Слике страница
PDF
ePub

Cyril R. Jandus.

Mr. Jandus is a typical Chicago ward politician, and has trained with the gang for a long time.

He is a Democrat, represented a Chicago district in the State Senate, and voted for Lorimer on the last ballot. According to his testimony, he was an habitué of Senator John Broderick's saloon, played poker, and, when not engaged in politics or poker, practiced law.

Mr. Jandus was in Broderick's saloon on the occasion of the first of Senator Holstlaw's visits there and was one of Broderick's witnesses.

The bipartisan Chicago machine has provided him with a position in the county clerk's office, which he now holds.

Jandus also was buying property soon after the election of Senator Lorimer, paying out considerable sums of money therefor. He testified that he had about $5,300 in large bills which he kept in a tin box in his office vault, which was accessible to other occupants of the office; that he had been accumulating this money for a long time, half of it being in $100 bills. He was unable to inform the committee as to where he had procured any one of these bills.

He had a bank account, and why he kept this large sum in his office, which was occupied by four other person, was not explained.

His testimony as to the sources from which he might have derived part of the money is of such character as to place him in the class with Blair, De Wolf, and Wheelan. Another important fact developed by this investigation was that no third-degree or improper methods were used in examining the members of the legislature as witnesses before the grand juries in Cook and Sangamon Counties. District Attorneys Wayman and Burke testified that no improper methods were used and no witnesses were terrorized or forced through fear to give testimony that was false, and there is no evidence that successfully rebuts this testimony.

In view of these facts, sufficient votes having been corrupted, it is not necessary for us to show either Senator Lorimer's connection with or guilty knowledge of the corruption, nor is it necessary for us to trace the source of the corruption fund. But we can not conclude our statement to the Senate without making the observation that Senator Lorimer's hand was the guiding force in shaping the action of the Legislature of Illinois in 1909 from soon after its organization until the day of his election, and that he was in such close consultation with Speaker Shurtleff and minority leader Lee O'Neil Browne as to justify the belief that these men were his agents and to warrant our holding him bound by their actions.

The agency of these men is so thoroughly established that Senator Lorimer could reap no reward by virtue of their wrongful action without being equally guilty and responsible for their wrongdoing.

The relations between Senator Lorimer and Lee O'Neil Browne are established by Senator Lorimer's own testimony, as well as Browne's, in which Senator Lorimer stated that he felt the criminal actions brought against Browne were on account of Browne's relations with him, and that, therefore, he was under moral obligation to do as he did-furnish Browne with money with which to defend himself, irrespective of whether Browne was ever able to refund the money thus advanced. The testimony upon this point is as follows:

"Senator LORIMER. Not exactly, Judge, but somewhere in the neighborhood of $8,000 or $10,000. I am not sure of the exact amount.

"Mr. HANECY. And did you loan it to him at different times and in different amounts?

"Senator LORIMER. Why, yes. I will tell you how that came about, Judge. He came to see me at the bank, and was talking about the White matter.

"Mr. HANECY. The matter of Charles A. White?

"Senator LORIMER. Yes. I asked him about his financial condition, and he said that he had a good practice and made all the money he needed, but that he had no money saved up, and he said that he did not have money enough to employ the lawyers he thought necessary to conduct his case, and I told him I would let him have some money; but he said that he did not know when I would get it back, and if he died soon I would never get it back. I told him that was all right; that this fight was really a fight on me and not on him; that they did not care anything about him; what they were trying to do was to get me out of my seat in the Senate. So I loaned him the money from time to time as he asked for it, and I think somewhere in the neighborhood of $10,000.

"Mr. HANECY. That is, you told him the fight that was being made on him by the State's attorney and the Tribune in Chicago was for the purpose of convicting or discrediting him and thereby unseating you?

"Senator LORIMER. Yes. The real purpose of the fight on Lee O'Neil Browne was then, and is now, to unseat me.

"Mr. HANECY. These fights on Browne have been carried on and won by Browne in every trial and contest that have been made against him?

"Senator. LORIMER. Yes.

"Senator KERN. Did you take his note for this money?

66

'Senator LORIMER. I did not.

"Senator KERN. What account did you keep of it?

"Senator LORIMER. I do not know whether I have checks for it or not, Senator. "Senator KERN. In what form was it paid?

