mittee, but I do ask that members of the committee not members of the subcommittee carefully read all of the testimony before forming an opinion.

"At the time the foregoing statement of my views and conclusions were filed with the full Committee on Privileges and Elections it was my purpose to file in the Senate a more elaborate statement, setting out in full the reasons which led me to the conclusions reached. It was also my purpose to offer with such statement a resolution declaring that Senator Lorimer was not legally elected Senator from the State of Illinois.

"Since then, to wit, on January 9, 1911, the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Beveridge) has filed an extended statement of his views, with copious reference to the testimony, and has offered a resolution of the character referred to. Hence it is not necessary for me at this time to file either the more extended report contemplated or the resolution. I am gratified that the Senator from Indiana concurs in the conclusion reached by me as to the election of Mr. Lorimer. In the resolution offered by him with respect thereto I concur." (Cong. Rec., vol. 46, pp. 1632–1633.)

The report of the Committee on Privileges and Elections and the resolution of Mr. Beveridge were discussed and debated in the Senate January 18, 1911 (Cong. Rec., vol. 46, pp. 1041-1058); January 23, 1911 (ibid., pp. 1279-1290); January 25, 1911 (ibid., pp. 1413–1425); January 26, 1911 (ibid., pp. 1487-1888); January 27, 1911 (ibid., pp. 1524-1535); February 3, 1911 (ibid., pp. 1886-1896); February 6, 1911 (ibid., pp. 1980-1990); February 7, 1911 (ibid., pp. 2050–2066); February 9, 1911 (ibid., pp. 2187-2189); February 10, 1911 (ibid., pp. 2246-2251); February 13, 14, 1911 (ibid., pp. 2474-2490); February 21, 23, 24, 1911 (ibid., pp. 3258 3306); February 27, 1911 (ibid., pp. 3521-3588); February 28, 1911 (ibid., pp. 3650-3658); and March 1, 1911 (ibid., pp. 3753-3760).

The following extended speeches and statements favoring the resolution of Mr. Beveridge and opposing the report of the Committee on Privileges and Elections were made by Mr. Borah (Cong. Rec., vol. 46, pp. 1050-1058); Mr. Cummins (ibid., pp. 1487, 1524-1535); Mr. Root (ibid., pp. 1886-1892); Mr. Burton (ibid., pp. 19801990); Mr. Jones (ibid., pp. 2050-2056); Mr. Beveridge (ibid., pp. 3258-3306); Mr. Crawford (ibid., pp. 3521-3526, 3556-3578); Mr. Bristow (ibid., pp. 3580-3588); Mr. Stone (ibid., pp. 3650-3658); Mr. Owen (ibid., pp. 3753–3756); Mr. Smith of Michigan (ibid., pp. 3757-3759); Mr. La Follette (ibid., pp. 375-3760)

The following extended speeches and statements upholding the report of the committee and opposing the resolution of Mr. Beveridge were made by Mr. BurrowS (Cong. Rec., vol. 46, pp. 1011-1050); Mr. Gamble (ibid., pp. 1279-1290, 2187-2189); Mr. Paynter (ibid., pp. 1413-1425); Mr. Heyburn (ibid., pp. 1893–1896); Mr. Fletcher (ibid., pp. 2057-2066); Mr. Johnston (ibid., pp. 2246–2251); Mr. Bailey (ibid., 24742490); and Mr. Simmons (ibid., pp. 3756-3757).

Mr. Lorimer made prepared statements before the Senate on January 9, 1911 (Cong. Rec., vol. 46, p. 648); February 22, 1911 (ibid., pp. 3113-3124); February 28, 1911 (ibid., pp. 3645-3646); and March 1, 1911 (ibid., p. 3757).

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1, 1911.

Mr. Beveridge's resolution (S. Res. 315), submitted on January 9, 1911, was determined in the negative by the Senate, a roll call thercon resulting in the following

vote:

Yeas-Messrs. Bacon, Beveridge, Borah, Bourne, Bristow, Brown, Burkett, Burton, Chamberlain, Clapp, Clarke, Ark., Crawford, Culberson, Cummins, Davis, Dixon, Gore, Gronna, Jones, La Follette, Lodge, Martin, Money, Nelson, Newlands, Overman, Owen, Page, Percy, Rayner, Root, Shively, Smith, Mich., Smith, S. C., Stone, Sutherland, Swanson, Taylor, Warner, Young 40.

