Daniel Wilshire Holstlaw (Daniel Smith, Richard, Henry, Henry, John, Jacob) was born February 05, 1849 in Marion County, Illinois, and died June 16, 1940 in Iuka, Marion County, Illinois. He married Clara R. Stevenson January 03, 1875. She was born April 20, 1849 in Marion County, Illinois, and died November 21, 1931 in Iuka, Marion County, Illinois. It is not known when or why this line of the Holtsclaws changed the spelling to Holstlaw.
Daniel was an accomplished businessman even though the 1940 census states he only had an 8th grade education. He owned a merchantile, several farms in Marion County, and was the second owner of Rose Lake which was a site for celebrations for the people of the county. Daniel founded Holstlaw Bank on December 10, 1910.
Daniel was elected to the 46th Assembly of the Illinois State Senate in 1908 from the 42nd District as a Democrat. He became the focus of a bribery scandal in 1909 that involved voting for William H. Lorimer’s election to the U.S. Senate on May 26th. At this point in time, United States congressmen were elected by each state legislature, not the American people. Daniel was accused and admitted to taking a bribe of $2,500 to vote for Mr. Lorimer and $700 from the “jack pot”. This caused him and several other Illinois legislators to be indicted. Daniel was also indicted for accepting a bribe of $1,500 for the purchase of furniture for the Illinois legislature. The bribes for the furniture purchases were never paid.
Newspapers carried the story from all over the United States. Daniel testified before a United States congressional committee on August 26, 1912 detailing who paid the bribes, how and when the bribes were paid and who else was involved.228 Daniel’s son, Herschel, also had to testify as to how Daniel deposited the funds in the bank.
For Daniel’s testimony and admittance of wrong-doing, he was given immunity but was made to resign his seat in the Illinois legislature and had to sell his ownership in the Iuka State Bank, previously the Holstlaw Bank. William Lorimer was expelled from the U.S. Senate on July 13, 1912 and two weeks later, Congress adopted what became the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which provides for the direct election of senators by the American people. (Transcripts of newspaper articles are included after the picture section.)
Children of Daniel Holstlaw and Clara Stevenson are:
33. i. Herschel D. Holstlaw, b. December 22, 1876, d. January 30, 1955, m. Lois Tully,
1900; b. October 06, 1876, d. April 16, 1937.
ii. Florence Holstlaw, b. October 22, 1879, d. 1963, m. Albert O. Kelley, April 28, 1897, b. January 02, 1872, d. February 24, 1947.
Daniel was an accomplished businessman even though the 1940 census states he only had an 8th grade education. He owned a merchantile, several farms in Marion County, and was the second owner of Rose Lake which was a site for celebrations for the people of the county. Daniel founded Holstlaw Bank on December 10, 1910.
Daniel was elected to the 46th Assembly of the Illinois State Senate in 1908 from the 42nd District as a Democrat. He became the focus of a bribery scandal in 1909 that involved voting for William H. Lorimer’s election to the U.S. Senate on May 26th. At this point in time, United States congressmen were elected by each state legislature, not the American people. Daniel was accused and admitted to taking a bribe of $2,500 to vote for Mr. Lorimer and $700 from the “jack pot”. This caused him and several other Illinois legislators to be indicted. Daniel was also indicted for accepting a bribe of $1,500 for the purchase of furniture for the Illinois legislature. The bribes for the furniture purchases were never paid.
Newspapers carried the story from all over the United States. Daniel testified before a United States congressional committee on August 26, 1912 detailing who paid the bribes, how and when the bribes were paid and who else was involved.228 Daniel’s son, Herschel, also had to testify as to how Daniel deposited the funds in the bank.
For Daniel’s testimony and admittance of wrong-doing, he was given immunity but was made to resign his seat in the Illinois legislature and had to sell his ownership in the Iuka State Bank, previously the Holstlaw Bank. William Lorimer was expelled from the U.S. Senate on July 13, 1912 and two weeks later, Congress adopted what became the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which provides for the direct election of senators by the American people. (Transcripts of newspaper articles are included after the picture section.)
Children of Daniel Holstlaw and Clara Stevenson are:
33. i. Herschel D. Holstlaw, b. December 22, 1876, d. January 30, 1955, m. Lois Tully,
1900; b. October 06, 1876, d. April 16, 1937.
ii. Florence Holstlaw, b. October 22, 1879, d. 1963, m. Albert O. Kelley, April 28, 1897, b. January 02, 1872, d. February 24, 1947.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Wilshire Holstlaw in the Newspapers:
Bureau County Tribune. Vol XXIV. Princeton, Bureau County, Illinois, Friday, March 27, 1896; pg. 8
The Illinois Central Railroad Company has sold 14,000 acres of fruit land in Marion, Effingham, Clay, Jefferson, Fayette, Washington, and Coles Counties to a syndicate composed of D.W. Holstlaw, of Iuka; J. M. Hinzie, of Peoria; and Frank Dalmier, George Obert, W. F. Johnson, R. J. Kasserman, James Evans, Frank Houchin, Howard Ross, and G. W. Fithian, of Newton. Much of the land will be planted in orchards to supply the Chicago markets.
The Illinois Central Railroad Company has sold 14,000 acres of fruit land in Marion, Effingham, Clay, Jefferson, Fayette, Washington, and Coles Counties to a syndicate composed of D.W. Holstlaw, of Iuka; J. M. Hinzie, of Peoria; and Frank Dalmier, George Obert, W. F. Johnson, R. J. Kasserman, James Evans, Frank Houchin, Howard Ross, and G. W. Fithian, of Newton. Much of the land will be planted in orchards to supply the Chicago markets.
The Herald Democrat. Thirty-Second Year, Leadville, Colorado, Sunday, May 29, 1910, pg. 1, 2.
Can Lorimer
Explain It?
_____
Fresh Bribery Confession in
High Up Chicago Demo-
Crat Being Indicted.
______
HOLSTLAW’S IMMUNITY BATH
______
Springfield, Ill., May 28.- Bursting like a bomb within a few hours after United States Senator Lorimer’s speech at Washington, State Senator Broderick, a leading Chicago Democrat, was indicted on a bribery charge by the grand jury here today. Broderick’s indictment was the direct result of a confession made to the grand jury by State Senator D. W. Holstlaw, who says Broderick paid him $2,500 to vote for Lorimer for senator.
A capias was at once ordered for Broderick and a bench warrant issued for his arrest.
The unexpected turn in the Lorimer scandal was an offshoot of State’s Attorney Burke’s investigation of alleged graft in the legislative furniture deal. Senator Holstlaw had been indicted on a perjury charge in connection with the furniture contract, and upon advice of his lawyers, when offered immunity, agreed to make a confession. Then he told the grand jury that he had received $2,500 for his vote for Lorimer; $700 as his share of a legislative “jack pot,” and a promise of $1,500 as his share of the state house furniture deal.
Senator Holstlaw’s confession regarding the furniture deal was corroborated before the grand jury by Otto Freier, who, as agent for the Ford Johnson Furniture Company of Chicago, obtained the furniture contract.
The two confessions regarding the furniture contract resulted in two additional indictments on conspiracy charges. These were: State Senator S. C. Pemberton, Republican, of Oakland, Ill., and Representative Joseph S. Clark, Democrat, of Vandalia, Ills.
Capiases and bench warrants were issued immediately for Senator Pemberton and Representative Clark on the conspiracy charges in connection with the furniture contract. Although an indictment charging conspiracy was returned against Senator Holstlaw it was immediately nolled and immunity for Holstlaw was ordered by Judge James A. Creighton upon the recommendation of State’s Attorney Burke.
When the indictment had been returned and the court orders entered in the two separate matters, the grand jury adjourned until next Tuesday.
After conference with Attorney A. M. Fitzgerald, his lawyer, Senator Holtslaw communicated with State’s Attorney Burke.
Worn, haggard and driven almost to distraction during a sleepless night, Senator Holstlaw told the prosecutor he was ready to confess and immunity was granted, because Holstlaw was a material witness.
Before going to the grand jury Holstlaw made a preliminary statement to Attorney Burke in the presence of his own attorney. This statement follows:
“In making the statements to the Sangamon county grand jury regarding the payment of money to secure the contract for furniture and for the purpose of electing Wm. Lorimer United States senator, I have been governed by the firm belief that my actions in this matter have been reprehensible, and in this connection, I offer no defense. I have, however, determined to make such reparation as is within my power and the only means by which I can do this, it seems to me, is by fully and honestly stating what I know about these transactions.
“I voted for Wm. Lorimer for United States senator and received therefor $2,500. I also received $700 which was given without explanation with the statement that it was coming to me. I was promised $1,500 for my connection with the letting of the furniture contract.
Urbana Courier-Herald. Vol. XIII, No. 132. Urbana, Illinois, Tuesday Morning, May 31, 1910, pg. 1
HOLSTLAW ADMITS HE WAS BRIBED
Confesses He Took $2,500 to Vote
for Latimer
MONEY WAS PAID IN CHICAGO
Names Senator Broderick as Man
Who Paid Him – is Given Immun-
ity – Indictments Returned
Against Four
Confesses He Took $2,500 to Vote
for Latimer
MONEY WAS PAID IN CHICAGO
Names Senator Broderick as Man
Who Paid Him – is Given Immun-
ity – Indictments Returned
Against Four
Springfield, ILL, May 30 – State Senator D. W. Holstlaw of Iuka, Marion county, a Democrat from the Forty-second senatorial district, confessed participation in numerous crooked deals in the legislature.
He told State’s Attorney Burke and the Sangamon county grand jury that he had been promised and had accepted $2,500 to vote for Lorimer for senator. This promise, he said, was made by Senator John Broderick (Dem.), of Chicago, who paid him the $2,500 after he had cast his vote.
Shared in “Jackpot”
He admitted that Senator Broderick later gave him $700 as his share in the legislative “jackpot,” which $700 was “coming to him” for voting as the graft ring wanted him to vote.
He declared that he had been promised $1,500 for voting to award the legislative desk contract to the highest bidder and had expected to be paid this sum as soon as the desks were delivered to the state and accepted.
Four Indicted, One Freed.
As a result of Senator Holstlaw’s confession in the grand jury room, which he had preceded by a signed statement to the press, these men were indicted,
State Senator John Broderick of Chicago; charged with bribery.
State Senator Stanton C. Pemberton of Oakland; charged with conspiracy to commit bribery,
State Senator D.W. Holstlaw of Iuka; charged with conspiracy to commit bribery,
Representative Joseph S. Clark of Vandalia; charged with conspiracy to commit bribery.
One Legislator Arrested.
