 bold demand for $10,000 which was to be sent to Mr. Tilden? 
 
 Funk would have you believe that after I had made these 
 specific statements to him concerning this alleged corruption 
 fund, that I rushed to his office because of a vague charge in 
 an editorial, knowing that he was my enemy and responsible 
 for its publication, and you are asked to believe that I then 
 attempted to placate him with the asinine explanation of the 
 specific statements which he attributed to me in the testimony 
 he has given. 
 
 If Funk had charged me with making mere general and 
 suggestive statements to him in our Union League Club inter- 
 view, statements susceptible of double meaning, his testi- 
 mony relative to the second interview might assume some color 
 of credibility, standing by itself. However, in view of the raw 
 proposition which he attributes to me of asking him to con- 
 tribute to a specifically named corruption fund and giving to 
 him the details of the same, Funk's explanation of this second 
 alleged conversation in his office becomes simply unbelievable 
 to any fair-minded person. 
 
 S2
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 AND HOW ABOUT THIS? 
 
 Again, you will also notice that Funk testified that "/ was 
 admitted to his room." That means necessarily, that I had to 
 gain access to Funk through somebody else in the outer office 
 and presumably gave my name to some office attendant who 
 conveyed the same to Mr. Funk in his private office, or 
 "room," as he terms it. And still Funk, neither at any time 
 or at any hearing, brings a living soul to corroborate him in his 
 claim that I called at his office, as testified to by him. Not only 
 this, but he testified at one time before the hearing of the 
 Board of this Club in relation to another matter that a record 
 is kept in his office by attendants of all calls made upon him 
 either personally or by the telephone, and if, as he claims, I 
 called upon him that morning, and was "admitted to his room" 
 he would according to his own statement have not only the 
 corroboration of the person who admitted me, but a record in 
 his office of such visit made at the time and he would certainly 
 have produced it. 
 
 You will also observe that Funk further said before the 
 Dillingham Committee, "in this second talk Hines told me that 
 he did not want me to misunderstand our talk of the other 
 day." You will note by this that Funk quotes me as referring 
 to our first talk as having occurred "the other day" which was 
 the 27th day of May, 1909. According to this there were only 
 a few days between the two talks, and for aught that appears 
 the second talk may have been in the same month of May as 
 the first interview, and consequently nearly two years before 
 the appearance of the Record-Herald editorial of February 
 15, 1911. 
 
 It was the editorial of February 15, 1911 "that brought 
 Kohlsaat to Springfield," and it was that editorial that Funk 
 was specifically questioned about before the Helm Committee 
 and also before the Dillingham Committee, and it was with 
 reference to that editorial that he definitely and unequivocally 
 fixed the time of this alleged second talk at his office. At the 
 time Funk gave his testimony before the Dillingham Commit- 
 tee with reference to the editorial of February 15, 1911, and 
 
 83
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 this alleged second talk I had not yet been called upon to tes- 
 tify regarding the same. 
 
 SOME PROVED FACTS CONCERNING FEB. 15 
 
 At the hearing before the Board, on January 2, Chairman 
 Sidley brought up the question of my absence from Chicago 
 from February 7th to March 5th, 1911. I was called upon to 
 testify by your Board concerning my whereabouts during that 
 period, and I stated as follows : 
 
 "The statement made before the Helm Committee and 
 the Dillingham Committee was that I went to Mr. Funk's 
 office at the International Harvester Company a few days 
 or a short time after this Record-Herald article of Feb- 
 ruary 15, 1911. I did not go there. I was not in Chicago 
 from February 6 to March 7 March 6. I placed before 
 the Dillingham Committee conclusive evidence of where 
 I was every day yes, half day during that time. I 
 introduced telegrams that I received every day in Wash- 
 ington; telegrams that I sent every day in Washington; 
 original telegrams, not copies. My secretary had the 
 adjoining room with me for a part of that time. Mrs. 
 Hines arrived in Washington February n, and stayed 
 with me until March 4. In addition to that I introduced 
 long distance telephone receipts, accounting for every day 
 using the long distance telephone. I introduced our gen- 
 eral manager of our northern properties here in Chicago 
 during Mr. Earth's absence in California, who sent me 
 mail every day up to the second day of March. I intro- 
 duced the purchasing agent of the American Window 
 Glass Company, with whom we closed a large contract. 
 He was in communication with me on the long distance 
 telephone, and where he had sent telegrams to me, one 
 Pittsburg to Washington, Washington to Pittsburg and 
 Chicago. During that period I was not in Chicago, nor 
 has there been anybody able to produce anything the 
 slightest evidence that I was in Chicago from February 
 6 to March 4, I think it was. I arrived home on March 
 5 and left in the afternoon of March 6 for Virginia, 
 Minnesota, to attend several annual meetings, and re- 
 turned here March 13. I have had the system since I 
 commenced business a young man in our employ, our 
 
 84
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 assistant treasurer has a record, that we produced in 
 Washington showing where I was every day of the year. 
 If I leave Chicago a telegram is sent when I arrive in 
 New York, Philadelphia or wherever I go, those tele- 
 grams are sent; so I can verify positively where I was 
 every day and I was not in Chicago." (80-8 1.) 
 
 THE BOARD ACCEPTS A TRUTH 
 
 At the next meeting of the Board, however, further testi- 
 mony relating to this point was made unnecessary by the ad- 
 mission of the Board that I was not in Chicago from February 
 7th to March 5th, 1911. The following colloquy ensued: 
 
 CHAIRMAN : I don't understand that there is any ques- 
 tion on it. 
 
 MR. SCOTT: Is that right, Mr. Eaton? 
 
 A MEMBER : Mr. Hines left on the 7th. 
 
 MR. EATON : From our standpoint it is material. 
 
 MR. SCOTT : It is simply a question of fixing the dates. 
 
 MR. HINES : The 7th of February ; arrived in Chicago 
 on the 5th of March. 
 
 CHAIRMAN : Well, it will be assumed for the purposes 
 of this hearing that Mr. Hines was absent from the city 
 during that time. 
 
 There was no dissent from any member of the Board to 
 this most important ruling. I should have been on guard 
 against such apparent liberality, but I was not. On the face 
 of it, this ruling proclaimed my innocence. It was an open 
 declaration by your Board that Funk had testified falsely in 
 Springfield and in Washington. It was an official admission of 
 the validity of my claim that I was not in Chicago at the dates 
 set by Funk for the alleged second interview. It was an 
 affirmation of my veracity and of Funk's untruthfulness. 
 
 I should have known that my prosecutors were not influ- 
 enced by any motive of fairness or liberality in thus admitting 
 as a fact this most important point. I should have suspected 
 that this seeming concession was inspired by a dread of con- 
 fronting Funk with the plain proof of his impeachment in 
 Washington. It soon developed that those on the Board who 
 
 85
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 had prejudged my case, then felt warranted in expelling me 
 despite the fact that they knew Funk was a discredited witness, 
 and that the sole motive in then admitting my alibi was to 
 prevent the impeachment of Funk from appearing, on the record. 
 I ask you to consider the astounding situation in which Funk 
 found himself because of this admission that I was not in Chi- 
 cago at or near the time of the publication of the Record- 
 Herald editorial of February 15, 1911. In his original testi- 
 mony before the Board, Funk had placed the date of the 
 alleged second interview at a few months after the Union 
 League conversation of May 27, 1909. His most specific state- 
 ment was that it "was four or five months afterwards." He 
 was compelled to admit that this was "a mistake," that he did 
 not "catch the drift of the questions," etc. Funk then took 
 refuge under the roof of the editorial of February 15, 1911, 
 but that roof was now torn down by the Board with the consent 
 of Funk's attorney. He therefore was again wandering in 
 the indefinite period of "a few months after" the Union League 
 Club conversation of May 27, 1909. He had completed the 
 circle of inveracity. 
 
 1 '', '-''.K- " ' 1 
 FUNK'S FIGHT WITH FACTS 
 
 Funk was, in fact, committed to the "few months" theory. 
 It was affirmed more than once in this testimony of his before 
 your Board. Listen to him: 
 
 QUESTION: Had the matter become public before this 
 second conversation? 
 
 MR. FUNK: No. 
 
 QUESTION: Did you later mention that conversation 
 to anybody which gave it more publicity? 
 
 MR. FUNK: Yes; I mentioned it to Mr. Kohlsaat, a 
 personal friend of mine. 
 
 QUESTION : How long ago was that ? 
 
 MR. FUNK : That was several months afterwards, as I 
 recall it. It was just about the time Mr. Hines came to 
 see me the second time, and I connected those two things 
 in my mind. (U. L. 21.) 
 
 86
 
 EDWARD MINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 Later in the same examination this occurred : 
 
 QUESTION : Mr. Funk, was this conversation you had 
 with Mr. Kohlsaat before or after the first Senate inves- 
 tigation took place in Washington? 
 
 MR. FUNK : It was before. 
 
 Referring to the official record of the Dillingham Committee 
 (page 553) we find this illuminating testimony: 
 
 SENATOR JONES : How long after your talk with Hines 
 did this conversation with Mr. Kohlsaat occur? 
 
 MR. FUNK : I cannot fix the date definitely ; but I think 
 it was several months. 
 
 And on page 551 of the Dillingham Committee record : 
 
 SENATOR FLETCHER: Was it (the Kohlsaat conversa- 
 tion) a year after the conversation with Mr. Hines? 
 
 MR. FUNK : No ; I think not. It may have been a few 
 months afterwards. 
 
 A member of the Board, who doubtless perceived the des- 
 perate situation thus confronting Funk, asked him these ques- 
 tions : 
 
 "QUESTION: You gave this same testimony several 
 times under oath, have you ? ANSWER : I have twice. 
 
 QUESTION : Twice when ? ANSWER : Before the com- 
 mittee at Springfield, Illinois, and before the Lorimer In- 
 vestigation at Washington. . . . 
 
 QUESTION : Have you any occasion to change anything 
 which you have stated under oath at these investigations 
 in which you made statements under oath? ANSWER: 
 No." 
 
 In view of the fact that it was evident that on this occasion 
 Funk purposely changed the testimony in regard to the date 
 of the alleged second conversation so greatly, is it not most 
 significant that a member of the Board should put the above 
 questions to him? It is perfectly evident that the member 
 of the Board had noticed the tremendous discrepancy in this 
 respect, and was trying to straighten Funk out, and give him 
 the opportunity to reconcile these various statements if he 
 
 87
 
 EDWARD MINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 could. It is evident that Funk either did not catch the signifi- 
 cance of the member's question, or did not care to avail him- 
 self of the generous opportunity thus afforded him. 
 
 Afterwards, on January 2, 1912, at the first hearing of the 
 Board at which I was present, the whole of his testimony given 
 at the private hearing before the Board on November 13, 1911, 
 was carefully read over to Funk and when that reading was 
 completed the following occurred : 
 
 "A MEMBER: Mr. Funk, if you have any corrections 
 to make in this statement, or anything to add to it, you are 
 at liberty to do so now." (U. L. 24) 
 
 The puzzled and apprehensive member was still trying to 
 help Funk out, but the latter stuck to the story which then 
 seemed most helpful to him, and said : 
 
 MR. FUNK: That statement is substantially correct. 
 There appear to be a few little grammatical errors that 
 are of no consequence. The statement is substantially as 
 I made it. 
 
 QUESTION : You have nothing to add to it now ? 
 
 MR. FUNK: No, sir. (U. L. 24) 
 
 No, Funk had nothing to add about any editorial. He now 
 had good and sufficient reason to fear making any attempt to 
 connect my alleged second visit with any editorial in view of 
 the evidence before the Dillingham Committee. After his fail- 
 ure to make out what his attorneys considered a sufficient case 
 by his testimony as given at the secret hearing of November 
 1 3th, Funk was later forced to select still another new date, 
 with results most disastrous to him, as you will learn. 
 
 THE CASE IS FORMALLY CLOSED 
 
 Upon the completion of the testimony on January 3, 1912, 
 the Chairman announced that the arguments of counsel upon 
 the evidence presented were in order, and that "it was the de- 
 sire and intention of the Board that at this time the matter 
 should be closed up." (349.) My counsel, urging the pressure 
 
 88
 
 EDWARD H1NES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 that he had been under in being suddenly called into the case 
 with no opportunity to marshal the evidence, asked that an 
 adjournment be taken to some other day, so as to enable him 
 to complete his references to the testimony and tabulate the 
 exhibits, and thus better prepare himself to argue the case. In 
 response to this request the following occurred : 
 
 "THE CHAIRMAN: If there is no suggestion of any 
 further testimony that you seek to offer 
 
 "MR. EATON : No. 
 
 "THE CHAIRMAN: I mean beyond that that we have 
 heard. 
 
 "MR. EATON: That testimony is entitled to 
 
 "THE CHAIRMAN : Excuse me. No more witnesses ? 
 
 "MR. EATON : No, I am through. 
 
 "THE CHAIRMAN : Then we will consider the matter." 
 (351-352.) 
 
 Having thus carefully committed us not to produce any 
 more witnesses, the Board, after a conference, announced 
 through its chairman that the arguments would be postponed to 
 January 13, and an adjournment was thereupon taken to that 
 date. 
 
 Upon the reconvening of the Board on January 13, 1912, the 
 arguments were heard, Mr. Scott arguing the case on behalf 
 of Mr. Funk, and Mr. Eaton presenting the argument in my 
 behalf. The fact that I was not in Chicago from February 7 
 to March 5, 1911, having been conceded at the previous hear- 
 ing, Mr. Scott, in his final argument, made no claim that the 
 alleged second talk occurred within a day or two after the 
 editorial of February 15, 1911, as previously testified to by 
 Funk before the Helm and Dillingham Committees, but based 
 his argument wholly upon Funk's changed testimony, as given 
 in the secret session of November 13, 1911, in which the time 
 of the alleged second talk was variously fixed by Funk at times 
 long antedating any editorial relating to the matter. To quote 
 Mr. Scott: 
 
 "Mr. Funk in his testimony first said he thought it was 
 
 89
 
 EDWARD H1NES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 four or five months after the first conversation that Mines 
 came to see him. Later he said he thought it was longer 
 than that, but that he could not fix the time definitely; 
 . . . it was about that time that he mentioned the mat- 
 ter to Mr. Kohlsaat. . . . Before the Dillingham 
 Committee he testified it was a few days after the publica- 
 tion of the Record-Herald editorial, but he said he had not 
 read the Record-Herald editorial before Hines visited 
 him." (403.) 
 
 You thus see that at this stage of the proceedings (which 
 was supposed to be the closing of the case) Funk's case rested 
 squarely upon the proposition that this alleged second talk 
 occurred four or five months after the first talk, or at the 
 time that he first told Kohlsaat about the matter, which we 
 have seen was about a year or more before the investigation 
 of the United States Senate Committee (known as the Bur- 
 rows Committee), and is not and could not be associated with 
 the publication of any editorial. 
 
 FIRST HINT OF A NEW EDITORIAL 
 
 Attorney Scott closed his address with a vague hint which 
 puzzled Mr. Eaton and myself. It was a hint that the Record- 
 Herald editorial of February 15, 1911, was not the one that 
 Funk had in mind. In this connection Mr. Scott said : 
 
 I have only this to say on that point further: It is 
 merely the association of the fact that the editorial prob- 
 ably induced his coming that led Mr. Funk to use it as a 
 basis at all for fixing the time of his coming, and he said 
 that he had not read the editorial at the time he came. 
 Nor is it anywhere fixed definitely that the editorial to 
 which he (Funk) refers means that of February 15. If 
 that was not the first editorial in which reference to the 
 $100,000 going to Springfield appears, then the (Hines) 
 alibi is absolutely of no value, and I submit to you, gentle- 
 men, if there is a possibility of these things being settled 
 upon that question even at personal inconvenience to 
 yourselves in order to enable Mr. Eaton to make any 
 reply he can, the question I submit in all fairness should 
 be opened whether that was the time or not. (U. L. 414) 
 
 90
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 Mr. Eaton called attention to the fact that it had been agreed 
 that February I5th was the date in question. Chairman Sidley 
 then made a remarkable statement: "// such agreement was 
 made, then I say the case should be reopened." And this in 
 the face of the fact that the case had formally been closed ! 
 
 What then followed ? The case was not then reopened. Mr. 
 Eaton was told to make his argument for my defense, which he 
 did. 
 
 What was in the minds of those who had prejudged me? 
 What was back of that veiled suggestion that the alibi proved 
 in Washington was valueless? What was the meaning of 
 these mysterious hints that there might be another editorial? 
 
 Upon the completion of Mr. Eaton's argument the Chair- 
 man said: 
 
 "Mr. Eaton, will you and Mr. Hines remain in the club 
 house during the dinner hour in case we should wish to say 
 anything ?" 
 
 We supposed that we were asked to remain to hear the deci- 
 sion and we thereupon retired from the room at 6:30 p. m., 
 and were called back into the board room at 9 -.26 p. m., when 
 to our intense surprise the Chairman made this statement: 
 (489.) 
 
 "THE CHAIRMAN : Mr. Eaton, this matter of the so- 
 called alibi has taken on an importance in minds of the 
 Board which seem to justify some further consideration of 
 it. At the time that the testimony was put in there was a 
 statement made to you that for the purposes of the hear- 
 ing it might be considered that Mr. Hines was absent on 
 certain dates from the city of Chicago, and certain wit- 
 nesses of yours were excluded on that ground. The 
 matter has now assumed as the result of the argument 
 an importance which in the minds of the Board justifies 
 them in reconsidering that point and reopening the ques- 
 tion, the whole question, relating to Mr. Hines' presence or 
 absence and also and any light that may be thrown upon 
 that by the introduction of evidence on the other side." 
 
 What happened during that secret session of your Board 
 has not been disclosed to me. Under the rules of the Club a 
 
 91
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 two-thirds vote of the Board is necessary for the expulsion 
 of a member under charges. May the inference be properly 
 drawn that two-thirds of the Board declined to vote against 
 me on the evidence which had been submitted when the case 
 had thus formally been closed ? It is a certainty that had those 
 on the Board opposed to me been able to muster the votes re- 
 quired to expel me, they would not have adopted the desperate 
 expedient of reopening a case after the arguments had been 
 heard, and the case taken under consideration. 
 
 SPRINGING THE NEW EDITORIAL OF JAN. 20 
 
 A few moments later, Chairman Sidley revealed the vital 
 feature of the new case which the prosecution had framed. He 
 informed us that Attorney Scott had knowledge of "an edito- 
 rial which appeared at an earlier date than the one which was 
 referred to as the editorial of February 15,"- and despite the 
 earnest protest of Mr. Eaton that the case had been closed, 
 Chairman Sidley ruled that it was not closed, and instructed 
 the Secretary to read a new Record-Herald editorial of January 
 20, 1911, which he did, as follows: 
 
 "WHO GOT THE $100,000 LORIMER ELEC- 
 TION MONEY? Said Senator Burrows: There is 
 absolutely no proof in this case, direct or indirect, from 
 which a legitimate inference could be drawn that a single 
 member of the General Assembly was corruptly influenced 
 to vote for Mr. Lorimer.' 
 
 "This is a sweeping assertion, and, while it may indi- 
 cate that Senator Burrows himself is innocent-minded and 
 without guile, we fear that it goes rather too far to find 
 ready credence even among humble, untutored persons. 
 The Senator's trust and distrust are equally notable. He 
 believes in Lorimer and the Lorimerites. He lumps 
 White, Link, Beckemeyer and Holstlaw together and de- 
 clares that 'it is obvious that there is nothing in the state- 
 ments of any of one of them or in the statements of all 
 of them taken together which would justify a conclusion 
 that their testimony as to bribery is true, or could be relied 
 upon in a matter even of minor importance.' 
 
 "These men, acting at different times, under different . 
 92
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 circumstances and impulses, piled up the evidence and sus- 
 tained one another's testimony, but that is nothing. Hoist- 
 law, who convinced many who might have doubted, told 
 a story, according to the Senator, that was impossible of 
 belief. He destroyed his own good reputation, ruined him- 
 self for the fun of the thing.' 
 
 "The Senator overshot the mark in his enthusiasm as 
 a leader of a great and noble cause. The purse was raised 
 $100,000. Holstlaw named his share of it, the bills he 
 speaks of went to a Chicago bank, he is confirmed by 
 the record of the bank's deposits. 
 
 "But the innocent Burrows remains adamant. What 
 does he think become of the money. Who got it and so 
 prevented its corrupt use in the Legislature?" 
 
 Attorney Scott, who produced that editorial, and who doubt- 
 less knew of it before the hearings started, did not intro- 
 duce it in evidence when it would properly have been admis- 
 sible, did not refer to it in the argument which he had made 
 that very day, and claimed in that argument that Funk must 
 be a truthful witness because he could not fix the date of the 
 alleged second conversation. 
 
 ASTONISHING IGNORANCE 
 
 Chairman Sidley made an equally astounding contribution. 
 He said that nobody had seen that editorial up to that time, and 
 that the Board did not know what was in it (490). He also 
 said that he did not know whether it was immaterial or mate- 
 rial (494). And (495) "None of us know what is in this 
 editorial at this moment ; we are all entirely ignorant of what 
 is in the editorial." 
 
 And yet, claiming not to know a thing about what was in 
 that editorial he and the Board insisted that it should go into 
 the record ; and that there should be (490) "a reopening of the 
 question, the whole question, relating to Mr. Hines' presence 
 or absence." Bear in mind that the case had been finished; 
 the arguments had been made, and we were asked to retire 
 while "the jury," as we supposed, considered what verdict 
 they should render. 
 
 93
 
 EDWARD MINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 And after an interval of about three hours, namely, from 
 6:30 to 9:25, they evidently realized that the evidence which 
 I gave and the concession that the Board had made that I 
 was out of the city, not only at the time of the editorial of 
 February 15, 1911, but from the 7th of February before that 
 until the 5th of March after that continuously, so utterly dis- 
 credited Funk in reference to the alleged second talk that he 
 had had with me, that they could not possibly even risk carry- 
 ing out their programme which they had to expel me; and 
 that they must have something to relieve them from their 
 dilemma ; and they grasped at that straw, the January 20 edito- 
 rial, and the Chairman, while protesting that he and the 
 whole Board were ignorant of the contents of that editorial, 
 ordered it to be filed as a part of their record. If it were 
 true that they did not know the contents of that editorial at 
 that time, what justification on earth could they have for 
 making it a part of the record? None whatever. The irre- 
 sistable inference is that they did know the nature of that 
 editorial at the very time they were protesting their ignorance. 
 
 Here we have the situation of the evidence having been 
 heard, the arguments made and the case in the hands of the 
 Board for consideration for several hours, when, without any 
 previous intimation to me or my counsel, the case is suddenly 
 abandoned and a new line of attack made upon me an attack 
 based on an editorial never before mentioned or hinted at at 
 any hearing. Was this new editorial introduced in the hope 
 and expectation that I would not be able to disprove the said 
 alleged second talk with Funk as fixed by that editorial? 
 
 FUNK REMINDED OF A DUTY 
 
 Feeling that an unjust attempt was being made to place me 
 in a situation where it was hoped that I lacked the evidence 
 with which to defend myself (and I then realized that a failure 
 to establish my innocence conclusively meant that certain mem- 
 bers of the Board would decree my guilt), I addressed the 
 Chairman as follows: 
 
 94
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 "I feel, Mr. Chairman, very much concerned in this. 
 I wish to say a word. This matter here is only of trivial 
 significance as compared with Washington, which is a trial 
 before a higher tribunal. Mr. Funk and his counsel have 
 settled his testimony in Washington that the February 15 
 article was the article referred to. Now, gentlemen, you 
 must take into account that it is not justice to me to bring 
 this changed condition. If Mr. Funk was right, or thought 
 he was right, should not his duty be to go to Washington 
 and say: 'I have made a mistake, and in place of Feb- 
 ruary 15 it is January 20?' Gentlemen, this thing tonight 
 here is a serious matter to me personally. The trial at 
 Washington is the great trial. He (Funk) went there, you 
 remember, as a witness, and settled absolutely that the 
 article of February 15 was the one on which he based his 
 date. 
 
 "Now, you know that, gentlemen, and it applies just 
 as much before the Helm Committee. I have not brought 
 in new evidence here at all ; not a word of new evidence. 
 We settled on the I5th of February transaction, and I 
 think that it is a great injustice to me to attempt to change 
 that date after I have shown by everything here at hand, 
 where I was prior to that, and everything else, and placed 
 it before the Board. . . . Mr. Chairman and gentle- 
 men, counsel for Mr. Funk has not taken advantage of 
 that new evidence, since he has not gone to Washington, 
 where duty should compel him to go. It does not show 
 good faith." 
 
 Thereupon a member asked the question: "Mr. President, 
 do I understand you have ruled this a part of the record, the 
 editorial ?" The Chairman said : "The editorial is now a part 
 of the record." 
 
 This was on Saturday, January 13, and after considerable 
 argument my counsel asked for time to meet the new situa- 
 tion as presented by that editorial, and the Board adjourned to 
 January 26, 1912. And then on January 26, without taking 
 any testimony, they adjourned to February 15. 
 
 A MOST REMARKABLE PROCEDURE 
 
 What were we called on to establish in this session of Feb- 
 ruary 15, 1912? By a peculiar coincidence the date was that 
 of the famous editorial fixed by the Dillingham prosecution as 
 
 95
 
 EDWARD HIKES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 the one which impelled me to hold the second conversation with 
 Funk. Your Board had formally admitted that I was not in 
 Chicago on that date. It had read into the record a new 
 editorial, the one of January 20. You would think that I 
 would be called on to defend myself against that; would you 
 not? 
 
 Not a bit of it. Chairman Sidley openly repudiated his act 
 and that of the Board in placing on the record the unequivocal 
 ruling: "It will be assumed for the purpose of this hearing 
 that Mr. Hines was absent from the city during that time. 
 (From February 7 to March 5, 1911.)" 
 
 Consider the situation: Against our earnest protest I had 
 been formally notified that I must bring evidence to combat 
 the editorial of January 20, but I must first establish before the 
 Board the alibi they had once admitted and which had con- 
 clusively been proved in Washington! I realize that this 
 sounds impossible, but this actually happened within the walls 
 of your Club. 
 
 Funk knew, Chairman Sidley knew, Attorney Scott knew 
 and every member of your Board knew this alibi was valid and 
 unassailable by any fair means. Why, then, did they insist 
 that I should again prove what had once been admitted ? Was it 
 because of a faint hope that there might develop something in 
 the presentation of my evidence which would serve as a pretext 
 to convict me because of it? They did not doubt the truth of 
 that alibi, but they hoped that there might be some slip which 
 might afford a pretext for a verdict against me. In the prob- 
 able event that the proof could not be ignored, they would then 
 fall back on the new editorial of January 20. In the event that 
 I refuted that date they would set others. In the event that I 
 cleared myself on all the dates conjectured they would expel me 
 anyway! This, I was forced to believe, was the premeditated 
 plan, and it was executed to the letter. 
 
 I AGAIN PROVE THE OBVIOUS 
 
 The farce of compelling me to prove again the alibi relative 
 to February 15, 1911, then began. We produced Mr. Edward 
 
 96
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 H. Thomas, who testified that ever since 1894 I had been 
 attending to my personal matters, and had a system of keeping 
 track of my absences from Chicago and of keeping a record 
 of my departures from and returns to the city, and what 
 I left the city for, and if telegrams or communications were 
 received from me indicating my presence in some other place 
 than my original destination, that a proper entry is made 
 ^p. 521-3). Those records were produced by Mr. Thomas 
 with reference to the period in question, showing that on Feb- 
 ruary 7, 1911, I left for New York and Washington, and 
 returned March 5, 1911; and we showed to the Board other 
 corroborative documentary evidence such as telegrams, etc. 
 Mr. Nelson, my private secretary, then testified. He accom- 
 panied me from Chicago on February 7, and was with me the 
 whole of the time that I was absent till March 5, with the 
 exception of a day or so when I was in New York or Phila- 
 delphia. Mr. Nelson submitted his stenographic books, ex- 
 pense accounts, etc., and conclusively established my absence 
 during that period. We also produced Mr. Toomey and Mr. 
 Swift, and then introduced a large mass of evidence which I 
 gathered at great expense of time and effort, and which proved 
 so conclusively that I was not in Chicago from February 7 to 
 March 5 that Funk and his counsel and the Board finally aban- 
 doned that indisputable point. 
 
 Later in the hearings, when Funk and his attorney were 
 trying to fix the alleged second talk with reference to this other 
 editorial of January 20, 1911, they produced the private secre- 
 tary of Mr. McCormick, president of the International Har- 
 vester Company, for the purpose of showing by the secretary's 
 diary that a conference was held upon the morning of January 
 20 between Mr. Funk, Mr. McCormick and Mr. Bancroft. It 
 appeared from an examination of that diary that from Feb- 
 ruary 5 to March 10 Mr. McCormick was absent from Chi- 
 cago, and that Mr. Bancroft was also absent from February 13 
 to February 25, 1911, and also that Mr. Funk was absent from 
 the city from February 19 to February 23, 1911. The signifi- 
 cance of these diary entries (as thus revealed for the first time) 
 
 97
 
 HOWARD MINES TO THE u. L. CLUB 
 
 is apparent when it is remembered that Mr. Funk's testimony 
 before the Helm and Dillingham Committees was that the 
 alleged second talk with me occurred at the time of or within 
 a day or two of the publication of the editorial of February 15, 
 1911, and that he informed Mr. McCormick of that alleged 
 second talk on the same day that it occurred, and likewise in- 
 formed Mr. Bancroft on the same day, and both he and Mr. 
 Bancroft so testified before the Dillingham committee. 
 
 THE BOARD AGAIN ADMITS A TRUTH 
 
 It will thus be seen that Funk and the prosecution, both 
 before the Helm Committee and Dillingham Committee, care- 
 fully concealed the diary evidence in their possession, which 
 evidence disproved Funk's sworn testimony that this alleged 
 second talk occurred within a few days after February 15, 
 1911, or anywhere near that time. On the hearing before the 
 Board of this Club this diary was not produced until the prose- 
 cution and those behind it had first required us to put in our 
 proof covering the period subsequent to February 15, and not 
 until they became satisfied beyond a doubt that there was no 
 loophole for escape from the fact that I was not in Chicago 
 during the period in question. 
 
