THE LORIMER CASE 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 HON. JOSEPH W. BAILEY 
 
 OR TEXAS 
 
 IN THE 
 
 SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 
 
 FEBRUARY 13 AND 14, 1911 
 
 WASHINGTON 
 111 
 
 80595 973
 
 SPEECH 
 
 HON. JOSEPH W. BAILEY. 
 
 Monday, February 13, 1911. 
 
 The Senate having under consideration the report of the Committee 
 on Privileges and Elections relative to certain charges relating to the 
 election of WILLIAM LORIMER, a Senator from the State of Illinois, by 
 the legislature of that State, made in obedience to Senate resolution 
 264 
 
 Mr. BAILEY said : 
 
 Mr. PRESIDENT: Before addressing myself to the results of 
 this investigation. I think it advisable to say something about 
 the methods which the committee employed in making it. I am 
 not moved to do this by any objection on my own part to those 
 methods, or because I doubt in the least that they were best 
 calculated to evolve the truth, but as several Senators, and par- 
 ticularly the Senator from Iowa [Mr. CUMMINS] and the Sena- 
 tor from New York [Mr. ROOT], have criticized the investigation 
 as lacking in thoroughness, I feel that in justice to the commit- 
 tee I ought to make some reply to that criticism. 
 
 I can easily understand how a Senator who feels that the 
 testimony elicited by the committee leaves him in doubt as to 
 his duty might complain, and it would be for the committee to 
 answer whether the doubt of such a Senator could have been 
 removed by any testimony within their reach. If any Senator 
 should describe himself as in that mental condition and he 
 could indicate any witness who might _ enlighten him on any 
 disputed point, I would, without hesitating a moment, vote to 
 recommit this report to the committee, with instructions to pro- 
 cure such additional evidence. But, sir, it is utterly impossible 
 for me to comprehend how any Senator can_ complain at the 
 committee for having taken, or for having omitted to take, any 
 testimony, and then in the next breath declare that on this 
 record as now made up he does not hesitate to pronounce a 
 judgment which will undo what the legislature of a great State 
 has done, deprive Illinois, for a time at least, of a seat in the 
 Senate, and drive one who holds the commission of a great 
 Commonwealth from the Senate Chamber with a stigma upon 
 his name which neither his children nor his children's children 
 can outlive. 
 
 But, Mr. President, without intending to be offensive, I am 
 constrained to believe that neither the criticism\ of the Sena- 
 tor from Iowa nor the criticism of the Senator from New 
 York against the committee is entitled to our serious consid- 
 eration, because their speeches show that they have not studied 
 this record with sufficient diligence to pass an intelligent judg- 
 ment upon it. I say that because in both of their speeches 
 they have misstated the testimony on material points, and I 
 
 805959673
 
 know that neither of them would have done that to save his 
 own seat in the Senate, and much less would either have done 
 so to vacate the seat of another Senator. With these misstate- 
 ments of the testimony before me and knowing the high char- 
 acter of the Senators who have made them, the only explana- 
 tion possible -to my mind is that they are due to a lack o'f 
 familiarity with the record. Not only, Mr. President, were 
 these Senators mistaken as to the language and the effect of 
 certain testimony, but the Senator from New York was mis- 
 taken about the appearance of a witness whose testimony he 
 deemed essential., The Senate has not forgotten that in enu- 
 merating the witnesses whom the committee ought to have called 
 before it, but did not, the Senator from New York included Mr. 
 Shurtleff, the speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives, 
 and he did not leave us in any doubt as to Mr. Shurtleff's im- 
 portance as a witness, because to give emphasis to his criticism 
 against the committee for its failure to call him, he made this 
 statement : 
 
 Mr. President, they would have called Mr. Shurtleff, the speaker of 
 the house, who was the leader of the campaign on the Republican side to 
 secure the election of Mr. LORIMER. They would have called him, be- 
 cause the testimony shows that day by day and night by r.ight he was 
 closeted with Mr. LORIMER and with Mr. Lee O'Neil Browne. 
 
 The Senate will also remember that the Senator from New 
 York had scarcely concluded that criticism when he was inter- 
 rupted by the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. PAYNTER] and the 
 Senator from South Dakota [Mr. GAMBLE], who reminded him 
 that this record shows that the committee did call the honorable 
 Mr. Shurtleff and that he did testify touching all of the most 
 important matters under investigation. 
 
 Not only did the Senator from New York complain at the 
 committee for its dereliction in respect to Mr. Shurtleff, but he 
 complained also that it did not call the Yarborough brothers; 
 and here again I find, Mr. President, a circumstance which com- 
 pels me to believe that the Senator from New York relied upon 
 somebody else to examine the record for him, because a lawyer 
 of his great ability and of his accuracy could not have over- 
 looked the fact that this record makes its own explanation of 
 why the Yarborough brothers were not called. Those witnesses 
 were called on the trial of Lee O'Neil Browne, and they swore, 
 corroborating White, that they were in White's room on the 
 night of May 24 when Browne called there and took White to 
 his own apartments, where he made the corrupt contract with 
 him for White's vote. 
 
 After Sidney Yarborough had sworn to that as a fact, the 
 defense called a number of witnesses who overwhelmingly 
 contradicted him. One of those witnesses was a Mrs. Ella Gloss, 
 who swore that on the night of the 24th of May which was the 
 night of which White swore before the committee that Yar- 
 borough was in his room and the night on which Yarborough 
 himself had sworn before the court that he was in^White's room 
 at Springfield Sidney Yarborough took supper in her home; 
 that he took breakfast there the next morning; that he went to 
 Wheaton that day, returned that night, and left Chicago on the 
 night of the 25th day of May for the city of Springfield. 
 
 The learned attorney in that case interrogated Mrs. Gloss, 
 as he did before the committee, about Yarborough's other visits 
 to her home. She said that he had visited her home at other 
 80595 9673
 
 times, and when asked to specify them she could not do so. I 
 freely say to the Senate that when she could remember this par- 
 ticular time and could not remember the other times, it strongly 
 discredited her testimony with me. But finally they asked her 
 how it happened that she could remember this particular visit 
 and fix the day, but could not recall the other Visits of Yar- 
 borough to her home; and then she satisfactorily explained it 
 by saying that it was the day before her boy's birthday and that 
 the little fellow had been begging her for a baseball bat and a 
 baseball mitt, and Mr. Yarborough gave him 25 cents that morn- 
 ing with which to buy the baseball mitt the next day. Mr. 
 President, no man needs any further confirmation of that good 
 woman's story, because she locates the day by a circumstance 
 which never fails a woman's memory. 
 
 But, sir, that was not all. The defense called the husband 
 of Mrs. Gloss, and he corroborated his wife's testimony. They 
 also called a street car conductor by the name of Bell, who 
 testified that he met Gloss and Sidney Yarborough on Monday, 
 the 24th day of May, as Gloss and Yarborough were on their 
 way to Gloss's home. In order to discredit Bell they demanded 
 of him to identify Yarborough in the crowded courtroom and 
 he did it. 
 
 Mrs. Gloss had testified that at her table Sidney Yarborough 
 had declared that his railroad fare did not cost him anything, as 
 he rode on the pass of Charles White, who is the principal wit- 
 ness in this case, and who had known Sidney Yarborough when 
 they both lived at O'Fallon, 111. The conductor of the Illinois 
 Central Railroad train which left Chicago at 10 o'clock on the 
 night of the 25th of May was called, and identified a coupon 
 pass which he had punched and taken up on his train that night. 
 The clerk of the assistant to the president of the Illinois Cen- 
 tral Railroad was called and required to bring into the court the 
 coupon passes which had been issued to and used in the name of 
 Charles White. He brought 41 of them, and he was required 
 to lay those coupons on a table in the open court with their 
 faces down, so that no one could see the date, and only the sig- 
 nature on the back of each would be exposed. They called on 
 Mr. Gloss, who claimed to know the handwriting of Sidney 
 Yarborough, to pick out of these 41 coupon passes bearing the 
 name of Charles White the one signed by Sidney Yarborough. 
 Gloss picked a particular coupon, and when they turned its 
 face over it was the very one which had been used on the 
 Illinois Central Railroad on the night of the 25th of May, thus 
 corroborating Mr. and Mrs. Gloss, and contradicting absolutely 
 and beyond all question the testimony of Sidney Yarborough. 
 
 But, Mr. President, there is still another circumstance which 
 I am surprised that the Senator from New York has overlooked. 
 When they had White on the stand and under direct examina- 
 tion they did not ask him who was in his room that night when 
 Browne repaired to his apartments for the purpose of making 
 the bribery contract with him. They had asked him that ques- 
 tion on the trial of Browne, and he had answered that the Yar- 
 borough brothers were in his room; but he had been so com- 
 pletely discredited and contradicted that the attorneys for the 
 petitioners in this case did not dare to repeat that question; and 
 when the attorney for Senator LORIMER asked him who was in 
 80595 9G73
 
 his room the attorney for the petitioner objected. Exactly how 
 he could have expected his objection to be sustained I have 
 not been able to understand, because it was clearly compe- 
 tent under the strictest rules of evidence; and over the pro- 
 test of the attorney for the prosecution White answered the 
 question, and again said that the Yarboroughs, both Otis and 
 Sidney, were in his room. Then Gloss and Mrs. Gloss, and Bell, 
 the street car conductor, and the conductor of the Illinois Cen- 
 tral Railroad, and the clerk of the assistant to the president of 
 the Illinois Central Railroad were all called and testified before 
 this committee what I have just related. 
 
 Mr. President, could any Senator complain at the committee 
 for not calling a witness like that and under those circum- 
 stances? The prosecution called him in the court below, and he 
 was so thoroughly discredited that they abandoned him. But 
 when White was compelled to answer that question before the 
 committee, he perfectly understood that if he made a different 
 answer he would be contradicted by his testimony given in the 
 court on the Browne trial, and though he knew that he would 
 then be contradicted by other witnesses he thought that better 
 than to be contradicted by his own testimony. He therefore 
 swore that the Yarboroughs were in his room and he was 
 again contradicted, as he and Yarborough both had been on 
 the Browne trial. If there were any need to call Sidney Yar- 
 borough, it certainly did not rest with the committee or with 
 Senator LORIMER. 
 
 The Senator from New York also complained that this com- 
 mittee did not call the clerk of the Holstlaw Bank, at luka, 111. ; 
 and in all fairness I must say that if I had been a member of 
 the subcommittee and had known what I now know I would 
 have thought it important to call the officers of that bank. But 
 as the record was then made up I might not have deemed it 
 important. 
 
 THE TESTIMONY. 
 
 The Senators on the committee who have preceded me have 
 reviewed the testimony with such ability and with such clear- 
 ness that I would not deem it necessary to occupy the attention 
 of the Senate in repeating any of the things which they have 
 said, except for the fact that it has been misstated in a way 
 which, to say the least, is most remarkable, when we remember 
 that Senators were speaking from a printed record. I easily 
 understand that lawyers engaged in the trial of a case, and 
 hearing the testimony as it falls from the lips of witnesses, 
 when they come to discuss it before the court may differ about 
 it; but in a case like this, where the words as they fell from 
 the lips of the witnesses were taken down by a stenographer, 
 transcribed and then reduced to print, it passes my compre- 
 hension, sir, how Senators could have misstated it. Yet 
 these speeches have been delivered here, impeaching the right of 
 Senator LORIMER to his seat, are filled with misleading ex- 
 tracts from the testimony, as I shall abundantly show before I 
 conclude. 
 
 In discussing the testimony I shall, following the order pur- 
 sued by Senators on the other side, first consider the testi- 
 mony of the three members of the legislature who were, ac- 
 cording to the Senator from New York, "approached." The 
 80595 9673
 
 first witness the Senator from New York produced in support 
 of this general and wholesale charge of bribery was a member of 
 the legislature by the name of Groves, of whom he speaks as 
 follows : 
 
 Mr. Groves, a reputable and unimpeached witness, testified that 
 shortly before the election a former member of the legislature came to 
 his room in the hotel, approached him upon the subject of voting for 
 Mr. LORIMER, and said to him "It might be a good thing for both of 
 us." Groves retorted that "there is not money enough hi Springfield 
 to buy my vote for LOEIMEE." 
 
 Groves does testify to such a circumstance, but I want to 
 show the Senate what else this "reputable and unimpeached 
 witness" swore to, and then I will leave the Senator from New 
 York to take care of his reputation. On page 416 of this record 
 Groves testified : 
 
 Q. State what, if any, conversation you had with Terrill? A. Mr. 
 Terrill told me he got a thousand dollars for voting for LORIMER. 
 
 After Groves left the stand, Terrill was called and swore that 
 he did not vote for LORIMER at all; that he had voted for Hop- 
 kins for 18 ballots, and then left Hopkins and voted for Lawrence 
 Y. Sherman until the last two ballots, when he again returned to 
 Hopkins. 
 
 The next morning Groves appeared at the committee room 
 and asked to correct his testimony, and he then said that what 
 he had sworn or that what he intended to swear was that 
 Terrill told him that "there was a thousand dollars or some- 
 thing like that in sight if he would vote for LORIMER." Groves 
 testified a third time that Terrill had told him that he "could 
 have earned a thousand dollars by voting for LORIMER." Groves 
 also testified to a conversation with Representative Shaw, which 
 I think the latter's testimony abundantly contradicts. Mr. 
 President, if any Senator wants to vouch for a witness who 
 swears as recklessly as that, he can have a monopoly on that 
 proceeding. 
 
 The next witness introduced to us by the Senator from New 
 York is Mr. Terrill, for whom he also vouches as "unimpeached 
 and reputable." 
 
 I will show you how unimpeached and how reputable Terrill 
 was. Terrill swears that he asked a man by the name of 
 Griffin, who solicited him to vote for LORIMER, what there was 
 in it, and that Griffin told him, "There is a thousand dollars 
 anyway." Griffin swears distinctly, pointedly and ^unequivo- 
 cally that he never told Terrill any such thing. That is Griffin's 
 oath against Terrill's oath. It is the oath of a man who swears 
 that he did not offer a bribe as against the oath of a man who 
 solicited a bribe, although it is fair to say that Terrill testified 
 that when he asked "what there was in it," he was actuated by 
 curiosity and not by avarice. 
 
 Mr. President, any man who will take this testimony and read 
 what Griffin said and read who Griffin is would never belreve 
 that he was sent out to bribe anybody. But that is not all; 
 that is not the end of this "reputable and unimpeached wit- 
 ness." They asked Terrill, who testified that he had gone to the 
 support of Sherman, if it were not true that he went to Sher- 
 man as a sort of a decoy, pretending to be for him, so that 
 having secured the good will of the Sherman men he might 
 lead some of them back to the support of Hopkins, and he 
 80595 9673
 
 mildly admitted the charge. I will read to the Senate these 
 questions and the answers: 
 
 Q. You were an adherent of former Senator Hopkins, weren't you? 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. And yon were there actively and energetically for him, weren't 
 you? A. I voted the first 18 times for Senator Hopkins. From that 
 I went to Lawrence Y. Sherman, and stayed there until the last two 
 ballots, and then went back to Senator Hopkins. 
 
 Q. Well, you were all of the time an adherent of former Senator 
 Hopkins, even when you were voting for Lawrence Sherman? A. Yes, 
 sir ; I was. 
 
 Q. You changed your voting to Sherman to try and draw somebody 
 else out from there, from the parties they were voting for, so that you 
 might induce them to go to Hopkins when you went; is that not a 
 fact? A. Yes; that is partially true; yes, sir. 
 
 Q. And there never was a time when you were not a strong, active, 
 energetic, and strenuous adherent of Senator Hopkins? A. That is 
 true. 
 
 Thus this "reputable and unimpeached witness" admits under 
 oath that he was in the Sherman camp as a spy, or at least as a 
 decoy. Mr. President, if men of that kind are to be received as 
 refutable and unimpeached witnesses, I have nothing to say 
 about poor White. He was a degenerate; but if a decoy and a 
 spy is to be received as a reputable and unimpeached witness, 
 then poor White may have some excuse for his infamous mis- 
 conduct. 
 
 The third man who was "approached," according to the Sen- 
 ator from New York, was Mr. Meyers, a Democratic member of 
 the house. The testimony upon which that charge is predi- 
 cated is this : Mr. Meyers swore that just before the roll call 
 on which LORIMER was elected, Lee O'Neil Browne sent for him; 
 that he went to Browne's seat, and that Browne urged him to 
 vote for LORIMER. Meyers also swears that Browne said to him 
 that "there are some good State jobs to give away and the 
 ready necessary." Meyers further swears that he understood 
 "the ready necessary" to mean that there was money for him 
 if he would vote* for LORIMER. 
 
 Mr. President, I do not believe what Meyers says, for two 
 reasons. In the first place, it is wholly incredible that Browne 
 would call a member of the legislature to his desk, and there in 
 full view of everybody attempt to bribe him. The joint as- 
 sembly was in open session, and if Meyers could hear the 
 offer of a bribe, so could all of those about him. That, sir, 
 is not the way a corruptionist would operate. In the second 
 place, I do not believe what Meyers has said, because his an- 
 swer, and his only answer was, "I can't help it; I can't go 
 with you." Is that the answer which an honest man would 
 make to an attempt to bribe him? There on the floor of the 
 Illinois legislature, in full view of all the assembled people, is 
 that the kind of an answer which an honest man would make 
 to an attempt upon his honor? 
 
 George W. Alschuler, who sat one row behind Lee O Neil 
 Browne and three seats to the left of him, swears that he was 
 watching Browne at that critical moment, and that Meyers did 
 not go to his seat. If there were no testimony about it, if 
 Browne did not deny it and he does deny it in the most em- 
 phatic terms if Alschuler did not say it was not true, if a 
 page assigned to duty at Browne's desk, and who stood there 
 through a roll call recording the vote, did not swear that Meyers 
 did not go there, I would not believe him or any other man on 
 80595 9673
 
 8 
 
 earth, whose only answer to an attempt to bribe him was : 
 "I can't go with you." 
 
 Mr. President, I now dismiss those three witnesses upon whose 
 integrity these attempts were made and come to White, Link, 
 Beckemeyer and Holstlaw, who are so often described as the 
 men who have admitted that they were bribed to vote for 
 LORIMER; which is not true as to all of them, as I will show 
 before I resume my seat. 
 
 WHITE. 
 
 The first witness called before the committee was Charles A. 
 White, whose testimony I do not intend to review. By his 
 own confession he is a perjurer and a bribe taker; and while 
 such a man might tell the truth, it would be purely accidental 
 if he did. The only thing I intend to do with reference to 
 White's testimony is to show that it is flatly contradicted by 
 reputable and unimpeached witnesses. 
 