The indictment against Senator Holstlaw immediately was nolie pressed and caplases were issued for the other three men and their bail was set in advance at $5,000 each. Clark, who already had been implicated in the St. Louis “bathroom scandal” and named by Carles A. White as one of the beneficiaries of the assembly “jackpot,” was arrested soon after the indictment was returned. The other men may be seized at any moment, as deputy sheriffs and pollce are seeking them.
Inquire Just Started.
The new corner of the great ___ of legislative corruption thus opened up by State’s Attorney Burke will be probed to the bottom. Mr. Burke announced that the investigation had just begun.
He will clear up local cases immediately, set for immediate trial the cases of the men indicted, and all the while continue the vigorous prosecution of his grand jury investigation with the object of reaching the men at the top if possible, and at least of placing in the penitentiary as many legislators as he can obtain evidence against.
Corroborates Holstlaw’s Story.
The confession of Holstlaw was immediately followed and corroborated by that of Otto M. Freier, the desk salesman, whose firm obtained the contract by bribery after they found that the majority of the committee were for sale and would vote only for the highest bidder.
He told State’s Attorney Burke and the Sangamon county grand jury that he had been promised and had accepted $2,500 to vote for Lorimer for senator. This promise, he said, was made by Senator John Broderick (Dem.), of Chicago, who paid him the $2,500 after he had cast his vote.
Shared in “Jackpot”
He admitted that Senator Broderick later gave him $700 as his share in the legislative “jackpot,” which $700 was “coming to him” for voting as the graft ring wanted him to vote.
He declared that he had been promised $1,500 for voting to award the legislative desk contract to the highest bidder and had expected to be paid this sum as soon as the desks were delivered to the state and accepted.
Four Indicted, One Freed.
As a result of Senator Holstlaw’s confession in the grand jury room, which he had preceded by a signed statement to the press, these men were indicted,
State Senator John Broderick of Chicago; charged with bribery.
State Senator Stanton C. Pemberton of Oakland; charged with conspiracy to commit bribery,
State Senator D.W. Holstlaw of Iuka; charged with conspiracy to commit bribery,
Representative Joseph S. Clark of Vandalia; charged with conspiracy to commit bribery.
One Legislator Arrested.
The indictment against Senator Holstlaw immediately was nolie pressed and caplases were issued for the other three men and their bail was set in advance at $5,000 each. Clark, who already had been implicated in the St. Louis “bathroom scandal” and named by Carles A. White as one of the beneficiaries of the assembly “jackpot,” was arrested soon after the indictment was returned. The other men may be seized at any moment, as deputy sheriffs and pollce are seeking them.
Inquire Just Started.
The new corner of the great ___ of legislative corruption thus opened up by State’s Attorney Burke will be probed to the bottom. Mr. Burke announced that the investigation had just begun.
He will clear up local cases immediately, set for immediate trial the cases of the men indicted, and all the while continue the vigorous prosecution of his grand jury investigation with the object of reaching the men at the top if possible, and at least of placing in the penitentiary as many legislators as he can obtain evidence against.
Corroborates Holstlaw’s Story.
The confession of Holstlaw was immediately followed and corroborated by that of Otto M. Freier, the desk salesman, whose firm obtained the contract by bribery after they found that the majority of the committee were for sale and would vote only for the highest bidder.
Urbana Courier-Herald. Vol. XIII, No. 133., Urbana, Illinois, Wednesday Morning, June, 1910, pg. 1
ALLEGED BRIBERS
GIVE BAIL BOND
________________
Three Legislators Accused of
Bribery Surrender.
____________________
ALL SAY “I AM INNOCENT”
________________
Senators Broderick and Pemberton
and Representative Clark Give
Bond – Burke After Further
Information.
____________
GIVE BAIL BOND
________________
Three Legislators Accused of
Bribery Surrender.
____________________
ALL SAY “I AM INNOCENT”
________________
Senators Broderick and Pemberton
and Representative Clark Give
Bond – Burke After Further
Information.
____________
Springfield, Ill., May 321.-“Holstlaw is an unmitigated liar and I am an innocent man.”- Senator John Broderick of Chicago, “I am innocent.”- Senator Stanton C. Pemberton of Oakland. “I am innocent.”-Representative Joseph S. Clark of Vandalia.
Making the above declarations, the three members of the Illinois state legislature named by State Senator H. D. Holstlaw of Eureka, in his bribery confession of last Saturday before the Sangamon county grand jury, appeared in sucession before Judge James A. Creighton and entered bond for their answer to the indictments returned against them.
Making the above declarations, the three members of the Illinois state legislature named by State Senator H. D. Holstlaw of Eureka, in his bribery confession of last Saturday before the Sangamon county grand jury, appeared in sucession before Judge James A. Creighton and entered bond for their answer to the indictments returned against them.
Clark First to Appear.
Representative Clark was the first to appear. Accompanied by his bondsmen and Attorney Thomas Dawson of Chicago, he entered the office of States Attorney Edmund Burke and sat down to await the appearance of Judge Creighton.
About an hour later a telephone message from the office of Graham & Graham, attorneys for Senator Pemberton, announced the arrival of the latter, and by common consent both waited for the incoming Chicago & Alton train, which bore Senator Broderick, accompanied by a deputy sheriff.
About an hour later a telephone message from the office of Graham & Graham, attorneys for Senator Pemberton, announced the arrival of the latter, and by common consent both waited for the incoming Chicago & Alton train, which bore Senator Broderick, accompanied by a deputy sheriff.
Burke Interviews Holstlaw.
Not expecting Senator Broderick to appear in Springfield, State’s Attorney Burke had gone to Iuka, there to see Senator Holstlaw and endeavor to extract from him further information concerning the deal by which he claims he was paid $2,500 by Senator Broderick for voting for United States Senator William Lorimer, $700 from a “jack-pot” because it was coming to him,” and was to receive $1,500 for voting for certain furniture bills.
When Representative Clark appeared he was plainly ill at ease and nervously fidgeted in his chair while Attorney Dawson stood guard over him. He would not have been permitted to talk even if he had been willing to do so, and all he would say was: “I am innocent.”
His bondsman, Richard Egan, a contractor, and Benjamin F. Kirlin, a liverman, both of Springfield, also appeared as bondsmen for Senator Broderick.
When Representative Clark appeared he was plainly ill at ease and nervously fidgeted in his chair while Attorney Dawson stood guard over him. He would not have been permitted to talk even if he had been willing to do so, and all he would say was: “I am innocent.”
His bondsman, Richard Egan, a contractor, and Benjamin F. Kirlin, a liverman, both of Springfield, also appeared as bondsmen for Senator Broderick.
Broderick Gives the “Lie.”
While aboard the train, approaching Springfield, Senator Broderick discussed his case rather freely, He said:
“Holstlaw is an unmitigated liar. There never was any meeting in the St. Nicholas hotel; there never was any meeting at which money was discussed; there never was a meeting at which the subject of voting for Senator Lorimer was discussed.
“I did not ask Holstlaw to vote for Lorimer and the only times I ever talked with him would be when I c__ted with him just the same as I would with any of the other senator’s and representatives. In fact, I never chatted with Holstlaw as much as with others.”
“Holstlaw is an unmitigated liar. There never was any meeting in the St. Nicholas hotel; there never was any meeting at which money was discussed; there never was a meeting at which the subject of voting for Senator Lorimer was discussed.
“I did not ask Holstlaw to vote for Lorimer and the only times I ever talked with him would be when I c__ted with him just the same as I would with any of the other senator’s and representatives. In fact, I never chatted with Holstlaw as much as with others.”
Ready to Face Jury.
Asked if he would be willing to appear before the Sangamon county grand jury, he replied:
“I shall be very glad to do so.”
Assistant State’s Attorney Adolph Bernard, who attended to the formality of overseeing the bail bonds, said that he did not believe Senator Broderick will be called before the grand jury at present, although that body reconvenes this afternoon.
“I shall be very glad to do so.”
Assistant State’s Attorney Adolph Bernard, who attended to the formality of overseeing the bail bonds, said that he did not believe Senator Broderick will be called before the grand jury at present, although that body reconvenes this afternoon.
Holstlaw Sells His Bank.
Iuka, Ill., May 31,-State Senator Daniel Wesley Holstlaw, who on Saturday last confessed to being bribed to vote for Senator Lorimer, sold out his bank here and is going to quit the country. In other words, two automobiles loaded with the officers and directors of the First National bank of Salem, drove over here, purchased the Holstlaw bank and will take possession at once.
The Holstlaw State bank was owned outright by Senator Holstlaw. It was capitalized at $250,000 and is said to have deposits amounting to $100,000. Holstlaw was the president, his wife Clara, the vice-president and his son, H.D. Holstlaw, the cashier.
Holstlaw is in utter collapse. His physician and nurse are at his bedside.
The Holstlaw State bank was owned outright by Senator Holstlaw. It was capitalized at $250,000 and is said to have deposits amounting to $100,000. Holstlaw was the president, his wife Clara, the vice-president and his son, H.D. Holstlaw, the cashier.
Holstlaw is in utter collapse. His physician and nurse are at his bedside.
Urbana Courier-Herald. Vol. XIII, No. 134., Urbana, Illinois, Thursday Morning, June 2, 1910, pg. 1
GRAND JURY BUSY
WITH BRIBERY CASE
_________
Two State Representative Are
Quizzed.
__________________
AFTER THE “MAN HIGHER UP”
_____________________
Believed in Springfield State’s Attorney
Burke Will Land Principal
Mover in Legislative
Corruption.
_______________________
WITH BRIBERY CASE
_________
Two State Representative Are
Quizzed.
__________________
AFTER THE “MAN HIGHER UP”
_____________________
Believed in Springfield State’s Attorney
Burke Will Land Principal
Mover in Legislative
Corruption.
_______________________
Springfield, Ill., June 1.- Another chapter in the legislative bribery investigation was presented to the Sangamon county grand jury.
With the confession of State Senator D. W. Holstlaw fresh in their minds, the jurors questioned Representative C.L. McMacklin Republican, of Salem, and H.D. McCullon, Democrat, of Louisville, who were subpoenaed several days ago.
Both Voted for Lorimer.
Both McMackin and McCullen are from the Forty-second senatorial district, from which Senator Holstlaw comes, and both voted for William Lorimer on the day when he was elected to the United States senate.
Another witness was A.B. Johnston, of the Johnston & Hatcher company, which by the votes of Senators Holstlaw and Pemberton and Represenatives Joseph S. Clark, of the legislative committee, received the contract for supplying new desks and chairs for the general assembly, and for which vote Holstlaw confessed $1,500 was promised him, while Pemberton and Clark are accused of agreeing to accept $1,000 each.