 In fact, Mr. Loesch (who succeeded Mr. Scott as Funk's 
 attorney), in his final argument to the Board, said (p. 845) : 
 
 "Mr. McCormick was absent from February 5 to 
 March 10. Consequently the interview could not have 
 taken place in February at all; it could not have been after 
 the I5th of February." and (p. 846) he said: "I am 
 assuming that the alibi proved in the case is correct and 
 shows continuous absence (of Mr. Hines) from Chicago 
 from the "jth of February until the 4th of March." 
 
 So at last the Board and Funk and his counsel had to admit 
 that I was right in the statement I made to them that I was 
 not in Chicago during that period ; that my evidence was true 
 which established that point; and that the concession made by 
 the Board long before ought to have stood, and that the re- 
 opening of the case upon that point was an imposition upon 
 
 98
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 me of unnecessary expense and labor. This is another sample 
 both of the shiftiness of Funk and his counsel, and also of the 
 kind of treatment I received in those hearings. The great 
 mass of evidence I produced is in the record of the Board and 
 is supposed to be on file with the Board, and it is not necessary 
 for me to repeat it here. 
 
 ANOTHER DATE ABANDONED 
 
 I quickly realized that I would be compelled to prove that 
 I did not call at Funk's office on any of the days that I was 
 really in Chicago. Even if I had thus called on Funk the 
 mere fact would have proved nothing against me. His com- 
 pany was one of our customers, and conditions might have 
 arisen which would have necessitated a personal conference 
 with him. I held no such conference or any conference with 
 him on any subject. 
 
 My records showed that I was in Chicago on February 6 
 and 7, and I assumed that it would be charged that I made the 
 alleged call on one of these dates, though neither of them fell 
 within the period of either editorial. I was able to show all of 
 my movements on these two days, during every hour from the 
 time I left my home in Evanston until I returned at night. My 
 witnesses were gentlemen whose word could not be questioned, 
 and the evidence contained in the record tells why no serious 
 attempt was made to select one of these dates. 
 
 The diary of the movements of Mr. McCormick and Mr. 
 Bancroft proved a serious stumbling block to the persecution. 
 This diary showed that Mr. McCormick was absent from Chi- 
 cago from February 5 to March 10, and consequently Funk 
 could not have held his alleged conversation with Mr. McCor- 
 mick on the February dates when I was in Chicago. As will 
 later be seen, Funk and his friends were forced by that diary 
 a diary offered by them to fix a new date to abandon all dates 
 when Funk, McCormick and Bancroft were not simultaneously 
 in Chicago. This proved very distressing to Funk. 
 
 99
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 AS TO THE 15TH, 16TH AND 17TH OF JANUARY, 1911 
 
 I was in Chicago on those days, leaving for Washington on 
 the I7th. Funk's side claimed that on the day of the alleged 
 second talk Mr. Bancroft was in Chicago and that on that 
 same day Funk told Bancroft about it, so that that second 
 talk would have to be on some day when Mr. Bancroft was in 
 Chicago. But the records and witnesses produced by Funk's 
 side showed that Mr. Bancroft was not in Chicago on the 
 I5th, i6th and i/th of January, and had not been here for 
 some time before that and did not return here until after those 
 dates. I also proved conclusively that the alleged second talk 
 could not have occurred on the I5th, i6th or i7th. In fact, 
 Funk's side never claimed that that second talk occurred on 
 either the I5th, i6th or I7th. Notwithstanding all this, one 
 member of the Board insinuated that possibly this talk might 
 have happened on one of those days. But the moment his 
 attention was called to the above facts in evidence he reluctantly 
 had to drop that. 
 
 AS TO THE EDITORIAL ON JANUARY 20, 1911 
 
 After being compelled, by the irresistible force of the evi- 
 dence which I introduced, to abandon one ground after an- 
 other with reference to the time of the alleged second talk, 
 Funk's counsel finally settled upon the sole proposition that it 
 was not the editorial of February 15, but the one of January 
 20, which fixed the date of the alleged second talk. 
 
 At the close of the hearing held on February 15, 1912, in 
 which I so successfully established my absence from the city 
 during the period from February 7 to March 5, the Chairman 
 made the following announcement : "So far as I can foresee, 
 the next session of the Board will discuss the editorial of 
 January 20 and its bearing upon this general situation. . . . 
 It came up unexpectedly at the end of the hearing one day and 
 in the mind of the Board and some members of the Board it 
 ought to be investigated for what there is in it. I am not able 
 to say what will develop after the next hearing, except it will 
 regard this editorial of the 2oth of January." (619) There- 
 
 100
 
 EDWARD MINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 upon the Board adjourned to February 17, 1912, at which time 
 a change of counsel for Funk occurred and Mr. Frank J. 
 Loesch appeared to represent him in lieu of Mr. Scott. 
 
 Mr. Loesch, in stating that he appeared as the attorney for 
 Mr. Funk, said (620) : 
 
 "I understand that the taking of further testimony is 
 narrowed under some ruling of your committee in the 
 past to any further information or facts which Mr. Funk 
 may have to present to throw light upon the subject of 
 a certain editorial published February 15, or prior thereto; 
 a controversy especially relating to a certain meeting be- 
 tween a certain call that Mr. Hines made at Mr. Funk's 
 office. Now I am prepared to present evidence to the 
 Board to throw light upon that subject. We are ready to 
 go ahead." 
 
 "THE CHAIRMAN : Well, Mr. Funk is really recalled 
 here at the suggestion of the Board to see if further light 
 can be obtained upon the question that has arisen with ref- 
 erence to the second interview which he has testified to 
 with Mr. Hines. . . . The testimony as submitted 
 refers to the editorial of the i$th of February, ign, and 
 at the hearing of the Board it was assumed that that was 
 the only editorial, and that was the date, and the only edi- 
 torial to which reference was made. It appeared at the 
 last meeting, however, we unexpectedly, I think to mem- 
 bers of the Board at any rate, were informed that there 
 was another editorial on the 20th of January which ap- 
 peared in the Record-Herald, and which also referred to 
 a $100,000 fund. And it is for the purpose of having Mr. 
 Funk, if he can, throw any light upon those two editorials, 
 which of them, if either, he attempted to use for the pur- 
 pose of fixing the date of the second interview, or any 
 other explanation he may make to throw light on the ques- 
 tion as to the date of the second alleged interview with 
 reference to those two editorials." 
 
 "MR. LOESCH : I understand, Mr. Chairman, that is 
 what is before the Board. Mr. Scott having after the 
 last hearing, I believe, Mr. Scott found an editorial, which 
 will probably which it will probably be developed here 
 before the Board, was the editorial which Mr. Funk had in 
 mind. I think I may proceed with the examination as be- 
 fore." (620-622.) 
 
 101
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 FUNK AGAIN SHIFTS 
 
 Mr. Funk was then called and gave evidence to square him- 
 self with the new situation with reference to the January 20 
 editorial, testifying that it was a day or two after the publica- 
 tion of that editorial that I appeared at his office and had this 
 alleged second talk with him, notwithstanding that he had 
 under oath most unequivocally placed himself upon record both 
 before the Helm Committee and the Dillingham Committee 
 that it was after February 15, 1911, that I called at his office 
 and had this alleged talk with him, and that it was within a day 
 or two after the publication of the Record-Herald editorial of 
 February 15, 1911. 
 
 Before the Helm Committee he was questioned specifically 
 with reference to the editorial of February 15, 1911. He knew 
 that it was that editorial "that brought Kohlsaat to Springfield" 
 to testify before the Helm Committee, and he specifically testi- 
 fied that the editorial that he had in mind was that very "edito- 
 rial that brought Kohlsaat to Springfield." Copies of that 
 editorial were in the hands of the members of the Helm Com- 
 mittee, and a copy of the same was incorporated in the printed 
 proceedings of that Committee. 
 
 With two months intervening between his testifying before 
 the Helm Committee and his appearing before the Dillingham 
 Committee, during which time everybody became acquainted 
 with the contents of that editorial, he again went on oath 
 before the Dillingham Committee in Washington and was 
 questioned and requestioned by attorneys on both sides and 
 by various members of the Committee, with reference to the 
 time of my alleged second talk with him, and he positively 
 and without qualification testified that it was a day or two 
 after the publication of that editorial that I had this alleged 
 second talk with him. Copies of the Feb. 15 editorial were 
 likewise in Washington before the Dillingham Committee, and 
 a copy of it is incorporated in the published proceedings of 
 that Committee. 
 
 Copies of that famous editorial were in the Congressional 
 Library in Washington, in every library of consequence in the 
 
 102
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 nation, in every newspaper reference room. Funk, the insti- 
 gator and the central figure of that editorial, was seemingly 
 the one man who never had seen or read it. 
 
 Not only did Funk at this late date and after the testimony 
 had all been put in and the hearings before the Board 
 apparently closed come in and radically change his story in 
 the face of his sworn testimony as above indicated before the 
 Helm and Dillingham Committees, but he nonchalantly disre- 
 garded his testimony given at the secret session of the Board 
 on Nov. 13, 1911, in which he stated that the second alleged 
 talk occurred just a few months after the first talk; four or 
 five months after the first talk ; in the fall of the same year as 
 the first talk; that it was at the time that he first spoke to 
 Kohlsaat about it (which was before any editorial had 
 appeared upon the subject) ; that it was before the investiga- 
 tion of the Burrows Committee (which was also before any 
 editorial in question had been published), and, as stated by 
 him before the Dillingham Committee at one time, that it was 
 just "the other day after the first talk." 
 
 RECORD-BREAKING RECKLESSNESS 
 
 In thus sweeping aside his testimony as previously given 
 before the Board, he necessarily swept out of consideration 
 the argument of his former attorney Mr. Scott, which, as I 
 have shown, was based upon that testimony as given by him 
 at the secret hearing. Did the parties interested in having 
 me excluded from the Club feel that the entire case as made 
 by Funk's testimony as it originally stood was too flimsy and 
 unbelievable to afford a pretext for my expulsion, and at the 
 eleventh hour made this radical shift? 
 
 As soon as Funk took the witness stand his new counsel 
 showed him the editorial of Feb. 15, 1911, and asked him when 
 he first saw it, and he calmly and coolly swore that the first 
 time that he ever saw that editorial was when it was called to 
 his attention by Mr. Bancroft (the attorney for his company) 
 "upon my return home after the last Union League hearing." 
 (623) 
 
 103
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 WPw*^^ 
 
 I ask you in all candor, can you believe this remarkable 
 statement, in view of the fact that this man had been before 
 the Helm Committee and the Dillingham Committee and had 
 given his testimony under oath in regard to this alleged second 
 talk, and had fixed the time of that alleged talk with reference 
 to this specific editorial of Feb. 15 f Don't you believe that 
 before he gave his testimony on either of those occasions, and 
 while he was searching his mind and conferring with others 
 in reference to the fixing of the time of this alleged second 
 talk, that he not only saw the editorial of Feb. 15 but that he 
 carefully examined and read the same? 
 
 As reckless in testimony as the records show this man to be, 
 do you believe that he could be so foolishly reckless or that 
 the attorneys representing the prosecution would be so care- 
 less as to permit him to take the witness stand and testify with 
 reference to this editorial of Feb. 15 without first showing it 
 to him and having him familiarize himself with its contents? 
 Can you believe that this man, without having seen that 
 editorial, would go upon the witness stand or be permitted to 
 do so and select this specific editorial as "the editorial that 
 brought Kohlsaat to Springfield," when Kohlsaat and every- 
 body else connected with the prosecution asserted that "the 
 editorial that brought Kohlsaat to Springfield" was the 
 editorial of Feb. 15, 1911? 
 
 Can you believe that this man (having intelligence enough 
 to be the manager of a large corporation) and who had taken 
 the stand of a bitter partisan in the Lorimer matter could be 
 in ignorance of the contents of the editorial of Feb. 15, which 
 by that time was familiar to the reading public, and which 
 everybody knew was the editorial that brought Kohlsaat to 
 Springfield ? 
 
 SOME BEWILDERING CHANGES 
 
 In addition to the many instances of the reckless swearing 
 and shiftiness of this man as revealed so far in the various 
 records, I call your attention to another specimen right in this 
 connection of Funk's entire willingness to change his testi- 
 mony from one thing to another in compliance with what he 
 
 104
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 thinks is required of him in order to gain a point. Thus, at 
 one time before the Board he said (p. 624) : "The editorial 
 of Jan. 20 * * * is familiar to me, but I would not 
 undertake to say that I remember specifically having seen that 
 editorial shortly after Mr. Mines' visit, but I can say in that 
 connection that I have no recollection of having seen the Feb. 
 15 editorial. * * * But I do not undertake to say I do 
 not want to be understood as saying that I remember specific- 
 ally that that (the Jan. 20 editorial) is the editorial I saw a 
 few days after Mr. Hines' visit." Later on Funk's attention 
 was again called to the editorial of Jan. 20, and this occurred : 
 
 Q. Well, giving now your best recollection as to 
 connecting the interview of Mr. Hines in your office in 
 the Harvester Building, would you say that that was the 
 editorial which you saw shortly after that? 
 
 MR. FUNK: I would not say specifically that it is. I 
 would say that it is my impression that it is, but I have not 
 sufficiently sharp recollection of that to justify me in say- 
 ing specifically that is the editorial. (625) 
 
 Funk's counsel was doing his best to get Funk to swear that 
 that was the editorial. Funk on those two occasions evidently 
 did not realize that. His counsel, apparently discouraged by 
 Funk's failure to respond to the requirement, dropped the 
 matter for the time being, but some time afterward tried it 
 again, with this desired result: 
 
 Q. From the testimony you have given referring to 
 an editorial, from which editorial you fix your best recol- 
 lection of the interview with Mr. Hines, what is now your 
 best impression as to which editorial you referred to? 
 
 A. It is my distinct recollection that it was the editorial 
 of Jan. 20, 191 1 ! (p. 629.) 
 
 What do you think of that? And he later was forced to 
 retreat and to say that he would not attempt so to specify it. 
 
 Another thing: At all times when Funk gave testimony 
 with reference to any editorial as a basis for the reckoning of 
 the time of the alleged second talk, he without exception said 
 
 105
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 that it was within a day or two after or shortly after such 
 editorial, and in this Union League Qub hearing- this occurred : 
 
 Q. You have always said that you know that this 
 visit of Mr. Hines was after the publication of the 
 Record-Herald editorial ? 
 
 MR. FUNK : That has been my impression, yes, sir.* * * 
 
 A MEMBER: May I ask, do you undertake to say defi- 
 nitely and positively * * * whether Mr. Hines' visit 
 was before the publication or after? 
 
 MR. FUNK: No. * * * 
 
 Always having claimed under oath that it was after an 
 editorial, he insinuates now that it might have been before. 
 And yet Funk and the prosecution have always claimed I saw 
 an editorial and because of that went to see Funk. Another 
 illustration of Funk's ability and willingness to shift position 
 under the slightest pretext. 
 
 THE FATAL DIARIES 
 
 After the introduction of the editorial of Jan. 20, Funk's 
 side undertook to fix that very date, Jan. 20, as the date of the 
 alleged second talk. To do this they called Clyde S. Still well, 
 the present personal Secretary to the general counsel of the 
 International Harvester Company, and who in January, 1911, 
 was Secretary to the President of that Company. This young 
 man had with him a diary and it showed certain conferences 
 of Mr. McCormick with Mr. Funk and others, and he was 
 asked whether he had "any memorandum, and if so you may 
 read them opposite to the dates which they are written." 
 
 A. January 20, conference C. H. McC. ; C. S. F. ; 
 E. A. B. ; L. case. 
 
 Q. Interpret those, please. 
 
 A. Cyrus H. McCormick ; C. S. Funk; E. A. Bancroft; 
 Lorimer case. 
 
 Q. "L. case" stands for "Lorimer case" ? 
 
 A. According to my records, yes. (p. 677.) * * * 
 
 Q. January 20, what does it show there? 
 
 A. Conference C. H. McC, C. S. Funk, E. A. B. 
 
 Q. Any other on that day ? 
 
 106
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. You have some character, stenographic character, 
 there to show conference and then as a joinder on the 
 name "C. H. McC, C. S. F. and E. A. B." you have two 
 shorthand characters. What are those? 
 
 A. "Lorimer case." 
 
 Q. When did you make that entry? 
 
 A. On that day. 
 
 Q. At whose direction? Anybody's direction? 
 
 A. No. (684-5.) 
 
 Q. How did you come to make it? 
 
 A. Why, sometimes in the course of this book some- 
 times I have put down the subject of conferences with 
 Mr. McCormick and Mr. Funk and any one else who 
 attended the meetings. I did not always know the sub- 
 ject of their conference, and I do not know why I put 
 that there except that I must have known the subject of 
 that conference, and I think that is the only entry in this 
 book in shorthand. And because it was not my practice 
 to put these things in here in shorthand. And the only 
 reason I could put that in shorthand was I did not want 
 anybody else to know what it was, of course. 
 
 Q. Was it made on that day ? 
 
 A. Yes. * * * 
 
 Q. Are there any other conferences that day in which 
 Mr. Funk participated shown? 
 
 A. None. * * * 
 
 Q. Mr. Stilwell, on January 20 you have made a 
 shorthand memorandum, as I understand it? 
 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Which you say now indicates "L. C." That is the 
 shorthand notes, the full name being the Lorimer case? 
 
 A. Well, it is written out in shorthand, yes, sir. 
 
 Q. The name is written out? 
 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Were you present at that conference, Mr. Stillwell ? 
 
 A. No, sir. 
 
 Q. Who gave to you the information that the Lorimer 
 case had been talked about? 
 
 A. I don't know, sir. I haven't any recollection on the 
 subject at all. * * * (697) 
 
 He said that sometimes when he would be notified to call a 
 
 107
 
 EDWARD MINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 conference the subject matter of the conference would be told 
 him by Mr. McCormick, and he was asked this question : 
 
 Q. Did he give you the subject of the conference? 
 That is, did he say what it was about, any more than just 
 to mention the name of Lorimer, if you can now recall it ? 
 
 A. No, I haven't any recollection of it. 
 
 Q. That entry does not refresh your recollection fur- 
 ther than a mere entry, does it? 
 
 A. It does not refresh my recollection at all. 
 
 Q. It was made at the same time as the rest of the 
 entries ? 
 
 A. Sir? 
 
 Q. Was it made at the same time as the rest of the 
 diary was made? 
 
 A. Yes, sir. (698) 
 
 (If the entry did not refresh his recollection at all, how 
 could he tell when it was entered, and how could he say that 
 it was entered at the same time as the other entries which 
 applied to different dates than this one? It was evident he 
 could not, and afterwards his claim in this respect was re- 
 pudiated by Funk's counsel.) 
 
 FUNK HAS A RIVAL IN HIS OWN OFFICE 
 
 Shortly after these statements were made, the Board 
 adjourned to eight o'clock in the evening, when Mr. Stillwell 
 resumed his testimony, and Funk's attorney asked him when 
 he had last seen those stenographic characters before "this 
 morning," and he answered : 
 
 A. A short time before this when I made up that 
 memorandum of Mr. Bancroft's movements. * * * I 
 do not have any recollection of seeing it at all before that. 
 Apparently it is made in blacker ink than possibly any 
 other letter except E. A. B. 
 
 Q. Would that indicate to you that it was made at 
 any later date? 
 
 A. No, sir. (This means that it was not entered 
 later than the 2Oth.) 
 
 Q. Have you any independent recollection of it at all 
 as to when it was made? 
 
 108
 
 EDWARD MINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 A. No, sir; I have not. * * * 
 
 Q. Are you certain or not as to whether that char- 
 acter was put there * * * on the 2ist of January 
 or some subsequent time? 
 
 A. I feel certain they were put there on the 2ist 
 * * * by myself. * * * (703) 
 
 Here is a contradiction between what he had said before the 
 adjournment, when he claimed that it was entered on the 2Oth, 
 and did not indicate that it was entered at a later date. The 
 witness further said : 
 
 Q. What memorandum made in the Lorimer case, 
 what did you have in mind when you put down the word 
 "case"? * * * 
 
 A. I have no recollection except that there was such 
 a thing as the Lorimer case. 
 
 Q. I notice also that the ink on that memorandum is 
 a little darker than the other right on that page. How 
 do you account for that? 
 
 A. / cannot account for it. (708) 
 
 You will see that a little later on Funk's counsel abandoned 
 that proposition also and shifted the date again and made it 
 Jan. 21, and Funk's counsel, after I had shown that I was not 
 in Chicago on the 2Oth of January, 1911, repudiated the cor- 
 rectness of the entry indicated by the stenographic characters 
 referred to, and admitted that those stenographic characters 
 must have been entered at a later date than the witness testi- 
 fied! And Attorney Loesch said (608) in his argument to 
 the Board that "that entry in the diary of the 2Oth, that 
 shorthand note which to me looks as if it was made some days 
 afterwards. * * * It is not connected with the Hines 
 visit, which was not on the day of the editorial because it is 
 quite certain that he was in Washington on that day. * * *" 
 
 This admission of Mr. Loesch's was not made out of any 
 spirit of fairness to me, but because the indisputable evidence 
 which I had introduced showing that I was not in Chicago on 
 that day annihilated any claim that this alleged second talk 
 occurred on the 2Oth of January, and he saw that he would 
 
 109
 
 EDWARD HIKES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 utterly have to abandon that proposition. And he did abandon 
 it, and again the prosecution shifted its ground and took up 
 still another date for the occurrence of this alleged second 
 talk as being the 2ist of January. 
 
 THE LAST STAND JANUARY 21 
 
 On this date the prosecution took their last stand. Their 
 stock of dates had run out, and now it was with them the 2ist 
 of January or nothing; and at the conclusion of the hearing 
 counsel again argued the case, and (869) Mr. Loesch said: 
 "You can not get away from that interview as having taken 
 place on the 2ist of January!" 
 
 Please keep in mind that when the prosecution shifted its 
 ground and attempted to fix the alleged second talk with ref- 
 erence to the January 2oth editorial, they produced for the first 
 time diaries kept by the President's Secretary, Mr. Stillwell, 
 which I have heretofore mentioned. These diaries showed the 
 movements and appointments of Mr. McCormick and Mr. 
 Bancroft. Funk's counsel, to sustain his claim that the alleged 
 second talk occured on the 2ist day of January, and that 
 there was no escape from that proposition, in his argument 
 to the Board (853) claimed that I went to see Funk on the 
 morning of the 2ist of January, and that Funk was in 
 a hurry to go into a meeting. "And now Funk was in a hurry. 
 As he says, he was in a hurry to go into a meeting. The diary 
 of that day distinctly shows that Mr. Funk had to attend a 
 meeting on the 2ist with Mr. McCormick." 
 
 This was a distinct misrepresentation of the evidence. The 
 only date stated in the diary in reference to this conference 
 was Jan. 20, and not Jan. 21. When Stillwell, the private 
 Secretary, was on the stand testifying in regard to this diary 
 and the entries therein, this question was put to him : 
 
 Q. What was shown there on the 2ist with reference 
 to Mr. Funk? 
 
 THE CHAIRMAN : Confine your showing to anything 
 that relates to Mr. Funk in the memorandum there. * * * 
 
 no
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 A. There is nothing here with Mr. Funk on Jan. 21. 
 * * * (686) 
 
 Q. You say there is nothing there of any conference 
 with Mr. Funk and Mr. McCormick on the 2ist? 
 
 A. No, sir. (688) 
 
 Was not this a deliberate, intentional and wilful attempt on 
 the attorney's part to mislead the Board? If not, what was it? 
 If the diary proved anything it was that the conference was 
 held on the 20th. Attorney Loesch having abandoned that, 
 uses the same entry in the diary to support his claim that the 
 conference occurred on the 2ist. But to do that he had falsely 
 to represent that the diary showed a conference on the 2ist, 
 in the face of the fact that the Secretary, with the diary before 
 him, swore that there was no entry in the diary, and showed 
 that there was no conference of Funk and McCormick on the 
 2 ist, and the diary itself shows the same fact. 
 
 SHATTERING THE NEW DATE 
 
 This latest dodge of the prosecution in jumping from the 
 2Oth of January to the 2ist made it necessary for me to show 
 where I was on the 2ist, and although it was late in the 
 evening the Chairman of the Board directed that I proceed 
 with whatever evidence I had at hand to meet the new situa- 
 tion, thus invented and unexpectedly thrust upon me. My 
 counsel thereupon recalled Mr. Edward H. Thomas (p. 712) 
 who had testified before in regard to the record that is kept 
 by him of my absences out of the city. 
 
 He was asked if that record which he kept showed where 
 I was during the month of January, 1911, and he stated that 
 it did, and that that record and slips which he produced 
 showed that on January 7, 1911, I left for Washington, and 
 that on January 15, 1911, I returned to Chicago; that on 
 January 17, 1911, I left for Washington, and that on February 
 5, 1911, I returned from Washington to Chicago. 
 
 He showed from these records and slips that on the 3rd of 
 January, 1911, 1 left Chicago for St. Paul, Duluth and Winton, 
 Minnesota, and returned to Chicago on the 7th of January; 
 that from January 7 to January 15 I was in Washington; that 
 
 111
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 from January 17 to February 5 I was in New York and 
 Washington; that from February 7 and March 5 I was in 
 Washington and the East, and that from March 6 to March 
 12 I was in the West again. These records and slips were 
 introduced in evidence before the Board, and Mr. Thomas 
 testified that this system of keeping a record of my where- 
 abouts goes back to the year 1894. 
 
 C. R. Nelson, my secretary and stenographer, who had also 
 testified before, was again called (p. 719), and testified that 
 he accompanied me on the Washington trips, which are shown 
 on the records testified to by Mr. Thomas, and that I was 
 absent from Chicago from January 17 to February 5, 1911, 
 as shown by those slips. He testified that he and I arrived 
 in Chicago from Washington on Sunday morning, the 5th of 
 February, and that we remained here on Sunday and Monday 
 and part of Tuesday, when we again returned to Washington, 
 which would be on February 7, and that we again returned to 
 Chicago on the 5th of March, 1911. He also testified to the 
 expense accounts which he kept during these periods, and 
 which were introduced in evidence. 
 
 I also took the witness-stand that evening, and testified 
 (p. 786) that I left Chicago on January 17, 1911, and returned 
 on February 5, 1911, and that I was not at any time in Chicago 
 between those two dates. I stated (p. 788) that I arrived in 
 Chicago on the morning of February 5, and was here all day 
 the 6th, and left the afternoon of the 7th. I showed by tele- 
 grams sent and received by me while in Washington that there 
 was a Continental and Commercial National Bank annual 
 meeting on the 7th of February, and it was for the purpose of 
 being present at that meeting that I returned from Washington 
 to Chicago on February 5 ; that I left Chicago for Washington 
 on the 2 145 P. M. train of February 7, and did not return to 
 Chicago again until March 5, 1911. 
 
 UNANSWERABLE PROOF 
 
 I introduced in evidence certain business telegrams received 
 by me in Washington on the i8th and I9th of January, that 
 
 112
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 were sent by Mr. C. F. Wiehe, and a telegram sent by me to 
 Mr. Wiehe on the I9th of January, while I was at the New 
 Willard Hotel in Washington, D. C. These telegrams are as 
 follows : 
 
 (On Postal Telegraph blank:) 
 
 22 Pd 86 
 
 5 PO 104 PK VS 
 
 January 18, 1911. 
 Edward Mines, 
 
 C|o New Willard, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 Cook here claims you were to give him your decision. 
 Wants see me this afternoon. What do you intend doing 
 with him? 
 
 C. F. WIEHE. 
 (On Postal Telegraph blank:) 
 
 6 Wis 146 PK HF 50 pd 1.70 
 
 January 19, 1911. 
 Edward Hines, 
 
 C|o New Willard Hotel, 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 Can't hold Cook off. He will do something imme- 
 diately. Figuring sell small holders. Think you should 
 tell him you will or can't do anything. Offers take year's 
 note five per cent clearing up Seine River stock in all 
 about forty-seven hundred snares. Think shall buy it 
 get rid of him. 
 
 C. F. WIEHE. 
 
 (On Western Union Night Letter blank:) 
 
 4 Wu. K. 59 Coll Letter 2oth 
 
 Washington, D. C., Jany. igth-n. 
 C. F. Wiehe, 
 
 Chgo. 
 
 Tell Cook you expect I be back so can telephone Sat- 
 urday. Say you cannot possibly do anything until you 
 get hold of me but judging our recent purchase St. Croix 
 don't see how we can do anything. Suggest possibly 
 company buying stock at annual meeting First February. 
 Will try telephone you tomorrow from New York ten 
 o'clock western time office. 
 
 EDW. HINES. 
 8.25 A. M. 
 113
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 TELEGRAMS OF THE CRUCIAL DATE 
 
 I also introduced in evidence a telegram sent by me on 
 January 21 from Washington to E. H. Thomas, which was 
 endorsed by the Telegraph Company as being received in 
 Chicago at 2 125 P. M., which telegram is as follows : (795) 
 
 (On blank sheet:) 
 
 9 Wu. K. 26 Collect. 
 
 Washington, D. C, Jany. 2ist-n. 
 E. H. Thomas, Chgo. 
 
 Have you sent daily reminders to Washington Senate ? 
 If not send by express care New Willard and about fifty 
 extra. Will try distribute from here. 
 
 EDWARD HINES. 
 2.25 P. M. 
 
 And I also introduced in evidence a telegram in reply to 
 the above, sent by Mr. Thomas to myself at Washington on 
 January 21, as follows: (795) 
 
 3 PO 240 PK ff 13 Pd 59 
 
 Jan. 2ist, 1911. 
 Edward Hines, 
 
 C|o New Willard Hotel, Washington, D. C. 
 Reminders sent January twelfth to Chas. E. Ward then 
 via American Express tracing. 
 
 EDWARD H. THOMAS. 
 Chg a|c. 
 
 The "Daily Reminders" mentioned in these telegrams are 
 diaries prepared and circulated by our company for advertising 
 purposes, and are popular with those who are methodical in 
 recording engagements and important daily happenings. 
 