Nays-Messrs. Bailey, Bankhead, Bradley, Brandegee, Briggs, Bulkeley, Burnham, Burrows, Carter, Clark, Wyo., Crane, Cullom, Curtis, Depew, Dick, Dillingham, du Pont, Fletcher, Flint, Foster, Frye, Gallinger, Gamble, Guggenheim, Hale, Heyburn, Johnston, Kean, McCumber, Nixon, Oliver, Paynter, Penrose, Perkins, Piles, Richardson, Scott, Simmons, Smith, Md., Smoot, Stephenson, Thornton, Tillman, Warren, Watson, Wetmore--46.

FRIDAY, MARCH 3, 1911.

Mr. Lorimer requested that the amendment to the deficiency appropriation bill, which granted him $25,000 for expenses incurred in defense of his title to his seat in the Senate, be rejected, and it was so ordered. (Cong. Rec., vol. 46, pp. 4113, 4114.) The Sixty-first Congress adjourned sine die at noon March 4, 1911.

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

WILLIAM LORIMER

of Illinois.

SECOND INVESTIGATION.

Mr. Lorimer took his seat in the United States Senate on June 18, 1909, Sixty-first Congress, first session. as a Senator from the State of Illinois. During the second session of the Sixty-first Congress charges were filed in the Senate that corrupt methods and practices were employed in his election by the Legislature of Illinois that elected him to this office, and the Committee on Privileges and Elections were authorized to investigate these charges. The latter brought in a report vindicating Mr. Lorimer and the Senate by a vote of March 1, 1911, declared that he was duly and legally elected to his seat in the Senate of the United States.

At the opening of the Sixty-second Congress, April 6, 1911, Mr. La Follette introduced a resolution in the Senate providing for a reinvestigation of the election of William Lorimer by a special committee of the United States Senate. Later Mr. La Follette made an extended speech in the Senate in which be alleged that new and material evidence had been produced through the investigation of a committee of the Illinois State Senate, and quoted extensively from the testimony taken before that committee, tending to show that one Edward Hines had raised $100,000 to "put Lorimer over."

Several resolutions were introduced by different Senators providing for a reopening of the case, holding that the Senate had authority to do so upon the ground of newly discovered evidence. There were extended debates in the Senate as to whether the case should be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections or investigated by a special committee of the United States Senate, and as to the composition of the committee to conduct the investigation.

June 6, 1911, the Senate of the State of Illinois presented an official resolution to the Senate of the United States asking the United States Senate to further investigate the election of William Lorimer, basing their request on the report of the committee appointed for that purpose from the Senate of the State of Illinois, June 7, 1911, the Senate of the United States passed a resolution which provided for an investigation of these charges against Mr. Lorimer by a committee of the Senate composed of eight specified members of the Committee on Privileges and Elections.

May 20, 1912, the committee of the Senat appointed to investigate the election of William Lorimer as a Senator from the State of Illinois submitted its report, signed by five members of that committee, contending that the Senate had, after a full investigation, already passed upon Mr. Lorimer's right to his seat which, in accordance with the rules of law, judicial procedure, and justice, should stand unless new and convincing evidence was produced establishing corruption in his election; that, as absolutely no new or substantial evidence had been produced or discovered on the reinvestigation showing that Mr. Lorimer was elected by corruption, the previous judgment of the Senate should be held conclusive and final. But in the event that the Senate should hold that its former judgment could be reconsidered and vacated, the committee submitted the following conclusions based on the charge made: That they could find ro evidence in all the testimony submitted that Mr. Lorimer was personally guilty of any corrupt practices in securing his election, or that he had any knowledge of any corrupt practices, or that he authorized anyone to employ corrupt practices in his election. The committee further held that no vote in the election of Mr. Lorimer was secured for him by bribery; that whatever money any person in the legislature received was not paid to him by anyone on Mr. I orimor's behalf or in considération of or to secure such vote or votes for him; that neither Edward Hines nor anyone else raised or contributed to a fund to be used to secure his election; and that Mr. Lorimor's election was the logical result of existing political conditions in the State of Illinois, and was free from any corrupt practice.