With the confession of State Senator D. W. Holstlaw fresh in their minds, the jurors questioned Representative C.L. McMacklin Republican, of Salem, and H.D. McCullon, Democrat, of Louisville, who were subpoenaed several days ago.
Both Voted for Lorimer.
Both McMackin and McCullen are from the Forty-second senatorial district, from which Senator Holstlaw comes, and both voted for William Lorimer on the day when he was elected to the United States senate.
Another witness was A.B. Johnston, of the Johnston & Hatcher company, which by the votes of Senators Holstlaw and Pemberton and Represenatives Joseph S. Clark, of the legislative committee, received the contract for supplying new desks and chairs for the general assembly, and for which vote Holstlaw confessed $1,500 was promised him, while Pemberton and Clark are accused of agreeing to accept $1,000 each.
After “Men Higher Up.”
The atmosphere is vibrant with exectation, and excitement is running at fever heat. -
State Senator D.W. Holstlaw
Almost every one appears convinced now that Burke is gradually tightening the coils around the alleged bribers, and that eventually and before very long at that he will get the “man higher up.”
Senator John Broderick branded as __ __ the story that Burke has seen the records covering the deposit in a Chicago bank of the $2,500 which Holstlaw claims he received from Broderick for voting for United States Senator Lorimer, and claims a “frame-up.”
Senator John Broderick branded as __ __ the story that Burke has seen the records covering the deposit in a Chicago bank of the $2,500 which Holstlaw claims he received from Broderick for voting for United States Senator Lorimer, and claims a “frame-up.”
Bank Stock Figures in Deal.
For the first time it became known that stock of certain bank is believed to have figured in the deals, whereby certain representatives are said to have been induced to vote for Senator Lorimer.
An attempt will be made to subpoena a number of persons who are supposed to know that the legislators received this stock and that they did not pay for it.
With the exception of Representative Pemberton, named by Holstlaw and who gave bond for his appearance in answer to the indictment for conspiracy, the recently accused legislators have remained in Springfield.
Representative Clark is apparently on the verge of a sick spell, but Senator Broderick is taking things easily and appears much more composed than he did when he appeared in Springfield accompanied by a deputy sheriff.
An attempt will be made to subpoena a number of persons who are supposed to know that the legislators received this stock and that they did not pay for it.
With the exception of Representative Pemberton, named by Holstlaw and who gave bond for his appearance in answer to the indictment for conspiracy, the recently accused legislators have remained in Springfield.
Representative Clark is apparently on the verge of a sick spell, but Senator Broderick is taking things easily and appears much more composed than he did when he appeared in Springfield accompanied by a deputy sheriff.
Holstlaw’s District to Act
Effingham, June 1 – A call was issued signed by the chairman of the Republican and Democratic central committees for a mass meeting of voters of Effingham county, to be held here next Saturday, for the purpose of passing resolutions denouncing present members of the legislature from this, the Forty-second district. D.W. Holstlaw is the senator and J.H.C. Beckemeyer, M.M. McMackin and Harvey McCollum the representatives. Those who are planning the meeting express the hope that Marion, Clinton and Clay counties, also in the Forty-second district, will take similar action.
Urbana Courier-Herald. Vol. XIII, No. 138., Urbana, Illinois, Tuesday Morning, June 7, 1910, pg. 3
ILLINOIS NEWS
BY TELEGRAPH
WIRE REPORTS OF HAPPENINGS
OF THE STATE
__________
BRIBE TAKERS ARE FLAYED
_________
Both Parties in the Holstlaw and
Beckemeyer District Take Ac-
tion—Resolutions Are Passed
Deploring Bribery.
__________
BY TELEGRAPH
WIRE REPORTS OF HAPPENINGS
OF THE STATE
__________
BRIBE TAKERS ARE FLAYED
_________
Both Parties in the Holstlaw and
Beckemeyer District Take Ac-
tion—Resolutions Are Passed
Deploring Bribery.
__________
Carlyle, June 6.-The Republicans and Democrats of Clinton county met in the courthouse here and placed the stamp of disapproval upon bribery and bribe takers in language that cannot be misunderstood. Although the chairmen of the two county committees issued the calls simply for committee members, every Democrat or Republican present at each gathering was allowed to have a voice in the proceedings.
The Republicans sent their resolutions through in rapid-fire order and there was not a dissenting vote, but the Democrats had a wrangle over the proposition of adopting mild or bitter resolutions. The latter faction won out, although passages in which the resignations of Senator Holstlaw and Representative Beckemeyer were asked for were eliminated. The former has already resigned and the term of the latter has virtually expired.
The feature of the Republican meeting was the explanation offered by Representative McMackin of his vote for Lorimer. He claimed that he did not decide to support him until the final roll call came, and that when he saw his election was assured, he switched. He said that he thought at the time that it was the best move, but later developments have convinced him that he made a mistake. His explanations, made in public and privately, are not at all satisfactory to the Republicans.
Representative McCollum, the other Democratic representative from this district, passed through the city, but did not remain here and explain his vote.
The Republicans sent their resolutions through in rapid-fire order and there was not a dissenting vote, but the Democrats had a wrangle over the proposition of adopting mild or bitter resolutions. The latter faction won out, although passages in which the resignations of Senator Holstlaw and Representative Beckemeyer were asked for were eliminated. The former has already resigned and the term of the latter has virtually expired.
The feature of the Republican meeting was the explanation offered by Representative McMackin of his vote for Lorimer. He claimed that he did not decide to support him until the final roll call came, and that when he saw his election was assured, he switched. He said that he thought at the time that it was the best move, but later developments have convinced him that he made a mistake. His explanations, made in public and privately, are not at all satisfactory to the Republicans.
Representative McCollum, the other Democratic representative from this district, passed through the city, but did not remain here and explain his vote.
The True Republican. Sycamore, De Kalb County, Illinois. Saturday, October 1, 1910. Number 48, pg. 6.
LORIMER SCORES
ANOTHER VICTORY
_______________
Committtee Bars White’s Story
About Bribery Funds.
__________
HOLSTLAW TELLS OF BRIBE
________________
Former State Solon Declares His Col-
league, Broderick, Paid Him
$2,500 for His Vote for
U.S. Senator.
______________________
ANOTHER VICTORY
_______________
Committtee Bars White’s Story
About Bribery Funds.
__________
HOLSTLAW TELLS OF BRIBE
________________
Former State Solon Declares His Col-
league, Broderick, Paid Him
$2,500 for His Vote for
U.S. Senator.
______________________
Chicago, Sept. 29.-A decided victory was won by Senator William Lorimer at the hearing by a committee of seven United States Senators of charges that the Illinois senator won his seat by means of bribery.
The committee ruled in favor of the senator in one case of particularly broad significance and in several other cases, which, though not of great moment in the hearing, indicated the viewpoint of the committee toward the testimony of Charles A. White, legislator and Lorimer’s chief accuser.
All evidence with regard to White’s conversation with William Rossell, by which Attorney Alfred S. Austrian, representing the Legislative Voters’ league, hoped to get before the committee details of the alleged source of the so-called Lorimer fund, was ruled out flatly by the committee. No evidence in any way relating to Rossell, White’s conversation or association with him was permitted by the committee.
The committee ruled in favor of the senator in one case of particularly broad significance and in several other cases, which, though not of great moment in the hearing, indicated the viewpoint of the committee toward the testimony of Charles A. White, legislator and Lorimer’s chief accuser.
All evidence with regard to White’s conversation with William Rossell, by which Attorney Alfred S. Austrian, representing the Legislative Voters’ league, hoped to get before the committee details of the alleged source of the so-called Lorimer fund, was ruled out flatly by the committee. No evidence in any way relating to Rossell, White’s conversation or association with him was permitted by the committee.
Scorn White’s Manuscript.
The final victory of Senator Lorimer came when Attorney Austrian again offered the original manuscript of White’s story in evidence. The committee declined to take action, promising, however, to consider it later.
A dramatic incident of the session was a sharp clash between Attorneys Hanecy and Austrian over the intimated charge – of Mr. Hanecy that the case when sifted down would prove to be a conspiracy among other politicians against Lorimer and Lee O’Neil Browne. The two attorneys discussed this heatedly, the controversy becoming so bitter that the committee stopped it.
A dramatic incident of the session was a sharp clash between Attorneys Hanecy and Austrian over the intimated charge – of Mr. Hanecy that the case when sifted down would prove to be a conspiracy among other politicians against Lorimer and Lee O’Neil Browne. The two attorneys discussed this heatedly, the controversy becoming so bitter that the committee stopped it.
Holstlaw Tells of Bribe.
Former State Senator D.W. Holstlaw of Iuka, who confessed to State’s Attorney Burke of Sangamon county having taken a bribe of $2,500 from State Senator John Broderick of Chicago for voting for William Lorimer for United States senator, followed White on the witness stand.
“I met Broderick May 25, the day before Lorimer was elected,” Holstlaw declared. “He said to me: ‘We’re going to elect Lorimer tomorrow, aren’t we?’ I answered that I thought so and intended voting for him. Then Broderick told me there was $2,500 in it for me. I came to his saloon in Chicago, June 16, and collected the money. Before the proposition had been put to me I had decided to vote for Lorimer.”
Holstlaw further testified that in July, while he was in Broderick’s saloon in Chicago, the proprietor handed him $700. He admitted that he simply took the money, not knowing why he got it or from where it came. He also declared that he voted for Lorimer in the interests of the Democratic party, hoping to split the Republicans.
“I met Broderick May 25, the day before Lorimer was elected,” Holstlaw declared. “He said to me: ‘We’re going to elect Lorimer tomorrow, aren’t we?’ I answered that I thought so and intended voting for him. Then Broderick told me there was $2,500 in it for me. I came to his saloon in Chicago, June 16, and collected the money. Before the proposition had been put to me I had decided to vote for Lorimer.”
Holstlaw further testified that in July, while he was in Broderick’s saloon in Chicago, the proprietor handed him $700. He admitted that he simply took the money, not knowing why he got it or from where it came. He also declared that he voted for Lorimer in the interests of the Democratic party, hoping to split the Republicans.
Urbana Courier-Herald. Vol. XIII. No. 241. Saturday Morning, October 8, 1910, pg. 1
BROWN ON STAND
NAMES SHURTLEFF
_________________
Declares Speaker Planned the
Election of Lorimer.
_________________
DENIES OFFERING ANY CASH
________________
Senator Broderick Declares He Had
No Knowledge of Any Money
Used in Sensational Elec-
tion in Springfield.
NAMES SHURTLEFF
_________________
Declares Speaker Planned the
Election of Lorimer.
_________________
DENIES OFFERING ANY CASH
________________
Senator Broderick Declares He Had
No Knowledge of Any Money
Used in Sensational Elec-
tion in Springfield.
