States Senator shall not take place in any event until the second Tuesday after the organization, and it does not mean anything else. It can not mean anything else without rendering the section absolutely absurd. All those three sections taken together simply mean that an election for United States Senator shall not in any event be held until the second Tuesday after the legislature has organized; and the question of notice has nothing to do with it. After the legis lature has organized and there is a vacancy I submit the legislature has a pefect right, if the second Tuesday has expired, to proceed immediately to the election of a United States Senator, no matter upon what date it took place and no matter when the notice may have been given. I appeal to every lawyer upon this floor whether there is any other possible construction to be given to this section unless you render it absolutely nugatory in its terms. I want to call attention to this because this is a matter of great importance. The six teenth section provides for the election of a Senator in regular form, and it has these words in it: "Shall proceed on the second Tuesday after the meeting and organization." Now, omitting one section, which merely refers to the proceedings, the next section provides that: "Where a vacancy occurs at the assembling of the legislature the legislature shall again proceed upon the second Tuesday after the meeting." In this section when the vacancy occurs during the session of the legislature it says, "similar proceedings to fill such vacancy shall be had on the second Tuesday." It is ridiculous, because there may be no vacancy, as I have shown, and was not in this case until the second Tuesday had expired. Every statute must receive a sensible construction. The Senate will give the construction to this statute that it would receive in any judicial forum. You must take these three sections together and the purport of them is what I have said now frequently. Even if this Tuesday was not the second Tuesday, if the construction of the Senator from Michigan is a correct construction, if this statute is mandatory and not directoory, if the verdict of the Maryland Legislature can be set aside by the Senate of the United States, then I contend that upon an unbroken line of authority, the credentials being in proper form, the Senator has the right to be sworn in, and the question must go, if at all, to the Committee on Privileges and Elections after he takes his oath and is seated in this body. I will give the cases on that point, and I think there is no question about it. I ask the Senator from Michigan to give me a single case where a Senator was ever denied the right to be sworn in when his credentials were proper and were right or where they were collaterally impeached, and he was prevented from taking the oath of office. In all these contested-election cases that went to the Committee on Privileges and Elections, where they were controverted and disputed, some of them taking weeks and months for their adjudication, the Senator was sworn in, and the controversy took place after he took his seat. In none of them did the Senate do what the Senator from Michigan now asks the Senate to do, and that is, to send it to the committee, where, perhaps, we can not get a decision until after our legislature adjourns next Monday. Mr. President, I have finished what I wish to say, and I rest upon these four propositions: First, that the section is not entitled to the interpretation the Senator from Michigan puts upon it; second, that the section is only directory, not mandatory; third, the State of Maryland has decided it; and fourth, if I am all wrong in everything else I have said, the Senator elect is now entitled to be sworn in, and this question should go to the committee, as has been done in every other case, for further examination. I ask, therefore, that the Senator be sworn in. [Extract from debate as found in Congressional Record, vol. 42, p. 3349.] Mr. BEVERIDGE. I ought to have asked the question earlier. The Senator asked, What is the use of delay; why refer anything to a committee? When a demurrer to a complaint is filed, and as a matter of fact the court knows the facts and everybody else knows the facts, but the case has not been tried, the question could be asked, What is the use of referring this case to a jury to try the facts or to the court to hear it? We know it all now. Mr. KNOX. I think, Mr. President, that the Senator is most unfortunate in his reference to a proceeding in court. The Senate is the absolute, uncontrolled judge of this matter. No other authority or no other power on earth can intervene between us and the decision of the question of the qualification of anyone who presents himself here for admission to this body. Mr. BEVERIDGE. Mr. President, may I ask the Senator this question? The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Pennsylvania yield further to the Senator from Indiana? Mr. Knox. Certainly. Mr. BEVERIDGE. Of course, everybody concedes that that is so under the clause of the Constitution that the Senate is the judge, and so forth, but if every question is to be determined by the Senate the moment anybody raises it, what is the use of having a standing Committee on Privileges and Elections at all, and if we should investigate the facts in one case in a regular manner, why not in another case in a regular manner, even though we all know what they may be in one instance and do not in another? Mr. KNOX. Mr. President, I will come in just a moment to reply to the question