 Recognizing that his story needed corroboration, White sought 
 to corroborate it by locating two of his friends in his room on 
 the night of the 24th of May when Browne went there for the 
 purpose of corrupting him; and in order to give the story the 
 appearance of truth, he even testified to certain comments made 
 by Mr. Browne upon the occupancy of that small room by 
 three men. I have already, in another connection, shown that 
 White's story with respect to the Yarboroughs being in his room 
 was proved to be so utterly false that even the prosecution itself, 
 after one experience -with it in on the trial of Browne, wholly 
 abandoned it. White's* testimony is not only discredited 
 by the exposure of his falsehood with respect to the presence 
 of the Yarboroughs in his room on the night of May 24, but 
 it is further discredited by a conversation which he had with 
 Homer E. Shaw before the election of LORIMER, and also by a 
 conversation which he had with Mr. Thomas Curran after the 
 election of Mr. LORIMER. The Senate will remember that White 
 testified that he was induced to vote for LORIMER by a compen- 
 sation which Browne promised him on the night of the 24th 
 of May, though the exact amount was not agreed on until the 
 next night, when White says he returned to Browne for a con- 
 ference in order that a definite sum should be agreed on. 
 Against this testimony of White stands the testimony of Homer 
 E. Shaw, and, Mr. President, I will go out of my way to volun- 
 teer the statement that so far as I can judge by the printed 
 page, a more intelligent and a more truthful witness did not ap- 
 pear before the committee. This is the same Shaw also about 
 whom the Senator from New York made another mistake when 
 he declared that 
 
 Mr. Groves testifies also to a conversation before the election with 
 Mr. Shaw, one of the men who voted for Mr. LORIMER, who was then 
 about to vote for Mr. LORIMER, In which Mr. Groves, his suspicions 
 excited by the attempt made upon him 
 
 That statement is another evidence that the Senator from 
 New York did not examine this record with that care which 
 the importance of our decision demands. I again say that I 
 know he would not misstate the testimony of any witness or 
 misrepresent the vote of any member of the legislature ; and yet, 
 sir, Shaw did not vote for LORIMER, and so distinctly testified 
 when he was on the witness stand. In order that there may be 
 80595 9673
 
 no mistake about that, let me read the very first questions he 
 was asked and to which he replied: 
 
 Mr. AUSTRIAN. What Is you full name, please? A. Homer E. Shaw. 
 
 Q. Where do you reside? A. Bement, 111. 
 
 Q. What is your business, Mr. Shaw? A. I am a banker. 
 
 Q. Will you be kind enough to speak loud and address the chairman. 
 Were you a member of the Illinois House in the Forty-sixth General 
 Assembly? A. I was. 
 
 Q. Republican or Democrat? A. Democrat. 
 
 Q. Do you remember the election of Mr. LOEIMEE on the 26th of 
 May? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Did you vote for Mr. LOEIMEB? A. I did not. 
 
 Q. At any time were you approached with reference to voting for 
 Mr. LORIMEK at any time? A, I believe I was at one time asked If I 
 could do so. 
 
 Q. Anything further? A, No, sir. 
 
 Further on in his testimony Mr. Shaw was asked if he had 
 ever engaged in any conversation with White about the senato- 
 rial election, and he answered in the affirmative, stating that 
 the conversation in question had occurred about a week before 
 LORIMER was elected, and that he had endeavored during that 
 conversation to dissuade White from voting for LORIMER. In 
 order to avoid any question about whether or not I am accurate 
 in my statement on this particular matter, I will now read the 
 questions and answers:' 
 
 Q. Do you know Charles A. White? A. I do. 
 
 Q. A member of the same legislature? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 <Q. Did you have a talk with him before the election of WILLIAM 
 LCRIMER for United States Senator? A. I did. 
 
 Q. When? A. Well, I would not attempt to fix the date, but mj 
 recollection is about a week before. 
 
 Q. What was the conversation ? A. The conversation was the mat- 
 ter came up something came up, as I remember it now, it is quite a 
 little while ago, and I would not like to state positively just the nature 
 of it, but I think that White made this remark to me : That if he got a 
 chance to vote for BILL LORIMER for Senator he was going to do it. 
 
 Q. What was the rest of it? A. Shall I go ahead and state it all? 
 
 Q. Yes ; tell what he said to you and what you said to him. A. I 
 said to him, "Charlie, I think you will make a great mistake if you do 
 anything of the sort." I said, "You know you are a young man ; you 
 are new in your district, and undoubtedly stand high with the people 
 down there or they would not have put you here, and I believe it will be 
 your political death if you do anything of that sort," and I told him 
 what I thought would be the condition down thefe in O'Fallon, where 
 he came from, if he did do this. I told him I did not believe his best 
 oolitical friends would speak to him when he went home, and I re- 
 member that he made the remark that he "didn't care a damn," but 
 that he "intended to do it if he got the chance." This, to my best 
 recollection, was about a week before. 
 
 Q. Did you say anything to him about the locality from which he 
 came being in southern Ilnnois, and a strong Democratic district? A. 
 I did. I mentioned the fact to him that his people were largely foreign ; 
 they were French. German, and Irish, very largely. 
 
 Q. Did you talk to Mr. White after that? A. I did. 
 
 Shaw's testimony, as I have just recited, conclusively dis- 
 proves White's statement that he was influenced to vote for LORI- 
 MER by Browne's promise to pay him for his vote, made on the 
 night of the 24th day of May. But, Mr. President, not only 
 does this conversation with Shaw before LORIMER was elected 
 establish the perjury of White, but the very day after the 
 election he made statements to Mr. Thomas Curran wHch are 
 equally as conclusive of his perjury. Mr. Curran was chairman 
 of the committee on Labor and Industrial Affairs and a Repub- 
 lican. He swears that on the day after Mr. LORIMER was elected 
 to the Senate he met White in the corridor of the statehoiise at 
 Spriqgfield and that among other things White asked him if 
 80595 9673
 
 10 
 
 "there was anything doing in that senatorship election of 
 LORIMER yesterday," and expressed a belief that he had been 
 "double-crossed." In order that Senators may have before 
 them the exact language, I will read the questions and answers : 
 
 Q. At the same time and at the same conversation did White say to 
 you, "Was there anything doing on that senatorshlp election of 
 LORIMER yesterday?" A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. And did you say, "Not that I know of. I heard of nothing of 
 the kind. You are a Democrat and voted for him, and you ought to 
 know if there was. Why do you ask?" A. Yes, sir; that was our 
 conversation. 
 
 Q. Did White then say to you, "Well, I don't know ; I thought there 
 was. I thought that Browne was double crossing us. I thought I was 
 being double crossed." A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Did you say, "I know nothing about It at all? I have heard 
 nothing?" A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Here we find this man White the very day after the election 
 inquiring of another member of the legislature, a Republican, 
 who had also voted for LORIMER, whether "there was anything 
 doing," and complaining that he thought he had been "double- 
 crossed." Does not this, Mr. President, assuming that Curran 
 swore the truth, show that White perjured himself when he 
 swore that Browne had promised to pay him a thousand dollars 
 to vote for LORIMER? If Browne had made such a promise as 
 that White would not have been in the corridors of the 
 capitol asking if there "was anything doing" and complaining 
 that he had been "double-crossed." No, sir; Curran's testimony 
 as to what occurred between him and White on the 27th day of 
 May is utterly irreconcilable with White's testimony as to what 
 occurred between him and Browne on the night of the 24th day 
 of May. 
 
 But, Mr. President, there is additional testimony to disp'rove 
 what White has said. Two witnesses, a Mr. Stermer, the 
 assistant manager of the Briggs House in Chicago, and a Mr. 
 Zentner, who is a traveling salesman, both testified to a state- 
 ment which White made to them in the barroom of the Briggs 
 House on the 19th of August, 1909. In that conversation White 
 indicated his plan to blackmail LORIMER, and in reply to the 
 direct question, if he had anything on them, admitted that he 
 did not, but said: 
 
 I voted for LOBIMER, and I am a Democrat, and I can say I got 
 money for voting for LORIMER. Do you suppose they can stand for it 
 a moment? I guess they will cough up when I say the word to them. 
 
 Although, Mr. President, there is nothing in this record to 
 impeach the character or veracity of either Stermer or Zentner, 
 and although their occupations are useful and honorable, and 
 although their story, taken in connection with what we know of 
 White and what he had said to others, is in itself entirely probable, 
 still, sir, the Senator from Iowa [Mr. CUMMINS] has declared 
 that he does not believe one word of their testimony and gave 
 his reason for disbelieving it. Let me read to the Senate ex- 
 actly what the Senator from Iowa said: 
 
 The next contradiction comes from Stermer and Zentner. Stenner, 
 you will remember, was the companion of Mr. Browne and Mr. White 
 upon these visits across the lake ; visits which consumed a large part 
 of these profits, not only from the ordinary Jack pot, bat from the elec- 
 tion of Mr. LORIMER as well. 
 
 The Senator from Iowa read that testimony so hastily that he 
 described Stermer as the man who took the trip across the 
 805959673
 
 11 
 
 lake with White and Browne, though the testimony distinctly 
 shows that it was Zentner. That, however, is not vital, and 
 the important part of the Senator's statement is found in what 
 follows, when he said: 
 
 They say, and this is the only materiality of their testimony, that 
 one day after Mr. White and Mr. Browne had come back from one of 
 these trips, White was drunk, as usual, and that he said to them, after 
 reciting what he was going to do, that they then immediately asked 
 him whether he was going to turn against his friends, and then asked 
 him whether he had anything on them, and he said, "No, I have noth- 
 ing on them, but I am out for what is in it for White." 
 
 I do not believe a word of that evidence for two reasons. In the 
 first place, the testimony shows that it was repeated word for word 
 without variation by the two men. More than that, it was repeated 
 word for word before the committee as it was given at one of the trials 
 of Mr. Browne on his indictment for bribery. Every man here knows 
 that that can not be honestly done. It has been attempted a great 
 many times. I have seen it attempted a great many times, and I never 
 saw it succeeed. 
 
 I was following the argument of the Senator from Iowa 
 closely when he made that declaration, and I felt impatient 
 at myself to think that I had overlooked the circumstance which 
 he then related. I thoroughly agreed with him in thinking 
 that no statements of the same transaction, made by two 
 different men, were apt to be word for word alike unless 
 they had been reduced to writing and committed to memory. 
 I therefore felt vexed at myself for having attached much 
 weight to the testimony of Stermer and Zentner. Without 
 any thought that I would find the statement of the Senator 
 from Iowa incorrect, and purely with the expectation of hav- 
 ing it confirmed, the very first thing I did that night when I 
 sat down at my table to work, was to take this volume of evi- 
 dence and turn to the testimony of Stermer and Zentner. You 
 can hardly imagine my surprise sir, when I found that, so far 
 from the two statements being identical, word for word, there 
 were just such discrepancies between them as tended to give 
 them credibility, and in order that the Senate may now see 
 how badly mistaken the Senator from Iowa was in that most 
 confident assertion, I will point out several instances in which 
 the two statements differ. 
 
 Stermer's statement appears on page 533 of the printed testi- 
 mony and Zentner's on page 541. In the second line of Stermer's 
 statement he says White declared that he "was going to take 
 a big trip in the fall and winter," while Zentner represents 
 White as saying that he was "going to take a trip that fall." 
 Zentner omits the adjective "big," which was used by Ster- 
 mer, and also omits the words "and winter." Again, in the 
 very next clause of the same sentence Stermer declares that 
 White said that 
 
 First, he was going to his home, to his home In O'Fallon, and from 
 there he was going to New Orleans, from New Orleans to Cuba, from 
 Cuba to New York City, where he expected to have a big time, and 
 then he would come back home again. 
 
 As Zentner repeats White's statement, it was that 
 
 He was going to his home, in O'Fallon, down to New Orleans, over 
 to Cuba, up to New York, where he was going to have a good time, and 
 then he was going home. 
 
 There are no less than 10 differences in this part of a single 
 sentence, and similar immaterial discrepancies run through 
 every sentence. A close examination of those statements, in- 
 805959673
 
 12 
 
 stead of discrediting Stermer and Zentner, will serve to 
 strengthen and fortify their testimony, and I am sure that the 
 Senator from Iowa, after having his attention directed to his 
 mistake, will cheerfully withdraw his serious reflection upon 
 those two witnesses; and in order that he may see his mistake 
 I will here reproduce the two statements : 
 STERMER'S STATEMENT. 
 
 Q. Will you just repeat the conversation once more? A. He said 
 he was going to take a big trip in the fall and winter ; that first he 
 was going home, to his home in O'Fallon, and from there he was 
 going to New Orleans, from New Orleans to Cuba, from Cuba to New 
 York City, where he expected to have a big time, and then he would 
 come back home again. One of us asked him, or said to him, rather, 
 that he must have a lot of money to take a trip of that kind. He 
 said that he didn't have the money, but he was going to get it, and 
 he said he was going to get it without working for it, too. Mr. 
 Zentner asked him how he was going to do that. Well, he says : 
 "That LOEIMER crowd and our old friend, Browne, has got to 'come 
 across' good and strong with me when I say the word, and I am going 
 to say it, too." Mr. Zentner asked him if he had anything on him, or 
 them, rather. He says, "No, he hadn't." He said he got the worst 
 of it at Springfield, but that didn't make no difference, he was a 
 Democrat, and had voted for LORIMER, and he could say that he got 
 money for it. He said : "Do you think they could stand for that 
 game?" Mr. Zentner said: "My God, you wouldn't treat Browne 
 that way, would you?" "Well," he said, "I am looking out for 
 White, and besides," he said, "Browne wouldn't have to pay ; the 
 bunch back of him would have to do that ; it wouldn't hurt Browne." 
 That is about all that was said at that time. 
 
 ZENTNER'S STATEMENT. 
 
 Q. Now, will you tell this committee exactly that conversation, as 
 you remember it, and as you have testified to it on the two Browne 
 trials? A. The entire conversation? 
 
 Q. Yes, sir. A. We were talking about this trip that we just re- 
 turned from, from Michigan. We had been over to Michigan, and the 
 little experiences, numerous experiences that happened on this trip, 
 we were relating them to Mr. Stermer, and Mr. Brown said, or Mr. 
 White said, then, he was going to take a trip that fall, he was going 
 to his home in O'Fallon, down to New Orleans, over to Cuba, and up 
 to New York, where he was going to have a good time, and then he 
 was going home, and one of us asked him, we said, "You must have 
 quite a lot of money to make a trip like that, haven't you, Mr. 
 White?" He said, "No; I haven't, but I'm going to get it, and I 
 am going to get it without working, too." I asked him then, I said, 
 "How are you going to do that?" "Well," he said, "You know that 
 LORIMER crowd and their old pal Browne will have to 'come across' 
 when I say the word, and I am going to say it, too." I asked him 
 then what he meant; I said, "What do you mean?" "Well," he 
 said, "I got the worst of it down at Springfield. I am a Democrat and 
 I voted for LORIMER and I can say I got money for it, can't I? 
 Can they stand for that kind of game?" I said, "God, you wouldn't 
 treat Browne that way?" White said, "No; I am looking out for 
 White, and besides Browne wouldn't have to stand for it, anyway ; it 
 would be the bunch behind him." And that was about all the conver- 
 sation. About 1 o'clock they closed the bar, promptly at 1, and we 
 went out in the lobby of the hotel then and left Mr. Stermer. 
 
 Mr. President, with these statements before the Senate, I 
 will leave White to the contempt which he has richly earned, 
 and I will proceed to consider the testimony of Link. 
 
 LINK. 
 
 But before I call attention to that part of it which I con- 
 sider pertinent to this discussion it is proper for me to remind 
 the Senate that both Link and Beckemeyer have been used to 
 corroborate White, and, if we accept their testimony as true, 
 they have corroborated him with respect to the payment of 
 $1,000 at one time and $900 at another time. It will be re- 
 membered by those who have read the testimony that when 
 White offered his story to the Chicago Tribune he was asked if 
 805959673
 
 13 
 
 there were any members of the legislature who would corrobo- 
 rate it. This question makes it plain, sir, that those who were 
 dealing with White and offering him a price to advertise his in- 
 famy to the world understood the necessity of supporting his 
 testimony. White himself swears that while the Tribune people 
 were negotiating with him for his story they asked him if he 
 could be corroborated, as appears from these questions and 
 answers : 
 
 Q At any time ; if you took it in there and left it and walked out, 
 and then went back again, that is the time I want ; the first conver- 
 sation you had with him after he knew what it was. A. I could not 
 quote the first conversation verbatim, but he asked me if there were any 
 of the members who would corroborate my story, and I told him I had 
 no one's corrobbration except my own story. 
 
 Q. Do you mean cooperation or corroboration 1 A. Corroboration. 
 
 Q. Cooperation? A. No, sir; corroboration. 
 
 Q. Corroboration? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 The importance, Mr. President, of this matter is that it em- 
 phasizes the Chicago Tribune's understanding that White's 
 story uncorroborated would impress no intelligent person, and 
 they therefore stipulated in their contract with him that he 
 should devote himself, so far as called upon by the Tribune 
 people, to the work of corroborating his story. It was to meet 
 the necessity for this corroboration that Link and Beckemeyer 
 were finally prevailed upon to swear that they had received 
 money in sums which corresponded to the payments which 
 White swears were made to him. 
 
 Sir, I have my own. theory of Link's testimony with reference 
 to the $1,000 and the $900 which he said were paid to him in 
 St. Louis on two different occasions. The testimony shows 
 that Link was brought to the city of Chicago, and carried be- 
 fore the grand jury of Cook county, but did not furnish the tes- 
 timony which the State's Attorney desired. That testimony, 
 according to Link's statement, was that he should affirmatively 
 answer just two questions the one that he had received 
 $1,000 from Browne and the other that he had received $900 
 from Wilson. When before the grand jury the first time Link 
 would not give that testimony, and they called him back the 
 second time to the grand jury room, and still he would not 
 testify as the State's Attorney wanted him to do, and then they 
 indicted him for perjury. With this indictment in their hands, 
 they drew a picture of his home on one side and of the peni- 
 tentiary on the other. They told him that if he would swear 
 as they wanted him to swear they would dismiss the indictment 
 for perjury and let him go home a free man without any 
 charges resting against him. But they told him that if he did 
 not testify as they desired, they would send him to the peni- 
 tentiary and that he would lose his farm, and even lose his 
 wife. Standing there with the door of the penitentiary opening 
 before him, harried and distracted by the power and the threats 
 of the State's Attorney, he finally yielded and cried out in the 
 anguish of his narrow soul, "If I must tell a lie, I will do it, but 
 I do not want to dp it." In that frame of mind they took the 
 wretched man a third time before the grand jury, and he then 
 gave the testimony which has since obliged him to corroborate. 
 White, at least as to these* two payments of money. 
 