Chicago, Oct. 7. – Lee O’Neill Browne, accused of bribing Illinois legislators to vote for William Lorimer for United States senator, and acquitted recently of that charge in the criminal court, took the witness stand in the senatorial investigation and for the first time publicly began a denial of the charges so often made against him.
The minority leader began his testimony with disputing evidence given by legislators who accuse him of bribery. He denied sending for Representative Charles A. White to come to his (Brown’s) hotel room on May 25, 1909, the night before Mr. Lorimer’s election.
The minority leader began his testimony with disputing evidence given by legislators who accuse him of bribery. He denied sending for Representative Charles A. White to come to his (Brown’s) hotel room on May 25, 1909, the night before Mr. Lorimer’s election.
Knew White Casually.
Browne said he knew White only casually,but declared he had befriended the latter. He said the legislators did not like White.
Brown testified that about three weeks before Lorimer’s election Speaker Shurtleff came to him and asked him whether he could “get the boys to vote for Lorimer,” meaning Browne’s friends.
Browne said he told Shurtleff he didn’t know and had not at that time made up his mind to support Lorimer.
Brown testified that about three weeks before Lorimer’s election Speaker Shurtleff came to him and asked him whether he could “get the boys to vote for Lorimer,” meaning Browne’s friends.
Browne said he told Shurtleff he didn’t know and had not at that time made up his mind to support Lorimer.
Admits Being in St. Louis.
Browne acknowledged being in St. Louis June 21. He said he met Shephard, Link, Beckemeyer and Luke and thought he met Clark. They were called to meet him through the agency of others, he said, to discuss his political future and his probable candidacy for minority leader.
Denies All Bribery Charges.
“Did you ever pay Link or Beckemeyer $1,000?” asked Attorney Austrian.
“No.”
Browne either denied all lthe charges of bribery or evaded by answering, “I don’t remember.”
“No.”
Browne either denied all lthe charges of bribery or evaded by answering, “I don’t remember.”
Broderick Also Testifies.
Absolute denial of payment of $2,500 or any other sum to State Senator D.W. Holstlaw or any other legislator in connection with the election of Lorimer was made by State Senator John Broderick.
Broderick underwent a grilling cross-examination, but remained unshaken. The prosecution finally dismissed him after futile attempts to impeach his testimony.
Broderick stubbornly repelled all attempts to cause him to commit himself. He denied that he ever received any money for his own vote; all knowledge of the use of money in the election of Lorimer or that he ever dealt out a “jack-pot” to the members of the senate, including Holstlaw.
Broderick underwent a grilling cross-examination, but remained unshaken. The prosecution finally dismissed him after futile attempts to impeach his testimony.
Broderick stubbornly repelled all attempts to cause him to commit himself. He denied that he ever received any money for his own vote; all knowledge of the use of money in the election of Lorimer or that he ever dealt out a “jack-pot” to the members of the senate, including Holstlaw.
Admits Holstlaw Visited Him.
He admitted having met Holstlaw in his saloon on the West side about June 16, 1909. Asked if he had written Holstlaw to come to Chicago, the witness refused to answer on the ground that he might be giving testimony against himself.
Representative John Griffin of Chicago, who followed Broderick, denied that he had solicited Representative Henry Terrill’s vote for Lorimer on a promise of money, or offered any other legislator money for his vote. Terrill had testified that Griffin had said there would be “$1,000 in it.”
Representative John Griffin of Chicago, who followed Broderick, denied that he had solicited Representative Henry Terrill’s vote for Lorimer on a promise of money, or offered any other legislator money for his vote. Terrill had testified that Griffin had said there would be “$1,000 in it.”
Montague Observer. Montague, Mich. Oct. 13, 1910, pg. 2
BROWNE IS GRILLED
______
LEGISLATOR ACCUSED OF OFFER
ING BRIBE TESTIFIES BEFORE
SENATE COMMITTEE.
_____
MAKES A GENERAL DENIAL,
_____
Declares Speaker of Illinois House
Asked Him to Get Democratic
Members to Vote for Lorimer –
Broderick Disclaims Bribery.
____
______
LEGISLATOR ACCUSED OF OFFER
ING BRIBE TESTIFIES BEFORE
SENATE COMMITTEE.
_____
MAKES A GENERAL DENIAL,
_____
Declares Speaker of Illinois House
Asked Him to Get Democratic
Members to Vote for Lorimer –
Broderick Disclaims Bribery.
____
Chicago.- Lee O’Neil Browne, minority leader in the Forty-sixth general assembly took the witness stand before the senatorial investigating committee Thursday and told a story with sensational aspects. Among these was a declaration that Edward Shurtleff, speaker of the house of representatives, was the dictator of the plan to elect William Lorimer United States senator.
The minority leader began his testimony with disputing evidence given by legislators who accuse him of bribery. He denied sending for Representative Charles A. White to come to his (Browne’s) hotel room on May 25, 1909, the night before Mr. Lorimer’s election.
Browne testified that about three weeks before Lorimer’s election Speaker Shurtleff came to him and asked him whether he could “get the boys to vote for Lorimer,” meaning Browne’s friends.
Browne said he told Shurtleff he didn’t know and had not at that time made up his mind to support Lorimer.
Browne acknowledged being in St Louis June 21. He said he met Shephard, Link, Beckemeyer and Luke and thought he met Clark. They were called to meet him through the agency of others, he said, to discuss his political future and his probable candidacy for minority leader.
“Did you ever pay Link or Beckemeyer $1,000?” asked Attorney Austrian.
“No.”
Browne either denied all the charges of bribery or evaded by answering “I don’t remember.”
Absolute denial of payment of $2,500 or any other sum to State Senator D. W. Holstlaw or any other legislator in connection with the election of Lorimer was made by State Senator John Broderick.
Broderick underwent a grilling cross-examination, but remained unshaken. The prosecution finally dismissed him after futile attempts to impeach his testimony.
Broderick stubbornly repelled all attempts to cause him to commit himself. He denied that he ever received any money for his own vote; all knowledge of the use of money in the election of Lorimer or that he ever dealt out a “jack pot” to the members of the senate, including Holstlaw.
He admitted having met Holstlaw in his saloon on the West side about June 16, 1909. Asked if he had written Holstlaw to come to Chicago, the witness refused to answer on the ground that he might be giving testimony against himself.
Representative John Griffin of Chicago, who followed Broderick, denied that he had solicited Representative Henry Terrill’s vote for Lorimer on a promise of money, or offered any other legislator money for his vote. Terrill had testified that Griffin had said there would be $1,000 in it.”
The minority leader began his testimony with disputing evidence given by legislators who accuse him of bribery. He denied sending for Representative Charles A. White to come to his (Browne’s) hotel room on May 25, 1909, the night before Mr. Lorimer’s election.
Browne testified that about three weeks before Lorimer’s election Speaker Shurtleff came to him and asked him whether he could “get the boys to vote for Lorimer,” meaning Browne’s friends.
Browne said he told Shurtleff he didn’t know and had not at that time made up his mind to support Lorimer.
Browne acknowledged being in St Louis June 21. He said he met Shephard, Link, Beckemeyer and Luke and thought he met Clark. They were called to meet him through the agency of others, he said, to discuss his political future and his probable candidacy for minority leader.
“Did you ever pay Link or Beckemeyer $1,000?” asked Attorney Austrian.
“No.”
Browne either denied all the charges of bribery or evaded by answering “I don’t remember.”
Absolute denial of payment of $2,500 or any other sum to State Senator D. W. Holstlaw or any other legislator in connection with the election of Lorimer was made by State Senator John Broderick.
Broderick underwent a grilling cross-examination, but remained unshaken. The prosecution finally dismissed him after futile attempts to impeach his testimony.
Broderick stubbornly repelled all attempts to cause him to commit himself. He denied that he ever received any money for his own vote; all knowledge of the use of money in the election of Lorimer or that he ever dealt out a “jack pot” to the members of the senate, including Holstlaw.
He admitted having met Holstlaw in his saloon on the West side about June 16, 1909. Asked if he had written Holstlaw to come to Chicago, the witness refused to answer on the ground that he might be giving testimony against himself.
Representative John Griffin of Chicago, who followed Broderick, denied that he had solicited Representative Henry Terrill’s vote for Lorimer on a promise of money, or offered any other legislator money for his vote. Terrill had testified that Griffin had said there would be $1,000 in it.”
Urbana Courier-Herald. Vol.XXX. No. 255. Monday Evening, October 24, 1910, pg. 8
Holstlaw on Hand to Give Testimony
Springfield, Oct. 24 – Senator H.D. Holstlaw and J. W. Knox, representing the Derby Desk company, and John Frier, who was the agent of the Ford Johnson Furniture company, arrived here to testify for the prosecution in the “jack-pot” cases against Senator S.C. Pemberton and Representative Joseph W. Clark.
Urbana Courier-Herald. Vol.XXX. No. 266. Wednesday Evening, October 26, 1910, pg. 1
FURNITURE PLOT
IS TOLD IN COURT
____________
Witness Involves Three Solons in
Legislative Scandal.
___________
BRIBE OFFER IS RELATED
__________
Senator Holstlaw Tells of Meeting in
Springfield Hotel and Asserts
$1,500 Was Promised for
His Vote.
_________
IS TOLD IN COURT
____________
Witness Involves Three Solons in
Legislative Scandal.
___________
BRIBE OFFER IS RELATED
__________
Senator Holstlaw Tells of Meeting in
Springfield Hotel and Asserts
$1,500 Was Promised for
His Vote.
_________
Springfield, Ill., Oct. 26.-Direct evidence that Senator Stanton C Pemberton, Senator David W. Holstlaw and Representative Joseph S. Clark wanted money for letting the contract for legislative chamber furniture was brought out in the conspiracy case of Pemberton and Clark, in the Sangamon circuit court, when J. W. Knox of Chicago, sales agent of the Derby Desk company, testified.
Knox said that he had a conversation with Holstlaw and Clark regarding the letting of the contract and they asked him what there was in it for them if the contract was let to the Derby Desk company. Knox testified that he met Clark in the representatives hall and that Clark said Pemberton wanted to see him (Knox).
Knox said that he had a conversation with Holstlaw and Clark regarding the letting of the contract and they asked him what there was in it for them if the contract was let to the Derby Desk company. Knox testified that he met Clark in the representatives hall and that Clark said Pemberton wanted to see him (Knox).
Knox Tells of Conversation
“I went over to the senate chamber and talked with Senator Pemberton,” testified Knox. “Pemberton said that he, Holstlaw and Clark would vote together on the furniture contract. He asked me what the contract price would be and I said about $23,000. Pemberton said that they ought to get about 10 per cent out of it.