On the same day, May 20, 1912, Mr. Lea submitted the views of three members of the committee, dissenting from the report of the majority, and holding that Mr. Lorimer was not duly and legally elected to his seat in the Senate of the United States, and Mr. Lea submitted a resolution to the Senate to that effect The minority held that the doctrine of res adjudicata did not apply to the case, the Senate having adopted the resolution of June 7, 1911, reopening the case for a full and complete reinvestigation of the facts, and that the testimony taken before this committes reinvestigating the case established the contention that st least 10 votes were purchased for the purpose of electing Mr. Lorimer, so his election was obtained by corrupt means and therefore invalid.

The report of the committee, the views of the minority, and the resolution offered by Mr. Lea were de cussed and debated on the floor of the Senate at various times until July 13, 1912, when the resolution of Mr. Lea was adopted by a vote of 55 to 28.

The history of the second 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 of the Senate, with the views of the minority, 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. Lea's resolution.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE SENATE.
[Sixty-second Congress, first session.]

THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 1911.

Mr. La Follette, as a result of certain testimony taken before a special committee appointed by the Senate of the Illinois Legislature to investigate the circumstances connected with the election of Mr. Lorimer as a Senator of the United States from the

State of Illinois on May 26, 1903, presented the following resolution (S. Res. 6) and asked to have it lie on the table subject to call:

"Whereas the Senate by resolution adopted on the 20th day of June, 1910, authorized and directed the Committee on Privileges and Elections 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 Lorimer as a Senator of the United States from said State of Illinois there were used and employed corrupt methods and practices; and "Whereas said committee, pursuant to said resolution, took the testimony of a large number of witnesses, reduced the testimony to printed form, and reported the same to the Senate, which was thereafter considered and acted upon by the Senate; and

"Whereas the Illinois State Senate thereafter appointed a committee to investigate like charges against William Lorimer and to report to said State senate whether in the election of said Lorimer to the United States Senate corrupt methods and practices were employed and used; and "Whereas as it appears from the published reports of the proceedings of the said Illinois State Senate committee that witnesses who were not called and sworn by the committee of this Senate appointed to investigate said charges have appeared before the said committee of the Illinois State Senate, and upon being interrogated have given important material testimony tending to prove that $100,000 was corruptly expended to secure the election of William Lorimer to the United States Senate: "Resolved, That Senators John D. Works, Charles E. Townsend, George P. McLean, John W. Kern, and Atlee Pomerene be, and they are hereby, appointed a special committee, and as such committee be, and are hereby, authorized and directed to investigate and report to the Senate whether in the election of William Lorimer as a Senator of the United States from the State of Illinois there were used and employed corrupt methods and practices; that said committee be authorized to sit during the sessions of the Senate and during any recess of the Senate or of Congress, to hold sessions at such place or places as it shall deem most convenient for the purposes of the investigation, to employ stenographers, to send for persons and papers, to administer oaths, and to report the results of its investigation, including all testimony taken by it; 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. 47, p. 101.)

MONDAY, MAY 1, 1911. Mr. La Follette called up Senate resolution No. 6, which he introduced on April 6, and asked that it be referred to the Committee to Audit and Control the Contingent Expenses of the Senate, and it was so ordered. (Cong. Rec., vol. 47, p. 793.)

THURSDAY, MAY 4, 1911.

Mr. Briggs, from the Committee to Audit and Control the Contingent Expenses of the Senate, reported back Senate resolution No. 6, submitted by Mr. La Follette, accompanied by a report (No. 4), as follows:

"This resolution is reported to the Senate by the Committee to Audit and Control the Contingent Expenses of the Senate with a favorable recommendation. In making this recommendation the committee disclaims any purpose to indicate whether the investigation should be made by the standing Committee on Privileges and Elections or by the special committee whose membership is named in the resolution, or whether the investigation should be made at all; those matters being left, as they must be left, to the future action of the Senate, but intends by its action to provide the money necessary for this investigation if an investigation be made." (Cong. Rec., vol. 47, p. 924.) MONDAY, MAY 22, 1911.