suggested by the Senator from Indiana. It is perfectly foolish for the Senate to stop and consider a thing that is openly admitted upon the floor of the Senate to be the fact if it raises a question that we must ultimately deal with. We have, upon the face of the credentials presented, the statement that Senator Smith was elected to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Senator Whyte. We have it upon the face of the record that Senator Whyte died upon a particular day, and we certainly can take notice of the flight of time between the date of the death of Senator Whyte and the date specified upon the credentials as the date when Mr. Smith was elected. So that I say, Mr. President, that every single fact that bears upon this question is in full possession of the Senate. I only want to say one word as to the section of the Revised Statutes that has been referred to. It was made perfectly clear by the distinguished chairman of the committee that as that bill was originally reported to the Senate it only provided for one thing, namely, that when a vacancy shall occur during the session of the legislature the legislature shall proceed on the second Tuesday after notice of the vacancy to elect a successor. When the bill with that provision in it was reported to the Senate, the Senate said, “Nay; there is one thing yet that we must provide, and that is that the legislature under such circumstances must have been organized." So an amendment was inserted, and the law as it stands now provides that two things must concur― first, that the legislature must be duly organized and, second, that its action must follow not earlier than the second Tuesday after notice of the fact of death. The full debate on this case will be found in the Congressional Record, volume 42, pages 3938-3955. VOTE ON THE CASE. Mr. Burrows submitted the following resolution as a substitute for the motion of Mr. Rayner: Resolved, That the credentials of John Walter Smith, claiming a seat in the Senate from the State of Maryland, be taken from the files of the Senate and referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections." On the question to agree to the resolution, It was determined in the negative, by the following vote: Yeas.-Messrs. Aldrich, Ankeny, Brandegee, Bulkeley, Burnham, Burrows, Crane, Curtis, Depew, Dick, Dillingham, Dixon, Dolliver, du Pont, Elkins, Flint, Foraker, Gallinger, Gamble, Hopkins, Kean, Knox, Lodge, Long, Nelson, Smith, Sutherland, and Wetmore-28. Nays.-Messrs. Bankhead, Beveridge, Borah, Bourne, Brown, Burkett, Clay, Culberson, Foster, Frazier, Frye, Gary, Gore, Guggenheim, Heyburn, Johnston, La Follette, McCreary, McCumber, McEnery, McLaurin, Owen, Overman, Paynter, Perkins, Piles, Platt, Rayner, Richardson, Smoot, Stephenson, Taylor, Teller, and Warren-34. So the resolution was not agreed to. The question recurring on the motion of Mr. Rayner that the oath prescribed by law be administered to Mr. Smith, The motion was agreed to. Whereupon, Mr. Smith 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. 42, pp. 3954-3955.) [Sixty-first Congress, second and third session.] WILLIAM LORIMER, Of Illinois. FIRST INVESTIGATION. Mr. Lorimer took his seat in the United States Senate on June 18, 1909, as a Senator from the State of Illinois, having been elected by the Forty-sixth General Assembly of Illinois on the ninety-fifth joint ballot, May 26, 1909. Over a year later, May 28, 1910, he made a speech in the Senate in the form of an answer to the charges contained in an article printed in the Chicago Tribune of April 30, 1910, bearing the signature of one Charles A. White, a member of the Forty-sixth General Assembly of Illinois, asserting that he (White) had been paid $1,000 to vote for Mr. Lorimer. At the conclusion of his speech Mr. Lorimer introduced a resolution demanding an investigation of this charge by the Senate. June 7, 1910, Clifford W. Barnes, president of the Legislative Voters' League of the State of Illinois, filed charges in the Senate against Mr. Lorimer, alleging on information and belief that three members of the legislature who voted for Mr. Lorimer for United States Senator had been bribed to do so. These charges were referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. On June 20, 1910, the Senate of the United States passed a resolution authorizing and directing the Committee on Privileges and Elections, or a subcommittee thereof, to investigate "certain charges against William Lorimer, a Senator from the State of Illinois, and to report to the Senate whether in the election of said William Lorimer as a Senator from the State of Illinois, there were used or employed corrupt methods or practices." December 21, 1910, the Committee on Privileges and Elections presented its report to the Senate of the United States. The report exonerated Mr. Lorimer and found: "In our opinion the title of Mr. Lorimer to a seat in the Senate has not been shown to be invalid by the use or employment of corrupt methods or practices." The report held that Mr. Lorimer himself could not in the remotest degree be implicated in any personal act of bribery or corrupt practices of any nature; that while four members of the General Assembly which elected Mr. Lorimer testified to receiving money as a consideration for their votes, circumstances tended to render the testimony of each and all the witnesses of doubtful value; that the majority for Mr. Lorimer in the joint assembly of the two houses of the general assembly was 14 and unless a sufficient number of those votes were