“Holstlaw later asked me what was in it for him in letting contract,” testified Knox. “I asked him if $500 would be satisfactory. He said it was not enough. I saw Senator Pemberton the next day after my talk with Holstlaw. I asked him how things were getting along in the furniture-contract affair. He said my company wouldn’t get the contract; that the other two were going to vote elsewhere and that he wouldn’t have anything to do with the question.”
“Holstlaw later asked me what was in it for him in letting contract,” testified Knox. “I asked him if $500 would be satisfactory. He said it was not enough. I saw Senator Pemberton the next day after my talk with Holstlaw. I asked him how things were getting along in the furniture-contract affair. He said my company wouldn’t get the contract; that the other two were going to vote elsewhere and that he wouldn’t have anything to do with the question.”
Senator Holstlaw Testifies.
Senator Holstlaw was the first witness examined by the state. He testified that A. B. Johnston of Springfield met him in Otto M. Frier’s room in the St. Nicholas hotel the night before the legislative furniture contract to the Fjord & Johnston company was awarded and that Johnston said to him:
“I will give you $1,500 if we get the furniture contract. That is $500 more than I am paying either Clark or Pemberton.”
“I will give you $1,500 if we get the furniture contract. That is $500 more than I am paying either Clark or Pemberton.”
No One Else Hears Offer.
No one else was in the room, said Holstlaw. Frier was in the room when Holstlaw entered, but left before Johnston began his talk. Holstlaw testified that Clark said he thought the members of the commission should get something out of the contract. He did not remember hearing Pemberton say anything about getting money out of letting the contract.
“Pemberton and Clark both said,” declared Holstlaw, “that we all wanted to stick together in this transaction.”
Holstlaw declared that every statement he had made in his confession to the state’s attorney and grand jury was true.
“Pemberton and Clark both said,” declared Holstlaw, “that we all wanted to stick together in this transaction.”
Holstlaw declared that every statement he had made in his confession to the state’s attorney and grand jury was true.
Urbana Courier-Herald. Vol.XXX. No. 267. Thursday Evening, October 27, 1910, pg. 2
SOLONS DENY BRIBE CHARGE
__________________
PEMBERTON AND CLARK TESTIFY
IN FURNITURE GRAFT CASE.
_________________
Both Assert No Money Was Offered
Them for Their Votes in
Desk Contracts.
________________
__________________
PEMBERTON AND CLARK TESTIFY
IN FURNITURE GRAFT CASE.
_________________
Both Assert No Money Was Offered
Them for Their Votes in
Desk Contracts.
________________
Springfield, Ill., Oct. 27.-State Senator Stanton C. Pemberton, co-defendant with Representative Joseph S. Clark in the legislative furniture graft case, took the witness stand in the Sangamon circuit court and stated emphatically that he never had any conversation with A. B. Johnston or anyone else regarding getting money or other valuable consideration in letting the furniture contract.
He declared he had never even talked with Holstlaw or Clark regarding the awarding of the contract and did not know how they would vote on the question previous to the session of the committee at which the contract was awarded.
“I never talked with J. W. Knox regarding Holstlaw, Clark and myself voting together or said that we wanted to get anything out of the contract. Knox met me the morning the contract was let and said: “The contract for the furniture will be let today. Will you speak a good word for me? I told him I would. That was all of that conversation.”
Following the examination of Pemberton, Representative J. S. Clark was put on the witness stand in his own behalf.
Clark testified that he met A. B. Johnston and Otto M. Frier, representing the Ford & Johnston company one year before the contract was awarded. He also said he talked with Johnston next day after the contract was awarded. He denied having been offered money.
A number of character witnesses were introduced on behalf of Pemberton and Clark, and the defense then rested. It is expected the case will go to the jury tonight.
He declared he had never even talked with Holstlaw or Clark regarding the awarding of the contract and did not know how they would vote on the question previous to the session of the committee at which the contract was awarded.
“I never talked with J. W. Knox regarding Holstlaw, Clark and myself voting together or said that we wanted to get anything out of the contract. Knox met me the morning the contract was let and said: “The contract for the furniture will be let today. Will you speak a good word for me? I told him I would. That was all of that conversation.”
Following the examination of Pemberton, Representative J. S. Clark was put on the witness stand in his own behalf.
Clark testified that he met A. B. Johnston and Otto M. Frier, representing the Ford & Johnston company one year before the contract was awarded. He also said he talked with Johnston next day after the contract was awarded. He denied having been offered money.
A number of character witnesses were introduced on behalf of Pemberton and Clark, and the defense then rested. It is expected the case will go to the jury tonight.
Urbana Courier-Herald. Vol.XIV. No. 9. Wednesday Evening, January 11, 1911, pg. 1
Holstlaw is Out.
Springfield, Jan. 11. – Special Telegram to The Courier Herald – Senator Holtzlaw was today dropped from senate rolls by Lieutenant Governor Oglesby on communication from Deneen. Mfr. Holtzlaw will be rememberd as the self-confessed bribe taker, who tried to resign.
Urbana Courier-Herald. Vol.XIV. No. 10. Thursday Evening, January 12, 1911, pg. 6 AND
The True Republican. Sycamore, DeKalb County, Illinois, Saturday, January 14, 1911, pg. 4
The True Republican. Sycamore, DeKalb County, Illinois, Saturday, January 14, 1911, pg. 4
HOLSTLAW NO LONGER SENATOR
_________
ESCAPES DISMISSAL FROM SEN-
ATE BY RESIGNATION.
_________
Committee Reports Sufficient Evidence
Is Found to Warrant His Removal
From Illinois Senate.
_________
_________
ESCAPES DISMISSAL FROM SEN-
ATE BY RESIGNATION.
_________
Committee Reports Sufficient Evidence
Is Found to Warrant His Removal
From Illinois Senate.
_________
Springfield, Ill., Jan. 12.- D. W. Holstlaw of Iuka, confessed bribe taker, has escaped dismissal from the senate by his resignation, sent in a few days ago.
The senate investigating committee which has been hearing testimony in regard to bribery in connection with the election Senator William Lorimer reported that, although it had found sufficient evidence to warrant the removal of Holstlaw, it was not in its power to recommend such action in view of his official resignation, directed to the governor.
The report suggests that a new resolution be adopted empowering the committee to subpoena witnesses and administer oaths. The report will be made a special order for next Tuesday.
Following this report came a resolution authorizing the investigating committee to make a thorough investigation of all bribery charges, compel witnesses to testify under oath and to produce documents and other papers. Action on this resolution also was postponed.
Prior to the reading of the committee’s report a communication from Governor Deneen was presented to the senate which stated that the executive had received the resignation of Holstlaw dated January 4, and that the office of senator from the Forty-second district was, therefore, vacated.
Lieutenant Governor Oglesby then declared Holstlaw’s seat vacant.
The senate investigating committee which has been hearing testimony in regard to bribery in connection with the election Senator William Lorimer reported that, although it had found sufficient evidence to warrant the removal of Holstlaw, it was not in its power to recommend such action in view of his official resignation, directed to the governor.
The report suggests that a new resolution be adopted empowering the committee to subpoena witnesses and administer oaths. The report will be made a special order for next Tuesday.
Following this report came a resolution authorizing the investigating committee to make a thorough investigation of all bribery charges, compel witnesses to testify under oath and to produce documents and other papers. Action on this resolution also was postponed.
Prior to the reading of the committee’s report a communication from Governor Deneen was presented to the senate which stated that the executive had received the resignation of Holstlaw dated January 4, and that the office of senator from the Forty-second district was, therefore, vacated.
Lieutenant Governor Oglesby then declared Holstlaw’s seat vacant.
Urbana Courier-Herald. Vol. XIV. No. 13. Monday Evening, January 16, 1911, pg 1.
ILLINOIS NEWS
BY TELEGRAPH
____________
WIRE REPORTS OF HAPPENINGS
OF THE STATE.
__________
HOLSTLAW TO BE WITNESS
__________
Senate Will Compel Former Legis-
Lator to Appear Before Heim In-
Vestigating Committee if its
Powers Are Enlarged.
BY TELEGRAPH
____________
WIRE REPORTS OF HAPPENINGS
OF THE STATE.
__________
HOLSTLAW TO BE WITNESS
__________
Senate Will Compel Former Legis-
Lator to Appear Before Heim In-
Vestigating Committee if its
Powers Are Enlarged.
Springfield, Jan. 16.- Former Senator Daniel W. Holstlaw of Iuka, self-confessed corruptionist, will be the first witness summoned by the Heim investigating committee, if its powers are enlarged by the senate next Tuesday. Before his resignation was accepted Holstlaw ignored the subpoena served by the inquisitors, but in case the increased authority is granted the committee will send a sergeant-at-arms to Iuka to compel his attendance.
The investigators insist that they intend to remove the lid from the bribery scandals, but for the next few weeks they will not take up the status of Senators John Broderick and S. C. Pemberton, both of whom are under indictment in Sangamon county. Pemberton’s second trial is set for the third week in January and Broderick is to be the next of the indicted ones to be brought before a jury.
At the state house it is reported that the administration bills on corrupt practices will be introduced this week by Senator Jones, under whose direction it has been prepared. There will be several measures bearing on the subject. Senator John Dailey introduced the first one last week. The administration bill is said to be an eclectic measure, containing the best points of the law now in force in other states.
Bills covering the following matters are also expected to be introduced during the week: Initiative and referendum; constitutional amendment for abolition of minority representation; constitutional amendment for modernization of the revenue system; civil service extension.
Tax levying authorities of a county in Illinois cannot legally levy at one time an amount intended for collection as taxes in future years. Thus holds Attorney General Snead, who delivered an opinion on the question to State’s Attorney J. H. Lane at McLeansboro. His holding is that a tax levy must hold good for taxes to be collected only in the year in which the levy is made, and that each additional sum that may be needed in future years must be covered by annual levies.
The investigators insist that they intend to remove the lid from the bribery scandals, but for the next few weeks they will not take up the status of Senators John Broderick and S. C. Pemberton, both of whom are under indictment in Sangamon county. Pemberton’s second trial is set for the third week in January and Broderick is to be the next of the indicted ones to be brought before a jury.
At the state house it is reported that the administration bills on corrupt practices will be introduced this week by Senator Jones, under whose direction it has been prepared. There will be several measures bearing on the subject. Senator John Dailey introduced the first one last week. The administration bill is said to be an eclectic measure, containing the best points of the law now in force in other states.
Bills covering the following matters are also expected to be introduced during the week: Initiative and referendum; constitutional amendment for abolition of minority representation; constitutional amendment for modernization of the revenue system; civil service extension.