 But, sir, although Link does swear that at one time he re- 
 ceived $1,000 from Browne and at another time he received 
 80595 9673
 
 14 
 
 $900 from Wilson, he also swears distinctly and repeatedly that 
 not one dollar of either sum was promised to him or paid to 
 him on account of his vote for LORIMER. Here are his answers 
 as they appear on page 301 of the printed testimony: 
 
 Q. Did you ever receive any money or any other thing of value 
 from anybody Browne, Wilson, or anybody else on condition, or on 
 the promise or agreement or understanding, directly or indirectly, that 
 you were to vote for WILLIAM LORIMER for United States Senator? 
 A. I certainly did not. 
 
 Senator GAMBLE. Or after he had voted for LORIMER. 
 
 Q. Did you ever receive any money from Lee O'Neil Browne, Bob 
 Wilson, or R. E. Wilson, whatever his name is, or anybody else, or from 
 any source whatever, or did you receive any other thing of value at 
 any time from anybody because you had voted for WILLIAM LORIMER 
 for United States Senator? A. No. sir. 
 
 Q. Was there ever any consideration moving to you, or to anybody 
 for you, or for your benefit, in any place, from any source whatever, 
 with the understanding that you were to vote for WILLIAM LORIMER 
 for United States Senator, or if you had voted for WILLIAM LORIMER 
 for United States Senator, any consideration of any kind? A. None 
 whatever. 
 
 BECKEMEYER. 
 
 I come now to the witness, Beckemeyer, who swears most 
 positively that he was not promised anything as an inducement 
 to vote for LORIMER. On page 234 of the printed testimony he 
 was asked this question : 
 
 Did Lee O'Neil Browne, at any time or at any place before Senator 
 LORIMER was elected on the 26th day of May, 1909, ever tell you that 
 he or anybody else would give you any money or other thing of value 
 afterwards if you did vote for Senator LORIMER? 
 
 And he answered: 
 
 No. sir. 
 
 Again he was asked: 
 
 Was there anything in the way of money or compensation or any- 
 thing of value that was held out to you o:- promised to you or indicated 
 to you in any way by Browne or anybody else or from any other source 
 to induce you in any degree to vote for WILLIAM LORIMER for United 
 States Senator on the 26th day of May, 1909? 
 
 And the answer was: 
 No ; there was not. 
 
 But while Beckemeyer swears that they did not promise him 
 anything to vote for LORIMER, he also swears that afterwards 
 Browne gave him a thousand dollars and told him it was 
 "Lorimer money." Beckemeyer, like Link, was standing under 
 the shadow of the penitentiary, with its open doors ready to 
 close around him, and he was promised immunity if he would 
 swear that he received a thousand dollars from Browne and 
 $900 from Wilson, thus corroborating the creature White, as 
 Link had been compelled to do. Testimony delivered under 
 those circumstances I do not consider of any value. I am per- 
 suaded that a man who accepts a bribe could be hired to say 
 that he had been paid when such was not the truth. A rich and 
 powerful combination, bent upon the destruction of any public 
 man, would find such men their willing tools and they would 
 swear anything for a price. If a seat in the Senate is to be 
 vacated upon the testimony of such men then > no man is safe, 
 for every man has rich and unscrupulous enemies who can hire, 
 and, if given a hope of success, will hire such wretches to swear 
 away his rights and character. 
 
 There was one other member of the house by the natfie of 
 Luke, whose vote it is sought to impeach by testimony other 
 805959673
 
 15 
 
 than that of White, Link and Beckemeyer. He was dead, but 
 his wife was called as a witness, and so careful a lawyer as 
 the Senator from Idaho [Mr. BORAH] has misstated the testi- 
 mony with respect to him ; for in his speech he leaves the im- 
 pression that Mrs. Luke testified that when her husband re- 
 turned from that meeting at St. Louis, where they say the 
 corruption fund was distributed, he had $950 in his possession. 
 Let me read what the Senator from Idaho [Mr. BORAH] said: 
 
 One other witness, Mr. Luke, was also present on these occasions. 
 Mr. Luke is dead. His wife testified that he received a telegram on one 
 occasion ; that he went away, and that when he came back he had 
 $950 in his possession. I think that Mr. Murray ought to have been 
 permitted to testify as to what Mr. Luke said to him ; but he was not, 
 and we are therefore confined to the proposition that Mr. Luke was 
 present at least upon one occasion ; that he returned with about the 
 amount of money which was being paid, and that he cast his vote for 
 the first time in harmony with those who are admitted to have received 
 the several sums of money to which I have referred. 
 
 Mr. BORAH. Mr. President 
 
 The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from 
 Texas yield to the Senator from Idaho? 
 
 Mr. BAILEY. Yes. 
 
 Mr. BORAH. In what respect did the Senator from Idaho 
 misstate Mrs. Luke's statement? 
 
 Mr. BAILEY. In this respect, and I think when I have 
 pointed it out the Senator from Idaho will ask kave to correct 
 the RECORD. If the Senator from Idaho will turn to the testi- 
 mony of Mrs. Luke he will find that, pointedly and unequivo- 
 cally, she swears that when Luke returned from St. Louis 
 he did not show her any money. She swears that he exhibited 
 to her the $950 before he went to that meeting at St. Louis. 
 
 Mr. BORAH. The Senator inserts something into my re- 
 marks that I did not say and was very careful not to say. I 
 did not say that Mrs. Luke said that after his return from 
 St. Louis he had $950, and the RECORD does not bear that 
 statement. I said that upon one occasion at least he was 
 present, and Mrs. Luke said that he received a telegram and 
 returned home at one time with $950. And the RECORD is in 
 precisely that language. 
 
 Mr. BAILEY. I am willing to leave the question between us 
 to the cold print. I regret, however, that the Senator says he 
 was careful in framing that statement, because th^at looks like 
 he desired, without actually saying so himself, to mislead the 
 superficial reader into thinking that Mrs. Luke swore that her 
 husband had this money in his possession after he returned 
 from the St. Louis meeting. Mr. President, the Senator from 
 Idaho says that I have inserted "something into his remarks 
 and that he did not say it;" but the Senator is as badly mis- 
 taken about that as he is about Mrs. Luke's testimony. In the 
 third sentence of the paragraph which I have quoted, the Sena- 
 tor from Idaho says : 
 
 His wife testified that he received a telegram on one occasion ; that 
 he went away and that when he came back he had $950 in his pos- 
 session. 
 
 Now, sir, according to all the rules of construction, and in- 
 deed, according to his very words, the Senator from Idaho has 
 said that when Luke came back from the St. Louis meeting to 
 which he had been called by a telegram, he had $950 in his pos- 
 session. The testimony of Mrs. Luke, however, is that she saw 
 805959673
 
 16 
 
 $950 in her husband's possession before he went to St. Louis in 
 response to that telegram, and that she saw nothing in his pos- 
 session when he returned from the St. Louis meeting. 
 
 When the Senator from Idaho says that Luke was present 
 on at least one occasion and that he returned with $950 in his 
 possession, he must mean, of course, that he returned from a 
 St. Louis meeting with $950, because it was the meetings at St. 
 Louis which the Senator was then discussing. 
 
 Mr. BORAH. Mr. President 
 
 The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Texas 
 yield to the Senator from Idaho? 
 
 Mr. BAILEY. Yes. 
 
 Mr. BORAH. The Senator from Texas forgets that there 
 were two meetings in St. Louis. 
 
 Mr. BAILEY. No; I do not forget that. 
 
 Mr. BORAH. There was a meeting at St. Louis, and there 
 two payments made. At one time Browne conducted the dis- 
 tribution of the fund and at another time Wilson conducted 
 the distribution of the fund. 
 
 The Senator from Idaho said that upon one occasion Mr. Luke 
 was there, and the witnesses who testified to that are all the 
 witnesses who were present at St. Louis; and I say that upon 
 one occasion he was there and upon one occasion when he 
 returned she said he had $950. 
 
 Mr. BAILEY. But, Mrs. Luke distinctly said that it was 
 before her husband had been to St. Louis that she saw him with 
 $950 and that she did not see him with any money after he 
 returned from St. Louis. As Luke had received more than 
 $2,000 for his services as a member of the Illinois Legislature 
 the fact that he had $950 shortly after its adjournment is not 
 a circumstance which can fairly raise against him any presump- 
 tion of dishonesty. 
 
 Mr. GAMBLE. I suggest to the Senator from Texas I do 
 it with some timidity that he read the testimony of Mrs. Luke. 
 There can be no question about it. 
 
 Mr. BAILEY. I will ask the Senator, who has it in his 
 hand, to read it to the Senate. 
 
 Mr. GAMBLE. I quoted it. 
 
 Mr. BAILEY. I know you did. 
 
 Mr. GAMBLE. It is from page 495 of the record and reads : 
 
 Did he return to Nashville, 111., after the adjournment of the legis- 
 lature, if you know? 
 
 Nashville was the home of Luke at that time. 
 
 A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. The legislature adjourned about the 4th or 5th of June, 1909 ; 
 can you tell this committee about when he did return ; how long after 
 the adjournment of the legislature? A. Well, I suppose right away. 
 
 Q. You believed it was some time in the month of June, 1909? 
 A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Thereafter do you know whether or not he received a telegram 
 from Robert E. Wilson? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Did 'you see it? A. No; he read it to me. 
 
 Mr. AUSTRIAN. After the receipt of this telegram, did your husband 
 leave your home in Nashville? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Do you know where he went? A. He went to St. Louis. 
 
 Q. Upon his return from St. Louis, did he show you anything? 
 A.. No. 
 
 Q. Did you see anything he brought with him? A. No. 
 
 Q. Did he have any large amount of money? A. No. 
 
 Q. Did he exhibit to you any amount of money? A. No. 
 
 Q. Did you see $950 in his possession? A. I did. 
 
 Q. When? A. Before that time. 
 805959673
 
 17 
 
 Q. Before he went to St. Louis? A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Where had he been immediately before? A. I don't know. 
 
 Q. Had he been away from home? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Had he been to Chicago ? A. No. 
 
 Q. Had he been to St. Louis? A. Ne. 
 
 Q. Where had he been? A. I don't know. 
 
 That is substantially all in connection with that. It seems 
 to me absolutely and directly in line with the suggestion made 
 by the Senator from Texas. 
 
 Mr. BORAH. Mr. President 
 
 The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from 
 Texas yield to the Senator from Idaho? 
 
 Mr. BAILEY. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. BORAH. For just a moment. I do not desire to enter 
 into a controversy about the matter now, but I desire to put 
 in the RECORD, precisely in line with what has just been read 
 and in the light of the further fact, that four other witnesses 
 testified that Luke was present at St. Louis 
 
 Mr. BAILEY. There is no question about that. His wife 
 so testifies. 
 
 Mr. BORAH. His wife says she did not know where he was, 
 but he did receive a telegram, and that he had $950. 
 
 Mr. BAILEY. But she testifies that he had the $950 before, 
 and not after, the St. Louis meeting. 
 
 Mr. BORAH. But she says she does not know where he 
 went when he went away. 
 
 Mr. BAILEY. That is true. 
 
 Mr. BORAH. It is very true. 
 
 Mr. BAILEY. But that is not unusual. There is many a 
 wife who does not know where her husband has gone. 
 [Laughter.] 
 
 Mr. President, as this record is to be permanent, I want to 
 say here that I would believe that I had myself intentionally 
 misquoted the RECORD as readily as I would believe that the 
 Senator from Idaho wouJd do it. I know he would not. 
 
 Mr. BORAH. I appreciate, of course, the statement of the 
 Senator from Texas, and if I thought in the light of the evi- 
 dence which is now before the Senate, I had misquoted it, I 
 would at this time restate it for the purpose of having the 
 RECORD in future bear the correct interpretation of the evidence. 
 
 Mr. BAILEY. I am sure of that. 
 
 Mr. BORAH. I repeat that when you take Mrs. Luke's 
 testimony, the testimony of the four witnesses, the fact that 
 she said her husband received a telegram and denied havin? 
 $950, the conclusion which I drew was a perfectly legitimate one. 
 Now, I arn perfectly willing to leave the matter where the Sen- 
 ator from Texas places it ; that is, that the wife does not very 
 often know what is happening when the husband is out of sight. 
 
 HOLSTLAW. 
 
 Mr. BAILEY. But, Mr. President, there is another witness 
 upon whose testimony the prosecution relies with greater confi- 
 dence than on that of White or Link or Beckemeyer. They have 
 introduced Senator Ho?stlaw, who swears that Senator Broder- 
 ick paid him $2,500 to vote for Senator LORIMER, and they insist 
 that Holstlaw's testimony is entitled to special weight because 
 it is corroborated by a bank deposit made at the time he re- 
 ceived that money from Broderick. Holstlaw's testimony when 
 80595 9073 2
 
 18 
 
 analyzed would need corroboration, because his story on the 
 face of it is a most improbable one. Let me quote it to the 
 Senate in his own remarks. Here it is: 
 
 Q. Mr. Holstlaw, on May 26, 1909, whom did you vote for for United 
 States Senator? A. I voted for WILLIAM LORIMER. 
 
 Q. You were there in the joint session that day, then? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Q. Before voting for WILLIAM LORIMER on the 26th of May, 1005), 
 was there anything said to you by anyone about paying you for voting 
 for Mr. LOHIMEE? A. On the night before the 26th, which was thi- 
 25th, Mr. Broderick and I were talking and Mr. Broderick said to mo, 
 he said, "We are going to elect Mr. LOKIMBK to-morrow, aren't we?'* 
 1 told him, "Yes, I thought we were," and that I intended to vote for 
 him. 
 
 Q. Proceed. A. And he said he says "There is $2,500 for you." 
 
 Senator BURROWS. Said what? 
 
 A. Said "There is $2,500 for you." 
 
 Mr. AUSTRIAN. Where was that conversation? A. It was at the St. 
 Nick Hotel, on the outside of the building. 
 
 Q. What night, the night before the vote for LORIMER was taken 
 on the 26th? A. Yes, sir; on the night before. 
 
 Q. What Broderick do you refer to? A. I refer to Senator Broderick. 
 
 These are the strangest thieves that ever congregated in a 
 civilized country, if this statement of Holstlaw is to be believed. 
 I am more credulous, perhaps, than I ought to be, and 1 can be 
 easily imposed upon by any reasonable story; but, sir, I balk 
 when I am asked to believe that a bribe giver will offer $2,500 
 to a legislator who has already declared his intention of voting 
 the bribe giver's way. I have no acquaintance with such people 
 that would qualify me te understand or to explain their conduct, 
 but speaking from my limited knowledge of human nature 1 
 think it very much more probable that a bribe giver would keep 
 the money intrusted to him by his principal even after he had 
 promised it to one of his fellow corruptionists, than it is that 
 he would volunteer to pay it when there was no necessity for 
 doing so. If $2,500 were left a bribe giver to be paid over to a 
 bribe taker, the bribe giver would be more apt to keep it than 
 he would be to pay it over ; and it has never happened in the 
 history of the world that a corrupt and dishonest man has 
 volunteered to part with money left with him under such cir- 
 cumstances. 
 
 But they say that Holstlaw is corroborated by a bank trans- 
 action which has been stressed before the committee and before 
 the Senate with great effect. They ask us to believe that Hoist- 
 lav/ received this money from Broderick, because they say that 
 he deposited it that very day in a Chicago bank and that the 
 amount of his deposit corresponds exactly with the amount 
 which he says that Broderick paid him. But, sir, when Hoist- 
 law was asked the name of the bank in which he deposited that 
 money he gave the wrong name, and had to be prompted by the 
 attorney for the Tribune. Let me read those questions and 
 answers, for they are brief : 
 
 Q. What did yon do with the money? A. I took it and put it in the 
 bank. 
 
 Q. What bank? A. In the First National Bank. 
 
 Q. Do you mean the First National Bank or the State Bank of Chi- 
 cago, which ? A. I believe it is the State Bank of Chicago pardon me, 
 I believe ft was. 
 
 Q. The State Bank of Chicago? A. Yes, sir. 
 
 Now, Mr. President, it is impossible for me to believe that a 
 man who had received $2,500 and deposited it under circum- 
 stances which must have burned it into his brain as if with fire, 
 could have forgotten the name of the bank in which he denos- 
 805959673
 
 19 
 
 ited it. Not only, sir, did he forget the name of the bank in 
 which it was deposited, but a still more remarkable and inexpli- 
 cable circumstance is that the bank whose name had escaped him 
 was the correspondent of a bank which he owned and controlled 
 at luka, 111.; and, as if to make his testimony still more im- 
 probable and still more inexplicable, he testified at a subse- 
 quent stage of the investigation that he had never, before or 
 since, personally made any deposit in that bank. Having per- 
 sonally made but one deposit there, and that of money received 
 as the price of his honor, I can not believe that he would have 
 forgotten the name of the bank. 
 
 The attorney for the Chicago Tribune has treated this bank 
 deposit slip as confirming Holstlaw's testimony beyond all doubt. 
 He not only offered it in evidence, but not content with that he 
 had it photographed, and a photographic copy of it is printed 
 in his original brief. 
 
 A Mr. Newton, the chief clerk of that bank, appeared before 
 the committee, and testified that Mr. Holstlaw had personally 
 deposited this money, and that he, Mr. Newton, as the chief 
 clerk of the bank, had personally received it from Mr. Holst- 
 law. That is not exactly in accordance with the face of the 
 deposit slip, because it does not bear the stamp of the chief 
 clerk. It does not bear the stamp of the receiying teller, but 
 it bears the stamp of the note teller. Still, that might happen. 
 It is not exactly regular, but it might be entirely honest. 
 
 But, Mr. President, as my suspicion had been excited by 
 Holstlaw's improbable account of his first interview with Brod- 
 erick, and still more by his mistake as to the bank in which he 
 deposited that money, I very naturally thought it proper to 
 scrutinize this deposit slip as. closely as possible, and on it, when 
 read in connection with the attorney's brief, I found what I 
 believe to be indisputable evidence that it is a forgery. In this 
 reply brief filed by the attorney he again specifies this as a 
 most convincing proof that Holstlaw swore the truth when he 
 said that Broderick paid him $2,500 as bribe money, because 
 it shows that Holstlaw on that very day deposited with a bank 
 in Chicago that exact amount to the credit of his bank at luka. 
 As if to emphasize it still more and more, he cites us to the 
 page of his original brief on which the photographic copy can 
 be found, and then he declares that 
 
 The testimony is most Important because Holstlaw had testified that 
 immediately upon receiving the $2,500 in currency from John Broderick 
 he deposited this $2,500 at the Stafe Bank in currency, in larga bills, 
 and the photographic copy of his own deposit slip, in his own hand- 
 writing, is to be found on page 98 of our opening brief. 
 