obtained by corrupt means to deprive him of this majority, Mr. Lorimer had a good title to his seat; that even if it were admitted that the four members who voted for Mr. Lorimer were bribed to do so, he still had a majority of the votes cast in the assembly, and his election was valid, for there were no facts or circumstances from which it could be found or legally inferred that any other member or members of the said general assembly were bribed to vote for Mr. Lorimer. The report further held that no warrant could be found in the testimony for believing that any of the legislators who were accused of bribe giving had been moved to vote for Mr. Lorimer by corrupt influences so their votes should in no way be excluded, and that if there was money in the legislature and distributed by these men it was from a fund which was neither raised nor expended to promote the election of Mr. Lorimer as a Senator nor to reward those who voted for him for that office. Two members of the Committee on Privileges and Elections submitted their views to the Senate dissenting from the report of the majority of the committee, and one of them, Mr. Beveridge, on January 9, 1911, submitted a resolution declaring that Mr. Lorimer was not duly and legally elected to a seat in the Senate of the United States. The report of the Committee on Privileges and Elections and the resolution of Mr. Beveridge were discussed and debated on the floor of the Senate at various times until March 1, 1911, when the resolution was determined in the negative by a vote of 46 to 40. The history of the first case here given consists of a statement of the proceedings of the Senate bearing on the case, as published in the Congressional Record, the report of the Committee on Privileges and Elos tions, with the views of the minority of the committee, a statement of the days on which the question was debated in the Senate, references to the prepared speeches and statements for and against the committee report as found in the Congressional Record, and a record of the vote taken on Mr. Beveridge's resolution. PROCEEDINGS IN THE SENATE. FRIDAY, JUNE 18, 1909. Mr. Cullom presented the credentials of William Lorimer, chosen by the Legislature of the State of Illinois a Senator from that State for the term beginning March 4, 1909, which were read and filed. The oath prescribed by law having been administered to Mr. Lorimer, he took his seat in the Senate. (Cong. Rec., vol. 44, p. 3437.) [Sixty-first Congress, second session.] SATURDAY, MAY 28, 1910. Mr. Lorimer of Illinois rose to a question of personal privilege and made a speech demanding an investigation of the charges made by the Chicago Tribune (Chicago, Ill.), under date of April 30, 1910, that his seat in the United States Senate was secured by bribery and corruption. At the conclusion of which he introduced the following resolution, which was referred to the Committee to Audit and Control the Contingent Expenses of the Senate (S. Res., 247): Resolved, That the Committee on Privileges and Elections be directed to examine the allegations recently made in the public press, charging that bribery and corruption were practiced in the election of William Lorimer to a seat in the United States Senate, and to ascertain the facts in connection with these charges, and report as early as possible; and for that purpose the committee shall have authority to send for persons and papers, to employ a stenographer and such other additional help as it shall deem necessary; and the committee is authorized to act through a subcommittee; and its expense shall be paid from the contingent fund of the Senate." (Cong. Rec., vol. 45, pp. 7019–7070.) WEDNESDAY, JUNE 1, 1910. Mr. Kean, from the Committee to Audit and Control the Contingent Expenses of the Senate, to whom was referred the resolution (S. Res., 247) submitted by Mr. Lorimer May 28, reported it favorably without amendment, and moved that it be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections, which was agreed to. (Cong. Rec., vol. 45, p. 7190.) TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 1910. Mr. Cullom of Illinois presented a memorial from Clifford W. Barnes, as president of the Legislative Voters' League of the State of Illinois, alleging in substance that the election of William Lorimer, a Senator from the State of Illinois, was secured by bribery. This statement was referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections and ordered to be printed. (Cong. Rec., vol. 45, pp. 7528-7537.) SATURDAY, JUNE 18, 1910. Mr. Burrows, from the Committee on Privileges and Elections, reported the following resolution, which was referred to the Committee to Audit and Control the Contingent Expenses of the Senate (S. Res. 264): Resolved, That the Committee on Privileges and Elections of the Senate, or any subcommittee thereof, be authorized and directed to investigate certain charges against William Lorimer, a Senator from the State of Illinois, and to report to the Senate whether in the election of said William Lorimer as a Senator of the United States from said State of Illinois there were used or employed corrupt methods or practices; that said committee or subcommittee be authorized to sit during the sessions of the Senate, and during any recess of the Senate or of Congress, to hold its sessions at such place or places as it shall seem most convenient for the purposes of the investigation, to employ a stenographer, to send for persons and papers, and to administer oaths, and that the expenses of the inquiry shall be paid from the