Tax levying authorities of a county in Illinois cannot legally levy at one time an amount intended for collection as taxes in future years. Thus holds Attorney General Snead, who delivered an opinion on the question to State’s Attorney J. H. Lane at McLeansboro. His holding is that a tax levy must hold good for taxes to be collected only in the year in which the levy is made, and that each additional sum that may be needed in future years must be covered by annual levies.
Urbana Courier-Herald. Vol. XIV. No. 26. Tuesday Evening, January 31, 1911, pg 3.
SOLONS AGAIN ON TRIAL
_______
State Senator Pemberton and Ex-Rep-
Resentative Clark, involved in Bribe
Charges, in Court at Springfield.
_____
_______
State Senator Pemberton and Ex-Rep-
Resentative Clark, involved in Bribe
Charges, in Court at Springfield.
_____
Springfield, Ill., Jan. 31-The trial of State Senator Stanton C. Pemberton and former Representative Joseph S. Clark, charged with conspiracy in soliciting a bribe in connection with awarding the contracts for the furnishing of the house and senate chambers, was begun in the Sangamon county court before Judge Owen P. Thompson.
Pemberton and Clark were members of a special committee authorized by the legislature to purchase the new eaquipment, consisting of desks an chairs and former Senator Daniel Holstlaw of Iuka confessed that he, Pemberton and Clark were to share in a reward for giving the contract to a Chicago company.
The jury at the former trial of the case held last fall failed to agree.
Pemberton and Clark were members of a special committee authorized by the legislature to purchase the new eaquipment, consisting of desks an chairs and former Senator Daniel Holstlaw of Iuka confessed that he, Pemberton and Clark were to share in a reward for giving the contract to a Chicago company.
The jury at the former trial of the case held last fall failed to agree.
Urbana Courier-Herald. Vol. XIV. No. 59. Tuesday Evening, March 11, 1911, pg 6.
CLARK SAYS HE MADE ERRORS
______
Vandalia Representative, Testifying in
Bribery Trial at Springfield
Changes His Chicago
Testimony.
_____
______
Vandalia Representative, Testifying in
Bribery Trial at Springfield
Changes His Chicago
Testimony.
_____
Springfield, March 11.-Joseph S. Clark of Vandalia, testifying in his legislative bribery trial, admitted that he had made errors in his testimony before the Chicago grand jury in connection with the investigation in that city.
At that time he said he had not heard any conversation implicating anyone in soliciting or accepting money for votes in the state legislature.
He swore that before the statehouse furniture contract had been let Lee O’Neil Browne had approached him and said: “Joe, be careful in the furniture; there is a bad man on the commission.”
“He was referring to Holstlaw,” said Clark. “Later I approached Holstlaw and told him I understood that some one was trying to get money out of the contract and that it was him.”
“In other words,” said State’s Attorney Burke, recalling the Chicago testimony, “you forgot about this Holstlaw and Browne business until now?”
“Yes, sir,”, said Clark.
Former Senator Stanton C. Pemberton also testified in his own behalf, denying charges of bribery.
At that time he said he had not heard any conversation implicating anyone in soliciting or accepting money for votes in the state legislature.
He swore that before the statehouse furniture contract had been let Lee O’Neil Browne had approached him and said: “Joe, be careful in the furniture; there is a bad man on the commission.”
“He was referring to Holstlaw,” said Clark. “Later I approached Holstlaw and told him I understood that some one was trying to get money out of the contract and that it was him.”
“In other words,” said State’s Attorney Burke, recalling the Chicago testimony, “you forgot about this Holstlaw and Browne business until now?”
“Yes, sir,”, said Clark.
Former Senator Stanton C. Pemberton also testified in his own behalf, denying charges of bribery.
Urbana Courier-Herald. Vol. XIV. No. 71.. Saturday Evening, March 25, 1911, pg 4.
FIND BRODERICK NOT GUILTY
Illinois Legislator Accused of Paying
Bribe in Lorimer Election is
Acquitted.
Illinois Legislator Accused of Paying
Bribe in Lorimer Election is
Acquitted.
Springfield, Ill., March 25.-“Not guilty” was the verdict of the jury in the case of Senator John Broderick of Chicago, accused of bribing State Senator D. W. Holstlaw in the electing of William Lorimer to the United States senate.
The Herald Democrat. Leadville, Colorado, Thursday, March 23, 1911, page 5.
BRODERICK BRIBERY CASE
ECHO OF LORIMER AFFAIR
ECHO OF LORIMER AFFAIR
Springfield, Ill., March – Former State Senator D. W. Holsstlaw of Iuka; State Senator John S. Broderick, of Chicago, and Jarvis O. Newton, of Chicago, were the principal witnesses today in the Broderick bribery case in the circuit court.
Mr. Holstlaw testified he had visited the saloon of Broderick on two occasions and received money both times and that on one occasion he met State Senator C. R. Jandus, of Chicago.
State Senator Broderick had a warm half hour on corss-examination at the hands of State’s Attorney Burke, who frequently referred to Mr. Broderick’s testimony before the senate investigating committee in Chicago on October 6, 1910. He denied, however that he had ever paid Holstlaw any money either in his saloon in Chicago, or any other place.
Mr. Newton, chief clerk of the Chicago State bank, testified concerning the deposit of $2,500 in the state bank by Holstlaw, and identified the copy of the deposit slip which was a reproduction of his own handwriting. Mr. Burke questioned Broderick about the conversation of Jandus, Holstlaw and himself in Brodericks saloon on June 16, while standing at the bar. Mr. Burke said it was strange that three weeks after the election of Lorimer, three Democrats meeting together for the first time after the election all of whom voted for a Republican did not discuss the election.
Today was the first time that the names of Senator Jandus had been mentioned in connection with the case and it created a stir in the court room.
In the examination of Holstlaw by Attorney Mortimer for the defense, Mr. Mortimer tried to get Holstlaw to say that Senator Jandus was at the saloon of John Broderick on the day that he claims he received that $2,500 for his vote for Wm. Lorimer.
Mr. Holstlaw insisted that as far as he could remember Mr. Jandus was not there at any time, but said that on another occasion, he met Jandus in Broderick’s place of business.
Mr. Holstlaw testified he had visited the saloon of Broderick on two occasions and received money both times and that on one occasion he met State Senator C. R. Jandus, of Chicago.
State Senator Broderick had a warm half hour on corss-examination at the hands of State’s Attorney Burke, who frequently referred to Mr. Broderick’s testimony before the senate investigating committee in Chicago on October 6, 1910. He denied, however that he had ever paid Holstlaw any money either in his saloon in Chicago, or any other place.
Mr. Newton, chief clerk of the Chicago State bank, testified concerning the deposit of $2,500 in the state bank by Holstlaw, and identified the copy of the deposit slip which was a reproduction of his own handwriting. Mr. Burke questioned Broderick about the conversation of Jandus, Holstlaw and himself in Brodericks saloon on June 16, while standing at the bar. Mr. Burke said it was strange that three weeks after the election of Lorimer, three Democrats meeting together for the first time after the election all of whom voted for a Republican did not discuss the election.
Today was the first time that the names of Senator Jandus had been mentioned in connection with the case and it created a stir in the court room.
In the examination of Holstlaw by Attorney Mortimer for the defense, Mr. Mortimer tried to get Holstlaw to say that Senator Jandus was at the saloon of John Broderick on the day that he claims he received that $2,500 for his vote for Wm. Lorimer.
Mr. Holstlaw insisted that as far as he could remember Mr. Jandus was not there at any time, but said that on another occasion, he met Jandus in Broderick’s place of business.
The Herald Democrat. Leadville, Colorado, Friday, March 24, 1911, pg. 3.
TRYING TO PROVE BRIBERY
AGAIN ILLINOIS LEGISLATOR
------------------------------
AGAIN ILLINOIS LEGISLATOR
------------------------------
Springfield, Ill. March 23. – Those members of the legislature who are attempting to pass a drastic libel bill, came in for a severe scoring from State’s Attorney Burke in his address before the jury this afternoon in the case of State Senator John S. Broderick of Chicago, charged with paying State Senator Daniel W. Holstlaw of Iuka, $2,500 for voting for Wm. Lorimer for United States senator. Former State Senator C.R. Jandus who testified this morning also came in for denunciation in the address of the state’s attorney.
Jandus, now chief deputy clerk in the probate court of Chicago, testified that he had met Holstlaw in Broderick;s saloon in Chicago early in the summer of 1909, but could not remember the date, he denied that any money had been handed either to Holstlaw or himself by Broderick and stuck to his story throughout his examination.
The closing arguments will be continued tomorrow morning. The case will go to the jury tomorrow evening.
Jandus, now chief deputy clerk in the probate court of Chicago, testified that he had met Holstlaw in Broderick;s saloon in Chicago early in the summer of 1909, but could not remember the date, he denied that any money had been handed either to Holstlaw or himself by Broderick and stuck to his story throughout his examination.
The closing arguments will be continued tomorrow morning. The case will go to the jury tomorrow evening.
Urbana Courier-Herald. Vol. XIV. No. 176.. Friday, July 28, 1911, pg 2
HANECY CAUSES STIR
___________
DECLARES RECORDS IN LORIMER
CASE HAD BEEN “JUGGLED”
___________
Proceedings of Senatorial Inquire Are
Enlivened by Clashes Between
Counsel and Investigators
___________
___________
DECLARES RECORDS IN LORIMER
CASE HAD BEEN “JUGGLED”
___________
Proceedings of Senatorial Inquire Are
Enlivened by Clashes Between
Counsel and Investigators
___________
Washington, July 28. – Charges by Attorney Eldridge Hanecy, representing Senator Lorimer, that certain records in the Lorimer case had been “juggled,” provoking angry denials and countercharges from the investigating committee’s counsel that Hanecy’s tactics in questioning were “entirely improper,” considerably enlivened the bearing before the senate committee which is investigating the election of Senator Lorimer of Illinois.
H.D. Holstlaw of Iuka, Ill., son of state senator D. W. Holstlaw, occupied the witness stand. The elder Holstlaw confessed that he had received $2,500 to vote for Lorimer, but he is too ill at present to be summoned before the committee. Accordingly the son, who is cashier of his father’s bank, was brought here to substantiate as far as possible his father’s confession.
The climax came when Mr. Hanecy was cross examining the witness. The attorney had made a remark which Chairman Dillingham said was entirely uncalled for.
“I think it is quite important because of the juggling that has been done with deposit slips,” said Attorney Hanecy.
Attorney Healy, committee counsel, jumped to his feet. “I think the gentleman should be asked to explain his remarks,” he said, angrily. Attorney Hanecy began to tell of the mysterious disappearance of an affidavit concerning a deposit slip which was introduced into the senate last winter, and the committee brought him up short, demanding to know what the incident had to do with the present inquiry. Mr. Hanecy said that the lost affidavit showed a variance in handwriting in two slips said to have been made out by the same man.