 I will ask the Sergeant at Arms to bring me the papers in 
 this case, particularly the paper giving a list of the witnesses 
 to be summoned and the paper containing Holstlaw's acknowl- 
 edgment of service. When I submit that last-mentioned paper 
 to the Senate, there will not be a Senator here who will say 
 that the same man who signed Holstlaw's name to the acknowl- 
 edgment of service wrote the words Holstlaw Bank at the top 
 of that deposit slip. 
 
 But, Mr. President, there is a stronger testimony of its forgery 
 than merely the dissimilarity of penmanship. Here, sir, is an 
 incontrovertible _ evidence: The name of Holstlaw on this de- 
 posit slip is misspelled, and who will believe that a man de- 
 805959673
 
 20 
 
 positing $2,500 of bribe money weuld misspell his own name? 
 Still another and a pregnant circumstance which I will lay 
 before the Senate when the Sergeant at Arms brings me the 
 papers is that Holstlaw's name is spelled in this deposit slip 
 exactly as it is spelled in the list of witnesses furnished to 
 the committee by the attorney of the Chicago Tribune. And 
 that may explain, let me say to my friend from New York [Mr. 
 ROOT], why the prosecution did not bring the officers of the 
 banks with books to prove this deposit. 
 
 Mr. President, the Sergeant at Arms has now handed to me 
 the document bearing Holstlaw's acceptance of the service, but 
 has neglected to bring me the list of witnesses. It is enough, 
 however, for me to say that Holstlaw's name as spelled on this 
 deposit slip, which transposes the "V and "s" is spelled or 
 misspelled exactly the same way in the list of witnesses 
 furnished by the prosecution to the committee. I will now ask 
 the Senator who sits near me here [Mr. TILLMAN] to look at 
 these two signatures ; and he will see that there is not a letter 
 in one like the same letter in the other. 
 
 Mr. FRAZIER 
 
 The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. JOHNSTON in the chair). 
 Does the Senator from Texas yield? 
 
 Mr. BAILEY. I do. 
 
 Mr. FRAZIER. Does the Senator mean to state to the Senate 
 that Senator Holstlaw stated in his testimony that he signed 
 that deposit slip? 
 
 Mr. BAILEY. I do not. He said that he personally de- 
 posited the money. 
 
 Mr. FRAZIER. Exactly. He said he had deposited the 
 money, but he did not say that he signed the deposit slip. 
 
 Mr. BAILEY. The Senator from Tennessee must know that 
 I have not made any such statement. 
 
 Mr. FRAZIER. The impression the Senator was making was 
 that this must be a forgery because the signature to the deposit 
 slip was different from the signature made by Senator Holstlaw 
 to the subpoena. Therefore proof that the deposit slip was a 
 forgery could only be based upon the suggestion that Mr. 
 Holstlaw had signed the deposit slip, and Senator Holstlaw 
 does not say that he signed the deposit slip. 
 
 Mr. BAILEY. The Senator did not do me tire honor to listen 
 carefully to what I was saying, because I took up the brief 
 the photographic copy of deposit slip does not appear in the 
 record and I took up. the attorney's brief, stating that it was 
 photographed there, and then stating that in his second or reply 
 brief he had laid special emphasis on the deposit slip being in 
 Holstlaw's "own handwriting." 
 
 Mr. FRAZIER. Then the Senator's argument is based upon 
 the brief of the attorney, not on the record. 
 
 Mr. BAILEY. The record itself was that Mr. Holstlaw 
 personally deposited it. I stated that. I stated, furthermore, 
 that the bank clerk swore he received it from Mr. Holstlaw. 
 
 Mr. LODGE. Mr. President 
 
 The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Texas 
 yield to the Senator from Massachusetts? 
 
 Mr. BAILEY. The Senator from New York has been on his 
 feet desiring to interrupt me, and I yield first to him. 
 
 Mr. ROOT. Mr. President. I rose for the purpose of asking 
 the Senator from Texas whether, when he' read from the brief 
 805959673
 
 21 
 
 of the counsel for the Chicago Tribune, that this deposit slip 
 was in the handwriting of Mr. Holstlaw he understood that 
 there was any evidence anywhere in this record to that effect. 
 
 Mr. BAILEY. Nothing except what I have stated, and that 
 is that Holstlaw swore that he personally made the deposit and 
 the bank clerk swore that he personally received it from Holst- 
 law. I did not even venture to say what I know to be a matter 
 of practice, that in nearly all cases where business men carry a 
 deposit to a bank they do make out their own deposit slip. 
 
 Mr. ROOT. Does not the Senator know that as a matter of 
 practice when business men coming from their offices go into a 
 bank to make a deposit the bank clerk will make out the deposit 
 slip? 
 
 Mr. BAILEY. They sometimes do and sometimes they do not. 
 
 Mr. ROOT. I will ask the Senator this question. Will the 
 Senator permit me? 
 
 Mr. BAILEY. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. ROOT. Is tfiere one word of testimony in this record to 
 the effect that the bank clerk did not make out the deposit slip 
 tor the $2,500 brought to the bank by Mr. Holstlaw? 
 
 Mr. BAILEY. The only testimony is that Holstlaw person- 
 ally deposited it and that the bank clerk personally received it 
 from Holstlaw. I was careful to keep within the record. I 
 made no suggestion based on the record that Holstlaw did draw 
 the deposit slip, but I spoke from the brief of the attorney in the 
 case, who is fairly presumed not to have made a mistake in that 
 respect; and whatever the argument was it was based on the 
 statement of the attorney, without the slightest pretense that it 
 was based en any statement in the testimony. 
 
 Mr. ROOT. The only basis then, as I understand it, for the 
 charge that there was a forgery of this deposit slip rests upon 
 the assumption that the attorney of the Chicago Tribune was 
 right in his brief and not upon any testimony in the case what- 
 ever. 
 
 Mr. CUMMINS. Mr. President 
 
 The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Texas 
 yield to the Senator from Iowa? 
 
 Mr. BAILEY. I should like to make a reply to the Senator 
 from New York before I yield to the Senator from Iowa. 
 
 Mr. President, I repeat for the third time, and it seems to 
 me that I need to repeat it in order to clarify it to some 
 gentlemen, that I was careful not to intimate that there was any 
 proof in this testimony as to who made out that slip, because I 
 had examined it and all that was there I stated. But when I 
 came to argue that it was a forgery I took up the brief of the 
 counsel, and it is a perfectly proper thing for me to do in the 
 Senate, as it would be a perfectly proper thing for me to do in 
 the court room, because it is fair to suppose that an attorney 
 employed specially to present the case would not assert, or even 
 assume an important fact unless he had a good reason for doing 
 it. And, sir, unless we accept the brief of the attorney there is 
 no photographic copy of this deposit slip in this record. 
 
 Mr. ROOT. Mr. President, it is quite immaterial whether a 
 photographic copy was in the record or not. There is the 
 evidence of the officer of the bank that he received that deposit 
 from the hands of Mr. Holstlaw on the 16th day of June with 
 that deposit slip 
 80595 9673
 
 22 
 
 Mr. BAILEY. Mr. President, I have always found that 
 when a point can be turned against an attorney it at once 
 becomes wholly immaterial. I now yield to the Senator from 
 Iowa. 
 
 Mr. CUMMINS. Mr. President, I am not at all sure that the 
 paper I hold in my hand is one that ought to be introduced into 
 this controversy at the present time. 
 
 Mr. BAILEY. Is it a part of the record? 
 
 Mr. CUMMINS. It is not. 
 
 Mr. BAILEY. Then, Mr. President 
 
 Mr. CUMMINS. I ask the Senator from Texas, because I 
 know he is always desirous of doing exact justice 
 
 Mr. BAILEY. I hope I am. 
 
 Mr. CUMMINS. Whether it is proper to suggest it in view 
 of the charge of forgery just made. I have in my hand the 
 original deposit slip. I have also the card which the bank at 
 luka, the Holstlaw bank, presented to the State Bank of Chi- 
 cago for the purpose of giving the State Bank the signatures of 
 the officers of the luka bank. 
 
 I do this simply because I recognize with the Senator from 
 Texas that the statement made in the brief of the Chicago Tri- 
 bune is a mistake. It is not true that the deposit slip is in the 
 handwriting of Senator Holstlaw, and it is true that there is a 
 mistake in the spelling of the name in the deposit slip. The 
 proof accompanying the deposit slip explains the mistake in 
 regard to the name. 
 
 Now, I ask, whether it is proper to take into consideration 
 the original deposit slip or not. If it be important, if the ques- 
 tion of forgery becomes material, or if it is insisted upon, it is 
 evident that this must find its way into the record in some way 
 or other. 
 
 Mr. BAILEY. All I have to say is that if they had forged 
 one document they would not hesitate to forge an explanation 
 of it. I may be mistaken, but if I am, I have been misled by 
 the lawyer who was employed to present this case, and who has 
 presented it with great zeal and with some ability. 
 
 Mr. CUMMINS. May I say just one word more there? 
 
 Mr. BAILEY. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. CUMMINS. A moment's inspection of the paper to which 
 I have referred on the part of the Senator from Texas will con- 
 vince him that it is utterly impossible that it should have been 
 forged. 
 
 Mr. BAILEY. Mr. President, as they are introducing mat- 
 ters outside of the record, I may be permitted to say that a 
 Senator told me that the president of that bank told him that 
 this slip was really a copy made by a newspaper correspondent. 
 But I did not choose to repeat that. I took it as the author- 
 ized attorney had presented it. I hardly believed that an 
 attorney, permitted by the courtesy of this committee to appear 
 before it and present this case, would have introduced a spuri- 
 ous document. He introduced it ; and attached so much im- 
 portance to it that he photographed it; and then in order to 
 emphasize and give it probative force, he stated upon his re- 
 sponsibility as an attorney in the case that it was in the very 
 handwriting of Holstlaw. Now, if that is not true, I am not 
 responsible for it. I have made an argument based on the 
 record and the briefs, and that, sir, is perfectly fair and proner. 
 805959673
 
 23 
 
 In the opinions of the Supreme Court you will find many cases 
 where they have commented on statements made in the briefs 
 before them, and surely, sir, it is not unprecedented or remark- 
 able that I should do so here. 
 
 Not only is Holstlaw discredited by his improbable story, to 
 which I have alluded, and by what I believe to be the forgery by 
 which they have attempted to corroborate him, but there is still 
 another circumstance which in my mind destroys the value of his 
 testimony. He had been indicted in Sangamon county for per- 
 jury, with respect to another and totally different transaction, 
 and was advised by the sheriff of that county to employ a cer- 
 tain firm of lawyers. Those lawyers contrived to have the in- 
 dictment for perjury quashed upon an agreement with the State's 
 Attorney that Holstlaw would sign a certain paper which they 
 had prepared. In that paper, which was to procure his immunity 
 from a just punishment for perjury, he first made this statement 
 of this transaction with Broderick, although he had not been ques- 
 tioned by the grand jury about the senatorial election, and it 
 bore absolutely no relation to the offense for which he had been 
 indicted. That he was guilty of one crime I do not think ad- 
 mits of the slightest doubt, but ke was relieved from the con- 
 sequences of that crime by confessing that he had committed 
 another. Not only, Mr. President, did they agree to allow 
 Holstlaw to go unwhipped-of justice for an offense of which 
 they had the ample and documentary proof, but they also 
 agreed to give him immunity against any prosecution for the 
 other crime which they thus induced him to confess. 
 
 WHY DEMOCRATS VOTED FOR LORIMER. 
 
 But, Mr. President, turning from all the witnesses and docu- 
 ments, the Senator from New York demands of us to explain 
 how it is that 53 Democrats in the Legislature of Illinois could 
 have voted for Senator LORIMER unless they were bribed to do 
 so. I might answer, and that would be sufficient for those who 
 know him, that they were thus insuring the defeat of ex-Senator 
 Hopkins ; and almost any Democrat would consider that a satis- 
 factory explanation. I intend no reflection upon the character 
 or integrity of ex-Senator Hopkins, but we all remember his 
 narrow and bitter partisanship. He could hardly bring himself 
 to admit in the House or in the Senate that a Democrat could 
 be^an honest man and a patriot; and if he would say those bitter 
 things here, what kind of speeches do you suppose he was in 
 habit of making against the Democrats of Illinois on the stump? 
 His very presence in a Democratic assembly would have almost 
 provoked a riot, sir. [Laughter.] I have here an extract from 
 the speech which he delivered in the House of Representatives 
 on what was known as the force bill, and in which he de- 
 nounced the Democrats of that day and of that body with such 
 severity that one of the ablest men in it, and one of the mildest 
 men who ever represented a district there, protested against it 
 from his seat. Mr. President, T believe I will read to the Sen- 
 ate a small part of what Mr. Hopkins said on that occasion. 
 
 The, argument which have been Indulged in by the gentleman from 
 the South against this bill are the arguments which are indulged in bv 
 the hardened criminal who seeks to avoid the just punishment of the 
 crime which he has committed. 
 
 Mr. COLBERTSON. That is too rough. 
 
 Mr. HOPKINS. It may be rough, but it is tru<>. 
 805959673
 
 24 
 
 He deneunced the whole Democratic party, because Demo- 
 crats North and South, East and West, were opposed to that 
 infamous measure. Yet they wonder why Democrats should 
 help to accomplish his defeat. But I do not need to rest a 
 defense of the Illinois Democrats who voted for Senator LORI- 
 MER on the extreme partisanship of ex-Senator Hopkins. There 
 is another and an altogether sufficient reason for the course 
 which they pursued. They were in a hopeless minority, without 
 the shadow of a chance to elect a Democrat, and whether it were 
 wise or not, it certainly does not justify an imputation of dis- 
 honesty against them that they aided in defeating a Republican 
 nominee. I do not say that I would have done what they did, 
 because I am one of those old-fashioned partisans who finds it 
 difficult to vote for any candidate except one nominated by my 
 own party. I believe that the only way in which a party can 
 be preserved is by yielding an ungrudging obedience to the will 
 of its majority. I also believe and I deeply regret that my 
 belief does not appear to be shared by many others now that 
 parties are indispensible to the successful administration of a 
 free government, for, unless I have misread the history of the 
 world, the alternative of party government is personal govern- 
 ment ; and I am sure that if political parties ever disappear 
 from the arena of American politics, a man will come to take 
 their place. He may come first on foot and he may walk with 
 becoming humility among the multitude, but as his power and 
 influence grows he will don a uniform and mount a horse, 
 and then we will have a government by the sword instead of the 
 one which our fathers ordained. 
 
 If, sir, suspicion attaches to any members of the Illinois 
 Legislature by reason of the bare fact that they voted for Mr. 
 LORIMER, the Republicans rather than the Democrats who 
 voted for him are the ones who can be more justly suspected 
 The Democrats were simply doing what they could to demor- 
 alize the Republican party by defeating its nominee for an 
 important office, and that is nothing extraordinary nor at all 
 unusual. During the past three years I have voted many times 
 with what we call the Republican "insurgents," and in mere 
 than one instance I have been actuated in doing so by a belief 
 that I could thus further divide and disrupt the Republican 
 party. I have made no concealment of my purpose in that 
 respect, and I venture to say that the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD 
 will show that I made more than one declaration of that kind. 
 But, sir, the case was wholly different with the Republicans of 
 the Illinois Legislature. They were bolting their party's nomi- 
 nation, and I think that if we are inclined to indulge suspicion 
 against anybody we would have a better right to suspect th" 
 Republicans who bolted their party than the Democrats who 
 aided in making that bolt successful. 
 
 The Senator from New York, and he was not alone in pur- 
 suing that line of argument, has spoken as if he thought the ac- 
 fion of those Illinois Democrats is without precedent, as well 
 as without excuse. Sir, they have forgotten the history of Illi- 
 nois, because more than once a result like this has been wrought 
 out in the legislature of that State. All over this land to-day 
 tb.ey are celebrating the anniversary of Lincoln's birth, and mil- 
 lions are paying homage to his integrity and patriotism. Even 
 the Southern States, against which he levied a cruel war, have 
 805959673
 
 25 
 
 buried their animosity in the years which have elapsed since 
 than, and pay respect foil deference to his memory. Yet, sir, 
 Abraham Lincoln signalized his entrance into national politics 
 by an episode which Senators profess themselves incapable of 
 understanding. In 1855 Lincoln was a candidate for the Senate, 
 and was supported by the Repubncan members of the Illinois 
 Legislature, if it te proper to call them Republican, as the Re- 
 publican party was just then in its formative state. But no 
 matter about the name of the party whose candidate he was, he 
 was supported by all of his partisans in that legislature. 
 
 The Democratic candidate against him was James Shields, a 
 remarkable and romantic character, but his election was 
 made impossible by the refusal of 5 Democrats to vote for 
 him. Those 5 Democrats, under the leadership of John M. 
 Palmer, who afterwards became a Senator from Illinois, voted 
 for Lyman Trumbull, and after an ineffectual effort to elect 
 their candidate the Democrats withdrew Senator Shields and 
 substituted Gov. Matteson as their candidate, and, fearing 
 the election of Matteson, Lincoln advised his Republican friends 
 to vote for Lyman Trumbull, a bolting Democrat, who received 
 43 of the 45 Lincoln votes in that legislature, and with them 
 was elected a Senator. Lincoln afterwards explained in a letter 
 to the Hon. E. B. Washburne that he could have held 15 of 
 his votes to the end of the legislative session, but that he feared 
 the election of Matteson, and, under his own advice, his friends 
 abandoned him to elect a candidate who avowed allegiance to 
 another party. The same John M. Palmer who led the bolting 
 Democrats in the Illinois Legislature of 1855 was, more than 
 30 years afterwards, himseJf elected to this body by the votes of 
 men who did not belong to the Democratic party. 
 