 I also introduced in evidence a telegram sent to me and 
 which I received at Washington on January 21, as follows: 
 
 (796) 
 
 V 205 CH AP 34 
 
 Jan. 21, 1911, 2:50 P. M. 
 H I Chicago, 111. 21. 
 Edward Hines, 
 
 C|o New Willard Hotel, Washington, D. C. 
 Cloquet wires if Virginia Rainy Lake meeting will be 
 held first or postponed. Answer Cloquet Lumber Co., 
 
 114
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 Cloquet direct. Judge Cochrane desires to know when 
 Hines meeting will be held he will be here Monday. 
 
 EDWARD HINES LBR. Co. 
 (Pencil figures: "464 2.53.") 
 
 Also another telegram which I received on January 21 in 
 Washington, as follows: (796) 
 
 i PO K 5 HK VM 13 pd 59 
 
 Jan. 2 ist, 1911. 
 Edward Hines, 
 
 C|o New Willard Hotel, Washington, D. C. 
 Bronson Portland wires Ostrander advises of important 
 wire please repeat as not received. 
 
 EDWARD HINES LUMBER Co. 
 Chg A|c. 
 
 This series of telegrams show upon their face that they 
 were in the regular course of business, and that my business 
 force in Chicago knew I was in Washington and for that 
 reason were telegraphing me there, and my replies showed 
 that I was there, thus establishing that fact beyond all question. 
 
 PILING PROOF ON PROOF 
 
 I also produced and introduced in evidence a memorandum 
 dated January 22, addressed "Mr. Law." I dictated that and 
 showed that I dictated it at Washington. It is as follows (on 
 the "New Willard" letter-head, which was the name of the 
 hotel at which I was stopping in Washington) : 
 
 Washington, D. C., Jan. 22, 1911. 
 Mr. Law : 
 
 Please make record of the attached and put on sheets 
 for my book, forwarding to me here if I do not reach 
 Chicago the first of the week. 
 
 Yours very truly, 
 
 EDWARD HINES. (797) 
 
 This is a memorandum that I made the same Sunday that 
 I went to Baltimore (as will hereafter appear from the 
 evidence), and which I left for the guidance of Mr. Law. 
 
 I also introduced in evidence the following telegram which 
 I received at Washington on January 23, 1911 : (798) 
 
 US
 
 EDWARD H1NES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 January 23, 1911. 
 Edward Hines, 
 
 Care New Willard Hotel, Washington, D. C. 
 
 Cusson Virginia wires Hornby California wishes know 
 positive date meeting. Lindsay says thinks Weyerhaueser 
 likes have meeting tenth fifteenth so Hornby have more 
 time west. We ready first. Wire Lindsay Duluth today 
 your decision. 
 
 EDWARD HIKES LUMS. Co. 
 
 Chg A|c. 
 
 In compliance with the last mentioned telegram to me, I 
 on the same day from Washington sent Mr. Lindsay a telegram 
 which I introduced in evidence, as follows: (798) 
 
 9 as f 1.25 p 
 
 Jan. 23, 1911, Washington, D. C. 
 Geo. F. Lindsay, 
 
 Terrey Bldg., Duluth. 
 
 Notify Cloquet telegraph Hornby postpone annual 
 meeting Virginia until February fifteenth. 
 
 EDW. HINES. 
 (Notation on same: "48 c.") 
 
 And on the next day (799) I received another telegram 
 from George F. Lindsay in acknowledgment of the one I had 
 sent him, which I also introduced in evidence, as follows: 
 
 V 73 CH LZ 24 
 
 Duluth, Minn., 24 Jan. 24, 1911, 11.45 A. M. 
 Mr. Edw. Hines, 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 Telegram advising postponement annual meeting Vir- 
 ginia to Feby. fifteenth and received and proper notices 
 covering same are today being sent out above duplicate 
 Chicago. 
 
 GEO. F. LINDSAY. 
 
 (Notations on same: "J an - 24, n 11.45 A. M. 
 See if Ans. 11.54 a. m. 1155 214 1150.") 
 
 In addition to the foregoing telegrams I introduced in 
 evidence before the Board scores of telegrams and letters sent 
 and received by me daily in the usual routine of business 
 during the entire period from the time I left for Washington 
 
 116
 
 EDWARD H1NES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 on January 17, 1911, until my return to Chicago upon the 
 5th of February (some of which documents are to be found 
 in the record from page 792 to page 831). All these showed 
 the usual course of business transacted with and by me when 
 I was absent from Chicago, and if any of those telegrams 
 were not correct it was very easy for the prosecution to have 
 shown it by the records of the telegraph companies. 
 
 This concluded the evidence again, and the hour being late 
 on Saturday evening, an adjournment was taken to 12 o'clock 
 M. the next day, Sunday, February 18, 1911. 
 
 LOESCH DISCOVERS "A MOUNTAIN PEAK" 
 
 Upon the convening of the Board the next day, Mr. Loesch 
 in behalf of the prosecution made the opening argument. His 
 argument was on an entirely different theory from the argu- 
 ment made by his predecessor, Mr. Scott, when the case had 
 been before closed. 
 
 Mr. Scott, you will remember, argued that this alleged 
 second talk occurred a few months after the first talk at the 
 Union League Club (which was May 27, 1909), or "four or 
 five months after," or at the time Funk "first spoke to 
 Kohlsaat" about the matter, and which was not and could not 
 have been connected in any manner with any editorial. 
 
 However, under the new case that the prosecution attempted 
 to make at the last moment by the springing of the January 20 
 editorial and recalling Funk to have him change his former 
 testimony to meet that new situation, Mr. Loesch stated at the 
 very outset that "it (the January 20 editorial) is a mountain 
 peak, because around that centers the truth or falsity of Mr. 
 Funk's statement applicable to the controversy." (841) "We 
 have fixed the editorial of January 20 because we have pro- 
 duced it and the date of its publication is established and 
 it answers all the conditions that Mr. Funk had in mind as he 
 testified here before you. Now, that is the crucial point. It 
 was before or it was after. It was immediately after. Or it 
 was a day or two after, or it was around that. You can read 
 
 117
 
 EDWARD MINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 and re-read the testimony and you will find it always comes 
 back to that point. Now, that is our fixed point." 
 
 Note that Mr. Loesch repudiates Funk's testimony as first 
 given before the Board and Scott's argument based upon the 
 same, fixing the alleged second talk not later than the early 
 fall of 1909, and now places the said second talk about a year 
 and a half later, to fit in with the editorial of January 20, 
 1911, and Funk's revised testimony in regard to the same! 
 
 Mr. Loesch then proceeded to annihilate the sworn claim 
 made by Funk before the Helm and the Dillingham Com- 
 mittees, and to approve of the honesty and truth of my claim 
 as made before the Dillingham Committee that I was not in 
 Chicago from February 7 to March 5, 1911, as follows: 
 
 MR. LOESCH : I put in evidence, or we put in evidence 
 yesterday, the dates in Chicago of the times when Mr. 
 McCormick, Mr. Funk and Mr. Bancroft were in Chicago 
 together, and when they were out of Chicago. And I 
 have the diary here covering from Jan. 15 to March 10. 
 Now, all three men were in Chicago daily from Jan. 15 to 
 Feb. 5 at 2.30 P. M., Feb. 5 being Sunday. And Mr. 
 McCormick was absent from Feb. 5 to March 10. (845) 
 
 Mr. Loesch, however, did not correctly quote the evidence 
 as to the presence of these men in Chicago between these 
 dates ; the evidence being as testified to by Stillwell, the former 
 Secretary of Mr. McCormick and the present Secretary of Mr. 
 Bancroft, and by the diaries of McCormick and Bancroft 
 introduced in evidence. The diary of Mr. Bancroft shows 
 that he left Chicago on January n, for New York, on the 
 Twentieth Century Limited, and was there on the I2th, i3th 
 and i4th of January, and was, on January 15, 16, 17 and 18, 
 in Washington. As to Mr. McCormick, his diary shows that 
 on January 12 he went East, and that he returned to Chicago 
 at 11:30 a. m. January 16. The diary next shows that on 
 Sunday, February 5, Mr. McCormick left for New York, and 
 that he did not return until March 10 (682-683). Continuing, 
 Mr. Loesch said: 
 
 1.18
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 Consequently the interview could not have taken place 
 in February at all. * * * And during that time Mr. 
 Hines was absent from Chicago from about the 7th of 
 February until into March. So that with reference to 
 that editorial I am assuming that the Hines alibi proved 
 in the case is correct and shows continuous absence from 
 Chicago from the 7th of February until the 4th of March. 
 (846) 
 
 Mr. Loesch then pursued his argument with reference to 
 the January 20 editorial, and said: 
 
 Now, let us see if we can bring to mind the situation 
 with reference to that editorial. I am going to suppose 
 that Mr. Hines was here on the morning of Jan. 21. (848) 
 
 "YOU HAVE GOT TO ASSUME" 
 
 Mr. Loesch then proceeded with his argument that January 
 21, 1911, was the date of this alleged second talk with Funk, 
 characterizing all of the evidence that I had introduced show- 
 ing that I was not in Chicago at that time as false; declaring 
 that my witnesses swore to lies, that the telegrams were manu- 
 factured, and that I had sought to make out what he termed 
 a "fake alibi" concluding a tirade against me with a remark- 
 able statement : "Now, I therefore have got to assume, gentle- 
 men, and you have got to assume, unless you want to say that 
 Mr. Funk is lying from A to Z and from Z back to A again, 
 that that call there from Mr. Hines took place." (861) 
 
 What do you think of that? It was proper and fair ac- 
 cording to the Loesch viewpoint to charge me and all of 
 my witnesses with lying, and to call authenticated telegrams 
 and other documents, sent in the usual course of business, 
 "fakes," without the slightest thing in the record to create 
 even a suspicion of falsity in regard to them; but Funk must 
 be saved from any such imputation, even though they had to 
 resort to assumption and a false assumption, at that. 
 
 Mr. Loesch having in his argument definitely and unequiv- 
 ocally fixed the morning of January 21, 1911, as the time of 
 this alleged second interview with Funk, I was, upon the close 
 of his argument, again specifically interrogated with special 
 
 119
 
 EDWARD MINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 reference to this time, and, although I had not before that 
 searched my mind or examined my data with special refer- 
 ence to details of events occurring on that particular day or 
 the day following, with the assistance of my pocket diary I 
 stated as follows to the Board: (872) 
 
 On the 2ist day of January, 1911, I was in Washington. 
 I hold in my hand my diary of 1911, which I brought 
 from Evanston with me this morning, in which is a memo- 
 randum of a telephone call from Dr. M. J. Riordan, of 
 Pikesville, Md., a suburb of Baltimore, telephone number 
 230 Pikesville. I understood he was talking from Pikes- 
 ville. I remember it distinctly. He asked that Mrs. 
 Hines, Miss Moody (Mrs. Hines' niece) and myself come 
 to Pikesville Sunday morning and take dinner with him 
 (872 et seq). He had invited Mr. and Mrs. Dupert, of 
 Baltimore, and their niece to dinner also. The dinner 
 was to be the next day, Sunday, the 22nd of January, 
 1911. Sunday morning I went to 9 o'clock service, and 
 had an automobile waiting at the church door for us, to 
 catch the 10 o'clock train for Baltimore. Mrs. Hines and 
 Miss Moody were with me at church. At Baltimore we 
 were met by Mr. and Mrs. Dupert, a family whom we met 
 while traveling in Europe. Dr. Riordan, of Pikesville, 
 Md., was in charge of a congregation in that parish, whom 
 we had also met in Europe. We spent the greater part 
 of the day at Dr. Riordan's home in Pikesville, 15 or 16 
 miles from Baltimore. I remember distinctly it was an 
 extremely cold day and there were several inches of snow, 
 and we rode out in an automobile. I was not in Chicago 
 on the 2 ist of January, 1911. That was physically impos- 
 sible. The Sunday of that trip to Baltimore and Pikes- 
 ville was the only Sunday in my recollection that we went 
 to 9 o'clock church when in Washington. We always go 
 to 10:30 o'clock church. Mrs. Hines is very particular 
 about going to church, and I had to get up early, and did 
 so. That calls to my mind distinctly the occurrence. 
 
 At this time a very remarkable and audacious thing hap- 
 pened. 
 
 AN ANONYMOUS TELEGRAM REOPENS THE CASE 
 
 Although the case was again apparently closed and Mr. 
 Loesch had made his argument, at this point in the proceedings 
 
 120
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 he arose and said : (889) "I want to read a telegram that has 
 just come from Washington, addressed to Mr. Funk." This 
 telegram was as follows: 
 
 A 214 NY GN 74 CA 
 
 Washington, D. C, Feb. 18-12. 
 C. S. Funk, 
 
 Union League Club, Chicago. 
 
 No charges against E. H. at New Willard on January 
 21 or 22 excepting dinner charge signed by Mrs. H. on 
 2 ist and two in-coming collect telegrams on 2ist. Hotel 
 people say H. surely was not here on 2ist and 22nd, be- 
 cause there were no charges for newspapers, cigars, etc., 
 against him on those days, which was always the case 
 when he was here. T. L. L. 
 
 3 :o8 p. m. 
 
 Loesch explained that the initials T. L. L. were those of a 
 friend of Funk. It appears that Funk, after the adjournment 
 of the Board about midnight the night before, had requested 
 a couple of friends in Washington to telegraph him whether 
 I was at the New Willard Hotel on the 2ist of January, and 
 this telegram was the reply. 
 
 The statements in this telegram were absolutely false. 
 
 When the charge was made that the alleged second talk- 
 was in February, 1911, I proved so conclusively (by what 
 Attorney Loesch called an alibi) that I was not in Chicago at 
 that time, that even Loesch admitted that my alibi, as he called 
 it, was clearly proved. 
 
 When they were forced by reason of that proof to change 
 the date of the second talk, finally settling down to Jan. 21, 
 1911, as the date upon which they relied, I showed conclusively 
 that I was absent from the city at that time, whereupon At- 
 torney Loesch, not in the fair spirit of one trying to get at the 
 truth, but in the malicious and vindictive spirit of a persecutor, 
 characterized this as a "fake alibi." And now, pursuing the 
 same tactics that they adopted on January 18 in producing the 
 new editorial of January 20 after the case had been closed and 
 submitted to the Board for decision, an anonymous telegram 
 was introduced before the Board for the purpose of proving 
 
 121
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 that I was not in Washington on January 21 and 22, and that 
 the evidence that I had introduced up to this time bearing 
 upon those dates was false. 
 
 As you will presently see, this malicious claim was false, 
 as I conclusively established by the most convincing evidence. 
 
 With the introduction of this anonymous telegram the case 
 was, at the insistence of my counsel, reopened for further in- 
 vestigation, and I made the following statement to the Board : 
 
 "I want to say, gentlemen, as far as I am concerned, 
 I don't care how searching is the extent of this examina- 
 tion. I will be very glad indeed to help. Any statements 
 I make here to you can all be verified absolutely, and it 
 will afford me pleasure to explain. I am not going to be 
 technical or complaining about anything this Board or 
 its Chairman ask me to get, and I will get it cheerfully" 
 
 (897). 
 
 "THE CHAIRMAN : I understood you have a tender of 
 other testimony in this case?" 
 
 "MR. EATON: Yes, we want to tender all that Mr. 
 Hines recollects on the memoranda that are now reason- 
 ably embraced with reference to these dates, and to add 
 to that tender the offer to make absolutely specific, as 
 a man of Mr. Hines' dealings can make specific, his 
 movements on a particular day when his attention is 
 called to it. It was never called to his attention until the 
 argument this morning" (898). 
 
 "THE CHAIRMAN : Mr. Loesch, if you have anything, 
 a statement to submit on anything that has been intro- 
 duced here by that time, we will take that up later." 
 
 "MR. EATON: Mr. Loesch has thrown all the light 
 he has." 
 
 "THE CHAIRMAN : That will be supplemented by Tues- 
 day. That is the emergency." 
 
 Note the undisguised bias of Chairman Sidley. One would 
 think he was the authorized prosecutor in the case, rather 
 than an impartial chairman of a judicial body. He informs 
 Mr. Eaton that Mr. Loesch will thrown more light on Tues- 
 day. How did he know? Was he in the confidence of the 
 prosecution ? 
 
 122
 
 EDWARD MINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 UNFAIR AND DISCOURTEOUS TREATMENT 
 
 You cannot comprehend the astounding character of the 
 method of procedure then adopted unless you read in full 
 the record of the proceedings before your Board. It was at 
 this point that a new degree of unfairness and discourtesy 
 was attained. I should then have realized that I had absolutely 
 no chance of securing justice before such judges, and should 
 have withdrawn from their presence and permitted them to 
 bring in their predetermined verdict. 
 
 Suppose that I, instead of Funk, had attempted to prove a 
 disputed point by offering in evidence an anonymous telegram? 
 Suppose that I, instead of Funk, had asserted that such an 
 anonymous telegram was valid evidence ? Suppose that I should 
 have insisted that it be read in the record, and that Funk 
 should then be compelled to disprove such an anonymous tele- 
 gram? What would have been the attitude of the Board in 
 such an event? 
 
 My insolence would have been instantly rebuked, and prop- 
 erly so. I would have made myself an object of ridicule. But 
 I submitted no such alleged "evidence." I placed before 
 your Board the verified copies of telegrams sent and received 
 in the course of business, properly signed by the senders 
 thereof ; telegrams whose plain import could not be mistaken ; 
 telegrams from business men who were ready to appear before 
 your Board and to testify that they sent them to me knowing 
 that I was in Washington. These telegrams were introduced 
 not for the purpose of proving the statements contained in 
 them, but for the purpose of showing my whereabouts at the 
 time such telegrams were sent and received by me. 
 
 How did Attorney Loesch characterize the introduction of 
 these telegrams? He characterized it as an attempt on my 
 part to set up a "fake alibi," and he was permitted thus to 
 insult me and those who sent them to me, unrebuked by the 
 Chairman or any member of your Board: 
 
 What was the attitude of my judges when Funk presented 
 anonymous telegrams, later claimed to have been sent by men 
 at the request of Funk. Neither of these telegrams were 
 
 123
 
 EDWARD MINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 signed with the name of the sender, yet your Board un- 
 hesitatingly accepted them as valid evidence, and permitted 
 Attorney Loesch to insult Mr. Eaton and myself because we 
 protested against this outrageous disregard of justice. 
 
 When the Board met on Tuesday. February 20, 1912, Mr. 
 Eaton thus addressed them : 
 
 "The new evidence that was presented in the course of 
 Mr. Loesch's argument was in the form of a telegram signed 
 'T. L. L.' which counsel introduced to serve the temporary 
 purpose, and stated, I believe, that any permanent proof he 
 might wish the Board to consider would be presented at this 
 hearing." 
 
 "I ask your pardon, sir," Attorney Loesch replied. "I 
 think you are mistaken. You were the one to produce the 
 proof. I was to present no further proof. You were to reply 
 to that." (901) 
 
 You will search far to match that for brazen insolence ! It 
 was demanded that we bring in proof to deny the false charges 
 of an anonymous telegram. Mr. Eaton kept his temper and 
 said : "It occurs to me that if it is a part of the case against 
 Mr. Hines the sender of the telegram should be identified. It 
 hardly ought to be possible to present a witness in the shape 
 of an anonymous speaker." 
 
 "Mr. Chairman, there is no use in discussing it," excitedly de- 
 clared Attorney Loesch. "We can save waste of time, and I 
 will put Mr. Funk on the stand right away. It is the same 
 sort of crawfishing you have seen here right along!" (902) 
 
 No comment should be necessary on that remark from the 
 legal representative of Funk. 
 
 Funk then took the stand and asserted that Mr. Loesch 
 had asked him, about midnight on the preceding Saturday, to 
 communicate immediately with some one in Washington, and 
 to ascertain what the books of the New Willard Hotel con- 
 tained with reference to my presence in Washington on the 
 2Oth, 2 ist and 22nd of January. Funk had therefore com- 
 municated by telephone with a young man of the name of 
 Lloyd, whom Funk said was a personal friend of his, and 
 
 124
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 got him to go to the hotel and secure the information. He said 
 Lloyd first talked to him on the telephone before sending the 
 telegram, and then after the telephone talk he sent the telegram 
 signed with his initials. In the meantime, said Funk, he 
 thought of another young man named Schlobohn, who fre- 
 quented the lobby of the New Willard Hotel and whom Funk 
 had met while in Washington, and he communicated with 
 Schlobohn in regard to the matter, and got a telegram from 
 him as follows (908) : 
 
 Washington, D. C, Feb. 18-12. 
 
 C. S. Funk, General Mgr. International Harvester Co., 
 Chicago, 111. 
 
 Hines and wife and Miss Moody reached here Jan- 
 uary 1 8 of last year. Hotel books show they were 
 charged with rooms till end of that month. On the i8th, 
 iQth and 2Oth there were charges for meals, telegrams, 
 etc. The book shows no meals were taken or charges 
 of any kind on the 2ist and 22nd except two telegrams 
 on the first day, costing $15.96 and $1.66. These were in- 
 coming, and there is no record as to when he received 
 them. They could have been here a couple of days. The 
 charges start again on the 23rd, when there are two restau- 
 rant charges, one of $6 and one of $13.20. On the 24th 
 he got $100 cash. The first railroad ticket was bought on 
 25th. It is thought it was for Mr. Hall. The books seem 
 to show he was not in the hotel on the 2ist and 22nd. 
 No baggage was moved till the 25th. STONE. 
 
 ii 147 p. m. 
 
 SOME CONFIDENTIAL WORK 
 
 In his examination, in explaining who "Stone" was, the 
 sender of the above telegram, Funk, said : 
 
 "Stone is Schlobohn. He has done confidential work 
 for Mr. Beers down there, and he has used that name 
 because of some instructions he had received (sic). I sup- 
 pose he thought this was a confidential matter and he 
 would use that with' me" (916). 
 
 "MR. EATON : And Mr. Schlobohn is on the way here 
 to testify to the same effect as he has indicated in this 
 wire? 
 
 125
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 MR FUNK : , Well, I don't understand that he is on the 
 
 way 
 
 Q. That he is not? 
 MR FUNK: No. 
 
 Q. Schlobohn was instructed to come on west with the 
 books? 
 
 MR. FUNK: He said that he didn't have money enough. 
 (917) 
 
 Q. And there are no witnesses on the way then for the 
 purpose of testifying before the Board ? 
 MR FUNK: No. (918) 
 
 Doesn't this strike you as being a remarkable proceeding? 
 Here we have a couple of anonymous telegrams, sent to 
 Funk by Funk's "friends" at Funk's request, stating that 
 there were no charges against me at the New Willard Hotel 
 upon the 2ist and 22nd of January and conveying the imputa- 
 tion that I was not in Washington on either of those dates, 
 submitted to the consideration of the Board by Mr. Loesch at 
 the last moment as evidence against me, without any effort 
 or expectation to bring the signers of those* telegrams here as 
 witnesses to give their testimony before the Board, and without 
 any desire or inclination shown on the part of the Board to 
 have them brought here. 
 
 The anonymous telegram signed "T. L. L." was a mass of 
 falsehoods from beginning to end. The one to the effect that 
 Mrs. Hines signed a dinner check on January 21 was used by 
 Attorney Loesch to convey the impression that I was absent 
 from Washington on that date, and that Mrs. Hines therefore 
 used her credit with the hotel. It happened that this par- 
 ticular falsehood was flatly contradicted in the "Stone" tele- 
 gram, which asserted that there were no meal charges on 
 January 2ist or 22nd. The "T. L. L." lie to the effect that 
 the "Hotel people say H. (Hines) surely was not there on the 
 2ist and 22nd" was contradicted by the responsible officials of 
 
 126
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 the New Willard Hotel, who presented their books showing 1 
 many charges on those dates, as will be later detailed. 
 
 What was the motive of this desperate expedient? Why 
 were these false and anonymous telegrams introduced at what 
 was presumed to be the close of the hearings? Here is the 
 answer to those questions : It was assumed that I could not, in 
 a short space of time, bring before the Board the witnesses 
 and the evidence to refute them. It was proposed to use these 
 anonymous telegrams as a pretext on which to base a verdict 
 of expulsion, but I immediately introduced evidence of such 
 import that the Board dared not let the matter rest there, 
 and I was given a limited amount of time in which to make 
 answer to the false allegations in the anonymous telegrams. 
 
 RECORDS OF THE NEW WILLARD HOTEL 
 
 To show how false those telegrams were and how utterly 
 unfounded was Loesch's malicious attack on me in that regard, 
 I procured in the two days intervening between Sunday the i8th 
 and Tuesday the 2Oth, by telegraphing and telephoning, the 
 attendance of a number of witnesses from Washington, Mary- 
 land and Pennsylvania to testify to my whereabouts on Jan- 
 uary 21 and 22. And in this connection I desire to call your 
 attention to the fact that these witnesses fully corroborate my 
 detailed statement of my movements made to the Board on 
 the preceding Sunday just before Loesch sprung his anony- 
 mous telegram, and at a time when I had no thought that it 
 would be necessary to bring these witnesses to Chicago. 
 
 For the purpose of directly contradicting these anonymous 
 telegrams as to what the records at the New Willard Hotel 
 showed in reference to charge items against me on January 
 21 and 22, I secured the attendance before the Board of Mr. 
 Arthur J. Wand, the manager and secretary of the New Wil- 
 lard Hotel at Washington, together with his records, who testi- 
 fied as follows (1172) : 
 
 MR. WAND: I am manager and secretary of the New 
 Willard Hotel. I have brought some hotel books and 
 records with me and have them here today. This (pro- 
 
 127
 
 EDWARD MINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 ducing a book) is the transient ledger covering the 
 accounts of the letter "H" for January and February, 
 1911. I can tell from that ledger when Mr. Hines came 
 to the hotel in the month of January, 1911. It was on 
 Jan. 18. The account is right here (indicating). The 
 period of time covered by this entry on page 2931 em- 
 braces charges from Jan. 18 to 25. 
 
 Q. Will you indicate what, if any, charges are shown 
 on the 21 st? 
 
 MR. WAND: There is a valet charge on the 2ist, $i ; 
 there is a telephone charge of 15 cents on the 2ist; there 
 is a charge of a telegram of $15.19 on the 2ist; there is 
 a charge of telegram $1.66 on the 2ist; there are three 
 telephone charges of 10 cents on the 21 st; there is one 
 telephone charge of 90 cents on the 2ist; there is one 
 charge of 40 cents on the 2ist (1174) ; there is a news- 
 stand charge of 15 cents on Jan. 21. 
 
 And these false and anonymous telegrams said there were no 
 charges against me on January 21 and 22 ! Can you find in any 
 case, formal or informal, a more miserable attempt to work 
 injustice ? And this happened before the Board of Directors of 
 a Club proud of its traditions and of its honorable record ! 
 
 Thereupon these entries were introduced in evidence before 
 the Board. It was also proved, by the introduction of the 
 telephone directory containing a schedule of rates from Wash- 
 ington, that the telephone rate from Washington to Phila- 
 delphia is 90 cents, and from Washington to Pikesville the rate 
 is 40 cents (1189). Mr. Wand then testified: 
 
 MR. WAND: There is no restaurant charge entered 
 against Mr. Hines from the i8th to the 22nd, and from 
 that I would infer that he customarily paid cash for his 
 meals. There is a charge signed by Mrs. Edward Hines 
 which appears here on the 23rd as "Rest.," $13.20. I 
 would say that was served to four people, judging from 
 the way the portions are marked down there. (1187) 
 
 MR. EATON : I offer to show that lunch check signed 
 by Mrs. Hines or purporting to have been signed on Mon- 
 day the 23rd, was for dinner served to Mrs. Hines, Mrs. 
 Utley and Mrs. Utley's daughter, and the niece. Miss 
 Moody. (1188) 
 
 THE CHAIRMAN : How do you propose to show that ? 
 
 128
 
 EDWARD HINES TO The U. L. cLUB 
 
 MR. EATON : I propose to show it, if it becomes mate- 
 rial to the Board, by calling those people. 
 
 THE CHAIRMAN : Is Mrs. Hines prepared to testify 
 to that? 
 
 MR. HINES: Yes. 
 
 THE CHAIRMAN : We will accept it then as having 
 been stated by Mrs. Hines. That will take care of that. 
 (1189) 
 
 This disposed of the leading falsehood in the "T. L. L." 
 telegram. 
 
 A statement of account of the New Willard Hotel against 
 me for the dates January 19, 20, 21 and 22, 1911, sworn to 
 by Harry M. Howard, the cashier at the New Willard Hotel, 
 was also introduced in evidence before the Board (952), and 
 contains the same items testified to by Mr. Wand. 
 
 DISPROVING THE FINAL FALSEHOOD 
 
 To meet the new claim as presented by these anonymous 
 telegrams, I was recalled to the witness stand for the purpose 
 of giving a detailed statement of my movements and where- 
 abouts on January 21 and January 22, 1911, and testified as 
 follows (921) : 
 
 On the morning of January 21 I was in Washington. I also 
 was in Washington on the evening of January 21. I took 
 dinner on January 21 at the New Willard Hotel with Mr. 
 Cotter, of Texarkana, Texas, general manager of the Colo- 
 rado & Southern Railroad and President of the Texas Street 
 & Tie Company, Miss Moody, Mr. Nelson and Mrs. Hines. 
 I took my breakfast in my room at the Willard Hotel in Wash- 
 ington on the morning of the 2ist. I listened to a telephone 
 conversation between Mrs. Hines and Dr. Riordan, of Pikes- 
 ville, Md., and during the course of that conversation I made 
 a memorandum in my memorandum book of 1911, reading as 
 follows : "Father W. P. Riordan, B. & O. R. R., 2 :3O Pikes- 
 ville, Renard, Camden station" (922). 
 
 Father Riordan is a reverend gentleman whom I met in 
 Europe several times five years ago this month, and he is 
 stationed at Pikesville, Md., a suburban town of Baltimore. I 
 talked on the telephone from Washington with Dr. Green, of 
 
 129
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 Philadelphia, on Saturday the 2ist. He resides, when he is 
 home, in Chicago, and is in charge of a college on the south 
 side, a gentleman that I met going on the train on the i/th of 
 January, who was on the same train going to New York, in 
 company with Graham H. Harris, former president of the Chi- 
 cago School Board. When I talked with him on the tele- 
 phone on the 2 ist of January I invited him, at the request of 
 Dr. Riordan through Mrs. Hines, to meet us in Baltimore the 
 following Sunday morning, the next day, and go out to Pikes- 
 ville, Md., to take dinner at Dr. Riordan's house (923). 
 