“That’s argument, and you are not an expert,” broke in Attorney Marble, committee counsel, indignantly. “But when you come to charge juggling in this inquiry I want you to be very careful.”
H.D. Holstlaw of Iuka, Ill., son of state senator D. W. Holstlaw, occupied the witness stand. The elder Holstlaw confessed that he had received $2,500 to vote for Lorimer, but he is too ill at present to be summoned before the committee. Accordingly the son, who is cashier of his father’s bank, was brought here to substantiate as far as possible his father’s confession.
The climax came when Mr. Hanecy was cross examining the witness. The attorney had made a remark which Chairman Dillingham said was entirely uncalled for.
“I think it is quite important because of the juggling that has been done with deposit slips,” said Attorney Hanecy.
Attorney Healy, committee counsel, jumped to his feet. “I think the gentleman should be asked to explain his remarks,” he said, angrily. Attorney Hanecy began to tell of the mysterious disappearance of an affidavit concerning a deposit slip which was introduced into the senate last winter, and the committee brought him up short, demanding to know what the incident had to do with the present inquiry. Mr. Hanecy said that the lost affidavit showed a variance in handwriting in two slips said to have been made out by the same man.
“That’s argument, and you are not an expert,” broke in Attorney Marble, committee counsel, indignantly. “But when you come to charge juggling in this inquiry I want you to be very careful.”
Chicago Examiner, Vol. IX., No. 285. – A.M. Saturday, Chicago, November 18, 1911, pg. 7
BRODERICK FACES INDICTMENT
ON UNEARTHING OF FINAL LINK
IN LORIMER BRIBERY EVIDENCE
_____________
Telegram Making Appointment
For State Senator and Confessed Vote Seller Coincides
With Deposit of Money,
____________
Telephone Employe Shows
Records of Conversation
Between “Bathroom Bob”
And H.J.C. Beckemeyer,
____________
ON UNEARTHING OF FINAL LINK
IN LORIMER BRIBERY EVIDENCE
_____________
Telegram Making Appointment
For State Senator and Confessed Vote Seller Coincides
With Deposit of Money,
____________
Telephone Employe Shows
Records of Conversation
Between “Bathroom Bob”
And H.J.C. Beckemeyer,
____________
The production yesterday of a short businesslike telegram before the committee of the United States Senate which is investigating the election of Senator Lorimer appears to be the last link in a chain of astonishing evidence corroborating the confession of former State Senator D. W. Holstlaw that he was paid for his Lorimer vote and that he shared in the general corruption fund known as the “jackpot.”
Furthermore, short of an actual confession from State Senator John Broderick, the telegram is taken by many as a climax to the election of Lorimer and in the distribution of the “jackpot.”
In view of the repeated statements made by Broderick that he did not summon Holstlaw to meet him and that he did not know why Holstlaw came to see him - at which meeting it has been alleged that the money changed hands – it is now strongly hinted that a perjury prosecution will shortly be initiated.
The telegram produced yesterday was a message from Holstlaw to Broderick, dated August 27, 1909, in which Holstlaw said he would meet Broderick at his place of business on the following Saturday morning.
Telegram Is Connecting Link
The significance of the telegram is best indicated by a short recital of the events which it affects.
Holstlaw confessed that he paid two visits to Broderick in the Summer of 1909, just after the election of Lorimer, which occurred May 26 of that year.
He said Broderick paid him $2,500 on the first visit and $700 the second time. He understood that the $2,500 was for his Lorimer vote and the $700 was his share of the “jackpot.”
Broderick positively denied giving the money to Holstlaw. He went further and denied that he asked Holstlaw to call on him. He said that Holstlaw called on him once and that the visit was absolutely unexpected.
Holstlaw identified the time of his first visit to Broderick as June 16, 1909, and he tought the second visit was a month later. He said he deposited the $2,500 in the State Bank of Chicago, but he could not remember what he did with the $700.
In the course of the first investigation of the Lorimer election discovery was made of a deposit slip recording the fact that on June 16, 1909, Holstlaw deposited $2,500 in the State Bank of Chicago.
Message Is Final Item.
Nothing further was accomplished in the first investigation toward corroborating Holstlaw’s story.
The telegram yesterday was the final item in a series of important discoveries made during the present investigation. They are as follows, in the order in which they were jprjesented to the committee by its investigators:
A Letter from Broderick to Holstlaw dated August 26, 1909, in which Broderick said he wanted to see Holstlaw not later than 4 p.m., Saturday, August 28.
A deposit slip, recording the fact that on August 28, 1909, Holstlaw deposited $700 in the State Bank of Chicago.
A telegram sent by Holstlaw to Broderick dated June 14, 1909 (Monday), in which he said he would meet Broderick on the following Wednesday morning. This telegram confirmed the arrangement of a meeting on the day Holstlaw deposited $2,500 in the bank.
Yesterday’s telegram, Holstlaw to Broderick, dated August 27, 1909 (Friday), in which he said he would meet Broderick on Saturday. This telegram confirmed the arrangement of a meeting on the day Holstlaw deposited $700 in the bank.
Operator Produces the Telegram.
The latest telegram was produced yesterday by R. A. Chickedantz, telegraph operator at Iuka, Ill., the home of Holstlaw. The same witness several weeks ago produced the telegram dated June 14, 1909. It developed during his testimony yesterday that he was asked by the committee to search his records and see if he had a message from Holstlaw to Broderick dated about August 28, 1909.
Chickedantz said he knew Holstlaw’s handwriting, and identified the message as having been written by the confessed bribe-taker. He said he had received no notification from his company that the message had not been delivered.
Following Chickendants, John Hawkins, chief clerk of the American Telephone & Telegraph Company, Chicago, took the stand. The committee then produced another significant paper, the record of a telephone conversation between Robert E. Wilson (“Bathroom Bob”) in Chicago, and former Representative H.J.C. Beckemeyer, at Carlyle, Ill., in April, 1910.
Beckemeyer testified that Wilson summoned him to Springfield and there “cooked up” a story to explain a gathering in St. Louis, at which corruption money was distributed. Wilson denied it.
Telephone Record Produced.
Hawkins said the paper produced was a copy of the record of a conversation.
The original records are destroyed after six months.
Following Hawkins, Miss Rose Zdoack, a very pretty young girl, was escorted to the witness stand. Miss Zdoney was formerly employed in the telephone office and she identified the slip introduced as having been filled out by her.
Some excitement was caused when LaVerne W. Noyes was called to the stand. By reason of his prominence it was thought for a few minutes he was about to offer some significant testimony. Mr. Noyes testified that he had a conversation with Edward Hines, president of the Edward Hines Lumber Company, shortly after the election of Lorimer. Hines is the man about whom it has been testified that he “put Lorimer over” at a cost of $100,000.
“I only remember that it was in regard to a conference in Washington with Mr. Aldrich,” said Mr. Noyes, “in which something was said about the manner in which Lorimer would be acceptable to the Republicans.”
John I. Hughes of Chicago, associated with Lorimer in business, testified that he did not offer the privilege of controlling federal patronage to a member of the Illinois Assembly in return for Lorimer support.
Assistant State’s Attorneys Thomas Marshall and Claude F. Smith also testified.
Smith denied that he sent Policeman P. J. Keeley to bring in the owner of a disreputable house, saying that the “boss” – meaning State’s Attorney Wayman – wanted part of the “graft.”
“Manny” Abrahams – whom Lorimer pronounced the “bell wether” of the Democrats in the Illinois House – is expected to testify this morning.
Furthermore, short of an actual confession from State Senator John Broderick, the telegram is taken by many as a climax to the election of Lorimer and in the distribution of the “jackpot.”
In view of the repeated statements made by Broderick that he did not summon Holstlaw to meet him and that he did not know why Holstlaw came to see him - at which meeting it has been alleged that the money changed hands – it is now strongly hinted that a perjury prosecution will shortly be initiated.
The telegram produced yesterday was a message from Holstlaw to Broderick, dated August 27, 1909, in which Holstlaw said he would meet Broderick at his place of business on the following Saturday morning.
Telegram Is Connecting Link
The significance of the telegram is best indicated by a short recital of the events which it affects.
Holstlaw confessed that he paid two visits to Broderick in the Summer of 1909, just after the election of Lorimer, which occurred May 26 of that year.
He said Broderick paid him $2,500 on the first visit and $700 the second time. He understood that the $2,500 was for his Lorimer vote and the $700 was his share of the “jackpot.”
Broderick positively denied giving the money to Holstlaw. He went further and denied that he asked Holstlaw to call on him. He said that Holstlaw called on him once and that the visit was absolutely unexpected.
Holstlaw identified the time of his first visit to Broderick as June 16, 1909, and he tought the second visit was a month later. He said he deposited the $2,500 in the State Bank of Chicago, but he could not remember what he did with the $700.
In the course of the first investigation of the Lorimer election discovery was made of a deposit slip recording the fact that on June 16, 1909, Holstlaw deposited $2,500 in the State Bank of Chicago.
Message Is Final Item.
Nothing further was accomplished in the first investigation toward corroborating Holstlaw’s story.
The telegram yesterday was the final item in a series of important discoveries made during the present investigation. They are as follows, in the order in which they were jprjesented to the committee by its investigators:
A Letter from Broderick to Holstlaw dated August 26, 1909, in which Broderick said he wanted to see Holstlaw not later than 4 p.m., Saturday, August 28.
A deposit slip, recording the fact that on August 28, 1909, Holstlaw deposited $700 in the State Bank of Chicago.
A telegram sent by Holstlaw to Broderick dated June 14, 1909 (Monday), in which he said he would meet Broderick on the following Wednesday morning. This telegram confirmed the arrangement of a meeting on the day Holstlaw deposited $2,500 in the bank.
Yesterday’s telegram, Holstlaw to Broderick, dated August 27, 1909 (Friday), in which he said he would meet Broderick on Saturday. This telegram confirmed the arrangement of a meeting on the day Holstlaw deposited $700 in the bank.
Operator Produces the Telegram.
The latest telegram was produced yesterday by R. A. Chickedantz, telegraph operator at Iuka, Ill., the home of Holstlaw. The same witness several weeks ago produced the telegram dated June 14, 1909. It developed during his testimony yesterday that he was asked by the committee to search his records and see if he had a message from Holstlaw to Broderick dated about August 28, 1909.
Chickedantz said he knew Holstlaw’s handwriting, and identified the message as having been written by the confessed bribe-taker. He said he had received no notification from his company that the message had not been delivered.