 Who does not remember, sir, the time when the Illinois Demo- 
 crats elected David Davis to the Senate, taking him from the 
 supreme bench. In 1885, I believe it was, that sturdy Demo- 
 crat. William Morrison, was our nominee and the Legislature 
 of Illinois stood 102 to 102. The Democrats were unable 
 to poll the full party vote for Morrison, and when it ap- 
 peared that Logan's election was imminent they cast ninety-odd 
 votes for Charles B. Farwell, a Republican, in order to defeat 
 the Republican nominee. Having failed to stampede the Re- 
 publicans, the Democrats withdrew their votes from Farwell 
 and cast them for Judge Lambert Tree. 
 
 There was one incident of that contest in which a non- 
 partisan patriot can find the greatest satisfaction. The Demo- 
 crats, as I have said, held a membership in the joint assembly 
 of 102. The Republicans likewise had 102, but God laid his 
 hand on a Democratic senator and left the Republicans with a 
 majority of one. There was, however, a loyal and brave Repub- 
 lican there who said that the election of a Senator ought to be 
 settled by a full legislature, and he paired with the dead man 
 until his successor could be elected. 
 
 I relate that with more pride and satisfaction than I relate 
 the subsequent proceeding, because that was a piece of sharp 
 political practice for whicl? our friends on the other side have 
 been famous, more or less. The district which had been rep- 
 resented by the dead State Senator was overwhelmingly Demo- 
 cratic, and the Republicans pretended that they did not intend 
 to make a nomination, and they did not. But while appearing 
 80595 9673
 
 26 
 
 to let the contest go by default, they organized a most remark- 
 able campaign. They sent men into every county of the district 
 ostensibly to sell sewing machines and other articles, but really 
 to inform all Republicans of the plan. They printed their bal- 
 lots, distributed them, and, marvelous to say, kept their secret. 
 The word was passed around that no Republican was to make a 
 sign of life until 3 o'clock on the afternoon of the election. 
 Promptly at 3 o'clock they came pouring out of their homes and 
 places of business, captured the polls, elected a Republican, and 
 broke the deadlock by re-electing Logan to the Senate. 
 
 This, sir, was not an uncommon contest in the State of Illi- 
 nois, except in its aftermath. When Abraham Lincoln helped to 
 elect a Democrat there was no suggestion of bribery and cor- 
 ruption. When the Democrats of the Illinois Legislature 
 elected David Davis to the Senate there was no effort to soil the 
 name of that great State. When William R. Morrison, as brave 
 and true a man as ever devoted his life to the service of any 
 country, failed to command his full party strength in the legis- 
 lature, there was no hint of bribery. But all of this is now 
 sadly changed, and a Senator here whA for 14 years has held 
 an unquestioned commission in the other fiteuse, and whose habits 
 will not suffer by comparison with the cleanest Senator on either 
 side of this Chamber, is pilloried before the world as a corrup- 
 tionist and a criminal. What is there in his life to warrant or 
 justify this cruel warfare against him? He never touches 
 liquor of any kind; he does not swear; he does not gamble; he 
 does not indulge even in the small vice of using tobacco; he 
 is a model husband and father, and while many of those who 
 assail him were reveling, be has made his home when in Wash- 
 ington with the Young Men's Christian Association. 
 
 Those for whom he has worked, those with whom he has 
 worked, and those who have worked for him all bear witness to 
 his justice and his generosity. His business associates vouch 
 for his absolute probity. And yet, sir, they ask us to destroy 
 this man of Christian character and blameless life upon the 
 testimony of self-confessed bribe takers and perjurers. Before 
 they can make me believe that this man has committed a 
 crime they must offer me something better than the testimony 
 of men who sell their votes and then proclaim their infamy to 
 the world for a price. Men of upright life and Christian con- 
 duct do not commit the crime of bribery. 
 
 Left fatherless when he was 10 years old, and at a time 
 when children of his age should be at play, he went to work, 
 and, with the aid of an older brother, supported his widowed 
 mother and his sisters. Without complaint and without falter- 
 ing, he did his duty as a son and as a brother. Struggling with 
 poverty and obscurity, he worked his way from a bootblack's 
 stand to a seat in the Senate of the United States ; and, so help 
 me _God, I will never blast a career like that except upon the 
 testimony of honest men. [Manifestations of applause in the 
 galleries.] The story of WILLIAM LORIMER'S struggles and 
 achievements is an inspiration and a hope to everv boy of 
 humble birth beneath this flag, and I will not sacrifice him to 
 please a rich and powerful newspaper whose enmity he has 
 incurred by refusing to comply with its owner's demands. 
 
 Mr. President, while it is, of course, no part of this record, 
 I want to read a tribute which even the prosecution in this 
 80595 9673
 
 27 
 
 case paid to WILLIAM LORIMER the morning after his election. 
 This is from the Chicago Tribune of May 27, 1909. It is long, 
 and I will not read it all, but I will read enough of it to ihow 
 what manner of man he is. 
 
 It was nothing strange for LORIMER to be elected through the aid of 
 Democratic votes, for he has enjoyed a large Democratic following for 
 many years. Three times he was elected to Congress in the old second 
 district, which was Democratic, and his political sway has been 
 strongest in Democratic territory. To such a marked degree has Demo- 
 cratic support figured in his political achievement that bis friends 
 point with pride to the nonpartisan character of his following, while 
 his enemies contemptuously -dub him "bipartisan Billy." 
 
 * * * * * * 
 Through all the praise and abuse LORIMER has maintained the same 
 
 placid, benign attitude, which by many is considered the secret of his 
 success. A man who never lost his temper, who neve' has been heard to 
 swear, who does not smoke or drink, who always speaks softly and 
 kindly, LORIMER, with -that patient, childlike countenance, those com- 
 passionate, drooping eyelids, has endured all and bided his time. Al- 
 ways observing, apparently, the doctrine of nonresistance, he has waited 
 opportunity, rested while his enemies worked, listened while his rivals 
 talked, and then blandly and gently led the way to the solution he 
 himself had planned. 
 
 * * * * 
 
 He was about 20 years old when he made his appearance as a horse- 
 car conductor on the old Madison Street line between State Street and 
 Western Avenue. In this employment he first showed his talent for 
 handling men. He organized the Street Railway Employees' Benevolent 
 Association, and became at once the big man of that little world. 
 
 Faithful to those who worked with him in an humble occupa- 
 tion ; faithful to his business associates; faithful to his personal 
 and political friends; faithful to his widowed mother and his 
 fatherless sisters; faithful to his wife and children, and faith- 
 ful to his God, I will not, sir, upon this evidence believe that 
 he was faithless to his country. 
 
 THE LAW. 
 
 I come now, Mr. President, to consider the legal effect of 
 bribery on an election, and the whole law relating to that sub- 
 ject is comprehended in those two short and simple proposi- 
 tions : 
 
 First. If the officer whose election is challenged personally 
 participated in, or encouraged, or sanctioned the bribery, then 
 his election is void, without reference to the extent of the 
 bribery. 
 
 Second. If the officer whose election is challenged did not 
 personally participate in, or encourage, or sanction the bribery 
 then, in order to invalidate his election, it must be shown by 
 sufficient evidence that enough votes were bribed to affect the 
 result. 
 
 The first proposition has not always been received as the law 
 without question, and many eminent lawyers have insisted that 
 no election can "be invalidated by bribery, no matter by whom it 
 was practiced, unless it was sufficient to have produced the 
 result. Indeed, sir, so late as the Payne case, a committee of 
 the Senate pretermitted an explicit declaration on that point be- 
 cause some of its Members maintained that view. But a fur- 
 ther and a more thorough consideration has established the rule 
 as I have stated it, and it is now universally accepted both in 
 the Senate and in the courts of the country. I do not mean, of 
 course, that there are not some who still protest against it, but 
 they belong to that class of lawyers, happily very small, who 
 think they can enhance their reputation for legal acumen by 
 rejecting the most universally received opinions. 
 805959673
 
 28 
 
 It was not necessary for me even to state my first proposition 
 of law, and certainly it is not necessary for me to argue it; 
 because both the testimony and the admissions in this record 
 render it wholly irrelevant to this discussion. At the very 
 threshold of the investigation those who are seeking to hnpeach 
 the election of Mr. LORIMER distinctly admitted that they did 
 not expect to connect him personally with any of the bribery 
 which they hoped to prove to the satisfaction of the committee, 
 and not one of that great array of witnesses testified to anything 
 implicating the Senator from Illinois personally in any cor- 
 rupt transaction. As a member of the subcommittee, the 
 Senator from Tennessee [Mr. FRAZIER] heard all the testimony, 
 and athough he dissents from the conclusion of the committee, 
 he fully agreed with it in that particular respect. With a 
 fairness which has won for him the respect of all who are for- 
 tunate enough to enjoy his personal acquaintance, the Senator 
 from Tennessee disposes of this phase of the question in these 
 words : 
 
 While there are some facts and circumstances in this case tending 
 to show that Senator LORIMER may have heard of or known that cor- 
 rupt practices were being resorted to, and while Senator LORIMEK 
 failed to avail himself of the opportunity of going on the stand as a 
 witness and denying any such knowledge or sanction of corrupt prac- 
 tices, if any sirch were being practiced, still I am of the opinion tha't 
 the testimony fails to establish the fact that Senator LORIMER was 
 himselt guilty of bribery or other corrupt practices, or that he sanc- 
 tioned or was cognizant of the fact that bribery or other corrupt 
 practices were being used by others to influence votes for him. 
 
 This being true, the question then arises, Was bribery or corrupt 
 practices used by others in his behal'f to influence votes for him ; and, 
 if so, were enough votes thus tainted with fraud and corruptly in- 
 fluenced when excluded to reduce his vote below the legal majority 
 required for his election? 
 
 The Chicago Tribune, which has pursued Mr. LORIMER with 
 unrelenting bitterness for years and instigated this proceeding 
 against him, after searching the State of Illinois with its corps 
 of trained attorneys and detectives for months, was utterly 
 unable to produce any testimony connecting him personally 
 with the corruption which they charged, and through its attor- 
 ney was compelled to disclaim any purpose of attempting to 
 do so. It is true that in the heat of this debate some Senators 
 have contended that all these things could not have transpired 
 without Senator LORIMER'S knowledge and consent, but when 
 they soberly review the testimony and reflect that there is not 
 one word In it to justify such an imputation, they will hesitate 
 to declare a conclusion which even the zeal of a special counsel 
 did not permit him to urge upon the committee ; and I dismiss 
 the question of Senator LORIMER'S personal participation in the 
 alleged bribery as not at issue here. 
 
 The law, and the only law, which the facts make applicable 
 to this case, is that which I have stated as my second propo- 
 sition, and it is now so well settled both in reason and upon 
 authority that it is not seriously controverted in any legislative 
 body or in any court. Of course I do not forget that in the docu- 
 ment, which he describes as a minority report, trie Senator from 
 Indiana dissents from its soundness, though he does not venture 
 to deny that it is now the law. Indeed, he concedes it to be the 
 law and calls on us to repeal it. Oblivious to the fact that this 
 rule has been evolved and matured by the profoundest judges who 
 have ever adorned the bench, and that it has been repeatedly ap- 
 proved by some of the wisest Senators who have ever honored 
 805959673
 
 29 
 
 this body by their service, he repudiates it without hesitation, 
 and demands that we adopt the new and different rule which 
 he proposes.. Here are his words: 
 
 So I propose that we overthrow such unsound precedents and estab- 
 lish a new.. Senate precedent, that one act of bribery makes' such an 
 election void makes an election foul. 
 
 In this -rather Void and altogether novel position, the Senator 
 from Indiana is supported only by the Senator from Oklahoma, 
 who is so uncertain -about the capacity of the Senate t protect 
 its integrity under the American rule that he urges us to adopt 
 what he mistakingly supposes to be the English rule. But while 
 the Senators from Oklahoma and Indiana are the only ones who 
 have ventured to openly criticize the American rule, they are not 
 the only ones who have introduced the English rule into this dis- 
 cussion, though none of them have correctly stated it. The Sen- 
 ator from. Ohio, usually so accurate, read at length from one of 
 the English decisions and then made it plain in his comments 
 upon it that he does not understand the difference between a 
 "candidate's agent" under the British statute and an "agent" 
 as we use the term in this country. The English election law 
 expressly provides for the appointment of an agent who bears to 
 their campaigns a relation analogous to, though not entirely the 
 same as, the chairman of a campaign committee in this country. 
 The "agent" under the English statute, however, is provided for, 
 and appointed in accordance with its provisions and represents the. 
 candidate throughout the contest. That is what the English statute 
 and decisions mean when they refer to an "agent." Even the Sen- 
 ator from New York, who is justlysupposedtoknowsomuch about 
 the law of all nations, fell into the same error as the Senator 
 from Ohio and the Senator from Oklahoma, and though his 
 reference to the English rule was brief, he clearly asserted that 
 the purchase of a single vote, under any- circumstances or by 
 any person, renders an election in that country void. Mr. Presi- 
 dent, if the Senators from Ohio and New York had followed this 
 debate attentively they would have saved themselves from that^ 
 inexcusable mistake, because in the very excellent speech der- 
 livered by the honorable chairman of this committee [Mr. BUR- 
 ROWS] he took the trouble to specifically point out the mistake 
 which the Senator from Oklahoma had made as to the law of 
 Great Britain. But, sir, even if the law in that country were 
 precisely what these Senators have supposed it to be, it has' 
 been made so by a statute, and that fact itself shows that it was- 
 not a rule of the common law to which we must turn for our 
 guidance and our: instruction. 
 
 It is nof probable, sir, that the people of this country could 
 be persuaded under any circumstances to adopt or approve a 
 law which, would vitiate a senatorial election on account of the 
 ineffective misconduct of some irresponsible person, and cer- 
 tainly they, would not be so foolish as to do so with an amend- 
 ment now, pending before us to provide for the election of 
 Senators by .djrect vote of the people. If that amendment shall 
 finally be adopted and it will be sooner or later the Senate 
 of the United States, under the rule proposed by the Senator 
 from Indiana, would be perpetually engaged in the trial of con- 
 tested-election cases, for in every State of this Union some 
 wretch can. be found so base as to sell his vote andtheri con- 
 fess his crime,: if by doing so he could invalidate an electidfr 
 which had pone against the interest or the wishes of his con- 
 805959673
 
 30 
 
 federates. Indeed, sir, desperate and unscrupulous politicians 
 would deliberately plan to buy a few votes for the opposition 
 so that if the election did not result in their favor they coul'.i 
 prove the corruption and thus defeat their opponents in that 
 way, when they could not do so at the polls. The successful 
 candidate might receive a majority of the honest votes running 
 into the thousands, or the tens of thousands, and yet under this 
 rule a few scoundrels could set aside the clearest and most 
 unequivocal expression of the popular will. A rule which in- 
 vites that, or a rule which permits that, is too absurd to require 
 a serious consideration at this time and in this place. 
 
 Mr. President, perhaps I can save time and relieve the Senate 
 from a tedious examination of the authorities by coming to an 
 agreement with the Senators who have participated in this 
 debate as to the law which must govern us in deciding this 
 case. It is not necessary for me to interrogate the Senator 
 from Tennessee [Mr. FRAZIER] because in the brief, but very 
 clear, statement of his views he has laid down the law ex- 
 actly as I understand it, and there is absolutely no difference 
 between him and me in that respect. Nor can I believe that 
 there is any difference on this proposition between me and the 
 Senators from New York, Idaho and Iowa ; and for the pur- 
 pose of dispensing with an argument in support of my view, 1 
 believe that I will venture upon the unusual course of asking 
 those Senators in the open Senate whether or not we can agree 
 upon the law. I will first ask the Senator from New York 
 whether he assents to my legal proposition, that 
 
 If the officer whose election is challenged did not personally partici- 
 pate in, or encourage, or sanction the bribery, then his election can not 
 be avoided unless it is shown by sufficient evidence that enough votes 
 were bribed to affect the result. 
 
 Does the Senator from New York assent to that proposition? 
 Mr. ROOT. I do not. 
 
 Mr. BAILEY. Then I will produce abundant authorities to 
 show that it is the law. I will next ask the Senator from Idaho 
 whether he agrees that I have stated the law correctly. 
 
 Mr. BORAH. Mr. President 
 
 The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Texas 
 yield to the Senator from Idaho? 
 
 Mr. BAILEY. I do. 
 
 Mr. BORAH. If I correctly understand the statement of the 
 Senator it is pretty difficult to follow a statement as it is made 
 and analyze it at the same time I do agree to that legal 
 proposition so far as this case is concerned. But permit me, in 
 order that I may not be found in error in the RECORD to-morrow 
 again, to ask the Senator a question, and that is whether or not 
 the statement that I now make is the same statement that he 
 makes : If the officer whose election is challenged did not per- 
 sonally participate in or encourage or sanction the bribery, then 
 his election can not be avoided unless it is shown by sufficient 
 evidence that enough votes were bribed, without which bribed 
 votes he would not have had the majority required by the 
 statute. 
 
 Mr. BAILEY. It is in effect the same; and if there is any 
 
 difference, the Senator has stated the law a little stronger on 
 
 my side than I have stated it. The only difference, -bet ween the 
 
 Senator and myself will he as to the application of the;rle. I 
 
 80,'ftr. 0673
 
 31 
 
 perfectly understand that when we reach that point we will be 
 at the parting of our ways, but on the law, I think there can be 
 no difference. 
 
 Mr. BORAH. If the statement I have just made is the state- 
 ment the Senator thinks is contained in his statement, it is the 
 statement which I believe contains the law 
 
 Mr. BAILEY. There is no question about that, and I will 
 now ask the Senator from Iowa if he agrees with me on the law 
 as I have stated it. 
 
 Mr. CUMMINS. I stated with all the clearness that I could 
 when I was discussing this matter some days ago my view of 
 the law. I believe it to be true that if the evidence fails to 
 show on the part of the Senator any personal participation in 
 or knowledge of corrupt practices with which the election may 
 be charged, then in order to invalidate the election it must be 
 sho.vn that the election was accomplished by and through brib- 
 ery or corruption. 
 
 Mr. BAILEY. I am gratified to know that there is no differ- 
 ence between me and the Senators from Iowa and Idaho on the 
 law ; and I am confident that upon a further reflection the 
 Senator from New York will withdraw his dissent, for the rule 
 has been long and uniformly followed here. 
 
 Mr. ROOT. I do not want the Senator from Texas to con- 
 sider that I dissent from all and every part of his statement. As 
 I listened to it, it appeared to me that it was capable of a con- 
 struction which would make it broader than I think it ought to 
 be. I will gladly examine the statement, as it will appear in the 
 RECORD, I suppose, and see whether I wish to suggest a quali- 
 fication. 
 