 To verify the telephoning to Dr. Riordan at Pikesville and 
 to Dr. Green at Philadelphia on January 21, I call your atten- 
 tion to the testimony of Mr. Wand and the entries in the hotel 
 record showing telephone charges against me in the sum of 90 
 cents and 40 cents respectively on that day. It was also shown 
 that these were the respective telephone rates from Washington 
 to these places. 
 
 On January 22, I took breakfast in my room in Washington. 
 Then I went to church, what is called St. Patrick's Cathedral, 
 and left there shortly before the service was over to catch the 
 ten o'clock train for Baltimore. This train was late that morn- 
 ing on account of a very severe storm. We waited some time 
 in the depot, and when it arrived, we took the train for Balti- 
 more. In the party were Mrs. Hines, her niece, Miss Moody, 
 of Chicago, and myself. We were met in Baltimore on the 
 train by Dr. Green, who had come down from Philadelphia 
 that morning, and Mr. Adam Dupert, of Baltimore, who took 
 us in his automobile out to Pikesville. That is where the Rev. 
 Dr. Riordan lives. These are the same gentlemen that I re- 
 ferred to last Sunday evening when I was giving my recollec- 
 tion of my movements that day (924). I got Mr. Cotter's 
 name from Miss Moody, who had it in her diary, and imme- 
 diately telegraphed to him asking him if he remembered the 
 incident of being in Washington about that time, and I have 
 got his reply ready to produce it here (927). 
 
 I sent for and received a hotel bill from the New Willard 
 Hotel, covering the period from January 18 to February 4, 
 1911. (This bill with its various items I introduced in evi- 
 dence, and it can be found in the record of these proceedings 
 on pages 953-955.) On January 21 I attended a session of the 
 Senate and listened to some remarks made by Senator Bev- 
 eridge of Indiana, demanding to call up at a very early date 
 the report of the Committee on Privileges and Elections as to 
 Senator Lorimer being seated or unseated. I also listened to 
 
 130
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 a debate, part of a debate by Senator Burton, just a little of it. 
 That evening, as I said, I took dinner at the Willard Hotel 
 with Mr. Cotter, Mr. Nelson, Mrs. Hines and Miss Moody. 
 I was called away a short time before the dinner ended, and 
 did not return to the hotel until some time later (957). 
 
 I slept at the Willard Hotel that night. In the morning I 
 had breakfast in my room and went to 9 o'clock church. Left 
 the church shortly before the service was over and took the 
 train to Baltimore; got off at Camden Station. I was met 
 by Dr. Green, and Mr. Adam Dupert drove in an automobile 
 to Pikesville. Had dinner that day. Returned along about 
 5 130 or 6 o'clock to Baltimore in the automobile, leaving Mrs. 
 Hines, Miss Moody and Mrs. Dupert all at Mr. Dupert's resi- 
 dence; proceeded with Mr. Dupert and Dr. Green to what is 
 known as the Baltimore Club in Baltimore; was there intro- 
 duced to several gentlemen by Mr. Dupert; remained there 
 upwards of an hour; returned to Mr. Dupert's residence; had 
 dinner; spent some little time after dinner, and I then took 
 the ten o'clock train that night to Washington with Mrs. Hines, 
 Miss Moody and Dr. Green. I remember of Mr. Cotter coming 
 to see me on Saturday the 2ist, with a letter of introduction 
 from Mr. Munday, President of the La Salle National Bank. 
 The letter of introduction I have with me now. (The letter 
 was introduced in evidence and is as follows (959) on the 
 letterhead of the La Salle National Bank of Chicago:) 
 
 Chicago, January 18, 1911. 
 Mr. Edward Hines, 
 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 My Dear Mr. Hines : This will introduce Mr. George 
 F. Cotter, brother of Mr. Cotter, of the Pere Marquette 
 system, who will give you every assistance in his power. 
 I wrote the other Mr. Cotter at Cincinnati yesterday, re- 
 questing personally that he send you a letter to Mr. Ste- 
 vents. If you did not get it, you had better have Mr. 
 Cotter call him on the long distance telephone. 
 Sincerely yours, 
 
 C. B. MUNDAY. 
 
 This letter was presented on Saturday, the 2ist of January 
 (959)' That is the only day I saw Mr. Cotter, and he had 
 dinner with me in the evening (960). I had Mr. Nelson, my 
 secretary, send a telegram to Mr. Cotter asking him if he could 
 
 131
 
 EDWARD HlNfcS TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 confirm my statement in regard to his taking dinner with me 
 on the evening of January 21. We received a telegram from 
 Mr. Cotter. (Which was introduced in evidence and is as 
 follows :) 
 
 (On Western Union Telegraph Co. day letter blank.) 
 
 13 Wu K 195 Collect L 
 
 Texarkana, Ark., Feb. I9th-i2. 
 C. R. Nelson, Chicago. 
 
 Have no written memorandum or record, but have very 
 distinct recollection that you and I had dinner Saturday 
 evening, January 2ist, with Mr. and Mrs. Hines and their 
 niece. It developed at that time that I was a Catholic, and 
 that Mrs. Hines suggested what mass I shall attend the 
 next morning, and said further that she would see that I 
 was called before she left for Baltimore with Mr. Hines. 
 It further developed in the conversation at the table 
 that I had not been to Mount Vernon, and I suggested to 
 you that Mr. Hines being away, you would be at leisure, 
 and asked you to go with me to Mount Vernon after I 
 returned from church. The reason we did not go after 
 my return from church was because it was storming so 
 badly we did not care to go out. I left Washington on 
 that date for Chicago, and recollect that the reason I had 
 not seen Mr. Hines before leaving was because he was in 
 Baltimore and had not returned to Washington. If abso- 
 lutely necessary I can no doubt verify the statements to 
 some extent by records at the Willard Hotel. 
 
 G. F. COTTER. 
 
 i :30 p. m. 
 
 (In pencil: "Prest. Nat. Lr. & Creosoting Co., Texar- 
 kana, Texas.") 
 
 I also verified my memory of dictating a large amount of 
 mail on the 2ist, and have verified it by the shorthand notes. 
 I dictated them to Mr. Nelson and they are in his shorthand 
 book (964). 
 
 There was also introduced in evidence the following tele- 
 gram showing that Mr. Cotter was in Washington on January 
 21 as I had testified : 
 
 132
 
 EDWARD MINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 (Western Union Telegraph Co. blank.) 
 17 Wu K 19 Paid 5 Ex 
 
 Washington, D. C, Feb. igth, 1912. 
 Geo. F. Cotter, 
 
 Care E. H. L. Co., Chicago. 
 
 Records show your arrival here January nineteenth and 
 leaving January twenty-second, nineteen eleven. 
 
 H. E. BATES, Asst. Mgr. the New Willard. 
 5: 10 p.m. (966) 
 
 I was later recalled to the stand and testified as follows con- 
 cerning my whereabouts on January 20: 
 
 MR. HINES : I was in New York on the 2Oth of Jan- 
 uary. I left Washington for New York on the night of 
 the iQth, and returned by way of Philadelphia on Satur- 
 day the 2 1 st. My examination of data shows that I was 
 in New York on the 2Oth (996). I had several matters to 
 attend to in New York on the 2Oth. I saw Mr. Dudley, of 
 the Bergen Company, exporters of lumber, on that day 
 (998). I saw Mr. Shonts, President of the Interurban 
 Railroad, there on that day. I also saw Mr. Brown, Presi- 
 dent of the New York Central, that day. I received a letter 
 on that day from Mr. Brown. I am willing to show the 
 Chairman that letter (999). The letter is of a confidential 
 nature. 
 
 THE CHAIRMAN : I don't care to read it. I simply see 
 that the letter is headed "Grand Central Terminal, New 
 York, Jan. 20, 1911," and is signed W. C. Brown. I don't 
 know what the contents are, and I take your statement. I 
 take your statement it was handed you on that day. That 
 is your statement (1000). 
 
 MR. HINES : I left there for Philadelphia in the after- 
 noon and arrived at Philadelphia late in the afternoon or 
 early in the evening, and I saw some gentlemen in Phila- 
 delphia that evening and returned to Washington on the 
 early morning train (1001). In searching particularly for 
 the events of the 2ist I find notes that I had dictated to 
 my stenographer, Mr. Nelson, that I had written a letter 
 thanking Mr. Brown for the courtesies extended to me 
 in New York on the 2Oth. Then I found a letter dictated 
 to another gentleman that will be shown, and the notes 
 stated that I was called hurriedly to New York. I left for 
 New York the night of the i9th. I passed part of the 2Oth 
 
 133
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 in New York and the evening of the 2Oth in Philadelphia, 
 arriving in Washington the morning of the 2ist (1009). 
 
 Since the matter first came up I have looked up data in 
 regard to the circumstance of my return from Philadel- 
 phia to Washington, and I remember now that I returned 
 from Philadelphia in the New York sleeper that night and 
 arrived in Washington between three and four o'clock. I 
 slept in the sleeper until between 7 and 7 130, when I went 
 to the New Willard (1197). 
 
 12 K. (1007) 
 
 MISS MOODY READS FROM HER DIARY 
 
 I call your special attention to testimony given by Miss 
 Helen Moody. This young woman is a niece of Mrs. 
 Hines, and was a guest of ours in this her first visit to 
 Washington. Like many girls in their teens Miss Moody kept 
 a diary. I knew nothing of this, but Mrs. Hines recalled that 
 her niece had made certain notations in a diary and Miss 
 Moody volunteered to come before your Board and read from 
 it such data as might help throw light on the whereabouts 
 of myself and others at that particular period. 
 
 Read what follows and decide for yourself if any more con- 
 vincing evidence ever was offered to prove matters in dispute. 
 Decide for yourself whether to believe in a baseless "theory" 
 advanced by a biased prosecution or to believe in the written 
 memorandum perserved by this innocent young girl. That 
 diary conforms to the statements made by reverend and dis- 
 interested clergymen. Its brief notations conform to every 
 statement made by the various witnesses who came forward to 
 tell where I was on those days in January, 1911. They breathe 
 the truth in every line. Compare this testimony with the 
 maliciously false statements contained in the anonymous tele- 
 grams, and decide for yourself the attitude of a tribunal which 
 seemingly pinned its faith to the concoctions of "T. L. L." and 
 ignored the testimony of a score of witnesses of unimpeach- 
 able character. Miss Moody thus testified: 
 
 I made a visit to Washington early in 1911, which was 
 the first time I had ever been there. I went with my uncle 
 
 134
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 and aunt, Mr. and Mrs. Hines. I keep a short diary. I 
 have it here. The entry for January 17 is: 
 
 Tuesday. Up early. Got my things ready. Down town 
 with mother. Bought a lot of pretty things. Home. 
 Lunch. Packed my trunk. Dressed. Auntie called for 
 me. Took the 2:45 train to Washington. Aunt Loretta 
 (Mrs. Hines), Uncle Ed (Mr. Hines) and Carl Nelson 
 (Mr. Hines' Secretary), Mayor Busse on train. 
 
 For January 18 the entries are: 
 
 Wednesday. Arrived in Washington. Lunch. After- 
 noon in the Senate. Burrows spoke; Borah. Saw Lori- 
 mer for first time. Walked to hotel. Dinner in our room. 
 
 The entry for January 19 is : 
 
 Thursday. Shampoo. Lunch in cafe. Went to Arling- 
 ton. Runaway. Residential. Burrows' reception. Met 
 Miss Nessen, N. P. G. Beautiful day. Dinner down 
 stairs. 
 
 January 20. Friday. Auntie, Carl and I trolley ride 
 through Alexandria and Mount Vernon. Delightful. 
 Luncheon at Mount Vernon station. Washington Monu- 
 ment. Dinner with Mr. Babcock and Congressman Burke. 
 Theater. 
 
 The next, January 21. Saturday. Met Mary Scoefield 
 and Trinity Girls in the Dining room. So good to see 
 Mary. Auntie and I matinee. Saw "Chocolate Soldier" ; 
 great ! Afternoon tea. Dinner in evening dress. Uncle, 
 Auntie, Carter, Carl. 
 
 Mr. Carter is a gentleman I met that afternoon ; Carter 
 or something like that. (This was Mr. Cotter, hereinafter 
 referred to.) Aunt Loretta, Uncle Ed, Mr. Carter and 
 Carl (Mr. Nelson) and I had dinner together that night 
 
 (970. 
 
 The entry for January 22 is: 
 
 Sunday. Church. Train late. Uncle Ed coffee. Snow- 
 ing. Baltimore. Father Riordan. Duperts. Father 
 Green, of Chicago. Back to Washington (972). 
 
 "Uncle Ed coffee" means that he stood at the lunch 
 counter in the station with a silk hat on, drinking coffee 
 while we were waiting for the train to go to Baltimore. 
 The three of us had been to church, and went from church 
 to the station by carriage, I think it was. It was storming. 
 Mr. and Mrs. Hines and myself were in the carriage. I 
 think it was a carriage instead of an automobile or taxi. 
 We went to church together. The train was so late and 
 
 135
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 it was so cold, I suppose was why Mr. Hines went for 
 the coffee. 
 
 One of the members undertook to cross-examine this young 
 lady in a way that I thought was contemptible and unneces- 
 sary and indicated a strong desire to put some discredit upon 
 her by petty matters. Among other questions, he asked as 
 follows, speaking of me at the time I was taking the coffee : 
 
 Q. "You do not know whether or not he ate anything, 
 too, do you ?" 
 
 What difference did that make? 
 
 Q. "Have you a distinct recollection of its being a car- 
 riage?" 
 
 What difference does that make whether it was a carriage 
 or some other vehicle? 
 
 Q. "What kind of a carriage? Open or closed?" 
 Was this awfully important? 
 
 Q. "How many waiting rooms (in the station) are 
 there there ?" 
 
 Did he suppose the young lady went around and counted 
 them? She answered, she did not know. 
 
 Q. "Where was the lunch room with reference to the 
 waiting room?" 
 
 And 
 
 Q. "How far away were you from him when you saw 
 him?" 
 
 Q. "You are sure it was coffee ?" 
 
 Q. "You knew he was drinking something?" * * * 
 
 Q. "You saw it steaming?" 
 
 A. "Yes, sir." 
 
 Q. Was the steam coming up ? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. You recall this distinctly at this time, do you not ? 
 
 Wasn't this a remarkably brilliant line of questions ? Then 
 "A Member" gave Miss Moody a long cross-examination about 
 Mr. Cotter: whether she met him at other times; where he 
 
 136
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 
 
 came from ; how old he was ; and then wanted her to describe 
 him more particularly; and when she said he was large, 
 wanted her to define what she meant by "large," and what his 
 complexion was, and what they had for dinner (979-981), and 
 what they had to eat on Thursday evening, and what they had 
 on Monday evening. 
 
 If any further proof were needed to show that I was then in 
 Washington and not in Chicago, the diary and the testimony of 
 Miss Moody evidenced it. 
 
 Next Mrs. Hines gave evidence as follows (984) : 
 
 MRS. HINES: I was in Washington on Jan. 21, 1911. 
 Dined in the evening at Willard's Hotel. At that dinner 
 were Mr. Hines, my niece, Miss Moody, Mr. Cotter, and 
 Mr. Hines' secretary, Mr. Nelson. On the morning of 
 the 22nd (985) we left the hotel and went to church, Mr. 
 Hines, my niece and I, St. Patrick's Cathedral. We had 
 our breakfast in our room at the hotel. We were trying 
 to get to Baltimore on the early train and to go to church 
 early. We slept a little later than we should, and got there 
 without any books. We usually walked to church, but 
 because of this we had to drive. The train was very late. 
 It was very cold. We were walking about the station, my 
 niece and I, and we met Mr. Hines at the lunch counter 
 having a cup of coffee, and we joked him about it and 
 asked him why he did not take us, too. I remember it 
 impressed my niece because he was at the lunch counter 
 with a silk hat on. From Baltimore we went to Pikes- 
 ville. Father Green met us at the station, and Mr. Dupert 
 met us with his car, and we drove to Pikesville. It was a 
 snowy day. We met there Mrs. Dupert and her niece. 
 Had dinner there. We met Mr. Cotter in the evening of 
 Saturday, the 2ist. Had met him before. He dined with 
 us that evening. (990) Mr. Hines was not in Washington 
 the night of the 2Oth ; he was out of town. 
 
 Mr. C. R. Nelson, my private secretary, also gave evidence 
 (1025) relating to dictations taken by him in shorthand in 
 Washington, D. C., as follows : 
 
 MR. NELSON : I have dictation here from Mr. Hines, as 
 shown by my shorthand note book, which I have here, on 
 the 21 st of January. I have here dictation to L. H. McCor- 
 
 137
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 mick, Marinette, Wis. ; F. E. Waymer, Treasurer, Pan- 
 way, Florida 
 
 THE CHAIRMAN : Unless some of the members of the 
 Board call for it, we will dispense with the names and 
 dates, and say there are twelve or fifteen in there. (Indi- 
 cating the note book.) (1027) 
 
 MR. NELSON: The evening of the 2ist of January 
 
 (1028) I dined with Mr. and Mrs. Hines, their niece, and 
 Mr. Cotter. Mr. Cotter got to Washington on the 29th. 
 
 (1029) Mr. Cotter is President of the National Lumber 
 & Creosoting Company, Texarkana, Ark. (1023) I have 
 looked over a lot of things and find a good many letters 
 dictated the 2ist referring to Mr. Hines being in New 
 York the day before. 
 
 THE REVEREND GREEN TESTIFIES 
 
 Dr. James F. Green gave evidence (1035) as follows: 
 
 DR. GREEN : I live at Sixty-third and Oakley avenue, 
 Chicago. First met Mr. Hines on the i/th of January, 
 1911, on my way to New York. Mr. Hines, I think, went 
 to Washington. I stayed in New York, and Mr. Hines 
 came to New York and I met him then, and I met him 
 again after the igth, when I returned to Philadelphia. My 
 recollection is that I met him the evening of the igth, 
 towards dinner time. (1036) The next I heard from 
 him, Mr. Hines called me up at my mother's home in 
 Philadelphia on Jan. 20, evening. I told him how to get 
 to the house, Eighteenth street and Girard avenue. He 
 came there, and I arranged to meet Mr. Ryan, and took 
 Mr. Hines with me to 244 North Lawrence street, Phila- 
 delphia. Mr. Hines said he would go back to Washington. 
 I rode with him to the hotel. He got his valise. I rode 
 with him to the Pennsylvania station, and left him there 
 and went home. (1037) On Saturday I was told to call 
 Mr. Hines at the Willard Hotel. I did so, and he asked 
 if I could go on Sunday to have dinner with Father Rior- 
 dan at Pikesville, Maryland. I said I would, and I took 
 the train, got off at Camden station in Baltimore, and 
 waited for Mr. Hines' train, which was awfully late. I 
 thought I had missed him. He came afterwards, and I 
 was introduced to Mr. Dupert, who took us in his auto- 
 mobile to Father Riordan's to dinner at Pikesville. ( 1044) 
 On the 22nd of January I first saw Mr. Hines in the 
 
 138
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 B. & O. station. Mrs. Hines and his niece came also. I 
 was there when they got there. It was my sister, Miss 
 Green, who told me to call Mr. Hines in Washington on 
 the telephone when we made the arrangement to go to 
 Baltimore and to Father Riordan's. 
 
 TESTIMONY OF A BALTIMORE FINANCIER 
 Mr. Adam Dupert (1064) gave evidence as follows: 
 
 MR. DUPERT : I live in Baltimore, and was at my home 
 on Jan. 22, 1911. Father Riordan telephoned me in the 
 morning of Saturday, the 2ist of January. (1065) Told 
 me that Mr. and Mrs. Hines and a young lady would be 
 in Baltimore Sunday morning, and wouldn't I be kind 
 enough to meet them with my auto at the Camden station ? 
 I told them I would be only too happy to do so. I did do 
 so. I waited for them. I expected them about 10 o'clock, 
 and it was after eleven when they arrived. It was a very 
 disagreeable day. They came into the Camden station on 
 the Washington train, and there I met also Dr. Green, 
 whom I had never met before. Mr. Hines introduced us 
 (1066), and I took them to Father Riordan's at Pikes- 
 ville, about nine miles. I had met Mr. Hines about five 
 years ago on a trip abroad. I know it was the 22nd of 
 January, 1911. I am President of an orphan asylum, and 
 have been a member of the directors for twenty years, and 
 we meet the fourth Sunday of each month, and owing to 
 the visit of Mr. and Mrs. Hines I had to forego attending 
 that meeting. I took Mr. Hines to the club of which I 
 was a member ; I wanted him to meet some of my friends. 
 I took Mr. Hines' party (1068) back to the depot for 
 Washington, Camden station, at night. 
 
 I submit in all fairness that testimony more complete and 
 convincing never was offered in any court to prove a con- 
 tested fact. Many of the witnesses who appeared before your 
 Board to testify that I was not in Chicago on or near January 
 21, 1911, were strangers or comparative strangers to me. They 
 are persons of high character. They have not the slightest 
 interest in withholding or in coloring the truth.
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 ANSWERING FACTS WITH SLURS 
 
 Funk's attorneys and certain bitterly partisan members of 
 the Board indulged repeatedly in slurs and broad insinuations 
 when I presented witnesses who flatly disproved the dates on 
 which it was alleged that I might have been in Chicago. These 
 malicious partisans pretended to believe that it would be 
 remarkable if I could prove my exact whereabouts on any date 
 which might be selected. 
 
 There was nothing remarkable about it. I can do the same 
 thing relative practically to every date since I became active 
 in business. Any man in business, who preserves his office 
 records and who insists that modern methods of transacting 
 business be followed, can make an examination of correspond- 
 ence files, copies of telegrams, telephone records, checks and 
 other memoranda, and establish his whereabouts on any date 
 which may be in question. Mr. Cyrus McCormick did it before 
 your Board. Edgar A. Bancroft had no difficulty in telling 
 where he was on various dates, and Clarence S. Funk doubt- 
 less could have shown exactly where he was on any given date, 
 had he desired to be fair and honest in assisting your Board 
 in arriving at the truth. What did Funk do ? 
 
 When it best suited Funk's purpose he pretended blank 
 ignorance of all dates, and insulted me before your Board 
 because I was able to prove my whereabouts by introducing 
 ordinary business correspondence and office memorandum. 
 Funk was later driven to fix a definite date for an alleged 
 event. What did he then do? He established his whereabouts 
 on, that date by his diary, and informed your Board that his 
 office records would corroborate his movements as set forth 
 in that diary! We did not question the authenticity of that 
 data. We did not insinuate that Mr. McCormick and Mr. 
 Bancroft had manufactured data to prove where they were on 
 certain dates. It would be an astounding thing if the active 
 head of a great business enterprise could not make such an 
 examination of its corespondence files as would determine 
 whether he was in the city of his activities on a certain date. 
 
 140
 
 EDWARD MINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 A member of your Board gave frank expression to his 
 surprise that it should be deemed wonderful that I was able 
 to tell where I was located on certain dates. The plain truth 
 of the matter is this : There is not a judge in the country who 
 would not unhesitatingly accept the validity of the data I 
 presented to prove my whereabouts on the various dates called 
 in question before your Board. I will go further than that. 
 It is my deliberate opinion that not a member of your Board 
 doubted the absolute authenticity of the evidence which /' 
 submitted to prove my whereabouts on these dates. 
 
 INTERESTING TESTIMONY OF FATHER RIORDAN 
 
 I desire now to offer a portion of the evidence of one of the 
 gentlemen who contributed to what Loesch called "a fake 
 alibi." I refer to the testimony offered by the Reverend 
 Michael J. Riordan. This honored clergyman has a parish 
 in Pikesville, Maryland. I had become acquainted with him 
 while on a trip abroad, five years before. I secured his pres- 
 ence before your Board by telephoning to him from Chicago. 
 Bear in mind that it was the pretended theory of the prosecu- 
 tion that I was in Chicago, and that I held the second interview 
 with Funk on January 21, 1911. This was their last stand. 
 This was the last date they dared set up in support of Funk's 
 latest "theory." Father Riordan thus testified : 
 
 Q. Do you remember your whereabouts on the 22nd 
 of January of last year ? 
 
 FATHER RIORDAN : Yes, sir ; I do. I was in Pikesville. 
 
 Q. Did you see Edward Hines that day? 
 
 FATHER RIORDAN : Sure ; sure. 
 
 Q. Did you have any communication with Mr. or Mrs. 
 Hines on the preceding day, the 2ist? 
 
 FATHER RIORDAN: Certainly. 
 
 Q. State the circumstances in regard to that com- 
 munication. 
 
 FATHER RIORDAN : I received a telephone message 
 from Mrs. Hines Saturday morning, I don't know the 
 exact hour ; say, possibly, about 9 o'clock ; telling me that 
 they would be over Sunday if agreeable or convenient to 
 
 141
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 me. I had frequently asked them to come. I had been 
 their guest here a couple of times. So I made the arrange- 
 ments and told them the train to take. I know they were 
 late for dinner. 
 
 Q. When were you asked to refresh your memory 
 regarding these facts ? 
 
 FATHER RIORDAN: On last Sunday night. I had no 
 particular reason to remember the date. It had gone out 
 of my mind. I don't keep diaries; I don't burden my 
 mind with things of that kind, and I rarely preserve letters 
 or documents unless I think they are very important. So 
 Sunday night I really could tell only that Mr. Hines was 
 at my house about a year ago. 
 
 Q. What did you do about refreshing your recollec- 
 tion? 
 
 FATHER RIORDAN : Well, that night I turned to my 
 household my household consists of a housekeeper and 
 her daughter, a grown girl twenty-seven years old a 
 telephone operator and they are both of good, acute 
 minds ; and they could not remember. Finally the house- 
 keeper says: "If you get the day I bought those olive 
 dishes," she says, "I could swear that is the date Mr. 
 Hines was here." I said: "Where did you buy them?" 
 She says : "Hochschild, Kohn & Co." I said : "Did you 
 pay cash ?" She said : "No. I have had an account there 
 for ten years." I said : "That's easy. We will find that 
 out tomorrow." That was Sunday. 
 
 Then the colored girl said that she went that night and 
 got a bottle of Duffy's apple juice if you remember that 
 (addressing Mr. Hines) ; it was something you had never 
 seen before. And then we had a Smithfield ham, and I 
 think it was the first time Father Green had. I said: 
 "Was that a cash transaction?" She said: "No." 
 
 My housekeeper remembers distinctly the trouble she 
 had getting it out that day. I called up Jordan Stabler & 
 Co., grocer, and asked him about the Smithfield ham. It 
 was bought on January 21. I called up Hochschild, Kohn 
 & Co. and asked him. "Yes," he said, "bought on the 
 
 2ISt." 
 
 I remember distinctly the snowy weather, the snowy 
 day. I can see Mr. Hines now in the afternoon going 
 directly across my lawn. My lawn runs in a circle, and 
 around my lawn is the approach to my house. I told 
 those people : "Don't bother to go around, take a straight
 
 EDWARD MINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 line," and I can remember Mr. Hines with his silk hat 
 and the white covered ground, and I can see him now, 
 going over from his automobile. 
 
 Q. What is the significance of "olive dishes"? 
 
 FATHER RIORDAN : Those olive dishes, oh, I got them 
 from my merchant. You remember (addressing Mr. 
 Hines) Mrs. Hines commenting on the olive set, and 
 somebody had never seen somebody at the table did not 
 know what they were. I confess that I would not know 
 myself if my housekeeper had not told me. They are 
 certainly very unique. I told that to my housekeeper 
 afterwards, and she was delighted to have some of my 
 guests who were world-wide travelers who had never 
 seen these things. Here is the memorandum. They were 
 got on the 2ist. 
 
 And there were the oyster forks. I remember espe- 
 cially getting the oyster forks. I usually use the plain 
 fork, until we had these people for company that day, 
 people who had traveled, and were accustomed to having 
 things O. K. So my housekeeper insisted on having 
 oyster forks. I said to her: "We want to do things 
 right." 
 
 LOESCH CONVINCED SIDLEY WILL ADMIT NOTHING 
 
 Father Riordan submitted the itemized bills of Hochschild, 
 Kohn & Company, showing that all of these purchases were 
 made on January 21, 1911, also the bill of Jordan Stabler & 
 Company, showing that the Smithfield ham and other articles 
 mentioned were purchased on the same date. 
 
 All of the witnesses had testified that this Sunday of Jan- 
 uary 22, 1911, was a cold, snowy day. A tame attempt was 
 made to insinuate that the Pikesville dinner might have 
 occurred on some other Sunday. Father Riordan submitted a 
 statement from William H. Alexander, Section Director of 
 the United States Weather Bureau, proving that this was the 
 only cold Sunday in that period with a heavy fall of snow. 
 
 What do you think of the testimony of Father Riordan? 
 Does it not ring with honesty? Is it not instinct with truth? 
 Can there be any doubt that I was his guest on that stormy 
 Sunday, the 22nd day of January, 1911? 
 
 143
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 This testimony so impressed Attorney Loesch that he rea- 
 lized the folly of attempting to impeach it. He made (1085) 
 the reluctant admission: "I will allow the dinner at Balti- 
 more is satisfactorily proven!" 
 
 Chairman Sidley later took pains to inform me that the 
 Board would not be bound by any admissions made by its at- 
 torney, and gave the plain intimation that no proof I could sub- 
 mit would necessarily have weight with him or the Board. Let 
 me now call your attention to the situation confronting those 
 who were vainly searching for some pretext to believe Funk. 
 
 READ THIS CAREFULLY 
 
 The editorial of January 21 was their last resort. Funk 
 had repudiated his sworn testimony in Washington. He had 
 repudiated all of the original and conflicting statements con- 
 cerning the date of the alleged second interview as made in 
 his early testimony before your Board. He had repudiated 
 the arguments made in his favor by Attorney Scott. He had 
 specifically fixed on the editorial of January 21 as the impelling 
 cause of my agitated call at his office and of my alleged attempt 
 to "refresh his memory." Funk cannot escape his words 
 preserved in the official record as compiled by your Board and 
 surrendered to me only when your officials dared no longer 
 to refuse me this legal right. Here is what Funk said before 
 your Board. (Pages 628 and 629 U. L. Record) : 
 
 Q. In the testimony you have given referring to an 
 editorial, from which editorial you fix your best recol- 
 lection of the interview with Mr. Hines, what is now your 
 impression as to which editorial you referred to? 
 