"Senator LORIMER. I say I do not know. He always came to the bank, and I do not know whether I drew checks to my own order and got the money for him or gave him checks and he got the money himself. I do not recall.

"Senator KERN. Did you make a charge of it?

"Senator LORIMER. It is not very much of an account at that. I have always considered that if Lee O'Neil Browne was never able to pay me that money, it was money which I ought to have contributed to help him in the contest. It was my fight and not his.

"Senator KERN. You kept no account of it at all?

"Senator LORIMER. I think I could tell how much it was by looking over my affairs at home.

"Senator KERN. No; that is not it. I am asking you whether you kept any account of it.

"Senator LORIMER. Do you mean that I kept books of it? I did not.

"Senator KERN. You made no entry on any book of the amount you advanced him? "Senator LORIMER. No; I did not. * *

*

"Senator KERN. Has Mr. Browne paid you any of the sum which you advanced him? "Senator LORIMER. No; he has not, and from what I know of his financial condition just now, I do not think he will do so within a very short time, because he called on me at the bank the other day and told me that he was very much in debt on account of his trials, and that he would not be able to give me any money for a considerable time. That is, he came to me to find out whether I insisted on his paying me back or whether he should pay the other debts that he owes, and I told him to pay the other debts. "Senator KERN. Do you expect the return of this money? "Senator LORIMER. I do."

While there is conflicting testimony in regard to any money being furnished by Edward Hines for the purpose of electing William Lorimer, we believe that the evidence shows conclusively that the interest of Edward Hines in the election William Lorimer was more than the ordinary interest of a citizen desiring the election of a particular candidate.

The attitude of Mr. Hines upon the witness stand, his furnishing money to one of the material witnesses in his behalf, Charles P. McGowan, beyond the expenses incurred by McGowan in coming to Washington to testify, and his attempting to induce by the payment of money, a telephone operator at the New Willard Hotel to furnish copies of messages sent by the Burns agency, which had formerly been in the employ of the committee, established Mr. Hines's character as one that looked upon everything and everybody as being purchasable, and the only question of doubt in his mind being the amount of money necessary to purchase this or that person.

The fact that neither Mr. Hines's books nor the books of the Hines Lumber Co. show the collection or disbursement of any corruption fund does not establish that no such fund was collected or disbursed; for it is inconceivable that a man of even Mr. Hines's indifference to such methods would be bold enough to make a permanent record of such a crime upon his books or those of his company.

The undisputed facts, however, do show that when Mr. Hines left Washington, on May 25, 1909, armed, as he says, with the commands of leaders Aldrich and Penrose to the Legislature of Illinois to elect William Lorimer-for the purpose of going directly to Springfield, Ill., to assist in the election of William Lorimer-that he was met at the train in Chicago by his brother-in-law and confidential agent, C. F. Wiehe, who imparted information to him that caused his direct journey to Springfield to be abandoned, and instead of going directly to Springfield, Mr. Hines went directly to his bank, the Continental Commercial National Bank, and after a conference with the president of the bank, telephoned to Mr. Lorimer, and later telephoned again, to either Mr. Lorimer or some one else in Springfield interested in Lorimer's election. At this point the evidence is conflicting. Mr. Hines, his employees and associates in business, whom he has introduced as corroborating witnesses, insist that the telephone conversation related only to messages which Mr Hines was bearing as a courier from the Republican leaders at Washington to the Republican bosses in Springfield. Although why Mr. Hines should take the long trip from Washington to Chicago for the purpose of telephoning from Chicago to Springfield messages that might have been telephoned as well and more quickly from Washington to Springfield has never been satisfactorily explained by Mr. Hines or any of his employee-witnesses, while

it is testified to by other witnesses, one of whom, Wirt Cook, admitted personal animosity and hostility toward Hines and whose testimony must be weighted with this fact in mind—that Hines's telephone message to Springfield was for the purpose of advising those directing Mr. Lorimer's campaign at Springfield that all of the money necessary to elect Mr. Lorimer was available.

This testimony, if true, would explain the unexpected interruption of the journey from Washington to Springfield at Chicago, the visit to the bank before telephoning Lorimer at Springfield, and the subsequent request of Hines to Funk to contribute $10,000 to the $100,000 fund to put Lorimer over.