 Mr. BAILEY. It will not appear in the RECORD to-morrow, 
 but I have reduced to writing what I intend to say on the law, 
 because I thought it of supreme importance to have that cor- 
 rectly stated ; and I take the liberty of sending it to the Senator 
 from New York. I can not think that after he examines it care- 
 fully it will be necessary for me to consume the time of the 
 Senate in discussing it: I perfectly understand that when we 
 come to apply my rule differences will arise. For instance, 
 when we come to determine how many votes are sufficient to 
 affect the result, the Senator from Idaho, the Senator from 
 Iowa, and the Senator from New York have already indicated 
 to the Senate a different opinion from that which I entertain. 
 But that is a difference merely as to the application of the law 
 and not as to the law itself. 
 
 Mr. ROOT. It is precisely at that point that I hesitate to 
 give my assent to the proposition made by the Senator from 
 Texas. I am much obliged to the Senator for sending me tRis 
 paper, and I will examine his statement of the rule with care. 
 ^ Mr. CARTER. The Senator from Texas has been speaking 
 since 2 o'clock for more than two hours and a half. It is 
 now well into the evening. I observe the Senator is making 
 unusual efforts to condense his remarks, and is making them 
 rapidly. The points he is covering are points I am sure in 
 which the Senate is interested, and I therefore venture to ask 
 unanimous consent that the Senator be permitted to proceed 
 with his remarks immediately after the close of the morning 
 business to-morrow. 
 805959673
 
 32 
 
 Mr. BAILEY. If that is agreeable to the Senate and does 
 not interfere with some announcement already made by other 
 Senators, I will act on the suggestion of the Senator from 
 Montana. I will now yield the floor and will conclude to- 
 morrow. 
 
 Tuesday, February 14, 1911, 
 
 Mr. BAILEY. Mr. President, when I yielded the floor yes- 
 terday afternoon I had reached the law question involved in 
 this case, but with the indulgence of the Senate, I want to re- 
 turn for a few moments to one of the episodes which occurred 
 when I was discussing the facts. 
 
 The Senate will recall that I animadverted with some severity 
 on what I believe to be a forgery in this case. The Senator from 
 Ibwa [Mr. CUMMINS] interposed with the suggestion that he 
 had in his hand a paper which, though not in evidence, still 
 seemed to contradict my theory of that deposit slip. I have this 
 morning, with his permission, examined that paper, and I find 
 that it is the affidavit of one Jarvis O. Newton, who was a wit- 
 ness in the case, and who is the chief clerk of the bank in 
 which the Holstlaw money in claimed to have been deposited. 
 To Newton's affidavit there is attached the original deposit slip, 
 which was introduced in evidence before the committee. There 
 is also attached to Newton's affidavit a card bearing the signa- 
 tures of the officers of the Holstlaw Bank, indicating that it 
 was a correspondent of the State Bank of Chicago, and author- 
 izing those officers to draw against its account there. The only 
 fact contained in this affidavit not contained in the testimony 
 is the statement of Mr. Newton that he, and not Hoist-law, ma-de 
 out this deposit slip. 
 
 Mr. President, any man who will examine Newton's signature 
 to this affidavit, and then examine the writing of the name 
 "Holstlaw Bank" on that deposit slip will conclude that New- 
 ton did not make it out, and this very paper, to my mind, still 
 further confirms my theory that a forgery had been committed. 
 The name "Holstlaw Bank," as it appears on this deposit slip, 
 indicates that it was written by a man not skilled in penman- 
 ship and _not very highly educated. The name "Jarvis O. New- 
 ton," as it is signed to this affidavit, gives evidence that he is 
 accustomed at least to writing his own name, and the penman- 
 ship appears to me very much better than that of the man who 
 wrote "Helstlaw Bank" at the top of the deposit slip. 
 
 Mr. CUMMINS. Mr. President 
 
 The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Texas 
 yild to the Senator from Iowa? 
 Mr. BAILEY. I do. 
 
 Mr. CUMMINS. Mr. President, I understand that the affidavit, 
 together with the card which is identified in the affidavit, can 
 not be admitted as evidence without unanimous consent. I sub- 
 mit to the Senator from Texas and to the Senate whether the 
 affidavit and the card shall be so admitted and so considered. 
 The slip' itself was introduced in evidence. It bears the identi- 
 fication of the committee, or the stenographer of the committee, 
 and if the Senate does not desire to consider the affidavit and 
 the card I shall ask that the slip itself be detached .and given 
 to the Sergeant at Arms for the consideration and examination 
 of any Senator who may desire to examine it. 
 80595 9673
 
 33 
 
 Mr. BAILEY. There is no question about that being the 
 identical slip which is in evidence and which is photographed 
 in the brief of counsel for the petitioners. Nor has any ques- 
 tion been raised about the Holstlaw Bank, of luka, being a cor- 
 respondent of the State Bank of Chicago, and that is the only 
 fact which this card could serve to establish. 
 
 Mr. President, I shall say now what I did not say yesterday 
 afternoon, because I hesitated to put into the records of Con- 
 gress anything which could possibly be construed as a reflection 
 on a great financial institution. But, since my theory of this 
 deposit slip has been challenged, I think I owe it to the Senate and 
 to the country to say that my suspicion against the genuineness 
 of it on account of the misspelled name was intensified by the 
 circumstance that the prosecution did not produce the books of 
 the Chicago bank and the luka bank, instead of the deposit 
 slip. Those books were the best evidence of the deposit, if it 
 was made, and they could not well have been doctored. They 
 could not have been easily falsified, for if an attempt had been 
 made as an afterthought to insert this credit it would appear 
 on the books as an interpolation; and if to avoid the appear- 
 ance of an interpolation it had been entered at some subsequent 
 period, it would then appear out of its chronological order. 
 There were three items in the books of these two banks which 
 could not have furnished false evidence, and yet instead of 
 calling any of the officers of those banks to produce the books 
 of each before that committee they brought the chief clerk of 
 the bank there with a deposit slip, the only evidence of the 
 transaction which could have been easily manufactured for 
 the occasion. 
 
 Mr. CUMMINS. Mr. President 
 
 The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from 
 Texas yield to the Senator from Iowa? 
 
 Mr. BAILEY. I do. 
 
 Mr. CUMMINS. The Senator from Texas has more than 
 once said that he believed the best way to evolve the truth of 
 this controversy was to regard it as in a sense a lawsuit, in 
 charge, on one side by counsel for the Tribune, on the other 
 side by counsel for Mr. LORIMER. May I ask why the counsel 
 for Mr. LORIMER, if there was any question about the deposit 
 of this money, did not call for the books of the bank and did 
 not inquire into the accounts of the bank at luka? It seems 
 to me that the failure of Mr. LORIMER to make any inquiry into 
 this matter is high evidence at least that he did not believe, 
 nor did his counsel believe, that this slip is a forgery. I ask 
 again, if the matter is material, why did not the committee 
 seek the best and highest evidence and complete their investi- 
 gation in that respect? 
 
 Mr. BAILEY. That is a perfectly legitimate comment on 
 what I have said, but my answer to it is that it was the subse- 
 quent discovery which raised these grave questions. Until the 
 reply brief of the counsel for the petitioners was printed it did 
 not appear that it was c'aimed that Holstlaw had, in his own 
 handwriting, made out this deposit slip. And I venture to say 
 that when it was offered in evidence no member of the com- 
 mittee observed the misspelling of Holstlaw's name, and I am 
 reasonably certain that it also escaped the attorneys on both 
 sides. 
 
 80395 0673 3
 
 34 
 
 I now return to a consideration of the law ; and here, sir, 
 the atmosphere clarifies. Here the earth which may have been 
 unsteady while we discussed the testimony grows firm at once. 
 We may have been mistaken about the veracity of some wit- 
 nesses and the mendacity of others. We may have believed 
 that the man swore falsely who swore the truth, and we may 
 have believed that the man swore truthfully who swore a false- 
 hood, because God has not endowed us with a faculty to 
 determine with certainty the truth or falsity of human testi- 
 mony. We can consider the motives and surroundings, and we 
 can consider the character and temptations of witnesses, but 
 when we have considered all of that the wisest of us may be 
 misled, because the vilest liar will sometimes swear the truth, 
 and the most truthful gentleman will sometimes testify honestly 
 to a mistake. But, sir, when we reach the law the whole case 
 changes, and we can speak of it with almost the exactness of a 
 science. 
 
 Here I say to my friends who have spoken on the other side ; 
 here I say to my friends who have net spoken on either side ; 
 here I say to those Senators who have not yet determined in 
 their own minds what their duty requires of them, that for 
 the purposes of this branch of the argument, I can admit either 
 view of the testimony. I can admit that every vote which 
 has been challenged by any kind of testimony was bribed and 
 must therefore be rejected, and the law still decides this case. 
 If we eliminate the votes of Browne, Wilson and Broderick, who 
 have been accused of giving these bribes and though their people 
 have answered that accusation by re-electing them to the Legisla- 
 ture of Illinois, we can admit that their people were mistaken 
 and that Browne, Broderick and Wilson were bribe givers. Let 
 us say, besides, that White, Link, Beckemeyer and Holstlaw were 
 all bribed. They are the four men who are often said to have 
 confessed that they were bribed to vote for LORIMER, but that 
 statement is not supported by the testimony. Link swears he 
 was not bribed and that he never received any money for vot- 
 ing for LORIMER. Beckemeyer swears that he never was offered 
 or promised any money for voting for LORIMER, though he does 
 say that when he received certain money he was told that it 
 was his "Lorimer money," and even Holstlaw swears that he 
 had announced his purpose to vote for LORIMER before money 
 was ever mentioned to him. But let us say that Link and 
 Beckemeyer and Holstlaw and White were bribed. Let us, Mr. 
 President, go even further than this and say that Shephard 
 and Clark and the dead man Luke were bribed, and without 
 stopping at that let us go on and say that De Wolf was bribed, 
 though no man can read this testimony and believe that for 
 an instant. .That makes 11 tainted votes, and if we subtract 
 them all from the 108 votes received by WILLIAM LORIMER, he 
 was still duly and legally elected. 
 
 PROCEEDINGS OF THE JOINT ASSEMBLY. 
 
 In the joint assembly of the Illinois Legislature WILLIAM 
 LORIMER received 108 votes, Albert J. Hopkins received 70 votes, 
 and Lawrence B. Stringer received 24 votes, making a total of 
 202 votes cost on that ballot; and as WILLIAM LORIMER had re- 
 ceived a majority of that number, he was declared by the proper 
 presiding officer to have been duly chosen a Senator from the 
 State of Illinois. There is no controversy as to the total num- 
 ber of votes cast, or as to the number of votes received by 
 805959673
 
 35 
 
 WILLIAM LORIMER; hut the validity of his election is denied 
 upon the ground that it was procured through the bribery of 
 legislators, though the number of legislators so bribed has not 
 been agreed on by any two of the Senators who have advised the 
 Senate to declare that election void. In the early stages of 
 the debate it was only claimed that 7 of the votes cast for Mr. 
 LORIMER were shown by the testimony to have been corrupted ; 
 and it was promptly answered that even if it were admitted 
 that 7 votes had been corrupted by Mr. LORIMER' s friends with- 
 out his knowledge his election would still be valid. The dis- 
 cussion revolved about that point for several days, and then 
 the Senator from New York, perceiving the weakness of a con- 
 tention based upon those 7 votes, invented a new theory of the 
 case, which I listened to with amazement. He followed the 
 Senators from Idaho and Iowa in claiming that if 7 votes were 
 shown to have been corrupted the election was thus vitiated ; 
 but not willing to trust his case to a rule which he must have 
 known could be demonstrated to have no foundation in law or 
 in logic, he worked himself up into such a frenzy of indigna- 
 tion that he finally declared that the entire 30 votes of what he 
 denounced as "Browne's band of robbers" must be rejected; and 
 the Senator from Ohio [Mr. BURTON], who followed him, not to 
 be outdone by the Senator from New York in this crusade 
 against Illinois, went to the extreme of declaring that the whole 
 legislature of that State was so corrupt as to be incapable of 
 conducting an honest election for a Senator. Mr. President, 
 these claims are so extravagant that nothing but the high 
 sources from which they come would save them from being ab- 
 solutely ridiculous, and I can not feel that I am required to 
 answer them. I shall therefore leave them aside; and address 
 myself to the real question here, which was raised by the Senator 
 from Idaho and the Senator from Iowa and indorsed by the Sen- 
 ator from New York ; and that question is whether, if the 7 votes 
 of White, Browne, Beckemeyer, Link, Wilson, Holstlaw and 
 Broderick be rejected, there was still a legaJ and valid election. 
 While I do not concede that these votes were in fact corrupt, I 
 am perfectly willing, for the purpose of this branch of the argu- 
 ment, to admit that they were, and that they must therefore be 
 rejected. Deducting those 7 votes from LORIMER'S 108 would 
 leave him 101, and deducting them also from the total vote of 202 
 would leave 195, of which the 101 legal votes received by 
 LORIMER would constitute a clear majority, and make his elec- 
 tion lawful beyond any doubt. 
 
 At this point in the argument, Mr. President, T encounter my 
 difference with the Senators from Idaho and Iowa, who con- 
 tend that while it is right to subtract the seven corrupt, and 
 therefore illegal, votes from LORIMER. it is wrong to also sub- 
 tract them from the total number of votes cast. Neither the 
 Senator from Idaho nor the Senator from Iowa nor the Sena- 
 tor from New York claims that those seven rejected votes can 
 be bestowed on either of Mr. LORIMER'S opponents or be divided 
 between them according to some unascertained proportion; but 
 while declaring that those votes shall not be counted for LORI- 
 MER, and admitting that they can not be counted for Hopkins 
 or Stringer, they still maintain that somehow or somehow else 
 they must be included in the total number of votes cast. Such 
 a proceeding, sir, can find no warrant in the law, for upon no 
 805959673
 
 36 
 
 principle with which I am familiar can we reject a vote as it 
 has been cast and still count it for any other purpose. 
 
 Under our own practice in the Senate we do not include 
 votes which could be cast and counted, but are not cast, in esti- 
 mating the total number, and we very recently overruled the 
 Chair when he attempted to count them simply to make a 
 quorum. If on a roll call of the Senate the affirmative of a 
 proposition receives 35 votes and the negative receives 34, it 
 would pass notwithstanding 10 Senators, one after another, 
 might rise and announce their pairs, coupling the announcement 
 with a statement that they would vote "no" if at liberty to 
 vote, and yet, sir, upon this record showing that of the Senators 
 present, 44 of them were opposed to the passage of the measure, 
 it would pass, because only the 69 who voted and were entitled 
 to vote, could be considered and the 35 affirmative votes would 
 be a majority of them. 
 
 At almost every session of the Senate we illustrate the prop- 
 osition that no member of a legislative assembly except one who 
 has a right to vote and who has lawfully exercised that right can 
 be included in any computation or counted for any purpose. But 
 while I think the practice here conforms to the principle for 
 which I contend, this precise question has never before been pre- 
 sented to the Senate and has not, therefore, been decided by 
 this body. It is true that the Senator from Iowa and the Sen- 
 ator from Idaho have read to the Senate extracts from the 
 views which Senator Hoar and Senator FKYE filed in the Payne 
 case, but they can not be ignorant of the fact that those views 
 were not accepted by the Committee on Privileges and Elections, 
 and they must know that the resolution which Senator Hoar 
 offered in accordance with them was defeated on a roll call of 
 the Senate by a vote of 44 to 17. When reading that extract 
 from Senator Hoar's paper, the Senator from Iowa found that 
 the Massachusetts Senator's figures would not work out the 
 proper result, and he suggested that there was a misprint by 
 which Senator Hoar was made to say six where he meant to 
 say seven ; but if the Senator from Iowa had read that paper 
 to its conclusion, he would have found the same figures re- 
 peated in another paragraph of it, and we are hardly at liberty 
 to suppose that they were a misprint But whether the calcu- 
 lation of the Massachusetts Senator was right or wrong is not 
 material here, and the only question which concerns us is 
 whether his law was right or wrong. Senator Hoar, who 
 drafted that paper after a long service, in which he honored 
 both his State and his country, has passed from among us, but 
 Senator FRYE, who joined him in it, is still a Member of the 
 Senate, and we all hope that he will remain here for many years 
 to aid us with his wise and patriotic counsel ; but, sir, those 
 distinguished Senators could not induce the committee to accept 
 their views and their resolution was rejected by a most decisive 
 majority. 
 
 Mr. BORAH. Mr. President 
 
 The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from 
 Texas yield to the Senator from Idaho? 
 
 Mr. BAILEY. I do. 
 
 Mr. BORAH. Upon what question does the Senator from 
 Texas understand that it was voted down? Not upon the law? 
 
 Mr. BAILEY. There was no specific proposition voted on, 
 but my statement was that the resolution, drawn in accordance 
 805959673
 
 37 
 
 with the report, was voted down. There was no separate vote 
 on any single statement in it, of course. 
 
 Mr. BORAH. The question involved was whether or not 
 they would make an investigation. 
 
 Mr. BAILEY. That is true. 
 
 Mr. BORAH. And the Senate voted that it would not pro- 
 ceed to investigate. 
 
 Mr. BAILEY. But if the argument of the Senator from 
 Massachusetts had been concurred in by the Senate, I think 
 it absolutely certain that an investigation ought to have been, 
 and would have been, ordered. 
 
 Mr. BORAH. That being true, if the Senate had accepted 
 the view of the Senator from Massachusetts as to the evidence. 
 The committee were divided as to whether or not there was 
 sufficient evidence to warrant it in proceeding to investigate. 
 
 Mr. BAILEY. Not only that, Mr. President, but there was 
 also the question whether if there were corruption at all it 
 was sufficient to have affected the result. The Senator from 
 Massachusetts argued this subtraction and elimination, and 
 according to his theory of the case there was sufficient evidence; 
 but the Senate rejected his view. 
 
 THE CLARK CASE. 
 