Mr. Dillingham, as a result of the public press account of the action of the upper branch of the Illinois Legislature in asking that the Senate of the United States reinvestigate the charges relating to the seat of Mr. Lorimer as a Senator from that State, offered the following resolution (S. Res. 46) and asked that it be laid on the table:

"Whereas since the action by the Senate on the resolution of June 20, 1910, relating to the seat of William Lorimer, it is represented that new testimony has been discovered; and

"Whereas the Senate of the State of Illinois did on the 18th day of May, 1911, adopt the following resolutions:

"Whereas under senate resolution No. 17 a committee was appointed to investigate charges of corruption and official misconduct against members of this senate; and

"Whereas said committee has reported the result of its investigation to this senate, from which it appears that there were important and material witnesses without the State of Illinois, whose attendance it could not legally compel and which witnesses refused voluntarily to appear; and

"Whereas said committee was seriously impeded in the performance of its duties by what we believe to be the unwarranted action of a certain judge; and "Whereas it appears from the report of said committee that despite its inability to compel the attendance of such foreign witnesses and the adverse action of said judge sufficient evidence was procured to show that without bribery and corruption and by reason of the failure of certain senators and representatives during the different roll calls to carry out the will of the people, as exprssed at the polls, in the choice for a United States Senator, which action we deem most reprehensible and should be condemned, and which we hereby condemn: Therefore be it "Resolved, That it is the opinion of this senate, based upon the report and findings of the said committee, that the election of William Lorimer to a seat in the United States Senate was brought about by bribery and corruption; and "Resolved, That the gravity of the situation, involving as it does the integrity and good name of this State and the welfare of the Nation, demands a further investigation and determination of this matter by a body possessing broader jurisdiction and greater powers than does this senate; and be it further "Resolved, That the secretary of this senate be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to transmit to the Senate of the United States a copy of the evidence taken by the said committee, together with the report and findings of that committee and a copy of this resolution for such action as the Senate of the United States may deem proper.

666

'Resolved, That the findings of said committee, as set forth in the report heretofore filed, be, and the same are hereby, ratified and approved.'

"Therefore be it

"Resolved by the Senate of the United States, That the Committee on Privileges and Elections are authorized and directed to further investigate the charges made against William Lorimer, a Senator from the State of Illinois, and to inquire and report to the Senate whether in or about the election of the said William Lorimer as a Senator of the United States from the State of Illinois, or in connection with his right to a seat in this body, there were used or employed by any person, firm, corporation, or association any corrupt methods or practices.

"That said committee 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 deem most convenient for the purposes of the investigation; to employ stenographers and such counsel and competent accountants as it may deem necessary; 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. 47, pp. 1430, 1431.) On the same day Mr. La Follette began a speech, in connection with his resolution (S. Res. 6), questioning the validity of Mr. Lorimer's right to his seat, alleging that new and material evidence had been produced through the investigation of a committee appointed by the Illinois State senate, quoting from the testimony taken before that committee to show that one Edward Hines was accused by witnesses of being connected with the raising of $100,000 to elect Mr. Lorimer, and demanding that the United States Senate make a new investigation of Mr. Lorimer's right to his seat as a Senator from the State of Illinois. (Cong. Rec., vol. 47, pp. 1434-1437.)

[Mr. La Follette continued his remarks on Tuesday, May 23, 1911 (Cong. Rec., vol. 47, pp. 1490-1495); Wednesday, May 24, 1911 (Cong. Rec., vol 47, pp. 1547-1557); and concluded them on Friday, May 26, 1911 (Cong. Rec., vol. 47, pp. 1600–1605).]