 MR. FUNK: IT IS MY DISTINCT RECOLLEC- 
 TION IT WAS THE EDITORIAL OF JANUARY 
 2oTH, 1911. 
 
 Can language be plainer? Out of the mass of Funk's shift- 
 ing recollections, evasions, conjectures and tricky responses 
 to plain questions, this reply stands practically alone as a 
 direct answer to a direct question. He was no longer in 
 
 144
 
 EDWARD MINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 doubt about it. It was his DISTINCT RECOLLECTION 
 that it was the EDITORIAL OF JANUARY 20, 1911 ! 
 
 The final theory set up by Attorney Loesch and to which 
 my prosecutors clung as long as possible, was absurd to the 
 point of silliness. Look at it for a moment : 
 
 It was finally admitted that I was in New York City on the 
 day that the editorial of January 20, 1911, was published. It 
 was admitted that on that day I talked with President W. C. 
 Brown, of the New York Central Railroad, and with Mr. 
 Theodore Shonts, President of the Interboro System of the 
 metropolis. Loesch, Sidley and others arrayed against me 
 halted at alleging that Mr. Brown and Mr. Shonts were parties 
 to my "fake alibi." They accordingly were spared. I was 
 presumed to have received news of the Record-Herald editorial 
 while in New York City, and it is the assumption of the prose- 
 cution that I rushed from the office of Mr. Brown or Mr. 
 Shonts, and took the Twentieth Century Limited for Chicago, 
 arriving there at 8:55 on the Saturday morning of January 
 
 2 1 St. 
 
 WHAT I DID NOT DO 
 
 Now follow me, as I am pictured in the minds of those who 
 grasp at a straw on which to float Funk's veracity. On arriv- 
 ing in Chicago I rushed at once to Funk's office, reaching there 
 shortly after nine o'clock. I tell the puzzled Funk that he 
 must have been mistaken about what I said to him two years 
 before. I say nothing about any editorial. I am agitated. 
 Funk listens and says that he thinks he does remember what 
 I said. He then excuses himself and goes into a conference. 
 ( The records of Mr. McCormick and Mr. Bancroft show that 
 Funk held no conference with them on that date.) 
 
 What do I then do ? Do I consult a lawyer about this awful 
 crisis which has thus been precipitated by this Record-Herald 
 editorial? No. Do I go to my office and confer with Mr. 
 Wiehe, who is presumed to have telegraphed or telephoned 
 the gist of the editorial to me? No. Do I see anybody in 
 Chicago, save Funk ? No. What do I then do ? Listen ! 
 
 145
 
 EDWARD HIKES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 I take the 10:30 train back to Washington. I arrive in 
 Washington at 8:30 on this snowy, stormy Sunday, and it is 
 proved that I attended 9 o'clock services that morning. I am 
 presumably in a business suit. Fresh from my criminal con- 
 ference with Funk I am presumed to rush to the hotel, change 
 my clothes, go to church with my wife and her niece, and later 
 put in a happy day in social intercourse with devout clergy- 
 men! 
 
 Yet this absolutely idiotic "theory" was soberly argued, 
 solemnly considered and apparently affirmed by your Board. 
 It had not one verified fact to fortify it, and disproves itself. 
 It necessarily was predicated on the insulting assumption that 
 witnesses who testified that I was in the East at that time 
 told deliberate falsehoods. This theory was a declaration that 
 at least one of the clergymen was a falsifier. It was a declara- 
 tion that several reputable business men had deliberately told 
 untruths in my behalf. It was a declaration that the heads of 
 the New Willard Hotel, of Washington, had falsified its records. 
 It was a declaration that Miss Helen Moody had manufactured 
 a diary for my special benefit. All of which is so palpably 
 absurd that I shall not further discuss it. 
 
 A MASS OF UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE 
 
 With this digression, I now submit a digest of the testimony 
 of other witnesses whose testimony removed the last possible 
 doubt concerning my whereabouts on the dates in question. 
 
 Miss Anna T. Green, of Philadelphia, testified as follows : 
 
 Miss GREEN : I recall the evening of Jan. 20, 1911. I 
 was at home at 1206 North Eighteenth Street, Philadel- 
 phia. I did not know Mr. Hines at all until that night. 
 I met him that night at our home I and my brother. My 
 brother is Father Green, a priest. I got home at about half 
 past eight or nine in the evening, and it was about twenty 
 minutes before he (Hines) got there. The next day Mr. 
 Hines called up the house on the telephone and asked for 
 my brother. He was not there. He was at Chestnut Hill ; 
 430 was the number of the 'phone ; I gave it to him and he 
 could not get him. Mr. Hines asked me to have him 
 call him at the Hotel Willard at Washington. That was 
 
 146
 
 EDWARD MINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 on Saturday, the day following Jan. 20. I know that 
 because on the 22nd my brother went to Baltimore. 
 (1167.) I know Mr. Ryan of Philadelphia very well 
 indeed. Mr. Ryan had a fall in the second week in Jan- 
 uary and he was very miserable. Both himself and his 
 wife are very miserable just now. 
 
 MR. EATON: The offer was made to have Mr. Ryan 
 here, and if he had been physically able he would have 
 been here to testify as to seeing Father Green and Mr. 
 Hines on the evening of the 2Oth. (1168) 
 
 Oliver J. Labeau was then called as a witness. He testified 
 (1169): 
 
 MR. LABEAU : That he was assistant chief usher in St. 
 Patrick's Cathedral at Washington, D. C, and held that 
 position on the 22nd day of January, 1911. Mr. and Mrs. 
 Hines and their niece were in church on that day. He 
 knew it was on the 22nd day of January because on the 
 Sunday following, which was the 29th, he had friends 
 from Chicago who visited him. These friends were Mr. 
 and Mrs. St. Auburn and Mrs. Mangan, and he told them 
 about having quite a lot of visitors from Chicago lately, 
 and told them that Mr. and Mrs. Hines and Miss Moody 
 were at church the Sunday previous. In order to verify 
 his dates he went over to the Driscoll Hotel (where his 
 friends were stopping) and got the dates that they were 
 there. He found that his friends were at the Driscoll 
 Hotel from Jan. 28 to Feb. 2. In stating his memory of 
 seeing us at church on that particular morning the witness 
 said: 
 
 "I know when Mr. Hines comes to St. Patrick, as a 
 rule he always comes into n o'clock mass, which is high 
 mass, and this Sunday he or rather, I was in the habit of 
 taking Mr. and Mrs. Hines to the Austro-Hungarian Am- 
 bassador's pew. For that reason I may say seats are very 
 much in demand at St. Patrick's, and at that time I know 
 the Ambassador was away, I knew that I could put the 
 party in there, and I knew that they would not be disturbed, 
 he being away. And any time he was away and Mr. and 
 Mrs. Hines came I knew that I could put them there. 
 This Sunday I remember that Mr. Hines tapped me on 
 the shoulder and he said, 'I don't want to be put up in 
 the front.' He said, 'I am going to catch a train and I 
 am liable to leave before the services are finished.' I said, 
 
 147
 
 EDWARD H1NES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 'Very well,' and I put him in the rear left about the third 
 pew, and he got up before the services were finished, 
 and I followed him into the vestibule, and I shook hands 
 with Mrs. Hines, and Mrs. Hines said, 'Mr. Labeau, this 
 is Miss Moody.' And it was cold weather and a bluster- 
 ing day. I said, 'I know Mr. Frank Moody.' She said, 
 'Yes, that is my uncle.' And with that they jumped into a 
 carriage." (1170-1171) 
 
 My counsel offered to produce Mr. G. F. Cotter to prove 
 that he was in Washington on Jan. 21 and that he met me that 
 day and took dinner with us at the New Willard Hotel on 
 that day, as previously testified to by myself, Mrs. Hines, Miss 
 Moody and Mr. Nelson. Whereupon the Chairman said that 
 he had a telegram from Mr. Cotter and that the telegram was 
 entirely satisfactory to the Board and that the Board was 
 entirely prepared to admit that if Mr. Cotter were present he 
 would testify exactly in accordance with that telegram. The 
 telegram so received by the Chairman of the Board is as 
 follows : 
 
 B 336 D. L. D. 78 Blue. 
 
 Denver, Colo., 22nd Feb. 
 Wm. Sidley, Union League Club, 
 
 Chicago, 111. 
 
 This is to certify that I know that Edward Hines of 
 Chicago was in Washington, D. C., on Jan. 21, 1911. I 
 saw him there during the day, and dined with him and 
 Mrs. Hines and other friends that evening at the New 
 Willard Hotel. The Denver Athletic Club will identify 
 my presence here today, and you can satisfy yourself as to 
 my reputation by referring to almost any prominent man 
 in Texas, especially the Governor. G. F. Cotter. (1191) 
 
 This telegram was supplemented by another from the Presi- 
 dent of the Denver Athletic Club, as follows : 
 
 B 534 A. G. P. and 24-5 Ex. Sig. 
 
 Denver, Colo., 22. 
 William Sidley, Pt. Union League Club, 
 
 Chicago, 111. 
 
 Mr. George F. Cotter of Texarkana, Texas, is now a 
 guest of the Denver Athletic Club, dining here today. 
 (1191) R. F. Parvin, President, Denver Athletic Club. 
 
 148
 
 EDWARD MINES TO THE u. L. CLUB 
 
 My counsel then stated to the Board that he had a witness 
 who would testify to the personal illness of Mr. Ryan of Phila- 
 delphia and his inability to be present. (Mr. Ryan was the 
 gentleman who saw me and in whose company I was in con- 
 junction with Father Green in Philadelphia on the evening of 
 Jan. 20.) The Chairman thereupon stated, "We accept that 
 as a fact of record." (1191) 
 
 GENTLEMEN WHOM I MET ON JAN. 21 
 
 My counsel then stated that Mr. W. C. Brown, President of 
 the New York Central Railroad, had wired authority to pre- 
 sent the letter that was given to me on Jan. 20 in New York, 
 and asked that the Board consider that letter in connection 
 with my letter of the 2ist to Mr. Brown, thanking him for the 
 courtesy shown the day before in New York. (1192) My 
 counsel then introduced in evidence this telegram addressed 
 to me (1193) : 
 
 6 Wu. K. 42. Collect 23. Columbia, S. C., Feb. 22-12. 
 E. H. (E. H. L. Co.), Chicago. 
 
 I was guest of New Willard Hotel, Washington, D. C., 
 Jan. 21, 1911. Stopped there on my way to Palm Beach, 
 Florida. Saw you at said place on said date concerning 
 certain litigation I had for your wife. 
 
 Allen Gilbert. 8:30 a. m. 
 
 This gentleman is a member of the firm of Gilbert & Gilbert, 
 of the Chicago bar. My counsel also introduced in evidence 
 the following telegrams ( 1 194) : 
 
 Paid. Chicago, Feb. 21, 1912. Z. W. Whitehead, care 
 Southern Lumber Journal, Wilmington, N. C. 
 
 Do your records show you were in Washington from 
 Jan. 19 to 23rd, 1911? Have you recollection or memo- 
 randa of seeing Mr. Hines Saturday, Jan. 21, 1911? Very 
 important. Wire answer our expense quick. 
 
 Edward Hines Lumber Co. 
 
 And the following replies: 
 
 3 Po. K. 48 Coll. L. 23. Wilmington, N. C., Feb. 
 22-12. E. H. L. Co., Chicago. 
 
 My recollection is lumber people had first meeting on 
 
 149
 
 EDWARD HIKES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 lumber tariff matters Washington City about Jan. 19, 
 1909, with Mr. Mines, Fosburgh, Skinner, myself and 
 others present, continuing in session three or four days, 
 devising ways and means for heading off free lumber 
 legislation by Congress. Z. W. Whitehead. 8:i6a. m. 
 
 4 Po. K. 36. Coll. Wilmington, N. C., Feb. 23-12. 
 E. H. (E. H. L. Co.), Chicago. 
 
 Remember distinctly being in Washington Saturday, 
 Jan. 21 last year, and conferring with you about Canadian 
 reciprocity and hearing you speak of Stillwell leaving for 
 New York night before. Had my wife up there week 
 before. Z. W. Whitehead. 11:253. m. (1195) 
 
 I was asked by a member of the Board about Mr. Adam 
 Dupert, and I stated: "He is a gentleman of standing in 
 Baltimore. He is a director of the National Bank of Balti- 
 more, a director of the Farmers' & Merchants' Bank of Balti- 
 more, a director in the Consolidated Electric Light & Power 
 Company, one of the largest stockholders, and a director in 
 the Creamery Company of Baltimore. He is a director and 
 officer of the Tide Water Cement Company of Baltimore." 
 
 ("99) 
 
 At the conclusion of the evidence and before the arguments 
 of counsel were begun I was asked by a member of the Board, 
 "When did you first know of the publication of the editorial 
 of Jan. 20, 1911?" And I replied: 
 
 Let me say I never knew of the editorial being pub- 
 lished till Mr. Scott produced it here several days ago. 
 I never read it. No attention was ever called to me about 
 it, and in addition I never saw the Record-Herald article 
 of Feb. 15 until after the Helm Committee investigation. 
 And no one, to my knowledge, ever referred to that 
 article of Jan. 20 either by newspaper articles, records 
 or anything until Mr. Scott referred to it here. It was 
 a complete surprise to me, and at Washington my whole 
 attention was called to the date of Feb. 15. I made a very 
 careful search to satisfy the Committee where I was all 
 that time. When this was sprung on me the other night 
 I relied on documentary evidence I had, but since that 
 time I have gone completely into a personal search to 
 verify every statement I made here to you, and can sub- 
 
 150
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 stantiatc it in every detail. If there is anything you wish 
 verified I can satisfy every member on that point, no 
 matter how particular they want to be, to show that I was 
 not in Chicago on those dates. (1139) 
 
 FUNK IMPEACHED BY HIMSELF, M'CORMICK AND BANCROFT 
 
 Attorney Loesch told the exact truth in his argument for 
 the prosecution when he asserted that the Board must render 
 a decision based on the veracity of Clarence S. Funk relative to 
 his testimony concerning the alleged "second conversation" 
 between himself and me. Mr. Loesch assured your Board that 
 the date of January 20, 1911 the date of the newly discovered 
 Record-Herald editorial was vital. Mr. Loesch declared: 
 
 "IT IS A MOUNTAIN PEAK, BECAUSE AROUND 
 THAT CENTERS THE TRUTH OR FALSITY OF MR. 
 FUNK'S STATEMENTS APPLICABLE TO THE CON- 
 TROVERSY." 
 
 This was tantamount to a declaration that the Board must 
 ignore and forget all of Funk's testimony fixing other dates. 
 It was a declaration that Funk had testified falsely in naming 
 February 15, 1911, as the approximate date. It was a declara- 
 tion that Funk had not testified correctly when he answered 
 that September or October, 1909, was the period in which I 
 paid that second alleged visit to Funk. 
 
 Attorney Loesch knew, and every member of your Board 
 knew that January 20 was the date of last resort. Listen again 
 to Mr. Loesch: (Page 843, U. L. Record.) 
 
 "We have fixed the editorial of January 2Oth because we 
 have produced it, and the date of its publication is established, 
 and it answers all the conditions which MR. FUNK HAD IN 
 MIND AS HE TESTIFIED HERE BEFORE YOU. Now, 
 that is the crucial point. It was before, or it was after. IT 
 WAS IMMEDIATELY AFTER. Or, it was a day or two 
 after, or it was around that. You can read and reread the 
 testimony and you will always come back to that point. Now, 
 THAT IS OUR FIXED POINT." 
 
 Is not that plain language? Why did Mr. Loesch make 
 
 iSl
 
 EDWARD MINES TO THE u. L. CLUB 
 
 that positive declaration? Because there was no other escape 
 from the conclusion that Funk had invented the story of the 
 second conversation. 
 
 Please fix in your mind the fact that there was one impera- 
 tive condition which had to be established before it could be 
 assumed that there was even a possibility that the alleged 
 second interview between Funk and myself occurred. That 
 condition was this : A DATE HAD TO BE DISCOVERED 
 ON WHICH FUNK, McCORMICK, BANCROFT AND 
 MYSELF ALL WERE IN CHICAGO. 
 
 Fortunately for the cause of truth, this condition was one 
 fixed by testimony other than that given by Funk. He would 
 not have hesitated to repudiate any former testimony on that 
 point. He would have squirmed and twisted and evaded the 
 plain purport of any statement which had been nullified by 
 evidence introduced against him, but the diaries of Mr. Cyrus 
 H. McCormick and Mr. Edgar A. Bancroft, which were intro- 
 duced by Mr. Loesch for another purpose, upon examination 
 by my counsel, revealed the whereabouts of Mr. McCormick 
 and Mr. Bancroft on every day in the crucial period, and flatly 
 impeach the veracity of Clarence S. Funk, and prove that the 
 second alleged interview never occurred! 
 
 Under the grossly unfair method of procedure adopted and 
 insisted on by your Board, I was compelled to make a defense 
 against allegations or insinuations not then fortified by any evi- 
 dence whatever. The prosecution was permitted to set up any 
 conceivable theory or suggestion, and I was forced to combat 
 that fancy or figment with documentary evidence. With this in 
 their possession the prosecution would later introduce what 
 evidence they had, or would decline to answer it if it was 
 deemed unanswerable. This seems incredible, but the record 
 proves that this was the procedure adopted and followed. 
 
 I am glad that I first established my whereabouts on the 
 various dates called in question. I did this at a time when I 
 had not the slightest idea that Funk, McCormick and Bancroft 
 had diaries showing a record of their movements, and when I 
 did not know that these diaries would be submitted in evidence. 
 
 152
 
 EDWARD MINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 THESE DIARIES OF THE PROSECUTION ITSELF 
 CONTAIN THE UNASSAILABLE PROOF OF THE 
 TRUTH OF MY TESTIMONY THAT I WAS NOT IN 
 CHICAGO ON ANY DATE MADE POSSIBLE BY 
 EITHER OF THE EDITORIALS IN QUESTION. 
 
 A PROPHECY FULFILLED 
 
 At the time Attorney Loesch made the unhesitating declara- 
 tion that the second alleged interview was caused by the 
 editorial of January 2Oth, and that it occurred shortly after- 
 wards, I at once made a statement showing in a general way 
 my whereabouts, but I had not then had the time to mass the 
 proof later disclosed by an examination of telegrams, corres- 
 pondence files, hotel records, etc. Mr. Loesch pretended that 
 he saw a way in which I might have made a trip from 
 Washington to Chicago and return, and he brazenly assumed 
 that I did make that trip and that I did hold the interview with 
 Funk. In ignorance of the fact that I would later put in 
 documentary and oral evidence which even he could not ignore, 
 Loesch made (page 864) this additional declaration, pinning 
 himself squarely down to a specific date : 
 
 "Now, this confirms like a stroke from the above the theory 
 I was working out last night, that there can be that was the 
 day and there was no other day. (January 21, 1911, as the date 
 of the alleged interview.) And that conversation took place as 
 certain as the sun is shining upon us today. Now, the facts 
 fit into that, and do not fit anywhere else, and it is just as 
 Daniel Webster says in the great Webster trial : 'There is no 
 place in the universe for a lie/ and some way, somewhere, 
 somehow, that fact will be proven here, and it can be proven." 
 
 THAT PROPHECY WAS FULFILLED! The lie was 
 exposed in the Union League Club, and it was exposed even by 
 Attorney Loesch's witnesses. The diaries kept for Cyrus H. 
 McCormick and Edgar A. Bancroft proved that they were not 
 in Chicago on any date within the period imperatively fixed 
 by the facts and by the testimony the condition imposed being 
 
 153
 
 EDWARD H1NES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 that Funk, McCormick, Bancroft and myself all must be in 
 Chicago on the same date. 
 
 I did not establish that condition. Funk gave the original 
 testimony affirming it. He swore in Springfield and in Wash- 
 ington that he immediately related to McCormick and to Ban- 
 croft some version of what was alleged to have happened. Both 
 McCormick and Bancroft testify that Funk came at once to 
 them with a tale of my alleged visit, and of my attempt "to 
 refresh his memory." They therefore became witnesses be- 
 cause of something said by Funk. 
 
 Funk labored under no such handicap in the matter of the 
 original Union League Club conversation of May 27, 1909. 
 He named no witnesses. He presumed that it would be solely 
 his word against mine, and he depended on- a partisan press to 
 blacken my character. But as to the second alleged conversa- 
 tion he named witnesses, and these witnesses of his owni 
 creation came before the Union League Club and impeached 
 what remained of his veracity. 
 
 AN ELOQUENT CHART 
 
 I now submit a chart compiled from the diaries submitted to 
 your Board by Clarence S. Funk, Cyrus H. McCormick and 
 Edgar A. Bancroft, and from the verified proof of my where- 
 abouts as given by witnesses of the highest standing and repu- 
 tation, whose testimony is fortified by documentary evidence 
 the validity of which cannot be called into question. Here 
 is the concrete proof that I told the truth. Here is the over- 
 whelming evidence that I was falsely accused, unfairly tried 
 and unjustly condemned by your Board : 
 
 154
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 CHART SHOWING MOVEMENTS OF HINES, FUNK, M'COBMICK 
 AND BANCROFT FROM JANUARY 11, 1911, TO MARCH 12, 
 1911, THIS BEING THE ONLY PERIOD WITHIN WHICH THE 
 ALLEGED SECOND INTERVIEW BETWEEN FUNK AND 
 HINES COULD HAVE OCCURRED. 
 
 Date. 
 
 Funk. 
 
 Hines. 
 
 McCormick. 
 
 Bancroft. 
 
 Jan. 
 
 11 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Washington 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Left for N. Y. 
 
 " 
 
 12 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Washington 
 
 Left for N. Y. 
 
 New York 
 
 11 
 
 13 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Washington 
 
 New York 
 
 New York 
 
 " 
 
 14 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Left for Chicago 
 
 New York 
 
 New York 
 
 " 
 
 15 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Chicago 
 
 New York 
 
 Washington 
 
 " 
 
 16 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Washington 
 
 " 
 
 17 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Left for Wash. 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Washington 
 
 11 
 
 18 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Washington 
 
 Chicago 
 
 . Washington 
 
 " 
 
 19 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Left for N. Y. 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Chicago 
 
 " 
 
 20 
 
 Chicago 
 
 N. Y. & Phlla. 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Chicago 
 
 " 
 
 21 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Washington 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Chicago 
 
 14 
 
 22 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Wash. & Bait. 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Chicago 
 
 " 
 
 23 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Washington 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Chicago 
 
 " 
 
 24 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Left for N. Y. 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Chicago 
 
 " 
 
 25 
 
 Chicago 
 
 New York 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Chicago 
 
 11 
 
 26 
 
 Chicago 
 
 New York 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Chicago 
 
 " 
 
 27 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Washington 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Chicago 
 
 " 
 
 28 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Washington 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Chicago 
 
 " 
 
 29 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Washington 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Chicago 
 
 " 
 
 30 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Washington 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Chicago 
 
 " 
 
 31 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Washington 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Feb. 
 
 1 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Washington 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Chicago 
 
 " 
 
 2 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Washington 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Chicago 
 
 " 
 
 3 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Washington 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Chicago 
 
 " 
 
 4 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Washington 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Chicago 
 
 " 
 
 5 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Left for N. Y. 
 
 Chicago 
 
 " 
 
 6 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Chicago 
 
 New York 
 
 Chicago 
 
 ' 
 
 7 
 
 Left for N. Y. 
 
 Left for Wash. 
 
 New York 
 
 Chicago 
 
 1 
 
 8 
 
 New York 
 
 Washington 
 
 East 
 
 Chicago 
 
 
 
 9 
 
 New York 
 
 Washington 
 
 East 
 
 Chicago 
 
 1 
 
 10 
 
 New York 
 
 Left for N. Y. 
 
 East 
 
 Chicago 
 
 1 
 
 11 
 
 New York 
 
 Washington 
 
 East 
 
 Chicago 
 
 ' 
 
 12 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Washington 
 
 East 
 
 Chicago 
 
 " 
 
 13 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Washington 
 
 East 
 
 Left for Boston 
 
 " 
 
 14 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Washington 
 
 East 
 
 Boston 
 
 " 
 
 15 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Washington 
 
 East 
 
 Boston 
 
 " 
 
 16 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Left for N. Y. 
 
 East 
 
 Boston 
 
 " 
 
 17 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Washington 
 
 East 
 
 Worcester 
 
 1 
 
 18 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Washington 
 
 East 
 
 Worcester 
 
 1 
 
 19 
 
 Left for N. Y. 
 
 Washington 
 
 East 
 
 Waterbury 
 
 ' 
 
 20 
 
 New York 
 
 Washington 
 
 East 
 
 Waterbury 
 
 1 
 
 21 
 
 New York 
 
 Washington 
 
 East 
 
 New York 
 
 
 
 22 
 
 New York 
 
 Washington 
 
 East 
 
 Chicago 
 
 ' 
 
 23 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Washington 
 
 East 
 
 Chicago 
 
 ' 
 
 24 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Washington 
 
 East 
 
 Chicago 
 
 ' 
 
 25 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Washington 
 
 East 
 
 Chicago 
 
 " 
 
 26 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Washington 
 
 East 
 
 Chicago 
 
 " 
 
 27 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Washington 
 
 East 
 
 Chicago 
 
 " 
 
 28 
 
 L'ft for Wash 
 
 Washington 
 
 East 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Mar. 
 
 1 
 
 "Washington 
 
 Washington 
 
 East 
 
 Chicago 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 Washington 
 
 Washington 
 
 East 
 
 Chicago 
 
 * 
 
 3 
 
 Washington 
 
 Washington 
 
 East 
 
 Chicago 
 
 1 
 
 4 
 
 Left for Chi. 
 
 Left for Chicago 
 
 East 
 
 Chicago 
 
 1 
 
 5 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Florida 
 
 Chicago 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Left for Duluth 
 
 Florida 
 
 Chicago 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Duluth 
 
 Florida 
 
 Chicago 
 
 " 
 
 8 
 
 Chicago 
 
 North 
 
 Florida 
 
 Chicago 
 
 " 
 
 9 
 
 Chicago 
 
 North 
 
 Florida 
 
 Chicago 
 
 " 
 
 10 
 
 Chicago 
 
 North 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Chicago 
 
 " 
 
 11 
 
 Chicago 
 
 North 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Chicago 
 
 " 
 
 12 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Consider, please, that that portion of the public which still 
 doubts my complete innocence is as yet in total ignorance of 
 
 155
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 the fact that Clarence S. Funk was compelled to repudiate be- 
 fore your Board his sworn testimony given in Springfield and 
 Washington. 
 
 Consider, please, that this is the first announcement of the 
 fact that Cyrus H. McCormick and Edgar A. Bancroft sur- 
 rendered to your Board the absolute documentary proof that I 
 told the truth in Springfield and in Washington when I de- 
 clared that I did not call on Clarence S. Funk on or near Feb- 
 ruary 15, 1911. For giving such truthful testimony I was 
 branded a criminal on the floor of the United States Senate by 
 Senator La Follette, who unhesitatingly accepted the word of 
 Funk that I did come to him on or about that date, and that I 
 made a proposition to him which Senator La Follette charac- 
 terized as typical of the criminal detected and anxious to cover 
 up his tracks. 
 
 Consider, please, that Senator La Follette and all of the 
 members of the Senate of the United States have as yet no 
 official knowledge of the facts herewith presented to you. 
 
 Consider, please, that Clarence S. Funk rave this repudiation 
 of his sworn testimony to your Board at a time when the 
 Dillingham Committee was still in session; when it was still 
 making an honest effort to throw all possible light on the 
 methods used to elect Senator Lorimer; when Clarence S. 
 Funk knew that he was the witness whose testimony was 
 responsible for the present investigation of that election con- 
 sider, please, that Clarence S. Funk gave that entirely new 
 testimony before your Board and that he has declined to c<v 
 form to my request that he go before the Dillingham Com- 
 mittee and tell under oath the story which he employed to have 
 me expelled from the Union League Club! 
 
 Consider, please, that the press of the nation which was 
 induced to class my truthful testimony of my presence in 
 Washington on or near February 15, 1911, as "a fake alibi," 
 still has no inkling that Cyrus H. McCormick and Edgar A. 
 Bancroft, by their diaries produced for the first time gave 
 before your Board the concrete evidence which affirms that 
 
 156
 
 EDWARD MINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 I spoke the truth and that the allegations against me were 
 mistakes or open perjury. 
 
 Neither McCormick nor Bancroft were in Chicago on or 
 near the date fixed by Funk in his sworn testimony before the 
 Dillingham Committee. 
 
 WHAT THE CHART PROVED 
 
 Never in any investigation, legal or informal, public or 
 private, was more overwhelming proof presented than that 
 which I offered to refute Funk's claim of said alleged second 
 interview, and that I came to his office on or near January 20, 
 1911, because of an editorial discovered to have been printed on 
 that date. Not an atom of proof was presented by the prosecu- 
 tion to that effect. All of their former "theories" had been 
 absolutely obliterated. Their founder stood impeached and 
 discredited. I was vindicated by the evidence, yet Funk was 
 permitted to climb out of the ruins of his shattered fictions 
 and his new "theory" was seemingly accepted as gospel truth 
 by a Board which had witnessed absolute and repeated im- 
 peachments of his veracity. 
 
 No court of law would have asked me to disprove a "theory," 
 unsupported by evidence, much less a "theory" enunciated by 
 the impeached author of discarded and exploded "theories." 
 But I had no desire to stand on legal technicalities. I realized 
 that the method of procedure was unfair, but notwithstanding 
 I was able to prove to your Board and now to you my innocence 
 against any contention set up by Funk or his representatives 
 on or off the Board. 
 