 The Senator from Iowa thought he had found a distinct and 
 authoritative approval of his contention in the Clark case, and 
 he ventured to say that while the report in that case was 
 never passed on by the Senate, it expressed the unanimous 
 judgment ef the Committee on Privileges and Elections. Of 
 course, Mr. President, I know that the Senator from Iowa did 
 not intend to mislead the Senate, but his statement, if ac- 
 cepted, would mislead us very widely. In the first p!ace, every 
 Senator understands that the argument of a report represents 
 only the member of the committee who prepares it, and that 
 the conclusion only can be fairly attributed to the committee. 
 In this very case which is now before the Senate my name is 
 signed to the report which the chairman of the committee 
 made, and yet I did not read it before it was presented to the 
 Senate. The chairman of the committee tendered it to me and 
 I very promptly told him that I did not want to read it, because 
 I held myself responsible only for its conclusion and not for 
 its arguments or statements. But, sir, I could understand how 
 the Senator from Iowa might not be familiar with this prac- 
 tice, and he might believe that every report in all of its argu- 
 ments and statements was thoroughly considered by the whole 
 committee and approved by it. He can not, however, be ex- 
 cused for supposing that such was the case in the Clark report, 
 because there was a minority report filed in that case, and 
 printed immediately following the committee's report from 
 which he has quoted, and in the very second paragraph of that 
 minority report appears this distinct and emphatic declaration : 
 
 We agreed and still agree to the resolution reported by the committee 
 through Its chairman. That resolution was adopted by the committee 
 itself. But the report is merely the writing of the chairman with the 
 aid of one other member and never was submitted to any meeting of 
 the committee, and therefore can not be considered as the words of the 
 committee. 
 
 In the face of the universal practice here, I would not con- 
 sider the report of the Clark case as expressing more than the 
 views of the Senator who prepared it, and when to the general 
 805959673
 
 38 
 
 custom of the Senate is added the specific declaration made by 
 the members of the committee, the arguments in that paper 
 must be regarded as expressing only the individual opinion of 
 the Hon. William E. Chandler. If we had nothing before us 
 beyond the paper of Senator Hoar and the report of Senator 
 Chandler, I would still maintain with the- utmost confidence 
 that the rule which they have suggested is so contrary to the 
 reason of the law that we could not accept it. 
 
 THE AUTHORITIES. 
 
 But. fortunately, sir, we are not without high and express 
 authority on this very question. The textbooks all agree in 
 saying that an illegal vote must be rejected, and that propo- 
 sition is so elementary that it seems almost like a reflection 
 upon the intelligence of the Snate for me to read what a great 
 text writer has said in support of it; but as what I am now 
 saying may be read by those who are not so familiar with the 
 law as Senators are presumed to be, I will occupy a moment in 
 reading from Paine's work on Elections, in which he says : 
 
 The rule is well settled that the whole vote of a precinct should not 
 be thrown out on account of Illegal votes if It be practicable to ascer- 
 tain the number of the illegal votes, and the candidate for whom they 
 were cast, in order to reject them and leave the legal votes to be 
 counted. This is safer than the rule which arbitrarily apportions the 
 fraud among the parties. But in a contest for a seat in the Forty- 
 fifth Congress, the Committee on Elections said : "In purging the 
 polls of illegal votes, the general rule is that, unless it is shown for 
 which candidate they were cast, they are to be deducted from the 
 whole vote of the election division, and not from the candidates having 
 the highest number. Of course, in the application o'f this rule, such 
 illegal votes x would be deducted proportionately from both candidates 
 according to the entire vote returned for each." 
 
 In another and subsequent section the author again declares 
 that 
 
 Where illegal votes have been cast the true rule is to purge the poll 
 by first proving for whom they were cast, and thus ascertain the real 
 vote ; but if this can not be done, then to exclude the poll altogether. 
 
 If it be objected that the rule laid down in this textbook re- 
 lates to a general election among the people, I answer that the 
 law according to which we must decide the election of a Senator 
 is exactly the same law according to which the courts must 
 decide the election of the governor of a State or the sheriff of 
 a county or the constable of a precinct. Not only, sir, do the 
 textbooks say that an illegal vote must be rejected, but the 
 courts have said the same thing with remarkable unanimity ; 
 nor have they left us to speculate as to what they mean by the 
 rejection of a vote. 
 
 DECIDED BY THE COURTS. 
 
 I have here the case of Charles Bott et el. v. The Secretary 
 of State, decided by the supreme court of New Jersey in June, 
 1898, and reported in the sixty-second volume of the New Jer- 
 sey Law Reports. Without taking the time to state the facts 
 in that case, it will be sufficient to read this extract from the 
 opinion : 
 
 Though a qualified voter succeeds in getting his name on the poll list 
 and a ballet in the ballot box, he is not a voter voting on the amend- 
 ments unless his ballot is such as is prescribed by law and conforms to 
 the general law regulating elections. The act contains no provision for 
 the certificate and return of the ballots that were rejected, nor does it 
 provide for an inquiry either before the county bnaods of election or 
 before the board of State canvassers with respect to the grounds upon 
 which votes have been rejected, nor are either of these boards empow- 
 805959673
 
 39 
 
 ered to embody in their official action any results other than such as 
 are exhibited by the official statements produced before them. The bal- 
 lots returned as rejected must be taken to have been properly rejected, 
 and consequently are to be excluded from the computation of the votes 
 cast for or against the amendments. Such ballots were simply nullities. 
 
 Within four years after the New Jersey court had delivered 
 the opinion from which 1 have just quoted the foregoing ex- 
 tract another case involving a similar question was presented 
 for its decision, and they reaffirmed the doctrine of Bott v. The 
 Secretary of State in the following language: 
 
 Counsel for the incumbent contends that if the vote of the township 
 be excluded still the relator can not succeed, because in such event he 
 would not have been elected by a majority of all the ballots cast at the 
 election. The fact is as stated, but the argument loses sight of the 
 decision of this court and of the court of errors and appeals in the case 
 of Bott v. Secretary of State. (33 Vroom, 107 ; S. C., 34 Id., 289.) 
 
 In that case it was held that in determining whether a majority of 
 votes had been received for an amendment to the Constitution only 
 those electors who lawfully voted for or against the amendment are to 
 be considered. It is true that the opinions delivered dealt only with the 
 language of a given clause of the Constitution, but the line of" reasoning 
 is applicable with equal force wherever the question of the computation 
 of a majority of votes is presented. The principle announced is that 
 ballots cast at an election are to' be deemed votes only when legally 
 capable of being counted as such, and that in determining the total 
 vote upon which a majority is to be based the votes that may figure in 
 the result and not the ballots that were cast in the box are to be 
 considered. 
 
 In the case of Louis J. Hopkins v. The City of Duluth et al., 
 decided by the supreme court of Minnesota in the summer of 
 1900 and reported in the eighty-first volume of the Minnesota 
 Reports, I find the same question considered and the same con- 
 clusion reached. That case turned on whether the 26 votes in 
 question should be rejected as an expression of the electors but 
 still counted in estimating the total number of votes cast, and 
 this is what the court said : 
 
 Of the 26 ballots thus excluded by the trial court, 5 had either the 
 names or initials of the voters casting them written thereon, a_nd 
 clearly indicated such evidence of identification of the persons casting 
 such ballots as constituted a plain and palpable fraud upon the election 
 law. They were not counted, although. expressing in each case the 
 voter's choice in certain respects. (Pennington v. Hare, 60 Mhin., 146: 
 62 N. W., 116 ; Truelsen v. Hugo, supra, p. 73.) That the identified 
 ballots thus deposited should be excluded from the total vote is the only 
 reasonable inference that follows from the application of the doctrine 
 of these cases. The fraud which nullifies the choice expressed on these 
 ballots must logically vitiate their use for any purpose. They were 
 void. It necessarily follows that the poll list can not be regarded as 
 absolute evidence of the aggregate vote upon which the constitutional 
 majority is to be estimated. 
 
 Thus, Mr. President, we have the authority of the textbooks 
 and of the courts for saying that an illegal vote must be re- 
 jected for all purposes and that it can not be considered for 
 any purpose. That. sir. is not only the law and the logic, but 
 it is the rule best calculated to promote political morality. It 
 treats a dishonest vote as if the corrupt legislator who cast it 
 were civilly dead, at least in that transaction, and it leaves the 
 result to be determined by the votes of honest men. 
 
 But, Mr. President, when I have thoroughly fortified my posi- 
 tion by citations from the textbooks and the opinions of high 
 courts and when learned Senators on the other side have agreed 
 to the law as I have laid it down, I am met by the Senator from 
 New York [Mr. ROOT] with the suggestion that there is no law 
 according to which we must decide this case. Instead, sir, of 
 offering us a quotation from some law book or from the opinion 
 of some great judge, he lays his hand upon his heart and ex- 
 805959673
 
 40 
 
 claims with a dramatic gesture that it is the only source from 
 which we are compelled to take our law. If it be true, Mr. 
 President, that there is no law binding us to judge the election, 
 qualifications and returns of Senator, then, sir, it is high time 
 that we were making one, because it can never be safe in a 
 free republic like ours to exempt any tribunal charged with the 
 duty of deciding any case from an obligation to decide that 
 case according to the law of the land. 
 
 If we acknowledge no law here, what right will we have to 
 reproach our unlettered constituents if they acknowledge no law 
 in the States from which we come. That doctrine is an invi- 
 tation and an encouragement to riot and anarchy. Law, sir, 
 is as universal as God and nature, and it inflicts its penal- 
 ties on all who disobey it. The intellectual and physical worlds 
 have their laws and they are as inexorable as fate and swifter 
 far than justice. If we violate the laws of health and gorge our- 
 selves at the table or overwork ourselves in the field, we must 
 suffer for our folly. It is law, sir, which holds these myriads 
 of worlds in their safe relation to each other, and if the law 
 of gravitation and attraction should be suspended for an 
 instant the earth would perish, and amidst the wreck of matter 
 and the crash of worlds the Senate itself would disappear. 
 
 Our English ancestors once established the kind of law which 
 the Senator from New York pleads with us to adopt. Finding 
 the common law so technical and so inflexible that it often 
 defeated the ends of justice, they instituted what they called 
 courts of chancery and appointed chancellors who were au- 
 thorized to decide all cases coming before them as their con- 
 sciences directed. But, sir, the decisions of the chancery 
 courts were often arbitrary and many times more unjust than 
 those made according to the common law, whose defects it was 
 supposed that this court of chancery would correct. It was 
 soon found that the consciences of the different chancellors 
 varied, as one man said with more wisdom than wit, as widely 
 as their feet, and the whole system of equity jurisprudence was 
 brought into such disrepute that a great novelist satirized it in 
 a story which will live as long as men read the English lan- 
 guage. 
 
 We were never so foolish as the country from which we de- 
 rived our institutions,, for we have always required chancellors 
 to decide every case according to the well-established rules of 
 equity jurisprudence, and a chancellor who would tell a suitor 
 in his court or an attorney at his bar that he would ignore 
 the law and decide the case according to his conscience would 
 be impeached and driven in disgrace from the bench whose 
 powers he had abused. No, sir, Mr. President, there are no 
 judges in this country who can decide cases according to their 
 conscience and against the law. When we come to make the 
 law, we take counsel of our conscience and even of our hearts 
 to see that it is just to the strong and rich and even merciful 
 to the weak and poor; but when the law has once been made 
 it is the duty of every man to religiously obey it, and as the 
 Senate of the United States is the highest assembly in this 
 Republic, so it stands under the highest obligation to obey 
 the law, without subterfuge and without evasion. The law, 
 sir, is the safety of this Nation; it is the safety of these States, 
 and in its supremacy lies the safety of every man who has a 
 right to call himself an American citizen. 
 805959673
 
 41 
 
 The Senator from New York, perceiving that it would be im- 
 possible to declare Mr. LORIMER'S election void, even if it were 
 admitted that every legislator against whom any testimony has 
 been offered was in fact influenced by bribery to vote for him, 
 and not certain that the Senate will accept his theory that there 
 is no law to govern us in our decision, has invented a new rule of 
 evidence for special application to this case. Assuming that 
 bribery has been proved against certain members of the Illinois 
 Legislature, he proceeds to deliver the Senate a lecture upon the 
 peculiarity of legislative corruption, and tells us that wherever 
 any corruption at all is found, it is but a fraction of that which 
 really exists, and that from the little which we may discover 
 we must infer the existence of very much more. That, sir, is a 
 startling doctrine, and I do not think the Senator from New 
 York would venture to urge it upon any court; because it re- 
 verses the presumption that every man is honest until the con- 
 trary is shown by some competent evidence. I dp not believe 
 that it has ever before been 'contended in the presence of an 
 intelligent audience that when some members of an assembly 
 have been shown to be corrupt all of its other members fall 
 instantly under a just suspicion. 
 
 Not only, sir, is the presumption which the Senator from 
 New York indulges at war with every rule of enlightened juris- 
 prudence, but it is not supported by common experience. I 
 have generally found that where any corruption is discovered, 
 the extent of it is always grossly exaggerated. I have seen the 
 newspapers filled with sensational charges of corruption in both 
 Houses of Congress, and I have seen committees appointed to in- 
 vestigate "those charges, but, sir, with rare exceptions, it has 
 always transpired that there was no reasonable foundation for 
 them and that they had their origin in the idle talk of men who 
 had magnified small circumstances until what had at first been 
 whispered as a bare suspicion had come to be openly asserted as 
 a definite and positive fact. 
 
 I am sure that the Senator from New York is wrong when he 
 tells us that we must infer an extensive corruption whenever 
 any corruption is revealed ; but, sir, even if he were right, as a 
 general proposition, I am absolutely certain that he is wrong in 
 this particular case, for never in the history of American poli- 
 tics was a more determined effort made to invalidate an elec- 
 tion and discredit a man. The parties behind this prosecution, 
 it is true, were not after the legislators whom they charged 
 with accepting bribes, but they were after Senator LORIMER; 
 and they have left nothing undone to taint his election. Indeed, 
 sir, they traded with men whom they call bribe takers, and 
 granted immunity for both bribery and perjury to all who 
 %vould aid them in their effort to impeach the election of Mr. 
 LORIMER. Holstlaw had been called before the grand jury of 
 Sangamon county and examined concerning a State furniture 
 contract. He was asked if he had written a certain letter, and 
 he swore that he had not. It happened that the State's Attor- 
 ney had the letter which Holstlaw denied writing in his posses- 
 sion at that very time, and Holstlaw was promptly indicted for 
 perjury; but though they had the physical and incontrovertible 
 evidence of his guilt,_ they agreed to release him if he would 
 sign a statement admitting that Broderick had paid him money 
 on account of his vote for LORIMER. 
 
 So it was with Beckemeyer and Link. They swore they 
 80595 9673
 
 42 
 
 had not been at St. Louis. If they had been there and the 
 district attorney had physical proof in the shape of the hotel 
 registers that they were there they had perjured themselves 
 and the State had the evidence to insure their conviction. But 
 what did the State's Attorney do? Did he drag these culprits 
 before the bar of public justice and vindicate the outraged law 
 by their conviction ? No, sir, he compromised with them, and 
 turned them loose to continue their nefarious practices upon con- 
 dition that they would testify to bribery in LORIMER'S election ! 
 
 With the whole machinery of Illinois, aided by rich and 
 powerful newspapers, at work on the ease, do you believe there 
 was any corruption which they did not uncover? They dragged 
 old man De Wolf before the courts and before the committee 
 and soiled his name with the suggestion of dishonor, when the 
 only proof against him was that he had bought a piece of land 
 for $#,600 of which he paid $600 in cash and secured the bal- 
 ance by giving a mortgage not only on the land he bought, but 
 by also including in it the land which he previously owned. 
 This man, an industrious and an upright farmer, could easily 
 have saved $600 out of his more than $3000 salary; but, sir, 
 these hounds of hell dragged him before the public and dis- 
 gra'ced him, or tried to do so, by charging that he had sold 
 his vote. 
 
 They found one man who had bought some diamonds while a 
 member of that legislature, and they exhibited him to the world 
 as a bribe taker, and as an evidence of his guilt they introduced 
 the extravagance which led him to buy $105 worth of diamonds. 
 [Laughter.] 
 
 With an organized search like this, dragging men so little 
 subject to suspicion before the public and charging them with 
 the gravest of all crimes, who doubts that they exhausted the 
 list? I do not. 
 
 But while the Senator from New York has gone far beyond 
 what the law and the evidence in this case will justify, he 
 has not gone so far as the Senator from Ohio has done. 
 Indeed, sir, the Senator from Ohio declared that such cor- 
 ruption existed in that legislature as to render it doubtful if 
 it could have held an honest election. Unless I read it, the 
 Senators who hear me may think that I am mistaken in at- 
 tributing such an extreme declaration to the Senator from Ohio ; 
 but here it is : 
 
 The whole record Is interspersed with accounts of departures from 
 
 ?arty affiliations, fake letters, jack pots, bathroom conferences, unlaw- 
 ul promises relating to office, hurried conferences, and frantic efforts 
 to cover their tracks and escape from the consequences of their wrong- 
 doing. It is connected also with the receipt of bribes and with gen- 
 eral corruption in the legislature. Who will say, in the face of all 
 this evidence, that any election by that legislature would be a sound and 
 a valid one? 
 
 Thus he indicts a whole legislature, impedes its electoral ma- 
 chinery and denies its right to perform one of its most in- 
 portant functions upon the testimony of men whose very pres- 
 ence he would shun as a pestilence. Mr. President, if I were 
 actuated purely by a personal friendship for Senator LORIMER, 
 which I am not for while I have served with him in the other 
 House and in this Senate, and while I never knew him to tell 
 a lie or to do anything that the most honorable man might not 
 do, I have never talked with him 20 minutes in my life but, 
 if I were actuated purely by a personal regard for him, I would 
 prefer to see the Senate unseat him, for if the Illinois Legis- 
 80595 9673
 
 43 
 
 lature is not as corrupt as the Senator from Ohio says it is 
 and since the whole basis upon which his right to a seat here 
 is denied is that it is composed of a band of thieves and rob- 
 bers it would answer such a vote of the Senate by imme- 
 diately re-electing the Senator from Illinois. 
 
 Mr. President, there is nothing in this record to justify the 
 sweeping and wholesale condemnation pronounced against the 
 Legislature of the State of Illinois by the Senator from Ohio. 
 True, sir, that there is proof that there was much loose talk 
 about the use of money at Springfield; but outside of the self- 
 confessed perjurers there is absolutely no proof whatever that 
 money was used in the senatorial election or in any other matter. 
 Even White when testifying that Browne assured him that he 
 would receive about $1,000 "from other sources," admitted that 
 he did not,, up to that time, know anything about the so-called 
 "jack pot." He said that he had heard from men who had 
 served in previous legislatures that there was a fund divided 
 among members at the end of each session; but that he had not 
 been advised of any such fund raised or to be distributed to 
 members of that legislature; and that was only nine days be- 
 fore the legislature adjourned. With the knowledge of White's 
 character, furnished by his own testimony, who can doubt that 
 if a jack pot really existed in that legislature he would have 
 been one of its active agents and beneficiaries? Curran swore 
 that White sought to profit by his position as a member of a com- 
 mittee, and although he had been the representative of a labor 
 organization, at the preceding session of the legislature he was 
 so base as to attempt to stand in the way of a bill for the relief 
 of the working women of that state. Not only that ! But he 
 complained at Mr. Doyle and others, who were representing the 
 labor organizations at Springfield during that session of the 
 legislature, because they had not offered him anything for his 
 vote or his influence, and denounced them in language which I 
 hesitate to incorporate into the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, as "the 
 damnedest cheapest bunch" he had ever seen. Standing in the 
 corridors of the capitol with outstretched ihand soliciting a bribe 
 even from the representatives of the labor organizations to 
 whose support he owed his election, does any man believe that 
 White was ignorant of a jack pot, if one existed, until nine 
 days before the legislature adjourned? 
 