Following Chickendants, John Hawkins, chief clerk of the American Telephone & Telegraph Company, Chicago, took the stand. The committee then produced another significant paper, the record of a telephone conversation between Robert E. Wilson (“Bathroom Bob”) in Chicago, and former Representative H.J.C. Beckemeyer, at Carlyle, Ill., in April, 1910.
Beckemeyer testified that Wilson summoned him to Springfield and there “cooked up” a story to explain a gathering in St. Louis, at which corruption money was distributed. Wilson denied it.
Telephone Record Produced.
Hawkins said the paper produced was a copy of the record of a conversation.
The original records are destroyed after six months.
Following Hawkins, Miss Rose Zdoack, a very pretty young girl, was escorted to the witness stand. Miss Zdoney was formerly employed in the telephone office and she identified the slip introduced as having been filled out by her.
Some excitement was caused when LaVerne W. Noyes was called to the stand. By reason of his prominence it was thought for a few minutes he was about to offer some significant testimony. Mr. Noyes testified that he had a conversation with Edward Hines, president of the Edward Hines Lumber Company, shortly after the election of Lorimer. Hines is the man about whom it has been testified that he “put Lorimer over” at a cost of $100,000.
“I only remember that it was in regard to a conference in Washington with Mr. Aldrich,” said Mr. Noyes, “in which something was said about the manner in which Lorimer would be acceptable to the Republicans.”
John I. Hughes of Chicago, associated with Lorimer in business, testified that he did not offer the privilege of controlling federal patronage to a member of the Illinois Assembly in return for Lorimer support.
Assistant State’s Attorneys Thomas Marshall and Claude F. Smith also testified.
Smith denied that he sent Policeman P. J. Keeley to bring in the owner of a disreputable house, saying that the “boss” – meaning State’s Attorney Wayman – wanted part of the “graft.”
“Manny” Abrahams – whom Lorimer pronounced the “bell wether” of the Democrats in the Illinois House – is expected to testify this morning.
Broderick’s Connection
With Lorimer Election
__________
With Lorimer Election
__________
Links in the tightening chain connecting State Senator John Broderick with the Lorimer and “jackpot” scandals, as shown in messages and papers unearthed by the investigating committee of the United States Senate:
June 14, 1909, Telegram from State Senator D. W. Holtslaw to Broderick, saying he would meet Broderick on Wednesday, June 16.
June 16, 1909. Deposit slip recording deposit by Holstlaw of $2,500 in State Bank of Chicago.
August 26, 1909. Letter from Broderick to Holtslaw, asking Holtslaw to meet him not later than August 28.
August 27, 1909. Telegram from Holstlaw to Broderick, saying he would see Broderick on Saturday, August 28.
August 28, 1909. Deposit slip recording deposit by Holstlaw of $700 in State Bank of Chicago.
In Holtslaw’s confession he said he was paid the $2,500 for his vote for Lorimer, and the $700 as his share in the “jackpot.”
June 14, 1909, Telegram from State Senator D. W. Holtslaw to Broderick, saying he would meet Broderick on Wednesday, June 16.
June 16, 1909. Deposit slip recording deposit by Holstlaw of $2,500 in State Bank of Chicago.
August 26, 1909. Letter from Broderick to Holtslaw, asking Holtslaw to meet him not later than August 28.
August 27, 1909. Telegram from Holstlaw to Broderick, saying he would see Broderick on Saturday, August 28.
August 28, 1909. Deposit slip recording deposit by Holstlaw of $700 in State Bank of Chicago.
In Holtslaw’s confession he said he was paid the $2,500 for his vote for Lorimer, and the $700 as his share in the “jackpot.”
The Washington Times, Wednesday, July 10, 1912, pg. 6
SOME QUESTIONS THAT NEED ANSWERS
_______
_______
Some time this afternoon or evening, it is expected, Senator Lorimer will make his final appeal to retain his seat. In that appeal Mr. Lorimer would do well to consider the following facts and explain them:
State Senator Holstlaw confessed to getting $2,500 for his vote for Lorimer. On the first investigation he swore that he RECEIVED A LETTER from Broderick, a member of the legislature, to come to Broderick’s saloon in Chicago, not later than 4 o’clock on a certain day. Holstlaw went from his home in central Illinois and, he says, received $2,500 from Broderick.
Holstlaw swore that he deposited the money at once in a Chicago bank, whence it was afterward transferred to his own bank at his home.
THE BOOKS OF BOTH BANKS BEAR OUT THIS STATEMENT; SO DOES THE TESTIMONY OF THEIR OFFICERS.
Holstlaw could not find the letter from Broderick, and his story was thereby much weakened.
Later, Broderick was tried at Springfield on a criminal charge. He swore he wrote no such letter to Holstlaw, had no communication of the kind, and paid no money to him. Holstlaw, he admitted, came to his saloon on the day named, took a drink, talked a few moments, and left.
On the second investigation Broderick swore to this same story again. Holstlaw swore to his original story, admitting that he could not find the Broderick letter to him.
After Broderick had thus, in both his own trial and two investigations, sworn that he wrote no such letter and paid no such money, Holstlaw FOUND THAT LETTER among papers at his home. It was produced before the committee, its genuineness unquestioned.
The letter asked Holstlaw to come to Broderick’s saloon not later than 4 o’clock ON THE VERY DAY WHEN HOLSTLAW, AS SHOWN BY THE CHICAGO BANK’S BOOKS, DEPOSITED THE MONEY.
There has never been anything like explanation of this damning chain of circumstances. On the first investigation – the farce conducted by Burrows – the Lorimer crowd fought shy of the story about the letter. THEY DIDN’T KNOW, THEN, THAT HOLSTLAW HAD LOST IT; IT MIGHT BE PRODUCED; SO THEY LEFT THEIR CASE VAGUE AND UNCERTAIN AS TO THIS POINT; THEY WERE PREPARING, PLAINLY, TO ADMIT ORDENY, ACCORDING AS THE LETTER SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT BE BROUGHT FORWARD.
But on the criminal trial and the second investigation, when Holstlaw had admitted he could not find the letter, the Lorimer case was strengthened on this point; positive assurances were given that no such letter was ever written.
Then the letter was produced.
The circumstances could not have been better arranged by the most skillful criminal lawyer that ever lived to trap the Lorimer people. They fell into the trap.
The whole array of circumstances proved the Holstlaw confession beyond the shodow of reasonable doubt. It does more. It bears out the confessions of White, who said he got $1,000; of Beckemeyer, who said he got $1,000, of Link, who said he got A$1,000. It buttresses the story of the St. Louis meeting, the bathroom payments of the bribe money; the whole filthy story of bribery and corruption.
Yet in the face of this convincing testimony, approximately half of the Senate is willing to vote that Lorimer’s claim to his seat is untainted of corruption!
Is it any wonder that, without exception, whenever the people have had a chance to express their opinion, they have retired Senators who have sustained Lorimer?
This is no criminal trial. It is not demanded that Lorimer’s personal guilt be proved at all. It is not necessary that corruption be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
This is a civil proceeding, in which a PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE is all that is needed to warrant Lorimer’s exclusion. There has been insistence by the Lorimer partisans on the theory of a criminal trial. That is a false hypothesis.
The truth is that the reasonable doubt has been removed. There is no excuse for any man to support Lorimer.
Every man who does now support him, thereby testifies to the same unfitness for Senatorial position that taints Lorimer.
State Senator Holstlaw confessed to getting $2,500 for his vote for Lorimer. On the first investigation he swore that he RECEIVED A LETTER from Broderick, a member of the legislature, to come to Broderick’s saloon in Chicago, not later than 4 o’clock on a certain day. Holstlaw went from his home in central Illinois and, he says, received $2,500 from Broderick.
Holstlaw swore that he deposited the money at once in a Chicago bank, whence it was afterward transferred to his own bank at his home.
THE BOOKS OF BOTH BANKS BEAR OUT THIS STATEMENT; SO DOES THE TESTIMONY OF THEIR OFFICERS.
Holstlaw could not find the letter from Broderick, and his story was thereby much weakened.
Later, Broderick was tried at Springfield on a criminal charge. He swore he wrote no such letter to Holstlaw, had no communication of the kind, and paid no money to him. Holstlaw, he admitted, came to his saloon on the day named, took a drink, talked a few moments, and left.
On the second investigation Broderick swore to this same story again. Holstlaw swore to his original story, admitting that he could not find the Broderick letter to him.
After Broderick had thus, in both his own trial and two investigations, sworn that he wrote no such letter and paid no such money, Holstlaw FOUND THAT LETTER among papers at his home. It was produced before the committee, its genuineness unquestioned.
The letter asked Holstlaw to come to Broderick’s saloon not later than 4 o’clock ON THE VERY DAY WHEN HOLSTLAW, AS SHOWN BY THE CHICAGO BANK’S BOOKS, DEPOSITED THE MONEY.
There has never been anything like explanation of this damning chain of circumstances. On the first investigation – the farce conducted by Burrows – the Lorimer crowd fought shy of the story about the letter. THEY DIDN’T KNOW, THEN, THAT HOLSTLAW HAD LOST IT; IT MIGHT BE PRODUCED; SO THEY LEFT THEIR CASE VAGUE AND UNCERTAIN AS TO THIS POINT; THEY WERE PREPARING, PLAINLY, TO ADMIT ORDENY, ACCORDING AS THE LETTER SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT BE BROUGHT FORWARD.
But on the criminal trial and the second investigation, when Holstlaw had admitted he could not find the letter, the Lorimer case was strengthened on this point; positive assurances were given that no such letter was ever written.
Then the letter was produced.
The circumstances could not have been better arranged by the most skillful criminal lawyer that ever lived to trap the Lorimer people. They fell into the trap.
The whole array of circumstances proved the Holstlaw confession beyond the shodow of reasonable doubt. It does more. It bears out the confessions of White, who said he got $1,000; of Beckemeyer, who said he got $1,000, of Link, who said he got A$1,000. It buttresses the story of the St. Louis meeting, the bathroom payments of the bribe money; the whole filthy story of bribery and corruption.
Yet in the face of this convincing testimony, approximately half of the Senate is willing to vote that Lorimer’s claim to his seat is untainted of corruption!
Is it any wonder that, without exception, whenever the people have had a chance to express their opinion, they have retired Senators who have sustained Lorimer?
This is no criminal trial. It is not demanded that Lorimer’s personal guilt be proved at all. It is not necessary that corruption be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
This is a civil proceeding, in which a PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE is all that is needed to warrant Lorimer’s exclusion. There has been insistence by the Lorimer partisans on the theory of a criminal trial. That is a false hypothesis.
The truth is that the reasonable doubt has been removed. There is no excuse for any man to support Lorimer.
Every man who does now support him, thereby testifies to the same unfitness for Senatorial position that taints Lorimer.