 The new "theory" was that it was possible that I was in 
 Chicago on or about January 20, 1911. It was not contended 
 that it could be proved that I was then in Chicago. Not at all. 
 I was compelled to prove that I was not in Chicago on that 
 date, and it was a foregone conclusion that my failure to pre- 
 sent absolute proof would decree my guilt! In other words, 
 the mere fact that I had returned to Chicago my place of 
 business, the center of my activities, my home on that par- 
 
 157
 
 EDWARD H1NES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 ticular date, would be presumed to adjudge me guilty of having 
 held an interview with a man whose entire testimony is a mass 
 of involved contradictions. A number of things could have 
 called me to Chicago on that date. It is not a crime to return 
 from Washington or New York to Chicago. Yet, before your 
 Board, it would have been deemed evidence of a crime in 
 my case, and it was demanded that I defend myself against 
 the possibility that I had committed it. 
 
 It happened, as the evidence shows, that I was not in Chicago 
 on or near the date of January 20, 1911, and I proved this by 
 offering the witnesses, evidence, data and documentary proof 
 condensed and partially enumerated as follows : 
 
 WHAT I PROVED 
 
 That I left Washington for New York on the evening of 
 January ip, and was in New York on January 20th. This is 
 thus proved: 
 
 Testimony of Mr. C. R. Nelson, Mrs. Hines, Miss Moody, 
 myself; a letter from W. C. Brown dated January 20, 1911, 
 and handed to me by him on that day in New York; a letter 
 of my own dated the next day at Washington to Mr. W. C. 
 Brown thanking him for the courtesies shown me the day be- 
 fore; also Mr. Moffitt, Mr. Dudley and Mr. Shonts whom I 
 met that day in New York and whom I named in my testimony 
 as persons who would corroborate my statement that I met 
 them on that day in New York. If my statement in this regard 
 was not true it would have been very quickly disproved by the 
 prosecution by securing communications from these gentlemen 
 showing that fact. 
 
 That I was in Philadelphia on the evening of January 20th 
 was thus proved: 
 
 The testimony of Dr. Green, Miss Green and myself; proof 
 that Mr. Ryan, who also saw me in Philadelphia was ill and 
 unable to be present. 
 
 That I was in Washington on January 21 was conclusively 
 proved as follows: 
 
 158
 
 EDWARD H1NES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 Testimony of Mr. Nelson, Mrs. Hines, Miss Moody, Mr. 
 Wand with hotel records, myself, shorthand book of my private 
 secretary showing numerous dictations of letters, etc., made by 
 me to him in the course of business on that date ; two telegrams 
 from Mr. Cotter stating that he was in Washington on that 
 date and met me and took dinner with me at my hotel ; a tele- 
 gram from Allan Gilbert stating that he was in Washington 
 and met and talked with me on that date ; also a telegram from 
 Z. W. Whitehead stating that he was in Washington on that 
 date and conferred with me about a business matter; also a 
 telegram sent by me from Washington to Chicago on that 
 date and a number of telegrams received by me at Washington 
 on that date; telephone charges confirming telephone talks on 
 that day with Dr. Riordon of Pikesville, and Dr. Green of 
 Philadelphia; diaries containing entries confirming my pres- 
 ence in Washington on that day. 
 
 That I was in Washington and Pikesville, Md., on January 
 22nd was proved by these witnesses: 
 
 Testimony of Miss Moody, Mrs. Hines, Mr. Nelson, Mr. 
 Lebeau, Adam Dupert, Dr. Green, Dr. Riordan, Mr. Wand, 
 with hotel records, and by memorandum dictated by me to Mr. 
 Law. 
 
 In the course of fixing my whereabouts during all of the 
 time I was absent from Chicago it also conclusively appeared 
 from the foregoing witnesses in Washington, and by telegrams 
 sent and received by me at Washington, shorthand notes show- 
 ing dictation, hotel records and charges, etc., that I was in 
 Washington on January 23rd and 24th and that I left Wash- 
 ington on the evening of the 24th for New York. 
 
 It also appeared by the testimony of witnesses and by tele- 
 grams and so. forth, sent and received by me at New York, 
 and by the hotel register and charges entered on the books of 
 the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel Company, that I was in New York 
 on January 25, 26 and 27, and that I returned to Washington 
 on the evening of the 27th. 
 
 It also appears from the testimony of witnesses, telegrams 
 sent and received by me, shorthand notes showing letters dic- 
 
 159
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 tated by me, telephone charges, hotel records and charges on 
 the books of the hotel against me, diaries and so forth, that I 
 was in Washington continuously from the time of my return 
 from New York on the evening of January 22nd to the evening 
 of February 5th, 1911, when I returned to Chicago. 
 
 It also appears by a mass of like evidence that I was in Wash- 
 ington and the East continuously from February 8 (when I 
 returned to Washington from Chicago) up to the evening of 
 March 4, 1911, when I left Washington for Chicago on a train 
 with Clarence S. Funk on board, both of us arriving in Chicago 
 on March 5. 
 
 THE LUCK OF A SUNDAY 
 
 Study that chart. When I gave my testimony I had not the 
 slightest knowledge of the movements of Mr. McCormick and 
 of Mr. Bancroft. I had no idea that I would later be called on 
 to account for every day and hour, neither did I suspect that 
 it would have been fatal for me to have been in Chicago on a 
 day when Mr. McCormick, Mr. Bancroft and Funk were in 
 their home offices. Observe the movements of Mr. McCormick 
 and Mr. Bancroft. Seemingly a kindly fate inspired one or 
 the other of these gentlemen to leave Chicago on all occasions 
 when there was a possibility of a conjunction of the four of us. 
 
 Note how our orbits approached and finally joined on 
 February 5. Of course, this was ten days before the pub- 
 lication of the editorial of February 15, and sixteen days 
 after the editorial of January 20, and did not fit in any way 
 the various kinds of testimony Funk has thus far given, but 
 there is every reason to believe that the prosecution would 
 have clutched at that date despite all that, were it not for one 
 Providential circumstance, viz: February 5, 1911, fell on a 
 Sunday. 
 
 Mr. McCormick left for New York or the East on that 
 Sabbath day as his diary shows but suppose he had post- 
 poned his trip another day? It then would have been alleged 
 that the interview occurred on that day, Monday, the sixth 
 of February, and I would have been held guilty because of 
 the fact that I happened to be in Chicago at a time when 
 
 160
 
 EDWARD HIKES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 Funk, McCormick and Bancroft were at their headquarters. 
 Of course, an editorial would not have served as the alleged 
 cause of my alleged frightened call on Funk, but some other 
 "assumption" would have been invented and advanced, and no 
 denial of mine or any proof offered would have outweighed 
 with my prosecutors the fact that it was possible such an inter- 
 view could have been held. 
 
 All they wanted was a possibility that I could have called 
 on Funk within the period prescribed by the two editorials. 
 They knew that proof could not be produced. The mere 
 possibility that the falsehood told by Funk could be enter- 
 tained was all that the prosecution tried to establish, but they 
 dared not advance the claim that Funk, McCormick and 
 Bancroft were in their offices on a Sunday. The calendar stood 
 in their way. Of course, Funk might have introduced evidence 
 to prove that February 5, 1911, did not fall on a Sunday, and 
 certain members of the Board might have declined to be 
 guided by any astronomical proof I might have presented in 
 defense of the calendar, but this point was not raised. 
 
 The frantic search for a straw on which to float Funk's 
 veracity had failed. The mute testimony of the diaries which 
 recorded the movements of Mr. McCormick and Mr. Bancroft 
 destroyed the last fragment of the flimsy fiction behind which 
 Funk had taken shelter. Two skilled attorneys had failed in 
 their efforts to construct and sustain any sort of a pretext on 
 which to decree my expulsion, but this made no difference so 
 far as that finding was concerned. It must now be apparent 
 to you that no proof in my behalf, no impeachment of Funk, 
 would have prevailed to prevent the decree winch apparently 
 had been determined in advance. 
 
 The basis of that inference against your Board is affirmed 
 by every page of the record in which is preserved the history 
 of this disgraceful procedure. 
 
 FUNK VERSUS FUNK 
 
 Space does not permit more than a glance at Funk's flat con- 
 tradictions, pitiful evasions and clumsy flounderings as ex- 
 
 161
 
 EDWARD HIKES TO THE U. L CLUB 
 
 hibitcd on the record of my trial before your Board in com- 
 parison with his sworn testimony given in Washington and 
 Springfield. If ever a witness impeached himself, Funk is that 
 witness. 
 
 Consider first the various dates, or approximate dates, that 
 Funk fixed in the various hearings when he was asked to fix 
 the date for the alleged "second conversation." 
 
 1 i ) Before the Dillingham Committee Funk thus explained 
 what I said: (Dill. 557) "The substance of it was that he did 
 not want me to misunderstand our talk the other day." This 
 infers that the alleged second talk occurred a few days after 
 the one of May 27, 1909. For aught that appears, according 
 to this evidence, Funk places the second talk nearly two years 
 prior to the appearance of any editorial. 
 
 (2) The date next in order as set by Funk was "a few 
 months after" the original conversation in the Union League 
 Club. This indefinite date appears on Page 20 of the record 
 of my trial before your Board. 
 
 (3) When asked by some member of your Board to be 
 more definite, Funk replied (Page 21) : "I think it was four 
 or five months after the meeting in the Union League Club." 
 This flat repudiation of his sworn testimony given before the 
 Dillingham Committee established a new date of September or 
 October, 1910. 
 
 (4) The manner in which Funk fixes the fourth date for 
 this one particular alleged interview is revealed in his testimony 
 before the Union League Club, as follows : (Page 21, U. L.) 
 
 QUESTION : Had the matter become public before this 
 second conversation? 
 
 MR. FUNK: No. 
 
 QUESTION : Did you later mention that conversation to 
 anybody which gave it more publicity ? 
 
 MR. FUNK: Yes, sir; I mentioned it to Mr. Kohlsaat, 
 a personal friend of mine. 
 
 QUESTION : How long was that ago ? 
 
 MR. FUNK: That was several months afterwards, as 
 I recall it. It was about the time Mr. Hines came to see 
 
 162
 
 EDWARD H1NES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 me the second time, and / connected these two things in 
 
 my mind. 
 
 Observe that Funk carefully refrained from mentioning any 
 editorial to your Board. Before the Helm and Dillingham 
 Committees he repeatedly and unhesitatingly connected my 
 second visit with him to the appearance of the editorial of Feb- 
 ruary 15, 1911, but, having been impeached on that, Funk now 
 told your Board that he identified my second talk with the fact 
 that he had revealed it to Mr. Kohlsaat. Funk stated to your 
 Board that the conversation with Mr. Kohlsaat took place 
 before the first senatorial investigation of the election of Sen- 
 ator Lorimer. (U. L. Page 22.) This placed it at least prior 
 to September, 1910, when the Burrows Committee began its 
 investigations. 
 
 (5) The date fixed by Funk before the Helm and Dilling- 
 ham Committees was a day, a day or two, or a very short time 
 after February 15, 1911. Everybody understood from Funk's 
 testimony that this was the date. 
 
 (6) The new editorial of January 20, 1911, was the sixth 
 attempt of Funk to fix a date. 
 
 (7) On ascertaining positively that I was in New York on 
 January 20, 1911, Funk fell back on the final date of January 
 21, 1911. .rrtf.ajj 
 
 Think of it ! Seven dates set by my accusing witnesses for 
 an interview that never was held! In a desperate effort to 
 give some appearance of truth to his original falsehood, Funk 
 roamed the calendars of two years, clutching at dates all the 
 way from "the other day," presumably shortly after May 27, 
 1909 down to "a few days after" February 15, 1911. 
 
 ATTITUDE OF THE BOARD 
 
 And what was the attitude of your Board during this 
 shocking exhibition? It was an attitude of sustained, serene, 
 patient, trustful and hopeful credulity. It listened with child- 
 like faith as Funk set each new date. It was not disturbed 
 or in any way surprised when Funk abandoned these succes- 
 sive dates because of the introduction of proof which pro- 
 
 163
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLtjB 
 
 claimed their falsity, and there were no symptons manifested 
 by the Board of a weakening of this child-like faith in Funk 
 as the developments in the proceedings more pronouncedly 
 shattered his veracity. The mere fact that Funk had told 
 four or five conflicting tales concerning a vital feature of the 
 case was seemingly no indication to your Board that Funk 
 was not the standard bearer of truth. 
 
 And what was the attitude of certain members of your 
 Board towards me? It was one of unconcealed hostility, of 
 immovable bias and of unyielding prejudice. I did not make a 
 statement for which I failed to adduce absolute proof, yet I was 
 compelled to listen to sneers, insulting side remarks and 
 incredulous manifestations concerning documentary evi- 
 dence which told the unassailable truth on its very face. 
 Do you doubt that? Read the record! 
 
 And what was the treatment accorded my witnesses? The 
 men who testified in my behalf were without exception Amer- 
 ican citizens of clean morals and good reputations. They 
 testified of facts which had occurred in the ordinary course of 
 events, of which they had personal knowledge and in proof 
 of which they presented verified data. Some of these wit- 
 nesses were treated as if they were the paid accomplices of 
 a crime. They were subjected to cross-examinations by Funk's 
 attorneys and by certain members of the Board by language 
 and in a manner at times openly discourteous. 
 
 It is a disagreeable task, but I will give one of a score of 
 instances which shows the attitude of the prosecution towards 
 witnesses who had the temerity to tell before your Board the 
 truth which refuted the falsehoods on which the case against 
 me was predicated. 
 
 The testimony of Reverend James F. Green to the effect 
 that I was with him in Philadelphia until midnight of January 
 20, precluded the possibility that I could have been in Chicago 
 on January 21. This testimony was fortified by other witnesses, 
 and by documentary proof, but Attorney Loesch reserved the 
 vials of his wrath for this clergyman, and in the absence of 
 
 164
 
 EDWARD MINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 Father Green from the Board room made this shocking asser- 
 tion: 
 
 "Now, I don't believe Father Green. That is the absolute 
 fact! I dont believe him!" (1145) 
 
 You may rest assured that Loesch never would have made 
 that remark in the presence of Father Green. At the earliest 
 opportunity I called Loesch to account for this insult (1148) : 
 
 MR. HINES : Mr. Chairman, I don't feel that I can sit 
 still and have counsel class Father Green as a perjurer in 
 this case. Now, I will demand an opportunity to bring here 
 from Philadelphia the gentleman we (Father Green and 
 I) called on, and I will have him here as quick as a train 
 can bring him here. I think that is desired, when a man 
 of such standing as Father Green, not only in Chicago but 
 in the United States, is classed as a perjurer! 
 
 MR. LOESCH : I didn't class him as a perjurer. 
 
 MR. HINES: You did. 
 
 MR. LOESCH: I did not. I said I didn't believe him. 
 That was not classing him as a perjurer. He was not 
 under oath. 
 
 No, Father Green was not under oath before your Board. 
 Neither was Clarence S. Funk, but the plain inference of the 
 language of Loesch, attorney before your Board for Funk, 
 is that he believes that Father Green told falsehoods before 
 that Board, and that this clergyman committed that crime 
 against God because of the knowledge that no earthly tribunal 
 could hold him to account for perjury! Was a greater and 
 more uncalled-for insult ever given a clergyman? Does the 
 Loesch plea of immunity from perjury in any hearing before 
 your Board account for the class of testimony given by Clar- 
 ence S. Funk? Did Attorney Loesch advise Funk that nothing 
 which he might say before your Board could convict him of 
 perjury? Was the legal constraint the only one considered by 
 Funk and his attorney? 
 
 THE CANDOR OF FUNK 
 
 Here is an illuminating incident showing the character and 
 candor of Funk : 
 
 165
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 I presented, under oath before the Dillingham Committee, 
 the evidence which absolutely established the fact that I was 
 not in Chicago on or near February 15, 1911, and therefore 
 could not have held the interview alleged by Funk to have taken 
 place at that time. This was the most important of the seven 
 alleged dates fixed by Funk for a single happening. 
 
 Funk was under cross-examination before your Board when 
 the following occurred: 
 
 A MEMBER : "You knew that Mr. Hines was trying to 
 prove an alibi, or did prove an alibi during the time, 
 basing it on a supposed interview after an editorial of Feb- 
 ruary 1 5th. Did that make an impression on your mind?" 
 
 MR FUNK : "No." 
 
 A MEMBER: "Why not?" 
 
 MR. FUNK : "Well, I don't want to be offensive." 
 
 MR. LOESCH : "Well, don't let us have any offensive- 
 ness. Leave it out." 
 
 MR. FUNK : "It made no impression on me." (673) 
 
 Funk did not want to be offensive! About what? His lie 
 to the effect that I called on him on or near February 15, 1911, 
 because of the Record-Herald editorial of that date had been 
 fully exposed before the Dillingham Committee. Your Board 
 had already admitted that no such interview could have oc- 
 curred on that date. Funk's superior officials in the Inter- 
 national Harvester Company later laid before your Board 
 evidence which proved that they were not in the city on or 
 near that date, and hence demonstrated that the story told by 
 Funk under oath before the Dillingham Committee was false! 
 Funk himself later fixed the alleged date of that alleged inter- 
 view on or near January 20, 1911, fixed it positively and unre- 
 servedly, thus giving the lie to all of his former statements, 
 and yet you hear him sneering at my truthful, proved and 
 admitted statement of my whereabouts, and insinuating that 
 any evidence produced by me was a fabrication. 
 
 Not an essential statement made by Clarence S. Funk under 
 oath or before your Board remains unimpeached! 
 
 166
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 Not a statement made by me under oath or before your 
 Board has been impeached, nor can the strict accuracy of any 
 detail of my testimony be assailed. 
 
 And yet Funk does not want to be offensive! 
 
 A STRANGE SPECTACLE 
 
 What a spectacle was thus presented at the close of the 
 hearings! With their resources exhausted, no further sur- 
 prises to spring, no new editorials to produce, no new dates 
 to conjecture, no more anonymous telegrams to offer, no more 
 flimsy ''theories" to advance, Funk and his attorneys had come 
 to the end of their rope. 
 
 The prolonged search for a pretext which would give an 
 excuse for my expulsion had failed, but that made no difference 
 in the verdict. 
 
 In order to put the prosecution on record, my attorney asked 
 if testimony was desired regarding dates other than those 
 which had been advanced by Funk and disproved. Chairman 
 Sidley replied that the Board did not care to consider any 
 other dates, and then asked Attorney Loesch if he had anything 
 further to offer. Funk's attorney made this significant reply : 
 
 "I will say that the shifting backwards and forwards of 
 this has left me in such a state of doubt that I am not yet 
 prepared to abandon that date of the 2ist . . . That is the 
 way it leaves my mind, or I would not hesitate for a moment. 
 I will say that on the face of it it looks as if Mr. Hines was 
 there on the the 21st, but there are a lot of circumstances to 
 indicate the other thing. I do not want to spend the time of 
 arguing it over again." (1201) 
 
 Here was an admission of defeat from the lawyer who knew 
 that the 2ist of January was the date of last resort, and who fin- 
 ally realized that it was folly to contend that I could have been 
 in Chicago on that date. I have submitted enough of the 
 record to indicate to you the bitterness and bias of Loesch 
 who was one of the signers of the false charges against me, and 
 who later became my vindictive prosecutor before a Board that 
 
 167
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 gave him every latitude but even Loesch was forced to admit 
 the impossibility longer of defending the theory to which he had 
 committed himself and his client. 
 
 But Chairman Sidley repeatedly took pains to inform me and 
 my attorney that the Board would not be bound by any state- 
 ments or admissions made by Funk's counsel. This was a 
 declaration which intimated that the Board considered itself the 
 real prosecutor. This attitude became more marked as the 
 successive dates and claims set up by Funk and Loesch were 
 demolished. It finally dawned on me that no testimony or evi- 
 dence that I might offer would have controlling weight with the 
 Board, although I knew that the evidence I had produced estab- 
 lished my innocence on the charges preferred against me. 
 
 The Constitution of the Union League Club declares (Article 
 TI, Section 9) that: "No member shall be condemned without 
 an opportunity to be heard in his defense." On what was I 
 condemned ? Surely not on any charge considered before your 
 Board! If ever charges were disproved, these charges were 
 disproved. Their author stood discredited before your Board. 
 He stood convicted of open falsehood. Overwhelmed by that 
 humiliating impeachment, Funk's attorney sought refuge in 
 silence. He dared advance no more charges. The Board did 
 not bring forward any other charges, but apparently was com- 
 mitted to decree my expulsion and did so in the face of the 
 absolute proof of my innocence. 
 
 It is possible that a majority of the Board actually believed 
 Funk and disbelieved me when these proceedings were insti- 
 gated, but it is impossible to imagine that they believed Funk 
 when those hearings were terminated. Why, then, did the 
 verdict ignore the plain import of the evidence? 
 
 I will admit that it does not seem possible that men honored 
 with membership on the Board of Governors of the Union 
 League Club could be induced to accept exposed falsehoods 
 and to reject proved truths, but the record of my trial shows 
 that your Board either did that very thing or else expelled me 
 on charges not made or even suggested, and against which I 
 
 168
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 had no "opportunity to be heard in my own defense" a direct 
 violation of the spirit and words of the constitution of the Club. 
 
 YOUR BOARD VERSUS THE DILLINGHAM COMMITTEE 
 
 Here is the answer that the Dillingham Committee made 
 to the finding of the Board of Directors of the Union League 
 Club: 
 
 "It is not proved that Edward Hines received $100,000 or 
 any other sum, or that he contributed any sum whatsoever toi 
 aid in or obtain the election of William Lorimer to the United 
 States Senate. The evidence is that he did not raise, con- 
 tribute to or expend such sum or any sum whatsoever to aid 
 or assist improperly in the election of Senator Lorimer" 
 
 This resolution was passed by the Dillingham Committee 
 without a dissenting vote, and it was passed more than two 
 months after your Board had rendered against me its unjust 
 and unwarranted verdict. This finding of your Board did not 
 deceive the members of that august committee. They were 
 not influenced by this unjust verdict which sought to bolster 
 the shattered veracity of Funk. These Senators had seen and 
 listened to Funk. They knew that I told the truth, and they 
 knew that Funk zvas impeached as a witness before them. 
 
 That resolution of vindication is my unquestioned due. It 
 is a declaration of my absolute innocence. It is a merited 
 rebuke to certain members of your Board of Directors. I 
 am no longer the accused I am the accuser and my accusa- 
 tion is that I was falsely charged before and unfairly tried and 
 unjustly condemned by the Board of Managers of the Union 
 League Club. 
 
 The wrong which these biased judges attempted to inflict 
 on me is partially visited on you. The traditional regard of 
 your organization for even-handed justice has been violated. 
 The unfair blow struck at me has taken something precious 
 from the value of your membership. The world may never 
 learn the details of this wrong, but you will not soon forget 
 that a record of it is preserved in the archives of a Club founded 
 
 169
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 and made glorious by men who loved fair dealing, and who 
 pledged their fortunes, their lives and their sacred honor to 
 thwart injustice. 
 
 EDWARD HINES. 
 
 170
 
 THE VERDICT OF THE DILLINGHAM 
 COMMITTEE. 
 
 On May 20, 1912, the Dillingham Committee 
 made public a report of the results of its prolonged 
 investigation of the election of Senator Lorimer. 
 A considerable portion of the majority report was 
 devoted to a consideration of the charges implied 
 in the testimony given by Clarence S. Funk. 
 
 The preceding pages were already in type. 
 Please bear in mind that the members of the 
 Dillingham Committee formed their estimate of 
 Clarence S. Funk and of his veracity without being 
 in possession of the fact that he repudiated before 
 the Board of Directors of the Union League Club 
 much of his testimony given under oath before the 
 Helm and Dillingham Committees. The Senate 
 of the United States and the public still are in 
 ignorance of the disclosures made in the preceding 
 pages. 
 
 It is the plain truth to assert that no five mem- 
 bers of the Senate of the United States better de- 
 serve the esteem, respect and confidence of their 
 constituents than do the Senators who formulated 
 and signed the majority report of the Dillingham 
 Committee from which the following extracts are 
 taken. The honesty, loyalty, ability and pa- 
 triotism of Senators Dillingham, Jones, Gamble, 
 
 Fletcher and Johnson are not calleld in question 
 
 m
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 even by the most partisan and vindictive of the 
 enemies of Senator Lorimer. They might have 
 gained political advantage by yielding to a popu- 
 lar prejudice deliberately fostered by an unscrupu- 
 lous clique of newspapers, but they preferred to 
 be governed by the facts. 
 
 The following extracts refer to that part of the 
 investigation precipitated by the false testimony 
 given by Clarence S. Funk and intended to reflect 
 on me. I take the liberty of emphasizing in italics 
 certain phrases and passages of special signifi- 
 cance. The Committee thus pays its respects to 
 the peculiar activities of H. H. Kohlsaat, then 
 Editor of the Chicago Record-Herald : 
 
 While the question of Mr. Lorimer's right to a seat in the 
 United States Senate was under consideration and debate in 
 that body, to wit, on January 17, 1911, a committee was ap- 
 pointed by the Senate of the Illinois Legislature, known as the 
 Helm committee, to investigate the circumstances connected 
 with the election of Mr. Lorimer as a Senator of the United 
 States from the State of Illinois. By a peculiar coincidence 
 Mr. H. H. Kohlsaat, editor of the Chicago Record-Herald, on 
 the same day addressed to the Hon. Elihu Root, a Senator of 
 the United States from the State of New York, the following 
 personal letter, containing information which, if true, would 
 have had a direct bearing upon the question at issue before 
 the Helm committee as well as in the Senate of the United 
 States, but the source of which information and its authenticity 
 he could not make public or consent to have investigated be- 
 cause of the circumstances under which he had received the 
 same. The information Mr. Kohlsaat says was given to him 
 in confidence and, as a newspaper man, he felt "the same obli- 
 gation to maintain secrecy that a priest does of a confession." 
 
 The letter was as follows : 
 
 172
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 CHICAGO, ILL., January 17, 1911. 
 Senator Elihu Root, Washington, D. C. 
 
 My Dear Senator: I have just received a call from 
 some well-known people here, among them Mr. Walter 
 L. Fisher, asking me if I would not write you and tell 
 you of an incident in the Lorimer senatorial election. My 
 friends thought that if you had this personal knowledge 
 it would be of assistance to you in strengthening your 
 belief that money was used to elect Lorimer. The infor- 
 mation was given to me in confidence, and as a newspaper 
 man I feel the same obligation to maintain secrecy that a 
 priest does of a confession. 
 
 Some time last June I met a friend who is general man- 
 ager of a 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 incident that occurred 
 right after Lorimer's election a year ago. I had a visit 
 from Edward Hines, the lumberman, and he told me that 
 Lorimer's friends had had the opportunity of electing him 
 to the Senate by putting up $100,000; that they had only a 
 few days before the adjournment of the legislature, and 
 could not take time to go around and raise the money, so 
 a half dozen of Lorimer's friends underwrote the $100,000 
 and gave it to the proper agent. Lorimer was elected, 
 and we are now asking some of the corporations to pay 
 in their share. I am taking care of the down town dis- 
 trict, and another man (mentioning his name) has charge 
 of the stockyards. We figure that your share will be 
 $10,000." My friend answered substantially as 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 yourselves into a hole, why should you expect 
 us to pull you out ?" 
 
 On the strength of this statement the Record-Herald 
 has explicitly stated several times, editorially, that $100,000 
 was raised to buy Lorimer's election, and we have never 
 had a protest from anybody on it. The man who gave me 
 this information is absolutely reliable. He had no object 
 in telling me a falsehood, and I believe him thoroughly. 
 
 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 decline to sit at the Hamilton Club 
 banquet with Lorimer. 
 
 Hoping that this may be of some value to you, believe 
 me, Yours sincerely, 
 
 H. H. KOHLSAAT. 
 173
 
 EDWARD MINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 On February u, 1911, Senator Root replied to this letter, 
 strongly urging Mr. Kohlsaat to induce the friend who had 
 given him the information upon which this letter was based 
 to disclose his identity. 
 
 Upon receipt of Senator Root's letter, Mr. Kohlsaat sent for 
 Mr. Clarence S. Funk, general manager of the International 
 Harvester Co., the friend to whom he referred in his letter to 
 Senator Root as his informant, but whose name he had not 
 revealed, and showing him the letter told him that he was the 
 only man who could settle that question. Mr. Funk, after full 
 consideration, refused to allow his name to be given, and on 
 February 15, 1911, Mr. Kohlsaat so informed Senator Root. 
 
 On the same day, February 15, 1911, Mr. Kohlsaat published 
 in the Record-Herald an editorial in which the following lan- 
 guage was used: 
 
 Do we know all there is to be known concerning the 
 $100,000 fund that was raised to pay for Lorimer's votes? 
 
 This attracted wide attention and caused inquiries to be 
 made of Mr. Kohlsaat by Senator La Follette and others who 
 were anxious to ascertain upon what authority such statement 
 and inquiry were made, and what the facts were with respect 
 to the raising of the alleged fund. 
 
 Senator La Follette telegraphed Mr. Kohlsaat asking for in- 
 formation regarding the allegation of the existence of a fund 
 of $100,000, and received in reply the following telegram: 
 
 CHICAGO, February 21, 1911. 
 Senator La Follette, Washington, D. C.: 
 
 If I had all the details of the raising and disposition of 
 the $100,000, would not have asked the editorial question. 
 That $100,000 was raised for that purpose I have abso- 
 lutely no shadow of doubt, but can not prove. We have 
 made the assertion a number of times editorially. The 
 assertion has never been challenged. You are the first 
 person to ask for particulars. H. H. KOHLSAAT. 
 
 Senator La Follette was exceedingly anxious to secure the 
 information and endeavored to induce Mr. Kohlsaat to go to 
 
 174
 
 EDWARD MINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 Washington, and, failing, wired his friend, Mr. Charles R. 
 Crane, to see and induce Mr. Kohlsaat to do so. Mr. Crane 
 visited Mr. Kohlsaat, exhibited the telegram, and urged him 
 to go. Mr. Kohlsaat repeated to Mr. Crane the story he had 
 written to Senator Root, but refused either to visit Washing- 
 ton or to reveal the name of his informant. Immediately there- 
 after Mr. Kohlsaat sent the following telegram to Senator 
 La Follette : 
 
 CHICAGO, ILL., February 22, 1911. 
 Senator Robert M. La Follette, Washington, D. C.: 
 
 Please ask Senator Root to show you my letters of Jan- 
 uary 17 and February 15. I gave Charles Crane this 
 morning my reasons for not giving names. He agreed 
 with me that it would not be just right or wise to do so. 
 