 Representative Shaw, to whom I have already once referred 
 and for whose intelligence and integrity I have freely vouched, 
 testified that there was much talk about the use of money at 
 Springfield, but he also testified that no money was ever offered 
 him; that he saw no money used, and that he did not know of 
 any facts which would justify the charge that it had been used. 
 For the information of the Senate on this point, I will read Mr. 
 Shaw's testimony. 
 
 Mr. AUSTRIAN. Well. I withdraw the objection, provided counsel 
 permits the witness to testify and does not testify himself ; that is all. 
 
 Senator BURROWS. The objection is withdrawn. That will save 
 time. Answer the question. Read the question. A. Really, I do 
 not know whether I had any talk with Mr. Groves or not. I do not 
 remember any conversation. 
 
 Judge HANECY. If you did have any conversation with him, did 
 you say to him or in his presence that you had been offered money or 
 that you could get money for voting for WILLIAM LORIMER? A. I 
 did not. 
 
 Judge HANECY. That is all. 
 
 Senator BURROWS. Anything further? 
 
 Mr. AUSTRIAN. Yes:" just a moment. 
 8059596?::
 
 44 
 
 Q. Did you ever talk to Jacob Groves with reference to money 
 being paid at Springfield or offered at Springfield for votes for 
 I'nited States Senator? A. Well, the talk was kind of common down 
 there at the time ; I do not know ; I might have ; I would not be posi- 
 tive about that. They were talking, joking away frequently, some- 
 times. 
 
 Q. And sometimes serious talk ? A. Perhaps, serious ; yes. 
 
 Q. Why did White say that his constituency were sore at him? A. 
 Well, I presume because they were. 
 
 Q. Why? A. Why were they sore at him? 
 
 Q. Yes. A. Because he voted for LORIMER. 
 
 Mr. AUSTRIAN. That is all. 
 
 Judge HANECY. You heard a great deal of jocular talk all through 
 the regular sessions, from the beginning to the end, about money that 
 could or would or might be used for different things, didn't' you? A. 
 Yes ;I heard of a great many barrels being opened, but I did not see any. 
 
 Q. You never heard and never knew anything about that, except tlmt 
 general jocular talk? A. That is all I knew about it. 
 
 Q. That is all. A. I heard of barrels being opened, out when they 
 were opened, they were apples. 
 
 Senator FRAZIER. That talk with respect to money increased about 
 that time, or immediately preceding the election of Senator LORI- 
 MER ; A. No ; I don't believe it did. 
 
 Mr. President, it is often true at Washington as it was at 
 Springfield, that when these "barrels" of which we hear so 
 much are opened, they turn out to be apples instead of gold, 
 and the corruption which suspicious minds are ready to insin- 
 uate against everybody is seldom based upon any better reason. 
 
 But the Senator from New York [Mr. ROOT] says that Mr. 
 Donohue, whom he describes as a stanch old Democrat, testi- 
 fied that there was corruption; and he read this from Mr. Dono- 
 hue's testimony : 
 
 That was the general talk, and I could not trace It down ; I could 
 not tell now who said it, and then that kind of died away, and then 
 after the election of Mr. LORIMER the thing started again that they 
 were everything was not straight down there at Springfield with 
 reference to the election of United States Senator. And everybody, I 
 think I was suspicious myself about the way things went down there. 
 Of course, I didn't have any direct evidence, only from general appear- 
 ance, I could not see why so many Democrats were going over in a body 
 to vote for a Republican. They may have had reasons, and be more 
 liberal in their views than I am, and might have gone over. I could 
 not see it that way. I am a Democrat, and I am a pretty strong 
 partisan. 
 
 In passing, I want to call the Senate's attention to a rather 
 remarkable omission which the Senator from New York made 
 in quoting this testimony of Donohue. Immediately preceding 
 the quotation which I have just read and when I say immedi- 
 ately I do not mean that it was three or even two lines pre- 
 ceding it, but absolutely next to it Donohue made this answer : 
 
 The first thing I heard down there, I heard that Mr. Hopkins was 
 trying to buy some votes ; that is what I first heard. 
 
 I regret to find that the Senator from New York is willing to 
 use Donohue's testimony to create in the minds of Senators a 
 belief that money was being used to elect LORIMER, and yet is at 
 the same time willing to suppress the testimony which shows 
 that the same loose accusations were made against Hopkins. 
 Without intending to suggest that Donohue is other than an 
 honest man and a truthful witness, his own testimony abun- 
 dantly shows that he was one of those gentleman who are too 
 often ready to suspect the integrity of men without sufficient, 
 and, indeed, without any positive, information. Mr. Donohue's 
 testimony, which the Senator from New York did not read, so 
 forcibly illustrates how much these charges were based upon 
 mere suspicion and how little they were based upon any tangi- 
 ble proof that I think it worth my while to read several of the 
 80595 9673
 
 45 
 
 other answers which he made to pertinent questions. They ap- 
 pear on page 523 of the testimony, and are as follows : 
 
 Judge HANECY. Did you ever have such a conversation with Mr. 
 Groves? A. I do not remember of any such conversation. I may have 
 had it, because, as I say, I was very much wrought up as to what was 
 happening down there, and might have said that in reply to what Mr. 
 Groves said. I will not say yes or no on that question ; I might have 
 said that. If I did say it, it was a remark, a mere inference of what 
 transpired, and had reference, if I did say it, had reference to Lee 
 O'Neil Browne's speech, because I replied to his speech, and we were 
 bitter toward each other ; that is all. 
 
 Q. If you did say thai, or that in substance, or anything like it, Mr. 
 Donohue, was there anything to sustain it except your general anger 
 at the conditions as they existed there? A. Well, not I did not state 
 only just on account of the conditions as they existed there ; yes. 
 
 Q. Were any of these conditions the presence of money that you 
 knew of, or offering of money by anybody? A. No. 
 
 Q. Or offer of anything of value by anybody ? A. No. 
 
 Q. For a vote for WILLIAM LORIMER for United States Senator? A. 
 Nothing that I know of, positively, by way of money or other things of 
 value. It was just said from the general appearance of things, an in- 
 ference I used from what was done. 
 
 Q. And you said you were angry because A. Well, we were not 
 
 very friendly, Mr. Browne and I ; we did not agree all through th 
 session : do not agree as yet. 
 
 Q. You were not one of the Browne faction? A. No; I was not, sir. 
 
 Q. You were one of the Tippet ? A. No ; I was not one of the Tippet. 
 
 Q. I believe you were unattached there? A. I was placed in neither 
 one of them. 
 
 Senator BURROWS. Is that all? 
 
 Judge HANECY. That is all. 
 
 Senator GAMBLE. You were acting on your own responsibility? A. 
 Yes. sir. 
 
 Senator FRAZIER. Mr. Donohue, if you say you made that statement, 
 which was based on facts, conditions, and circumstances surrounding, 
 did you hear from anybody any statement or anything about anything 
 that money had been paid for votes? A. No: I never heard a thousand 
 dollars mentioned up to that time, and if Mr. Groves said that I do 
 not remember that he said it. 
 
 Q. There was talk of money having been used? A. There was talk 
 of money having been used generally. 
 
 Q. You could not locate it as to anybody that said be got it ; you 
 didn't know of anybody ? A. No ; I didn't know of anybody that got it. 
 
 I do not believe that I err when I say that many people in 
 this country believe that bribery is frequent in the House of 
 Representatives as well as in the Senate; but, sir, every man 
 here knows that such a belief is utterly unfounded, for amongst 
 the many thousands of men who have served the Federal Gov- 
 ernment in the House and in the Senate since it was organized, 
 the bribe takers and the bribe givers could almost be counted 
 on the fingers of a single hand. As we know, sir, that thou- 
 sands accuse Congress unjustly, may we not suppose that thou- 
 sands have also unjustly accused the legislatures of these States? 
 I do not say that corruption in the various legislatures is as 
 rare as it is in Congress, and naturally that would not be true, 
 because the people choose men of more exalted character and* of 
 greater ability for these higher places. But, sir, the people know 
 the men whom they elect to their State legislatures, and they 
 are not apt to choose a bribe taker from among their neighbors 
 to represent them. That they do sometimes make that mistake 
 in Illinois is as certain as that they have made it in New York. 
 The indictment of the Senator from New York [Mr. ROOT] 
 and the Senator from Ohio [Mr. BURTON] is against the Com- 
 monwealth of Illinois. If her legislature is as corrupt as they 
 charge it with being, then, sir, the legislature is not alone in 
 that condition, and the people themselves must be corrupt; 
 because, in the face of these charges and with the evidence of 
 the criminal trials before them, the Democrats renominated 
 805959673
 
 46 
 
 and the people re-elected Browne to the legislature. Robert E. 
 Wilson, the man charged with distributing the corruption fund 
 at St. Louis on the second occasion, was renominated by the 
 Democratic party and re-elected by the people of his district; 
 and John Broderick, the senator who was charged with bribing 
 Hoktlaw, was renominated and re-elected to the State senate ; 
 Speaker Shurtleff, who was also active in LORIMER'S 'behalf, 
 was re-elected to the legislature ; and an indictment against 
 them, sir, is an indictment against their people. 
 
 In the beginning of his speech the Senator from New York 
 classed Shurtleff as one of the trinity of bribers and corrup- 
 tionists, linking him with LORIMER and Browne; but though he 
 continued and accentuated his invective against LORIMER and 
 Bro'.vne he said little more about Shurtleff. The Senator from 
 New York sits so near the Senator from Ohio [Mr. BURTON], 
 whose close connection Shurtleff is, that I wonder if that re- 
 strained him. [Laughter.] 
 
 When the Senator from New York denounces Browne, he 
 ought to remember Jotham Allds, who was not the leader of a 
 minority, divided into factions of almost equal strength, as 
 Browne was; but the leader of his party in the State senate 
 of New York. He was charged with receiving bribes, and they 
 proved that he was guilty by the admission of Senator Conger 
 that he was himself a bribe giver ; and both this bribe-taking 
 Senator Allds and this bribe-giving Senator Conger were mem- 
 bers of the legislature which elected the Senator from New York 
 to this body. 
 
 But, sir, I do not impeach the right of the Senator to his 
 seat upon such a circumstance as that. I do not invoke against 
 him the doctrine which he urges against the Senator from 
 Illinois ; and yet, sir, if we are to accept his theory that a 
 little corruption found is but the index of a larger corruption 
 which can not be uncovered, we might be compelled to say 
 that the New York legislature was as little capable of conduct- 
 ing an honest senatorial election as the Legislature of Illinois. 
 
 The strangest contention in all of this controversy to me has 
 been the assertion made and repeated by the Senator from Idaho 
 [Mr. BORAH], the Senator from Iowa [Mr. CUMMINS], and the 
 Senator from New York [Mr. ROOT] that in demanding the total 
 exclusion of a dishonest vote I was reallygiving effect to such votes. 
 
 That charge, sir, can be sustained against their position, but 
 not against mine. Let me analyze it and see if I can not make 
 it plain that it is their rule which permits a dishonest vote to 
 exert some influence over an election and to defeat the will of 
 an honest majority. I will use the very case before us as an 
 illustration. Let us assume that the four legislators who testi- 
 fied* that they received money were bribed, although they did 
 not all testify that they received money for the vote which they 
 cast for LORIMER; and let us also assume that the three men 
 who are charged with having paid that money were likewise 
 bribed. Let us go even one step further, and say that Clark. 
 Luke, Shephard and De Wolf were bribed, thus making a total 
 of 11 votes to be rejected on the ground of bribery. With these 
 men eliminated there is absolutely no word of testimony im- 
 peaching the integrity of any other member of the legislature, 
 and unless we are ready to say that all men are corrupt simply 
 because some men have been shown to be corrupt, we must as- 
 sume that the Illinois legislators against whom no evidence has 
 805959673
 
 47 
 
 been introduced and against whom not even a suspicion has been 
 suggested were upright and patriotic men. Subtracting these 11 
 votes from a total of 202 we have an unchallenged membership 
 of 191 members who, by virtue of their position and of their 
 integrity, were qualified to elect a Senator. Of this 191 mem- 
 bers, 96 would be a majority, and after deducting every vote 
 against which the imputation of dishonesty has been made 
 LORIMER would still have 97 as against 94 votes for his oppo- 
 nents. Under those circumstances no man could deny that he is 
 entitled to his seat in this Senate as a matter of law, and still 
 less can they deny it as a matter of morals, because he had a 
 clear majority of the honest men in the legislature. Now, sir, 
 let us apply the rule proposed by the Senators from Idaho, 
 Iowa and New York, and what result do we reach? By includ- 
 ing these 11 men as a part of the total vote, they prevent 97 
 honest men from effecting an election over 94 honest men, and 
 this makes it plain that they are the gentlemen who are giving 
 effect to the votes of rascals, because by including those 11 
 votes in the total they thus prevent an honest majority from 
 working out its will. 
 
 Mr. President, it is eacy for a man to proclaim himself an 
 advocate of electoral integrity, and if he will make that procla- 
 mation often enough and loud enough he can induce thousands 
 of heedless men to accept it; but the thoughtful citizens of this 
 Republic will at last judge every rule by its result, and they 
 can never be persuaded to approve one which gives significance 
 and power to dishonest votes. I do not doubt the ultimate 
 wisdom of our people and neither do I doubt that they will 
 understand at last that the law, as I have sought to explain 
 and defend it, is their best protection against the baleful influence 
 of the corruptionists in our politics. No matter how honest 
 and how patriotic the gentlemen on the other side may be and 
 I know them to be as honest and as patriotic as I am it is still 
 true, sir, that in striving to reverse the precedents of the Senate 
 and overrule the courts of the country they are seeking to estab- 
 lish a doctrine that will permit a dishonest faction in a legisla- 
 ture to disable an honest majority from choosing a Senator to 
 represent their State. 
 
 THE SENATE ON TRIAL. 
 
 They tell me that the Senate is on trial before the American 
 people and that we can only acquit ourselves by convicting 
 LORIMER. How low we have fallen in the estimation of those 
 who believe that such an appeal can control us in a case like 
 this ! Are we at liberty to consult our political safety in de- 
 ciding a case involving more than property, more than liberty, 
 more than life itself, because it involves the character of a 
 fellow man? An honest man values his good name above all the 
 gold that ^misers have ever hoarded since creation's dawn; a 
 proud man would go to prison in the cause of truth and justice 
 rather than have his honor forever sullied ; a brave man would 
 die upon the battle field and be buried with the honors of war 
 rather than to see the name his children must bear tarnished 1 
 to the end of time. Other Senators may be willing to prove 
 that they are clean by washing their hands in the blood of an 
 innocent man, but I am not. [Applause in the galleries.] 
 Shall we prove that we are not guilty by finding that this man 
 is? Oh, sir, what a lesson to teach our children! I will not, 
 bv mv example, lead my boy to bow in servile adulation un- 
 805959673
 
 48 
 
 til he kisses the very ground on which the people walk and 
 then insult their intelligence by telling them that he has done 
 wrong to please them. 
 
 Mr. President, I do not profess to be indifferent to the opinion 
 of my countrymen. I value the good will of the people of 
 Texas as much as any man who has ever enjoyed their favor, 
 and perhaps I have a better reason for it, because they have 
 done more for me, according to my poor merits, than they have 
 done for others. I went among them a mere boy and a total 
 stranger to them, without friends, without wealth, and without 
 influential connections, but generously they took me by the 
 hand and made me all I am and all that I ever hope to be. 
 For that I love them with an affectionate gratitude; for that 
 I will toil for them by day and by night ; for that I will 
 sacrifice my personal comfort, my personal interest, and my 
 physical strength, and count it a privilege to do so; but, sir, 
 even for that, I will not violate my oath of office and cor- 
 rupt my conscience with a sense of foul injustice. They have 
 their _ impressions of this case, and it may be that those im- 
 pressions are at variance with the vote which I am about to 
 cast, but they would hold me unworthy to be their Senator if 
 they were not willing to trust me to do what a conscientious 
 study of the testimony and the law in this case commands. If 
 there is any Senator here whose vote is influenced in this case 
 by the fear that he will displease his people, he has less re- 
 spect for his constituents than I have for mine. 
 
 If, sir, the Senate is on trial before the American people, how 
 will they make up their verdict? There are more than 20,000,000 
 voters in thjs Republic and not 20,000 of them have ever read 
 a line of this testimony or examined the law of this case for a 
 single hour. Mr. President, the Senate may be on trial, but if it 
 is, its courage and not its integrity is being tested. Nobody but 
 fools believe that the Senate of the United States is dishonest, 
 and nobody except sham reformers pretend to believe it. Ven- 
 ality, sir, is not a sin of the American Senate, and it never will 
 be until the American people have become a venal race. Our 
 people, intelligent and patriotic as they are, will make mistakes 
 in the choice of their great officers. They have made them, 
 and they will make them again, but in the future, as in the past, 
 the occasions on which they make them will be rare, indeed, 
 and it will happen as seldom in the years to come as it has in 
 the years that have passed and gone that they will bestow a sen- 
 atorship upon any man who will practice on others, or on whom 
 others can practice, the vulgar and degrading vice of bribery. 
 
 No, sir, I do not doubt the integrity of the Senate, but can- 
 dor compels me to say that I do sometimes doubt its courage, 
 and I know that this Republic is menaced more by cowardice 
 than by corruption. I would scorn to call upon my .colleagues 
 here to vote in such a way as to shield themselves from the 
 charge of dishonesty, because proud and sensitive men would 
 resent that suggestion, but I do beg them to be brave enough, 
 now and at all times, to do justice to every man and to do 
 justice in _all things. Let us by our verdict say te those who 
 seek to drive us that we hold ourselves so high above suspicion | |Q"7 
 
 that we dare to do what we believe is right and leave the conse- 
 quences to God and to our countrymen. [Applause in the 
 galleries.] ^&&<*^ 
 
 80595 9673 ^sS|^ > 33