The fact that Mr. Hines did telephone to Springfield relative to the election of Lorimer immediately after his visit to his bank is admitted by Mr. Hines, the difference in the proof being as to the purpose of the telephone communication. It is at least a remarkable coincidence that the election of Senator Lorimer, which had been doubtful up to that time, followed almost immediately after Hines's visit to his bank and his telephone message to Springfield-a coincidence that is illuminated by the statement of Wirt Cook that Hines, in his message to Springfield, promised all the money required to elect Lorimer.

The visit of Mr. Hines to his bank prior to this telephone conversation gives color and additional weight to the statements of the witnesses who testified that Mr. Hines's telephonic messages to Springfield promised funds for the purpose of electing Senator Lorimer. Such a purpose is further corroborated by the testimony of Clarence Funk and W. M. Burgess, the former testifying that Hines asked him to subscribe on behalf of his company, the International Harvester Co., the sum of $10,000 to reimburse those who had put Senator Lorimer over, and the latter who testified that C. F. Wiehe, Hines's brother-in-law and confidential representative, stated that he had subscribed $10,000 toward the fund to elect Lorimer.

Mr. Hines denies absolutely the testimony of the witness Funk, but the motive which Mr. Hines and Senator Lorimer attempt to ascribe as the reason for Funk committing the crime of perjury is too far-fetched to be tenable and too ridiculous and absurd to lessen the force of Funk's testimony, and no effort is made to establish any motive on the part of Burgess, who appears on the record as an absolutely disinterested witness. Burgess's testimony, however, is contradicted by several persons either connected in business with the Edward Hines Lumber Co. or receiving benefits therefrom and by one Charles P. McGowan. The effect of McGowan's testimony, however, is destroyed by his admission, corroborated by Wiehe, that after his testimony he received $300 in addition to the amount advanced for his expenses for the losses which McGowan had suffered in his business on account of his absence while testifying in behalf of Hines, and by McGowan's statements and letters to a detective of the Burns detective agency, stating that he had committed perjury for the Hines crowd and was going to receive a large sum therefor. One of McGowan's letters to the detective Bailey, which McGowan admits to have written, although he attempts to explain as a joke, is as follows:

A. C. BAILEY, Esq.,

1607 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pa.

ELORA, ONTARIO, November 19, 1911.

MY DEAR ART.: Your very kind letter received some days ago, and I note you say you are all business. For myself, eating, sleeping, and smoking comprise my daily duties at present. A day or so after my return home the Hines people sent me s telegram asking me to meet one of them in Toronto. I presume they wanted some more affidavits or something, so I wired them they had better come to Elora. By God, they would have been shown what forced hospitality was! The old shotgun would have been loaded with a couple of Peters No. 2. I made them come across at that not all I expected, though-and I had a hell of a time getting it, too. Had to threaten him with all kinds of exposure.

I was sorry I did not see you the afternoon I left, but hope we will meet again in the near future. I do not know just now what my plans will be for next year. Father is talking very seriously of buying a flour mill for my brother and myself. What kind of a miller would I make, do you think?

Let me hear from you as often as you can spare the time to write, and if you are in this vicinity any time, run up; I will always be glad to see you.

Yours, etc.,

P. S. Give my best to your brother.

CHAS. MCGOWAN.
McG.

We believe the testimony of Clarence Funk and W. M. Burgess to be true. This conclusion is strengthened by consideration of Hines's actions during the grand jury investigations, when he tried to get Cook and O'Brien out of the jurisdiction of the grand jury and by his suspicious and questionable actions during this investiga

tion. In conclusion we hold that Hines was an accessory to the corruption that resulted in the election of William Lorimer to the Senate.

Believing that the confessions of the members of the legislature, strengthened by corroborating circumstances and by other evidence relating to the members of the legislature who did not confess, establish conclusively not only that at least 10 votes were purchased for the purpose of electing William Lorimer to the Senate but that the record reeks and teems with evidence of a general scheme of corruption, we have no hesitancy in stating that the investigation establishes, beyond contradiction, that the election of William Lorimer was obtained by corrupt means and was therefore invalid, and we submit the following resolution:

"Resolved, That corrupt methods and practices were employed in the election of William Lorimer to the Senate of the United States from the State of Illinois, and that his election was therefore invalid."

(Cong. Rec., vol. 48, p. 6790.)

