Jasper County Democrat, Volume 14, Number 22, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 5 July 1911 — CONFLICT SEEN IN TESTIMONY [ARTICLE]

CONFLICT SEEN IN TESTIMONY

Witnesses in Lorimer Case Disagree as to Facts. ACTION FOR PERJURY POSSIBLE Assertions of Funk and Cook Are De> nied by Hi.nes —Affidavits of Marquette Men-Also Disputed by Him.

Washington, July 3. —An amazing conflict in the testimony of witnesses thus far heard by the Lorimer investigating committee of the senate is revealed, a clash which was responsible for Senator Kenyon’s suggestion that “there ought to be prosecutions for perjury right here.” This committee has left the room in the senate office building, where the hearings have been held, to meet again on Thursday, July 13, in the same place.

On the one hand are the assertions of Clarence S. Funk, general manager cf the International Harvester company, that Hines asked for a contribution of SIO,OOO to reimburse an expense of SIOO-000 in “putting Lorimer over,” and of W. H. Cook that Hines said in his hearing over the long distance telephone that he would take down to Springfield all the money required. There also are affidavits of four men as to a conversation at Marquette, Mich., in which ‘Hines is alleged to have boasted of electing Lorimer and to have Spoken of an expenditure of $160,000 in this connection. U Mr. Funk’s testimony was confirmed by Cyrus 11. McCormick and Edgar A. Bancroft, president and general counsel respectively of the International Harvester company, and H. 11. Kohlsaat, editor of the Chicago Rec-ord-Herald, to whom he had related the conversation to the first two named immediately after Its occurrence and to Kohlsaat some time later.

Mr. Hines admitted meeting Mr. Funk at the Union League club, where the harvester manager said the conversation occurred. He admitted meeting Cook in the latter’s room, from which the .long distance telephone conversation testified to by the Duluth lumber mar occurred.

Pi.t Mr. Hines denied absolutely that he asked Mr. Funk for any contribution and asserted on the other hand that the latter expressed a desire to pay a share of Lorimer’s ‘legitimate and honorable campaign expenses.” He did not testify to any such proposal when he appeared before the Heim committee at Springfield at that time denying emphatically he ever had heard of any suggestion of money in ’ connection with Mr. Lorimer’s election.

Mr. Hines denied also he had called last February at Mr, Funk’s office and attempted to place an innocent interpretation upon the Union league conversation as testified to by the harvester man. He swore he was constantly in Washington from Jan. 31 to Feb. 4, in 3909.