TUESDAY, MAY 23, 1911. Mr. Martin, of Virginia, submitted the following resolution and asked that it be laid on the table (S. Res. 51):

"Whereas the Senate adopted a resolution June 20, 1910, directing the Committee on Privileges and Elections to investigate the charges relating to the election of William Lorimer to the Senate of the United States; and

"Whereas since the Senate voted on the report of that committee it is represented that new material testimony has been discovered in reference to such matter; and

"Whereas the senate of the State of Illinois, on the 18th of May, 1911, adopted a resolution for the reasons therein stated, requesting the Senate of the United States to institute further investigation of the election of William Lorimer to the Senate: It is therefore

66

'Resolved by the Senate of the United States, That the Committee on Privileges and Elections, sitting in banc, be, and are hereby, authorized and directed forthwith to investigate whether in the election of William Lorimer as a Senator of the United States from the State of Illinois there were used and employed corrupt methods and practices; that said committee be authorized to sit during the sessions of the Senate and during any recess of the Senate or of Congress; to hold sessions at such place or places as it shall deem most convenient for the purposes of the investigation; to employ stenographers, counsel, and accountants; to send for persons and papers; to administer oaths; and as early as practicable to report the results of its investigation, including all testimony taken by it; 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. The committee is further and specially instructed to inquire fully into and report upon the alleged ‘jack-pot' fund in its relation to and effect, if any, upon the election of William Lorimer to the Senate." (Cong. Rec., vol. 47, p. 1482.)

FRIDAY, MAY 26, 1911.

Mr. Martin called up his resolution (S. Res. 51) and offered it as a substitute for that submitted by Mr. La Follette on April 6, 1911 (S. Res. 6). (Cong. Rec., vol. 47, pp. 1609-1610.)

Mr. Martin addressed the Senate in support of his offered as a substitute for Senate resolution No. 6. 1632.)

MONDAY, MAY 29, 1911. resolution (S. Res. 51), which he (Cong. Rec., vol. 47, pp. 1628

The resolution of Mr. La Follette and the substitute as offered by Mr. Martin were debated at length by different Senators. Mr. Smith of Michigan and Mr. Hitchcock offered amendments to the substitute, but they were rejected by the Senate. (Cong. Rec., vol. 47, pp. 1632-1646.)

THURSDAY, JUNE 1, 1911.

Mr. Brown offered the following resolution (S. Res. 57) and asked that it be printed and lie on the table:

"Resolved, That William Lorimer was not duly and legally elected to a seat in the Senate of the United States by the Legislature of the State of Illinois.' (Cong. Rec., vol. 47, p. 1654.)

On the same day Mr. La Follette called up Senate resolution No. 6, which he introduced on April 6, 1911, and asked to make certain modifications in the same, presenting it to the Senate in the following form:

"Whereas the Senate, by resolution adopted on the 20th day of June, 1910, authorized and directed the Committee on Privileges and Elections 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 Lorimer as a Senator of the United States from said State of Illinois, there were used and employed corrupt methods and practices; and

"Whereas said committee, pursuant to said resolution, took the testimony of a large number of witnesses, reduced the testimony to printed form, and reported the same to the Senate, which was thereafter considered and acted upon by the Senate; and "Whereas the Illinois State Senate thereafter appointed a committee to investigate like charges against William Lorimer and to report to said State senate whether in the election of said Lorimer to the United States Senate corrupt methods and practices were employed and used; and

"Whereas as it appears from the published reports of the proceedings of the said Illinois State Senate committee that witnesses who were not called and sworn by the committee of this Senate appointed to investigate said charges have appeared before the said committee of the Illinois State Senate, and upon being interrogated have given important material testimony tending to prove that $100,000 was corruptly expended to secure the election of William Lorimer to the United States Senate: Therefore be it

"Resolved, That a committee composed of five members of the Senate, three of whom shall be of the majority and two of the minority party, shall be elected in the open session by roll call, and when so elected said committee be, and it is hereby, authorized and directed to promptly investigate and report to the Senate whether in the election of William Lorimer as a Senator of the United States from the State of Illinois there were used and employed corrupt methods and practices; that said committee be authorized to sit during the sessions of the Senate and during any recess of the Senate or of Congress, to hold sessions at such place or places as it shall deem most convenient for the purposes of the investigation, to employ stenographers, to send for persons and papers, to administer oaths, and to report the results of its inves

79908°-S. Doc. 1036, 62-3——67