WM. S. KENYON.
JNO. W. KERN.
LUKE LEA.

On the same day, May 20, 1912, Mr. Lea submitted the following resolution (S. Res. 315), which was ordered to lie on the table:

"Resolved, That corrupt methods and practices were employed in the election of William Lorimer to the Senate of the United States from the State of Illinois, and that his election was therefore invalid." (Cong. Rec., vol. 48, p. 6790.)

The report of the committee of the Senate, the views of the minority, and the resolution of Mr. Lea were discussed and debated in the Senate, June 4, 1912 (Cong. Rec., vol. 48, pp. 7594-7597); June 5, 1912 (ibid., pp. 7700-7706); June 7, 1912 (ibid., pp. 7775-7787); June 8, 1912 (ibid., pp. 7845-7848); July 6, 1912 (ibid., pp. 86718682); July 8, 1912 (ibid., pp. 8685-8696); July 9, 1912 (ibid., pp. 8723–8774); July 10, 1912 (ibid., pp. 8812-8848); July 11, 1912 (ibid., pp. 8882-8901); July 12, 1912 (ibid., pp. 8936–8949); and July 13, 1912 (ibid., pp. 8968-8987).

The following extended speeches and statements favoring the resolution of Mr. Lea and opposing the report of the committee were made by Mr. Kern (Cong. Rec., vol. 48, pp. 7594-7597, 7700-7706, 7775-7787, and 7845-7848); Mr. Myers (ibid., pp. 8677-8682); Mr. Lea (ibid., pp. 8884-8888); and Mr. Reed (ibid., pp. 8888-8892). The following extended speeches and statements upholding the report of the committee and opposing the resolution of Mr. Lea were made by Mr. Dillingham (Cong. Rec., vol. 48, pp. 8726-8774); Mr. McCumber (ibid., pp. 8671-8677); Mr. Fletcher (ibid., pp. 8685-8696, 8723-8726); Mr. Johnston of Alabama (ibid., pp. 8812-8815); Mr. Jones (ibid., pp. 8815-8848); Mr. Thornton (ibid., pp. 8882-8884); and Mr. Tillman (ibid., pp. 8986-8987).

Mr. Lorimer made prepared statements before the Senate on July 11, 1912 (Cong. Rec., vol. 48, pp. 8892-8901); July 12, 1912 (ibid., pp. 8936–8949); and July 13, 1912 (ibid., pp. 8968-8986).

SATURDAY, JULY 13, 1912.

Mr. Lea's resolution (S. Res. 315), submitted on May 20, 1912, was adopted by the Senate, a roll call thereon resulting in the following vote:

Yeas - Messrs. Ashurst, Bacon, Borah, Bourne, Briggs, Bristow, Brown, Bryan, Burton, Chamberlain, Clapp, Clarke of Arkansas, Crawford, Cullom, Cummins, Curtis, Dixon, Fall, Gardner, Gore, Gronna, Hitchcock, Johnson of Maine, Kenyon, Kern, La Follette, Lea, Lodge, Martin of Virginia, Martine of New Jersey, Myers, Nelson, Newlands, O'Gorman, Overman, Page, Poindexter, Pomerene, Rayner, Reed, Root, Sanders, Shively, Simmons, Smith of Arizona, Smith of Michigan, Smith of Georgia, Smith of South Carolina, Stone, Sutherland, Swanson, Townsend, Watson, Williams, Works-55.

Nays Messrs. Bailey, Bradley, Brandegee, Burnham, Catron, Clark of Wyoming, Crane, Dillingham, Fletcher, Foster, Gallinger, Gamble, Guggenheim, Johnston of Alabama, Jones, Lippitt, McCumber, Oliver, Paynter, Penrose, Perkins, Richardson, Smith of Maryland, Smoot, Stephenson, Thornton, Tillman, Wetmore-28.

SATURDAY, AUGUST 10, 1912.

Mr. Johnston of Alabama (for Mr. Dillingham), for the committee to investigate the election of William Lorimer, submitted an amendment to the deficiency appropriation bill (H. R. 25970) proposing to pay Mr. Lorimer $35,000 toward counsel fees and other necessary expenses incurred by him in two investigations in the defense of his title to his seat in the Senate as a Senator from the State of Illinois, which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations. (Cong. Rec., vol. 48, p. 10643.)