 H. H. KOHLSAAT. 
 
 Neither Senator made public the contents of such letters and 
 telegrams during the debates in the Senate, and Mr. Lorimer's 
 right to retain his seat in the United States Senate was deter- 
 mined in his favor by vote of that body on the ist day of 
 March, 1911. 
 
 Almost a month thereafter the Helm committee, which did 
 not commence taking testimony until March 28, 1911, sum- 
 moned Mr. Kohlsaat as a witness to testify regarding the edi- 
 torial in question. 
 
 ******* 
 
 RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION. 
 
 Before taking up for examination the various lines of evi- 
 dence which have a bearing upon the question submitted to the 
 committee for its investigation, the committee desires to call 
 attention to the fact, well known to the Senate but apparently 
 unknown to a large proportion of the people of the United 
 States, that the investigation is not complicated by any charges 
 which involve Mr. Lorimer's private character, the discharge 
 of his public duties, or any other charge upon which his expul- 
 sion from the Senate might be predicated. 
 
 The only duty which was laid upon the committee in the 
 first investigation or which has been laid upon this committee 
 
 175
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 is "To investigate whether in the election of William Lorimer 
 as a Senator of the United States from the State of Illinois 
 there were used and employed corrupt practices." 
 
 THE NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE. 
 
 The newly discovered evidence, to which reference is made 
 in the preambles of the resolutions offered in the Senate and 
 to which reference was made in the debates on the same, and 
 the supposed existence of which resulted in the adoption of 
 the resolution of the Senate under which this investigation has 
 been conducted, all bore upon the question whether a fund of 
 $100,000 was raised by or through the efforts of Edward Hines 
 and others acting with him, or by any other person or persons, 
 with or without his knowledge, which was corruptly used or 
 expended in whole or in part to secure the election of William 
 Lorimer as a Senator of the United States from the State of 
 Illinois by the Legislature of that Commonwealth on the 26th 
 day of May, 1909. 
 
 The committee, after the most thorough investigation, dur- 
 ing which every source of information has been probed, has 
 failed to find any evidence that a fund of $100,000, or of any 
 other sum, was raised or spent by Edward Hines or by him in 
 connection with others, or with his knowledge, or by any other 
 person or persons, to be used in or in connection with the elec- 
 tion of Mr. Lorimer to the Senate of the United States, or that 
 any corrupt practices were employed in such election. 
 
 After quoting some of Funk's conflicting testi- 
 mony relative to the Union League interview, the 
 report says: 
 
 HOW THE STORY WAS REGARDED AND HOW IT WAS USED. 
 
 The subsequent history of this incident, so far as Mr. Funk's 
 conduct is concerned, bears out the conclusion that even if it 
 occurred as he testified he regarded it as unimportant. While 
 he testified that soon after its occurrence he communicated it 
 
 176
 
 EDWARD MINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 to the president and to the general counsel of the International 
 Harvester Co. and repeated the substance of it to the assistant 
 manager, it was never again mentioned between them for a 
 period of 21 months, and the only other person to whom, so far 
 as the evidence shows, he ever communicated it until he tes- 
 tified before the Helm committee in April, 1911, was Mr. H. H. 
 Kohlsaat, editor of the Chicago Record-Herald, a bitter politi- 
 cal enemy of Mr. Lorimer, with whom he had a street con- 
 versation in Chicago immediately after the publication of 
 White's jack-pot story in the Chicago Tribune on April 
 30, 1910. 
 
 That he did not then consider the story as a factor of any 
 value in the vigorous investigations which followed the pub- 
 lication of the White story by the legal authorities of Cook 
 and Sangamon Counties is evident from the fact that he not 
 only pledged Mr. Kohlsaat to secrecy, but that he did not dis- 
 close the story to the law officers of either of these counties, 
 nor afterwards to the Senate Committee on Privileges and 
 Elections, which was charged with the duty of investigating 
 the whole subject, nor to any tribunal which might have deter- 
 mined the truth or falsity of his version of the interview be- 
 tween himself and Edward Hines or of the truth or falsity of 
 the declarations alleged by him to have been made by Mr. 
 Hines to him in that conversation. 
 
 For 20 years prior to that time Mr. Kohlsaat had been 
 strongly opposed to Mr. Lorimer politically, and he was in full 
 sympathy with the investigation then in progress under the 
 direction of the State's attorney of Cook County, but he made 
 no effort to substantiate Mr. Funk's story, nor did he attempt 
 to ascertain whether there was any foundation for the state- 
 ment which Mr. Funk said Mr. Hines made to him in regard 
 to the raising of a fund of $100,000; nor did he, so far as the 
 evidence shows, ever discuss with Mr. Funk the advisability 
 of communicating this information to the prosecuting authori- 
 ties of Cook County, nor did he do it himself. That he looked 
 upon the story as a newspaper and political asset is apparent. 
 
 177
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 In his testimony before the Helm committee at Springfield, 
 Mr. Kohlsaat says : 
 
 He gave it to me in confidence. I told him that the 
 confidence would not be betrayed. With that feeling of 
 perfect security that this man's information that he gave 
 me was absolutely reliable, I took the position that the 
 election should be investigated and came out editorially 
 and backed the Tribune in its fight. * * * I was so 
 impressed with the truth of this that I came out editorially 
 next day after this and backed the Tribune in their story, 
 and have done it ever since. (Helm report, p. 58.) 
 
 It appears also that Mr. Kohlsaat immediately communicated 
 this information which he had received in confidence to Mr. 
 James Keeley, the general manager and editor of the Chicago 
 Tribune, in confidence, who made use of it as early as May 
 2, 1910, in an editorial paragraph headed, "Was it sawdust," 
 followed by the inquiry, "Who furnished the dust, to use a 
 colloquialism, to bribe the legislature?" and on frequent occa- 
 sions thereafter. 
 
 Mr. Kohlsaat also testified that he communicated the story 
 in confidence to Victor F. Lawson, owner of the Chicago Daily 
 News, going so far as to reveal to him the name of Mr. Funk 
 as his informant, and that the information so conveyed to Mr. 
 Lawson thereafter 
 
 influenced his editorial policy during the entire period of 
 the Lorimer investigation (Kohlsaat, 440), and it gave 
 him confidence to be very specific in his editorials in 
 regard to the belief that money was used to buy the elec- 
 tion. (Kohlsaat, 440.) 
 
 Thus it appears that the three most powerful agencies for 
 the creation of public sentiment in the Central West acted to- 
 gether in a common purpose to convince the public mind that 
 the election of William Lorimer as Senator from the State of 
 Illinois had been brought about by corrupt methods. 
 
 The testimony further shows that Mr. Kohlsaat related this 
 story to Theodore Roosevelt, likewise in confidence, late in the 
 month of August, 1910, when the latter made a brief stop in 
 
 178
 
 EDWARD HlNES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 Chicago on his way to Cheyenne. September 8 following, Col. 
 Roosevelt returned to Chicago to attend a banquet which had 
 been tendered to him by the Hamilton Club of that city. On 
 the morning of that day he publicly announced that he would 
 not attend such banquet if Senator Lorimer was to be pres- 
 ent, with the result that, although a member of the club, Mr. 
 Lorimer absented himself on that occasion. The public press 
 teemed with accounts of this incident, producing a profound 
 sensation, and intensifying the prejudice in the public mind 
 against Mr. Lorimer. Col. Roosevelt subsequently wrote Mr. 
 Kohlsaat that the story which the latter had told him as com- 
 ing from Mr. Hines was the reason he declined to attend the 
 dinner if Mr. Lorimer was to be present. 
 
 Mr. Kohlsaat repeated the story, told him in confidence, 
 wherever it would do the most direct and positive injury to 
 Mr. Lorimer, and always unknown to him, "observing the 
 cardinal principle of an honorable, upright newspaper man," 
 and thus putting into practice observing his obligation to 
 maintain "the same secrecy that a priest does of a confession." 
 
 During the summer of 1910 the grand juries of Cook and 
 Sangamon Counties made exhaustive investigations of the 
 charges of corruption in connection with the election of Senator 
 Lorimer; indictments were returned, and Lee O'Neil Browne 
 was tried and acquitted on a charge of having bribed Charles 
 A. White to vote for Mr. Lorimer ; on the 2Oth of September 
 the Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Privileges and 
 Elections, charged with investigating the question whether Mr. 
 Lorimer's election had been secured by corrupt practices, met 
 in Chicago and remained in session there for three weeks. 
 
 During that entire period the evidence discloses no instance 
 when Mr. McCormick, Mr. Bancroft, Mr. Funk, Mr. Kohl- 
 saat, Mr. Lawson, Mr. Keeley, or Col. Roosevelt saw fit to 
 bring the information contained in Mr. Funk's statement to 
 Mr. Kohlsaat to the attention of any person connected with 
 any investigation or prosecution above referred to ; nor does it 
 disclose the fact that any of these gentlemen ever suggested 
 to Mr. Funk the propriety of revealing the declaration alleged 
 
 179
 
 EDWARD MINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 to have been made to him by Mr. Hines to any public officer 
 or to any investigating body, so that its truth or falsity, and its 
 value as evidence, might be properly determined. 
 
 The evidence further shows that although Mr. Keeley dis- 
 closed this information to his counsel, Mr. Alfred Austrian, 
 who represented the Chicago Tribune before the first senatorial 
 investigating committee, no suggestion was made by either of 
 them to that committee or any member thereof concerning the 
 Funk story, nor did Mr. Hines's name appear on the list of 
 names of persons furnished by Mr. Austrian to be summoned 
 as witnesses before that committee. 
 
 All the facts adduced by the evidence show that the Senate 
 of the United States was permitted to take final action on the 
 question of the right of Mr. Lorimer to retain his seat without 
 any information whatever, as a body, of the existence of the 
 Funk story, and the first knowledge of this incident reached 
 the Senate through the public newspaper accounts of the tes- 
 timony given by Mr. Funk before the Helm committee at 
 Springfield, April 5, 1911, more than a month after the final 
 action of the Senate in confirming Mr. Lorimer's right to his 
 seat in that body. 
 
 The testimony of Mr. Funk stands uncorroborated, either 
 by the testimony of any other witness having knowledge of 
 what occurred at this interview between Mr. Funk and Mr. 
 Hines or by any circumstances which tend to establish his ver- 
 sion of such interview. 
 
 'The acquaintance between Mr. Funk and Mr. Hines had 
 been of a casual, passing character. While both were mem- 
 bers of the Union League Club, both were exceedingly busy 
 men and met but few times in a year. They had no personal 
 dealings with each other and their personal associations were 
 confined to occasional meetings at the club, on railway trains, 
 on the streets, at hotels, and in other public places. 
 
 In view of the fact that it was known to Mr. Hines that the 
 relations existing between the officers of the International Har- 
 vester Co. and Mr. Lorimer were those of opponents rather 
 than friends, it is improbable that he would seek from Mr. 
 
 180
 
 EDWARD MINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 Funk, the representative of that corporation, a contribution to 
 aid in the election of Mr. Lorimer; and it is inconceivable that 
 Mr. Hines, if guilty of an infamous crime, would have unre- 
 servedly revealed it under the circumstances described by Mr. 
 Funk, and in any case to a person with whom he had so slight 
 an acquaintance, and at a time when the election was so fresh 
 in the minds of the public. And particularly when it appears 
 that at no previous time nor even at that time did Mr. Hines 
 know whom Mr. Funk preferred for United States Senator. 
 
 That Mr. Funk was a more than willing witness against Mr. 
 Hines appears from his testimony. When asked how he knew 
 whom Mr. Hines preferred for United States Senator, he 
 replied : 
 
 You would see his name in the paper every few days 
 in connection with activities at Springfield, or hear it as 
 a matter of general talk in the streets. (Funk, 544.) 
 
 On cross-examination, when his mind was specifically 
 directed to this subject, Mr. Funk testified, among other things, 
 as follows : 
 
 Mr. HYNES. You spoke, Mr. Funk, of Mr. Hines's 
 activities at Springfield. What did you have reference 
 to there? 
 
 Mr. FUNK. Why, it was a matter of common talk that 
 he was very active down there. 
 
 Mr. HYNES. What did you understand he was doing 
 down there? 
 
 Mr. FUNK. Pulling wires for the election of Senator 
 Lorimer. 
 
 Mr. HYNES. What do you mean by that? What was 
 he doing? How long was he down there in Springfield 
 before the election? 
 
 Mr. FUNK. I do not know. 
 
 Mr. HYNES. How long before the election did you hear 
 that? 
 
 Mr. FUNK. I heard it frequently. (595.) 
 
 ****** 
 
 Mr. HYNES. Do you remember anybody who told you 
 that he was down at Springfield active there in pulling 
 wires for Senator Lorimer? 
 
 181
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 Mr. FUNK. I think that was a matter of common talk. 
 
 Mr. HYNES. Can you tell me anybody that said it ? 
 
 Mr. FUNK. I met a great many people that talked 
 about it. I can not recall any particular man that made 
 that particular statement. (595-) 
 
 These statements must be considered in connection with the 
 fact that Mr. Hines was not at Springfield during the session 
 of the legislature that elected Mr. Lorimer, had not been there 
 for three years prior thereto, and did not go there afterwards 
 until summoned as a witness before the Helm committee nearly 
 two years after such election and that such "reports" must 
 have had birth in Mr. Funk's imagination. 
 
 Confessing his inability to substantiate his version of the 
 interview with Mr. Hines, Mr. Funk gave as a reason for keep- 
 ing the same secret that it was simply his word against that of 
 Mr. Hines. 
 
 There the case might have rested but for the fact that Mr. 
 Funk afterwards attempted to corroborate his version of such 
 interview by testifying that a day or two following the publi- 
 cation of the Record-Herald editorial of February 15, 1911, 21 
 months after the interview took place, Mr. Hines visited Funk's 
 office in the Harvester Building in Chicago, where, as Mr. 
 Funk testified before this committee, the following occurred : 
 
 Mr. FUNK. Mr. Hines arrived at my office one morn- 
 ing shortly after I got there, about 9 o'clock, and he was 
 admitted to my room. He seemed to be considerably 
 agitated, and he immediately began to talk with me about 
 our former conversation. 
 
 Mr. MARBLE. What did he say? 
 
 Mr. FUNK. I can not repeat it verbatim; but in sub- 
 stance he undertook to refresh my memory as to what 
 our previous conversation had been. 
 
 Mr. MARBLE. As nearly as you can, give what he said. 
 
 Senator KERN. It is important that we should have 
 the substance of that conversation if you can not remem- 
 ber the exact words. 
 
 Mr. FUNK. The substance of it was that he did not 
 want me to misunderstand our talk the other day; that 
 he had not meant to say that any money was used, but 
 that he was only discussing with me in a general way the 
 
 182
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 situation down there; and that he got to thinking about 
 it afterwards and thought that I might not have under- 
 stood it, and he was back there to clear it up for me. 
 
 Mr. Hines denies in the most positive terms that this alleged 
 interview ever occurred, and testified that from and after Feb- 
 ruary 6, preceding the date of it, until the morning of March 
 5 following he was not in Chicago, and that such an interview 
 was a physical impossibility. His testimony to that effect and 
 to the effect that he spent that entire period in the East, and 
 with the exception of a day in New York and one in Philadel- 
 phia, he was constantly in Washington, is fully sustained by 
 both personal and documentary evidence of a character which 
 leaves no doubt of the fact. 
 
 The testimony of Edward Thomas, C. R. Nelson, Thomas F. 
 Toomey, Albert L. Swift, and the production of hotel bills, 
 letters, telegrams, books, and other documentary evidence fully 
 sustain this finding of the committee. 
 
 The attempt and failure of Mr. Funk thus to substantiate 
 his version of his interview with Mr. Hines does not serve to 
 
 increase confidence in the correctness of the same. 
 
 ******* 
 
 Much time has been spent and space given to a discus- 
 sion of what occurred during the brief conversation between 
 Messrs. Funk and Hines on May 27, 1909, not because it is 
 conclusive of the facts alleged, but because it was the con- 
 trolling factor in the action of the Senate in reopening the 
 case and in the appointment of this committee. 
 
 The vital question to be determined is whether a fund of 
 $100,000 was in fact raised by or through the efforts of Ed- 
 ward Hines and others acting with him, or by any other per- 
 son or persons with his knowledge, which was corruptly used 
 or expended in whole or in part to secure the election of Wil- 
 liam Lorimer as a Senator of the United States from the State 
 of Illinois. 
 
 WAS SUCH A FUND RAISED? 
 
 After the most searching inquiry the committee is unable to 
 find any evidence that any sum of money was raised or con- 
 
 183
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 tributed by Mr. Hines, or through his suggestion, or with his 
 knozvledge, to be used corruptly in securing the election of Mr. 
 Lorimer as a Senator of the United States from the State of 
 Illinois, or that Mr. Hines participated in any corrupt practices 
 of any nature in connection with such election, nor can the 
 committee find that any such fund was raised by any person 
 or persons to be so used. The committee goes further and re- 
 ports that it finds no evidence that any such fund was ever con- 
 templated by Mr. Hines, or suggested to him by any of the 
 gentlemen with whom he conferred before the election of Mr. 
 Lorimer regarding the election of a Senator of the United 
 States from the State of Illinois, and in fact there is no proof 
 that Mr. Hines raised or furnished or spent improperly any 
 money to aid in the election of Mr. Lorimer. 
 
 MR. HINES'S INTEREST IN THE ELECTION. 
 
 In connection with this finding the committee thought best 
 to incorporate at this point a statement of what the evidence 
 discloses regarding the activities of Mr. Hines in connection 
 with the election of Mr. Lorimer. 
 
 While Mr. Hines has had a general acquaintance with Mr. 
 Lorimer covering about 19 years, he has never had any busi- 
 ness relations with him, nor has Senator Lorimer been the 
 owner of stock in any corporation in which Mr. Hines has 
 been interested; and although Mr. Hines was a resident of 
 Mr. Lorimer's congressional district about nine years, he never 
 took any interest in the political fortunes of the latter, beyond 
 voting for him, except in the year 1906, when horses and 
 wagons of the Edward Hines Lumber Co. were loaned to the 
 Lorimer committee for a street parade, and Mr. Hines secured 
 the signatures of 25 or 30 business men to a circular which 
 was sent out to voters, showing Mr. Lorimer to be a protec- 
 tionist, and the value of his work in favor of deep waterways. 
 Mr. Hines does not remember whether he paid for the print- 
 ing of these circulars or not; but if so, that is the only con- 
 tribution ever made by him or any of the companies with which 
 
 184
 
 EDWARD MINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 he was connected to any campaign fund to aid Mr. Lorimer at 
 any time. 
 
 A major portion of the winter and spring of 1909, during 
 which the Legislature of Illinois was in deadlock over the 
 election of a Senator, Mr. Hines spent in Washington, repre- 
 senting the interests of the National Lumber Manufacturers' 
 Association, in connection with the tariff legislation then under 
 consideration. He did not visit Springfield during the sen- 
 atorial contest, and had not been in that city for at least five 
 years previous prior to his appearance as a witness before the 
 Helm committee in the spring of 1911. 
 
 Mr. Hines apparently had no interest in the senatorial con- 
 test, and according to the evidence did nothing in connection 
 therewith until the ist of February, 1909, when, at the request 
 of Mr. Hibbard, of the firm of Hibbard, Spencer & Bartlett, 
 hardware dealers in Chicago, a codirector with Mr. Hines on 
 the Continental National Bank board, he telegraphed Mr. Lori- 
 mer, suggesting the candidacy of Mr. A. C. Bartlett, and fol- 
 lowed this telegram by a letter, in which he said : 
 
 Mr. Hibbard came to me this morning about the candi- 
 dacy of Mr. A. C. Bartlett. * * * I feel it might be 
 good policy to nominate a man of this kind, if you have 
 not committed yourself elsewhere. * * * Probably 
 you have already committed yourself along other lines. 
 
 In response to this, some time prior to the ist of April, Mr. 
 Lorimer told Mr. Hines that the different factions could not, 
 apparently, unite on Mr. Bartlett. 
 
 During the next two months, from February i to April i, 
 1909, Mr. Hines, as representative of the National Lumber 
 Manufacturers' Association, looking after tariff legislation, in 
 Washington, was much occupied and paid no attention to the 
 Illinois situation. In this work he was brought frequently 
 into contact with Senators Aldrich and Penrose, members of 
 the Senate Committee on Finance, which was then conducting 
 hearings in connection with the tariff schedules. 
 
 The legislative deadlock in Illinois naturally became a topic 
 
 185
 
 EDWARD MINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 of conversation between them and was discussed first as a mat- 
 ter of political gossip; then as the situated developed, the 
 probability of the deadlock being broken was often discussed. 
 Early in the month of April Senator Penrose sent for Mr. 
 Hines and asked him if he knew the situation or could find out 
 whether the legislature was liable to adjourn without electing 
 a Senator ; Mr. Hines replied that he did not know, but would 
 try to find out. 
 
 To this end Mr. Hines talked first with Congressmen 
 Boutell and Madden, of Chicago, who told him they did not 
 know the real situation, but that probably Congressman Lori- 
 mer could give him the information, whereupon he telephoned 
 to Mr. Lorimer, who was in Chicago, and arranged to see him 
 at his office upon his return to Washington; at the interview 
 then had Mr. Hines told Congressman Lorimer that he was not 
 personally interested in the matter, but that Senator Penrose 
 appeared to be much interested, and had asked him to make 
 inquiries. Mr. Lorimer stated that the situation was indefinite ; 
 that he could not then say what it really was ; but that he was 
 going to Springfield the following night; would return to 
 Washington in about a week, and might then be able to speak 
 with a better knowledge. Mr. Hines reported this conversation 
 to Senator Penrose. 
 
 A week or two later Mr. Hines again talked with Mr. Lori- 
 mer, who told him that the situation remained practically un- 
 changed. Mr. Hines then inquired particularly as to the men 
 under consideration, and Mr. Lorimer mentioned Congress- 
 men McKinley and Lowden, Judge Grosscup, and Mr. Cal- 
 houn. Mr. Hines reported this conversation, as well as what 
 he heard from other sources regarding conditions in Illinois, 
 to Senator Penrose, as he met him in connection with the tariff 
 matters. 
 
 About the last of April Senator Penrose told Mr. Hines that 
 Senator Aldrich would like to see him and went with him to 
 Senator Aldrich's office, and in a conversation between them 
 the general situation in Illinois, including the election of a Sen- 
 ator, was discussed, during which Mr. Hines stated that, in 
 
 186
 
 EDWARD MINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 his judgment, Senator Hopkins could not be reelected, and he 
 asked Senator Aldrich what the attitude of the President would 
 be with reference to the matter. Senator Aldrich replied that 
 the President was desirous that a Republican Senator should 
 be elected in Illinois, and while he was naturally friendly to 
 Senator Hopkins on account of the fact that the latter had 
 received the primary nomination, and perhaps for other rea- 
 sons, he did not intend to take any active part in influencing 
 the action of the legislature; that his wish was that a Re- 
 publican should be elected, but that he would take no steps in 
 furtherance of Senator Hopkins's candidacy or that of any 
 other person. 
 
 A little latter Mr. Hines had another interview with Mr. 
 Lorimer, in which he asked him the direct question whether 
 or not he was a candidate for the senatorship ; and the latter 
 replied that he was not, giving as the one important reason his 
 great interest in the deep-waterway proposition which he felt 
 he could best promote by remaining in the House. At that 
 time Mr. Lorimer asked Mr. Hines if he had anyone to rec- 
 ommend for the position, and Mr. Hines suggested Congress- 
 man Boutell, which met the approval of Mr. Lorimer ; but he 
 could not tell how Mr. Boutell's name would be received. Mr. 
 Hines told Senator Penrose of this, who, in turn, had a talk 
 with Mr. Boutell. About the same time Mr. Hines had an 
 interview with Senator Aldrich regarding the attitude of the 
 President toward the candidacy of Mr. Boutell, stating that 
 an effort was being made to agree upon him as the successor 
 of Senator Hopkins. 
 
 He asked Senator Aldrich if he would see the President, 
 ascertain his attitude and advise him, and Senator Aldrich 
 afterwards in another conversation reported to him that the 
 President would be agreeable to Mr. Boutell's candidacy ; that 
 his anxiety was to have a Republican elected, and that he was 
 satisfied with Mr. Boutell's Republicanism and would have 
 no objection to his election. Mr. Lorimer's candidacy was not 
 suggested or discussed at that time. Mr. Hines told Mr. 
 Boutell what he had done, and suggested to him that he see 
 
 187
 
 EDWARD MINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 the President. Mr. Boutell did so, and also wrote letters to 
 Chicago to ascertain how his candidacy would be regarded in 
 Illinois; later he went to Chicago and after a careful investi- 
 gation found that it would be impossible to get the different 
 factions to unite on him ; and Mr. Hines told Senator Penrose 
 of the failure of that undertaking. 
 
 As time passed the names of Messrs. Boutell, Lowden, and 
 others mentioned in connection with this election, were in the 
 progress of events eliminated, and Mr. Hines ultimately sug- 
 gested to Senator Penrose that Mr. Lorimer might be the man 
 upon whom the different factions could unite, but because Mr. 
 Lorimer had previously informed him that he preferred to re- 
 main in the House it was doubtful if he could be induced to 
 enter the contest. Senator Penrose also learned from other 
 sources that Mr. Lorimer was the only available candidate. 
 
 Just previous to the election of Mr. Lorimer by the Legis- 
 lature of the State of Illinois one or two interviews took place 
 between Senator Aldrich and Mr. Hines regarding the can- 
 didacy of Mr. Lorimer and the attitude of the President with 
 respect thereto. Regarding one of these, Senator Aldrich in 
 his testimony says : 
 
 Mr. Hines then told me that it was impossible to agree 
 upon Mr. Boutell, and he thought there was a prospect 
 he said a very good prospect of agreeing upon Mr. Lori- 
 mer; and he was anxious that I should find out the atti- 
 tude of the President, the administration, toward Mr. 
 Lorimer's election, and tell him Avhat it would be. 
 
 This the committee finds was at Senator Aldrich's commit- 
 tee room, late in the evening ; that together they rode to Sen- 
 ator Aldrich's house, where Mr. Hines was left to await the 
 return of Senator Aldrich from the White House, where he 
 went to have a consultation with the President in relation to 
 this matter. Senator Aldrich returned home from this inter- 
 view about midnight, and in his testimony says : 
 
 I told him that Mr. Lorimer's candidacy would not be 
 objectionable to the President. Then Mr. Hines asked 
 me if I was willing to say that to anyone that he might 
 
 188
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 suggest to inquire of me upon the subject; and I said 
 that I was that if I were asked in reference to the matter 
 I should say that Mr. Lorimer's candidacy would not be 
 objectionable to the President. 
 
 Regarding the time of this interview, Senator Aldrich 
 testifies : 
 
 I know that it was prior to the election, and my im- 
 pression is that Mr. Hines told me that he was to leave 
 for Chicago either that day or the next day, or some time 
 very near that. 
 
 And on this point Senator Aldrich's testimony is as follows : 
 
 Senator KERN. Did you have any conversation with 
 Mr. Hines at all about Gov. Deneen, or the part Gov. 
 Deneen was to take in the contest ? 
 
 Senator ALDRICH. I think at this conversation Gov. 
 
 Deneen's name was mentioned by Mr. Hines ; not by me. 
 ****** 
 
 The CHAIRMAN. What did he say about Deneen ? 
 
 Senator ALDRICH. My recollection is that Deneen was 
 an important party to this arrangement, or agreement, 
 upon a candidate, and that Deneen's attitude would be 
 more or less influenced by knowing whether it would be 
 agreeable to the President. That was my general im- 
 pression with regard to that matter. 
 
 Both Senators Aldrich and Penrose corroborate Mr. Hines 
 in all essential features of his account of what took place lead- 
 ing up to and including his activities in behalf of Senator 
 Lorimer. 
 
 Endeavoring to carry out what he understood to be the de- 
 sire upon the part of Senator Aldrich and the administration, 
 Mr. Hines went from the home of Senator Aldrich to the New 
 Willard Hotel, from whence, sometime after midnight, he 
 called up Congressman Lorimer on long-distance telephone at 
 Springfield and gave him Senator Aldrich's message. Mr. 
 Lorimer expressed some surprise at mention of the President's 
 name, but Mr. Hines repeated the statement, telling him there 
 was no question about it, as he had but then finished talking 
 with Senator Aldrich, after the latter's return from a confer- 
 
 189
 
 EDWARD MINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 ence with the President at the White House, and that they 
 would do all they could to assist in his election. Mr. Lorimer 
 asked if Senator Aldrich would send him a telegram to that 
 effect, and Mr. Hines assured him that he himself was au- 
 thorized to send such a message, and Mr. Lorimer told him to 
 send it. Mr. Hines then asked Congressman Lorimer if he 
 would become a candidate, to which the latter replied : 
 
 At this time I can not say; after I get the telegram I 
 will give the matter consideration. 
 
 Mr. Hines accordingly sent the telegram. Senator Lorimer 
 testifies that this was the first word he received from Mr. Hines 
 concerning his candidacy, and Mr. Hines says it was the first 
 time the subject was mentioned between them after the talk 
 in April when Congressman Lorimer told him he would not be 
 a candidate for the senatorship. Senator Lorimer locates the 
 date of this telegram between the 2Oth and 25th of May, and 
 Mr. Hines puts the date May 23, 1909. 
 
 Mr. Hines testifies that matters ran on for a few days, and 
 that Senator Aldrich again sent for him and urged him to go 
 to Springfield and see the governor personally and impress 
 upon his mind the importance to the administration of the elec- 
 tion of a Republican, and if Mr. Lorimer could be elected to 
 have him assist in accomplishing it. This was on the morn- 
 ing of May 25, 1909, and Mr. Hines left for Springfield via 
 Chicago that afternoon. 
 