contingent fund of the Senate upon vouchers to be approved by the chairman of the committee." (Cong. Rec., vol. 45, p. 8452.) MONDAY, JUNE 20, 1910. Mr. Kean, from the Committee to Audit and Control the Contingent Expenses of the Senate, to whom was referred the resolution (S. Res. 264), reported from the Committee on Privileges and Elections by Mr. Burrows on the 18th instant, reported it with amendment; and it was agreed to by the Senate. (Cong. Rec., vol. 45, p. 8501.) [Sixty-first Congress, third session.] WEDNESDAY, December 21, 1910. Mr. Burrows, from the Committee on Privileges and Elections, to which was referred Senate resolution 264, directing an investigation into certain charges made against William Lorimer, a Senator from the State of Illinois, submitted the following report (No. 942), together with the testimony taken before the subcommittee, and asked that it be printed and laid on the table: REPORT OF COMMITTEE. [The committee consisted of Messrs. Burrows (chairman), Depew, Beveridge, Dillingham, Gamble, Heyburn, Bulkeley, Bailey, Frazier, Paynter, Johnston, and Fletcher.] IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. DECEMBER 21, 1910.—Ordered to be printed. The Committee on Privileges and Elections, to whom was referred certain charges relating to the election of William Lorimer, a Senator from the State of Illinois, by the legislature of that State, have had the same under consideration, and submit the following report: On the 7th day of June, 1910, there was referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections a memorial signed by one Clifford W. Barnes, as president of the Legislative Voters' League, of Chicago, Ill., alleging in substance that the election of Williara Lorimer, a Senator from the State of Illinois, was secured by bribery. These charges are set forth at length in the proceedings of the Serate for June 7, 1910. On the 20th day of June, 1910, the Senate adopted a resolution authorizing and directing said committee, or any subcommittee thereof, to investigate said charges, In pursuance of the authority conferred and direction given by, the Senate in said resolution, a subcommittee was appointed, consisting of Mr. Burrows, chairman, Mr. Gamble, Mr. Heyburn, Mr. Bulkeley, Mr. Frazier, Mr. Paynter, and Mr Johnston. It was thought by the subcommittee to be advisable to make this investigation at the city of Chicago, in the State of Illinois. Accordingly the subcommittee met in that city on the 20th of September, 1910, and proceeded to execute the order of the Senate. A large number of witnesses were examined and all the available information which, in the judgment of the subcommittee would be of any value in the investigation, was obtained and considered. It appears from the evidence that Mr. Lorimer was elected a Senator from the State of Illinois on the 26th day of May, 1909, by a joint assembly of the two houses of the General Assembly of the State of Illinois, receiving 108 votes out of 202 that were cast for the several candidates for that office, as follows: Albert J. Hopkins.. William Lorimer.. Lawrence B. Stringer... 70 108 24 Votes required to elect. The question is raised by counsel whether the language of the statute regulating the election of United States Senators requires that in order to elect a Senator the person elected must receive a majority of the votes of all the members elected to each house of the legislature, or whether it is sufficient if one person receives a majority of all the votes cast in the joint assembly, "a majority of all the members elected to both houses being present and voting." This question seems to have been decided by the Senate in the case of Lapham and Miller (Senate Election Cases, 697). In that case it was held that a majority of a quorum of each house is sufficient to elect, and in that decision the committee concur. Bribery. In a number of cases that have been before the Senate of the United States it has been held that to invalidate the election of a Senator on account of bribery it must be made to appear either (1) That the person elected participated in one or more acts of bribery or attempted bribery, or sanctioned or encouraged the same; or (2) That by bribery or corrupt practices enough votes were obtained for him to change the result of the election. At what was practically the outset of the investigation, counsel for the Chicago Tribune (who conducted the inquiry against Senator Lorimer) announced that he did not expect to connect Senator Lorimer with any acts of bribery, and upon this point the following took place (Record, p. 66): "Senator HEYBURN. I would suggest it might be well for you here to state what you expect to prove, in order that we may apply the law as to such proof. Mr. AUSTRIAN. I expect to prove "Senator BULKELEY. Do you expect to connect Mr. Lorimer with this? "Mr. AUSTRIAN. No. sir; not in that way at all. "Judge HANECY. That is, you do not intend to connect Senator Lorimer? "Mr. AUSTRIAN. I personally do not intend to connect Senator Lorimer. The statement made here by the witnesses that they had some talk with Mr. Lorimer, the committee will please understand, of course, these witnesses, I have never talked with-never talked with but two of the witnesses who will be called upon the witness stand. "Judge HANECY. You do not claim that any witness will say that he ever talked with Senator Lorimer about money? "Mr. AUSTRIAN. I know of no one. "Judge HANECY. You say, in that connection, you said that they would show that they had some conversation with Senator Lorimer? |