(The Sixty-second Congress, second session, adjourned without any action being taken by the Senate Committee on Appropriations on this proposed amendment to the deficiency appropriation bill.)

[Sixty-second Congress, first and second sessions.]

ISAAC STEPHENSON,

Of Wisconsin.

The credentials of Isaac Stephenson, certifying to his election as a Senator of the United States from the State of Wisconsin for the term commencing March 4, 1909, were presented in the Senate on March 15, 1909. on which day the said Isaac Stephenson took his seat. More than 15 months later, on the 30th of June, 1911, a communication from the secretary of state of the State of Wisconsin was laid before the Senate, transmitting a certified copy of a joint resolution adopted by the legislature of that State (see S. Doe, 312, 62d, 2d, p. 2) relating to the primary and general election of 1903, and the election of United States Senator in 1908 in that State. This communication was referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections, together with accompanying documents.

On August 15, 1911, the Senate authorized the Committee on Privileges and Elections to investigate certain charges preferred by the Legislature of Wisconsin and to report to the Senate whether in the electiva of Isaac Stephenson as a Senator of the United States there were used corrupt methods or practices. On February 12, 1912, the committee reported that, having given full consideration to the law, the testimony, and all of the facts and circumstances brought to its notice, it found that the charges preferred against Isaac Stephenson had not been sustained, and that his election was not procured by corrupt methods of practices. Attached to the report of the committee, in support of the same, are the views of one Senator and the joint views of two others in which the various questions relating to charges of corruption in connection with the proceedings of the legislature affecting the election, and those growing out of the primary election at which the nomination was secured, are taken up. With an admitted expenditure of over $107,000 in connection with the primary election, the discussion in the above-mentioned views, and the debates on the floor of the Senate, dealt not only with the allegations of corruption in the expenditure of money in connection with the primary and with the question of the aggregate amount of the expenditure, but also with the question of the proceedings of the primary election as affecting the validity of an election by the legislature. A minority of the committee filed their views subsequently, to which was attached a resolution declaring that said Isaac Stephenson was not duly and legally elected to a seat in the Senate. The case was debated in the Senate at various times during the months of February and March, 1912. and on the 27th of the latter month the committee report declaring Isaac Stephenson entitled to a seat in the Senate was adopted by a vote of 40 to 34, the amendment declaring Isaac Stephenson not duly and legally elected having failed of adoption on the day previous by a vote of 27 to 29.

The history of this case here given consists of a statement of the proceedings of the Senate in the case as published in the Congressional Record, the report of the Committee on Privileges and Elections, with accompanying views of individual members of the committee, the views of a minority of the committees statement of the days on which the question was debated in the Senate with reference to the record of the same as published in the Congressional Record, reference to the speeches and statements of different Sens tors on either side of the case as found in the Congressional Record, the vote on the amendment declaring that Isaac Stephenson was not duly elected, and the final vote on the motion in support of the committe report that he was entitled to his seat.

[Sixty-first Congress, first session.]

MONDAY, MARCH 15, 1909.

Mr. La Follette presented the credentials of Isaac Stephenson, elected a Senator by the Legislature of the State of Wisconsin for the term commencing March 4, 1909; which were read and placed on file.

Mr. Stephenson appeared, and the oath prescribed by law having been administered to him by the Vice President, he took his seat in the Senate. (Cong. Rec., vol. 44, p. 16.)

[Sixty-second Congress, first session.]

FRIDAY, JUNE 30, 1911.

The Vice President laid before the Senate a communication from the secretary of state of the State of Wisconsin, transmitting a certified copy of joint resolution 58 adopted by the legislature of that State, relating to the primary and general election of 1908 and the election of United States Senator in 1908 in that State, together with a copy of volumes 1 and 2 of the Wisconsin senatorial investigation, which, on motion of Mr. Heyburn, was, with the accompanying documents, referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. (Cong. Rec., vol. 47, p. 2599.)

SATURDAY, AUGUST 12, 1911.

Mr. Dillingham, from the Committee on Privileges and Elections, reported the fol lowing resolution (S. Res. 136), which was referred to the Committee to Audit and Control the Contingent Expenses of the Senate:

"Resolved, That the Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections, or any subcommittee thereof, be authorized and directed to investigate certain charges preferred

[ocr errors]
« ПретходнаНастави »