 While the committee find some confusion in the testimony 
 on the question whether there were two interviews between 
 Senator Aldrich and Mr. Hines regarding the election of Mr. 
 Lorimer and the mission of Mr. Hines in connection therewith, 
 they are of the opinion that Mr. Hines's memory is the more 
 accurate, and that such was the case ; but if, as Senator Aid- 
 rich thinks, there was but one interview, it must have been on 
 the night of May 24, 1909, for before leaving Washington the 
 following day, May 25, Mr. Hines sent the following tele- 
 grams to Mr. Lorimer, who was at Springfield : 
 
 190
 
 EDWARD MINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 MAY 25, 1909. 
 William Larimer, St. Nicholas Hotel, Springfield, 111.: 
 
 Aldrich authorizes governor calling him up telephone. 
 Confirm my message; conference last night; governor 
 requested cooperate bring about result; can bring mes- 
 sage tomorrow. 
 
 WASHINGTON, D. C, MAY 25. 
 William Larimer, St. Nicholas Hotel, Springfield, III.: 
 
 Leaving for Chicago today ; can go direct to Springfield. 
 Bring message confirming conference held last night, 
 showing highest authorities want you elected before leg- 
 islature adjourns. Important Republican party Illinois 
 politics have strong, experienced man, friendly to powers 
 here, elected immediately; needed here now. Telegraph 
 answer quick, duplicate, care limited train, Harrisburg 
 depot. 
 
 In both of which messages, as will be observed, he refers to 
 a conference held the night before. 
 
 These conferences between Mr. Hines and Senators Aid- 
 rich and Penrose impressed Mr. Hines with the importance of 
 the matters under discussion as well as the importance of his 
 activities in connection with them. He understood that in the 
 investigations and reports which he made to them he was 
 carrying out their wishes, that in the end they had reached the 
 conclusion that Mr. Lorimer was the only person upon whom 
 the different factions of the legislature could unite, and they 
 were anxious that he should not only consent to become a can- 
 didate but that he should use his best efforts to be elected. In 
 these conferences Gov. Deneen's name had been mentioned as 
 an important factor in the election of a Senator, and Mr. Hines 
 understood, after his last interview with Senator Aldrich at 
 the latter's house, that he was authorized to convey to Mr. 
 Lorimer the wishes of the Senators named, the attitude of the 
 President as to his candidacy, and to urge Gov. Deneen to aid 
 in his election. The telegrams indicate his understanding of 
 the situation and of his mission, and he understood that in 
 carrying this message he was representing the gentlemen with 
 
 191
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 whom he had been in conference, and that he was authorized to 
 refer anyone wishing for further information as to their atti- 
 tude or that of the President to Senator Aldrich. 
 
 Mr. Hines was very much impressed with the importance 
 of his selection as the medium through whom this message was 
 to be carried to Illinois, and he entered with zeal upon the 
 undertaking. 
 
 The evidence indicates that Senators Aldrich and Penrose 
 were the only persons with whom Mr. Hines was working or 
 cooperating in the effort to break the deadlock in the Illinois 
 Legislature by the election of a Republican Senator; that the 
 only real interest he had in the matter was aroused by his fre- 
 quent interviews with those gentlemen ; the evidence also shows 
 that neither he nor they had any candidate whom they specially 
 cared to have elected any Republican would have been satis- 
 factory, and their purpose was to discover some person upon 
 whom the different factions in the legislature would unite, and 
 to that end they called upon Mr. Hines for assistance. Con- 
 cerning this, Senator Penrose in his testimony says : 
 
 If Mr. Hines had been staying at home and attending to 
 his business in Chicago, and the tariff had not been up, 
 and he had never seen me or a lot of people who were 
 interested in politics night and day, I do not imagine he 
 would ever have gotten interested in the senatorial fight. 
 
 Mr. Hines left Washington on May 25, 1909, and reached 
 Chicago between 8 and 9 o'clock on the morning of May 26, 
 1909. It had been his intention to continue the journey to 
 Springfield, in order as he testified 
 
 to carry out the request made by Senator Aldrich and see 
 the governor and see other leading Republicans, members 
 of the legislature, to impress upon their minds the im- 
 portance of trying to unite on some Republican as Senator 
 from Illinois. (Hines, 832.) 
 
 But upon reaching Chicago he was met at the station by Mr. 
 Wiehe with a message from Mr. Lorimer to call the latter on 
 the telephone from Chicago instead of continuing his journey 
 
 192
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 to Springfield as intended. Mr. Hines therefore proceeded at 
 once to the Continental Commercial National Bank, and from 
 there put in a long-distance telephone call for Mr. Lorimer 
 at Springfield. While waiting for this connection, he sent from 
 the bank the following telegram : 
 
 CHICAGO, May 26, 1909. 
 William Lorimer, Esq., Springfield, III.: 
 
 Just arrived ; trying to get you telephone ; Aldrich, Pen- 
 rose, and higher authority, as telephoned you from Wash- 
 ington, want you elected ; authorized have governor others 
 call Washington telephone; confirm this; can be there 
 tonight. EDWARD HINES. 
 
 Very soon thereafter Mr. Lorimer called him on the tele- 
 phone and said : 
 
 I would like to have you immediately call up Gov. 
 Deneen on the long-distance telephone, and emphasize to 
 him as strong as possible what you told me from Wash- 
 ington. * * * When you get through talking with 
 Gov. Deneen, call me up on the telephone and let me 
 know what he says. 
 
 Referring to this telephonic conversation with Mr. Hines, 
 Senator Lorimer in his testimony says : 
 
 I told him that the reason I did not want him to go to 
 Springfield was that the governor was not friendly to my 
 candidacy, and that if he came down to deliver the mes- 
 sage it would be too late before he arrived, but probably 
 if he delivered the message to him over the long-distance 
 telephone it might have some influence with him. I had 
 not any idea in the world that it would, but I feel when 
 your are in a campaign you ought to do the last thing, 
 and in his case it was the last thing. 
 
 Mr. Hines testified that he also called up Gov. Deneen from 
 the bank and said, as he remembers the conversation : 
 
 This is Mr. Edward Hines, at Chicago. I have just 
 come in this morning on the limited train from Washing- 
 ton, and was on my way to Springfield to bring the mes- 
 sage to you from Senator Aldrich and the President, 
 urging upon you to do all you possibly can to assist in 
 the election of a Senator at the earliest moment possible. 
 
 193
 
 EDWARD H1NES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 They understand that Congressman Lorimer can b 
 elected if you will assist 
 
 Mr. Hines testified that the governor did not seem to recog- 
 nize his voice at first, and there was some suggestion of calling 
 Mr. Reynolds, president of the bank, to identify him, but that 
 finally the governor appeared to recognize his voice and said 
 that would be unnecessary, and, continuing his conversation, 
 Mr. Hines said then to him, "How soon can you see Congress- 
 man Lorimer?"; that the governor replied, "I will see him 
 within 10 minutes" ; and then Mr. Hines asked him the follow- 
 ing question, "Can we rely on your assistance," and under- 
 stood the governor to say, "Yes." 
 
 In regard to this Gov. Deneen testified : 
 
 Mr. Hines called me up and asked me whether I had 
 received a message from the President President Taft 
 in reference to Senator Lorimer. He stated that Presi- 
 dent Taft had sent a message to me to support Senator 
 Lorimer, and asked me if I had received the message. I 
 told him no. He said: "Well, President Taft has sent 
 the message, and I intended to come down myself. I have 
 just arrived, this morning, in Chicago ;" and my best rec- 
 ollection is that he stated that his train was late, had a 
 five minutes' connection, and the Pennsylvania train had 
 missed connections. But, in any event, he said that he 
 had intended to come, and did not come, could not come ; 
 and he said President Taft had sent that message to me, 
 and I would get it. I said: "Did President Taft send 
 that message to me? Did he tell you ?" He said: "No." 
 I said: "That is a rather remarkable message to send." 
 He said: "Well, he is to send it through Senator Al- 
 drich." He said: "Of course, the President would not 
 send a message to you on such a matter where it would 
 become a public matter ; but Senator Aldrich is to convey 
 the message to you." I said: "Through whom?" He 
 said: "Mr. George Reynolds, of the Continental Com- 
 mercial Bank, will call up and deliver the message." I 
 said: "Very well." 
 
 Gov. Deneen says he did not tell Mr. Hines that he would 
 see Mr. Lorimer within a few minutes, or within 10 minutes, 
 
 194
 
 EDWARD H1NES TO THE U. L CLUB 
 
 and says there was nothing in regard to calling Mr. Reynolds 
 to identify his voice; that he was not sufficiently acquainted 
 with him to recognize Mr. Hines's voice, and doubted per- 
 sonally, whether Mr. Hines was telephoning. 
 
 While they differ regarding many things which it is claimed 
 were said during this conversation, which is easily accounted 
 for by the difficulty attending a long distance telephone con- 
 versation, they both agree that no reference whatever was 
 made to money matters, and that Mr. Hines said nothing about 
 going to Springfield and taking with him all the money that 
 was necessary to bring about the election of Mr. Lorimer, as 
 testified by the witness Cook. Gov. Deneen testified that on 
 May 26, 1909, he did not see or communicate in any way with 
 Mr. Lorimer until after his election, when the latter called 
 upon him about 2 o'clock. 
 
 On the contrary, Senator Lorimer testified that Gov. Deneen 
 called him on the telephone on the morning of May 26, 1909, 
 and said: 
 
 That he had talked with Mr. Hines over the telephone, 
 and that Mr. Hines had delivered a message to him to 
 the effect that Senators Penrose and Aldrich and the 
 President were anxious that I should be elected. 
 
 And in answer to the question: "What response did you 
 make," Senator Lorimer testified : 
 
 I thanked him for it. I knew the interview Mr. Hines 
 had had with the governor had had no influence with him. 
 
 And Senator Lorimer says in his testimony that the only 
 reason he did not desire Mr. Hines to go to Springfield was 
 because he could not reach there in time, he having concluded 
 to allow his name to be presented that day, and he understood 
 the only assistance Mr. Hines could render was to deliver the 
 message ; that the governor made no comment with reference 
 to the message, and in this respect testified. Mr. Lorimer 
 testified : 
 
 I thought the governor just delivered a message. I got 
 an impression that the governor either felt that it was his 
 
 195
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 duty to call me up and let me know, or that he had been 
 requested to call me up and let me know what had oc- 
 curred. 
 
 Senator Lorimer further testified that up to the night of 
 May 25, 1909, he had not been advised that the President or 
 Senators Aldrich or Penrose had authorized anyone to verify 
 their support, or their desire in regard to having a Republican 
 elected. Senator Lorimer further testified that he got the im- 
 pression from the way Gov. Deneen talked to him over the 
 telephone on the morning of May 26, 1909, that he was 
 
 just doing what he regarded as a duty or extending a 
 courtesy to the person he had previously spoken to over 
 the telephone. 
 
 He did not commit himself ; and I knew from the way 
 he talked that the message had no influence over the gov- 
 ernor. 
 
 Senator Lorimer testified to a subsequent conversation with 
 Mr. Hines as follows : 
 
 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 to him. When I say "quite a 
 little while after that," I mean it may have been ten, 
 fifteen or twenty minutes. 
 
 After this telephonic conversation with Gov. Deneen from 
 the Continental Commercial National Bank, Mr. Hines went 
 to the Grand Pacific Hotel to meet Messrs. Cook and O'Brien 
 upon a purely business matter, which meeting had been ar- 
 ranged by his subordinates and while in Mr. Cook's room had 
 a second conversation with Mr. Lorimer over the telephone, in 
 which he said in substance : 
 
 I have just talked with the governor, and he said he 
 would see you immediately. The Congressman replied, 
 "He has already seen me." I then said, "Now, if I can 
 do any good I will come down on the afternoon train." 
 He replied not to come down until he would telephone 
 me. He said, "If my name goes before the legislature 
 today, you could not assist any in time to come here. If 
 
 196
 
 EDWARD H1NES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 you could assist tomorrow, I will let you know late in the 
 afternoon by telephone." 
 
 At this point the activities of Edward Hines in connection 
 with the election of William Larimer ceased. He did not go to 
 Springfield, and the only person whose action he attempted to 
 influence was Gov. Deneen, and in doing that he simply under- 
 took to deliver what he understood to be the message from 
 Senators Aldrich and Penrose. 
 
 The significant facts brought out by all the testimony upon 
 the question of Mr. Hines's connection with Mr. Lorimer's 
 election are: 
 
 (a) That he had no special personal interest in the matter^ 
 and did not visit Springfield at any time during the session of 
 the Legislature. 
 
 (b) That he was not urging the candidacy of any particular 
 person. 
 
 (c) That during the two months in which the situation in 
 Illinois was discussed between him and Senators Aldrich and 
 Penrose the names of several men of reputation and character 
 were considered and dropped, and the name of Mr. Lorimer 
 was not mentioned between them as a candidate until three or 
 four days before his election, and not until after his probable 
 candidacy had been under discussion in Springfield and it was 
 believed there that he would become a candidate. It was prac- 
 tically certain Hopkins could not be elected. 
 
 (d) That the only object entertained by Messrs. Aldrich and 
 Penrose was to have the deadlock broken and a Republican 
 elected. 
 
 (e) That to accomplish this Mr. Lorimer was not objection- 
 able as a candidate either to the President or to them, and vari- 
 ous names had been tested and it was found that Mr. Lorimer 
 could command more votes than any one considered. 
 
 (f) That Mr. Hines was authorised and requested to report 
 these facts to Mr. Lorimer, Gov, Deneen, and other public men, 
 and to refer to both Senators Aldrich and Penrose as his 
 authority. 
 
 197
 
 EDWARD HIKES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 (g) That it -flattered Mr. Hines to be consulted by Senators 
 Aldrich and Penrose, and his sense of the importance of the 
 matter was greatly enhanced when he knew that they had been 
 in conference with the President, and that Mr. Larimer's can- 
 didacy would not be objectionable to him, and that to be in- 
 trusted with the responsibility of making known their wishes 
 and explaining the attitude of the President to Gov. Deneen 
 and to Mr. Lorimer was a great personal favor. 
 
 (h) That he believed when the election followed so closely 
 these events that he had been instrumental in bringing it about 
 and was correspondingly elated. 
 
 The only testimony before the committee that in any way 
 connects the name of Edward Tilden with the alleged fund 
 raised to aid in the election of William Lorimer is incorporated 
 in the statement reluctantly made by Mr. Funk when he says : 
 "Mr. Hines said, 'Just sent the money to Ed. Tilden.' " Not a 
 witness has testified to any fact tending to establish the ex- 
 istence of such a fund or to Mr. Tilden's connection with any 
 such fund. But the committee saw fit to summon Mr. Tilden 
 as a witness and in his testimony he denied with great emphasis 
 any knowledge of the existence of such a fund, or having any 
 connection with it, and stated that the first time he heard his 
 name mentioned in that respect was when he read in the news- 
 papers an account of Mr. Funk's testimony before the Helm 
 committee at Springfield. 
 
 To further determine the question whether Mr. Hines had 
 been a contributor to or had any part in it, and whether Mr. 
 Tilden had received or disbursed the same, the committee em- 
 ployed the firm of Barrow, Wade, Guthrie & Co., certified pub- 
 lic accountants of New York. Mr. Ritchie of that firm made 
 an examination of the accounts of the Edward Hines Lumber 
 Co. and all its subsidiary branches and of the companies con- 
 trolled by it, including the North Wisconsin Lumber & Manu- 
 facturing Co. ; Hayward Mercantile Co. ; First National Bank, 
 Hayward, Wis.; Mason State Bank, Mason; White River 
 Lumber Co. ; Iron River Lumber Co. ; Virginia & Rainy Lake 
 Co., covering the period from April i, 1909, to December 31, 
 
 198
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 1909, as well as the personal books of Edward Hines for the 
 year ending December 31, 1909, and reported to the committee 
 as follows: 
 
 (a) That there was no evidence of the Edward Hines 
 Lumber Co. or any of its subsidiary or controlled compa- 
 nies having received or disbursed any moneys in connec- 
 tion with the election of Mr. William Lorimer, on May 
 26, 1909, to the United States Senate from the State of 
 Illinois. 
 
 (b) That there was no evidence of Mr. Edward Hines 
 as an individual having received or disbursed any moneys 
 in connection with the aforesaid election. 
 
 In order to ascertain whether or not Mr. Hines might 
 have negotiated a loan from one or other of the banks in 
 Chicago with which he was connected, or with which he 
 had business relations, I visited the following banks and 
 trust companies: Continental National Bank, Hibernian 
 Banking Association, Fort Dearborn National Bank, 
 Northern Trust Co., Corn Exchange National Bank, Met- 
 ropolitan Trust & Savings Bank. 
 
 At each of these banks I examined their record of notes 
 discounted during the last week in May, 1909, and the 
 first part of June, 1909. 
 
 I am able to report, therefore, that at none of these 
 banks, in the period under review, did Mr. Hines discount 
 any note or notes, either as drawer or as indorser. 
 An examination was also made of the books of Mr. Edward 
 Tilden, and after reciting the method of the same and the 
 theory upon which it was conducted, Mr. Ritchie reported to 
 the committee that 
 
 There was no evidence that Mr. Tilden had been cus- 
 todian of the fund alleged to have been raised in connec- 
 tion with the election of Mr. William Lorimer to the 
 United States Senate from the State of Illinois. 
 
 The Funk testimony was also lacking in conclusiveness. In 
 fact, it has been taken cum grano satis (with a grain of salt) 
 by nearly everyone who has heard it. Mr. Funk himself ad- 
 mitted that he thought his story would not be believed. His 
 associates, to whom it is claimed he told the story at the time, 
 
 199
 
 EDWARD HINES TO THE U. L. CLUB 
 
 did not take it seriously enough to report it to any of the public 
 authorities or to the committee of the Senate that shortly aft- 
 erwards was in session across the street from the office of Mr. 
 Funk and his associates, and these associates of Mr. Funk who 
 testified that they heard from him the story profess to be 
 very good citizens. Mr. Kohlsaat did not have enough con- 
 fidence in the story of Mr. Funk to insist upon the right to 
 give it full and unqualified publicity. He did make the story 
 known (without revealing Funk's identity) to several Senators 
 some time before the final action of the Senate in the former 
 proceeding. No Senator thus advised treated the informa- 
 tion as of enough importance to ask for a reference back to 
 the committee or the reopening of the taking of evidence, 
 though all knew Mr. Kohlsaat could not refuse to reveal the 
 name of his informant if Mr. Kohlsaat were called as a wit- 
 ness. When Mr. Funk did give his testimony its very im- 
 probability was its most marked feature. It was wholly uncor- 
 roborated. His version was contradicted in its various parts 
 by many witnesses. No one could say it was sustained by the 
 preponderance of the evidence. 
 
 The testimony of others as to the gossip regarding a fund 
 used in the senatorial election was speculative and worthless 
 and wherever it had any tangibility it was conclusively contra- 
 dicted and refuted. 
 
 200
 
 INDEX AND DIGEST 
 
 ALDRICH, NELSON W., Ex-Senator of the United States. 
 
 Testimony of 25 
 
 Authorizes Hines to convey message to Springfield 26 
 
 BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF UNION LEAGUE CLUB. 
 
 Ignores Senate of United States 8 
 
 Notified Hines to appear on June 5, 1911 8 
 
 Notified Hines to appear on Nov. 20, 1911 8 
 
 Suspicious haste of 17 
 
 Without legal power 17 
 
 Manifest bias of 18 
 
 Remarkable attitude of 163 
 
 Unconcealed hostility of certain members of 164 
 
 Impossible that it believed Funk 168 
 
 Versus the Dillingham Committee 169 
 
 BAKER, ISAAC, buyer for the Edward Hines Lumber Company. 
 
 Testifies concerning Union League Club interview 36 
 
 CARNEY, FRED, Jr., lumber business, Marquette, Wis. 
 
 Testimony concerning Union League Club interview 35 
 
 COOK, WIRT H., lumber business, Duluth, Minn. 
 
 The Wirt H. Cook episode 30 
 
 False version of telephone conversation 31 
 
 Board would not call him as a witness 32 
 
 COTTER, G. F.. general manager Colorado & Southern Railroad. 
 Telegraphs that he dined with Hines in Washington on Jan. 
 
 21, 1911 148 
 
 DILLINGHAM COMMITTEE. 
 
 Appointed June 7, 191 1 7 
 
 Orders examination of Hines' books 64 
 
 Completely vindicated Edward Hines 172 
 
 DUPERT, ADAM, Baltimore financier. 
 
 Was with Hines in Baltimore on January 22 139 
 
 EATON, MARQUIS, attorney for Edward Hines. 
 
 Makes sharp demand of Board for copy of record 5 
 
 Urges Board to await action of Dillingham Committee 14 
 
 Demands that Board shows "reasonable courtesy" to Dilling- 
 ham Committee 16 
 
 FRAME, DONALD, cigar clerk Union League Club. 
 
 Testimony of 57 
 
 Examination before Dillingham Committee 58 
 
 GILBERT, ALLEN, of Gilbert & Gilbert, Chicago law firm. 
 
 Telegraphs he was with Hines in Washington on Jan, 21, 1911, 149 
 
 20t
 
 INDEX AND DIGEST 
 
 FUNK, CLARENCE S., general manager International Harvester 
 Company, Chicago. 
 
 Burrows Committee held sessions across street from 6 
 
 Board very friendly to 19 
 
 Meets Hines at Union League Club on May 27, 1909 33 
 
 Testifies concerning Union League Club interview 37 
 
 Omits important testimony before Board 38 
 
 Did not know Edward Tilden 40 
 
 His story uncorroborated 40 
 
 Palpable absurdity of his story 43 
 
 Denied by H. H. Kohlsaat 45 
 
 Contradicts Kohlsaat 46 
 
 Contradicted by Cyrus H. McCormick 47 
 
 Falsehood concerning presence of Hines in Springfield 48 
 
 Lack of character as citizen 49 
 
 False to principles of Union League Club 50 
 
 Seeks favors of Hines 50 
 
 Asks introduction to Senator Lorimer 51 
 
 Tries to see Hines 53 
 
 Declares he had never read editorial of February 15 69 
 
 Appears before Helm Committee April 5, 1911 70 
 
 Testified before Dillingham Committee June 26, 1911 72 
 
 Fixes date of second alleged interview 73 
 
 Repudiates sworn testimony before Union League Club 75 
 
 Declines to correct or add to his testimony 76 
 
 Changes vital date sixteen months 77 
 
 His motive in fixing new date 79 
 
 Trapped by Mr. Eaton 80 
 
 His various versions of the second alleged interview 80 
 
 His story unbelievable 82 
 
 Again shifts his date 102 
 
 Recklessness of his testimony 103 
 
 His astounding assertions 104 
 
 Declines to specify the editorial of January 20 105 
 
 Positively specifies the editorial of January 20 105 
 
 Explains how anonymous telegrams were obtained 124 
 
 Explains who "Stone" or "Schlobohn" is 125 
 
 Explains unfortunate financial condition of "Stone" 126 
 
 His seven dates for one alleged event 161 
 
 His candor as a witness 166 
 
 GREEN, REV. JAMES F., clergyman. 
 
 Testifies being in Philadelphia with Hines on January 20 and 
 
 with him in Baltimore on January 22, 191 r 138 
 
 GREEN, MISS ANN T., sister of Rev. James T. Green. 
 
 Testifies that Hines was in Philadelphia night of January 20. . 146 
 
 HALL, CHARLES L., lumber buyer of the Edward Hines Lum- 
 ber Company. 
 
 Testifies concerning Union League Club interview 36 
 
 HELM COMMITTEE. 
 
 Appointed Jan. 17, 191 1 7 
 
 Hines testified before on March 28, 1911 7 
 
 Suppresses facts favorable to Hines 62 
 
 202
 
 INDEX AND DIGEST 
 
 HERRICK, WALTER D., secretary Union League Club. 
 
 Letter to, asking for copy of record 4 
 
 Addresses letters to Hines 12 
 
 HETTLER, HERMAN H., lumber business, Chicago. 
 
 The so-called "Hettler Incident" 55 
 
 Testimony of 56 
 
 Refreshes memory of Donald Frame 59 
 
 Admits conferring with Donald Frame 60 
 
 Insulting assertion of 62 
 
 HINES, EDWARD, lumber business, Chicago. 
 
 Motive of Union League Board in refusing copy of record. ... 3 
 
 Urges Board to await action of Dillingham Committee n 
 
 Protests against Funk's secret hearing 12 
 
 Appears before Board on Jan. 2, 1912 17 
 
 Asked to resign 18 
 
 Declaration of absolute innocence 19 
 
 Not in Springfield for five years preceding election of Lorimer 20 
 
 Suggests names of Boutell and Bartlett 20 
 
 Testimony of 20-22 
 
 Authorized by Aldrich to deliver message 22 
 
 Telephones Lorimer from Washington 22 
 
 Conferences with Senator Penrose 23 
 
 Telegrams to Lorimer from Washington 26-27 
 
 Discussed political mission with Mr. Reynolds 28 
 
 Final telegram to Lorimer 30 
 
 The Union League Club interview with Funk 33 
 
 Testimony concerning Union League Club interview 34 
 
 Funk approached him 37 
 
 Funk seeks favors from 50 
 
 Funk asks of him introduction to Senator Lorimer 51 
 
 Attempt of Funk to arrange another meeting 53 
 
 Telegraphs that he cannot wait for Funk 54 
 
 Met Hettler in Union League Club on May 26, 1909 56 
 
 Made no boast to Hettler or anybody 62 
 
 Vindicated by auditors 64 
 
 Proves that he was not in Chicago from Feb. 7 to March 5, 
 
 I9H 74 
 
 Attempt to prove guilt abandoned 79 
 
 Testifies concerning February 15 84 
 
 Addresses Board 95 
 
 Again proves absence from Chicago on Feb. 15, 1911 97 
 
 Board again admits his alibi 98 
 
 Testifies concerning February 15, 1911 84 
 
 Introduces important telegrams 1 13-1 16 
 
 Testifies concerning January 21 120 
 
 Testifies concerning January 21 and 22 129 
 
 Introduces telegram from G. F. Cotter 132 
 
 Testifies concerning January 20 133 
 
 Rebukes Loesch for insulting Father Green 165 
 
 Vindicated by Dillingham Committee 169 
 
 INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY. 
 
 Wishes to close branch of Chicago River 33 
 
 Opposed to Senator Lorimer 33 
 
 203
 
 INDEX AND DIGEST 
 
 KOHLSAAT, HERMAN H., Editor Chicago Record-Herald. 
 
 Swears that Funk mentioned several names 45 
 
 Editorial of February 15, 191 1 68 
 
 Editorial of January 20, 191 1 92 
 
 LEBEAU, OLIVER J., usher in Washington church. 
 
 Testifies Hines was in Washington early on morning of Jan. 22 147 
 
 LOESCH, FRANK J., second attorney before the Union League 
 Club for Clarence S. Funk. 
 
 Addresses the Board 101 
 
 Commits himself to January 21 no 
 
 His misstatement to the Board in 
 
 Discovers "a Mountain Peak" 117 
 
 Introduces anonymous telegram 120 
 
 Insulting remark by 124 
 
 Admits that Hines was in Pikesville 144 
 
 Insults the Reverend Green 165 
 
 MOODY, MISS HELEN, niece of Mrs. Edward Hines. 
 
 Reads from her diary 134 
 
 Her brilliant cross-examination 136 
 
 NELSON, C. R., stenographer for Edward Hines. 
 
 Testifies Hines was absent from Chicago from January 17 to 
 
 February 5, 191 1 112 
 
 Testifies concerning January 20 and 21 138 
 
 PENROSE, BOIES, U. S. Senator from Pennsylvania. 
 
 Testimony of 23 
 
 Declares Hines had "no political scheme to work out" 24 
 
 REYNOLDS, GEORGE M., President Continental &) Commercial 
 National Bank of Chicago. 
 
 Testimony of 28 
 
 Confirms statements made by Hines 29 
 
 RIORDAN, REV. MICHAEL J., clergyman of Pikesville, Md. 
 
 Interesting testimony of 141 
 
 SCOTT, FRANK H., first attorney before Union League Club 
 for Clarence S. Funk. 
 
 Closes the case for Funk 89 
 
 Gives first hint of another editorial 90 
 
 SIDLEY, WILLIAM P., Chairman of Board of Directors of 
 Union League Club. 
 
 Accepts Hines' alibi 85 
 
 Suggests that the case should be reopened 91 
 
 Ignorance concerning new editorial 93 
 
 Repudiates his former ruling 96 
 
 His undisguised bias 122 
 
 STILLWELL, CLYDE S., Secretary to Edgar A. Bancroft. 
 
 Produces diary of Cyrus H. McCormick 106 
 
 His contradictory testimony ; , , 109 
 
 204
 
 INDEX AND DIGEST 
 
 "STONE," said to be "Schlobohn," confidential Washington repre- 
 sentative of Funk. 
 Sends anonymous telegram to Funk 125 
 
 THOMAS, EDWARD H., private secretary of Edward Hines. 
 
 Proves whereabouts of Hines from Feb. 7 to March 4, 1911 96 
 
 Proves whereabouts of Hines on and near Jan. 20, 1911 in 
 
 "T. L. L." Unknown sender of anonymous telegram to Clarence 
 S. Funk. 
 
 Sends remarkable telegram to Funk 121 
 
 His anonymous telegram a mass of falsehoods 126 
 
 TILDEN, EDWARD, President National Packing Company, 
 
 Chicago. 
 Vindicatory report of auditors concerning books 66 
 
 WAND, ARTHUR J., manager New Willard Hotel. 
 
 Produces books of hotel to refute falsehoods of anonymous 
 telegrams 127 
 
 WHITEHEAD, T. W., lumberman. 
 
 Telegraphs he was in Washington with Hines on Jan. 21, 1911 150 
 
 WIEHE, C. F., Secretary of the Edward Hines Lumber Company. 
 
 Asked to give message from Hines to Funk 53 
 
 Telegraphs Hines that Funk is in New York 54 
 
 Was with Hines when latter met Hettler 56 
 
 Demands that Helm Committee make public examination of 
 
 books 63 
 
 205
 
 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA 
 
 324.773H58E C001 
 
 EDWARD MINES TO THE UNION LEAGUE CLUB; A 
 
 30112025283612