KERN’S FIGHT AGAINST LORIMERISM
I
Senator Kern had hardly had time to acquaint himself with the capitol
before the senate assigned to him one of the most unpleasant, onerous
and important duties of his career in placing him on the sub-committee
of the committee on Privileges and Elections to investigate the charge
that Senator Lorimer had entered the senate through the corruption of
members of the Illinois legislature. In the election of 1908 the primary
choice of the Republicans for the senatorship was Senator Hopkins, the
Democratic choice Lawrence B. Stringer. The election resulted in 127
Republicans and 77 Democrats being sent to the legislature, and in the
regular order the Republican candidate would have been promptly elected
to the senate. Many Republicans, however, had refused to abide by the
edict of the primary, and a prolonged deadlock was the result. The
balloting extended through many weeks, and in the meanwhile the
Republicans, engaged in a bitter battle in the United States senate over
the Payne-Aldrich tariff bill, and with numerous schedules in danger of
defeat because of the disaffection represented by the opposition of
Dolliver, Beveridge and others, became insistent upon the strengthening
of their lines through the termination of the deadlock in Illinois and
the election of a Republican senator. Thus the senatorial contest at
Springfield took on a national importance. The Republicans were
suffering through the deadlock, which deprived them of an additional
vote, and the Democrats were having all the advantage. Suddenly
fifty-three Democrats, disregarding the plea of their national
committeeman that they remain loyal to their party’s candidate, joined
with fifty-five Republicans and elected William Lorimer, a reactionary
Republican who could be depended upon by the Aldrich-Penrose forces in
the tariff fight at Washington. Almost a year later _The Chicago
Tribune_ published the sensational confession of Charles A. White, a
Democratic member of the legislature, implicating other members in a
wholesale purchase under the engineery of Lee O’Neil Browne, the leader
of the majority faction of the Democrats. This was followed by the
filing of formal charges in the senate against Lorimer, and an
investigation was instituted under the direction of a sub-committee of
the committee on Privileges and Elections under the chairmanship of
Senator Burrows of Michigan. This investigation was farsical in many
respects, and the committee reported in substance that the charges had
not been sustained. The evidence that was permitted to leak through,
however, was so damning and convincing in its nature that a minority
report was submitted, and powerful speeches against the “blond boss,” as
Lorimer was called, were delivered by Senator Root and Beveridge. The
press of the country generally characterized the report of the committee
as a “white wash,” and the public was aroused.
Almost a month after the congress had adjourned a committee of the state
senate of Illinois, investigating the charges, was informed through the
editor of _The Chicago Tribune_ that Clarence S. Funk of the
International Harvester Company had been approached immediately after
the election of Lorimer by Edward Hines of the Lumber Trust with the
information that it had required $100,000 to elect Lorimer, and the
request that Funk’s company contribute $10,000 toward the fund.
Immediately afterward Senator Lafollette introduced a resolution in the
United States senate providing for a new investigation.
Thus was inaugurated one of the most exhaustive and significant
investigations ever held by the United States senate, which was to delve
deep into the most sinister influences that assail the integrity of free
institutions, the debasing effect of bi-partisan combinations of
politicians for personal gain, the corrupting influence of powerful
financial elements upon the public life of the nation, the all-too
frequent susceptibility of law makers to the blandishments of the bribe
giver. For 102 days the committee was to listen to the unraveling of one
of the most startling tales of political debauchery ever told. Before it
was to file an incongruous company of witnesses--leaders of the United
States senate, such as Aldrich and Penrose, potential political leaders
like Roger A. Sullivan, governors and former governors, the millionaire
and the beggar, the briber and the bribed, journalists and bartenders,
detectives and street car conductors, drunkards and reformers, the high
and low, the rich and poor, the good and bad. It was to become a
participant in one of the most tremendous political dramas ever enacted
in America--comedy treading on the heels of tragedy, to be followed by
burlesque and vaudeville. It was to have a hundred million people, the
perpetuity of whose institutions was at stake, as an audience, and they
were to await with the keenest interest the moral of the play.
And in this drama Senator Kern was soon to play the most important rôle,
from the viewpoint of those who believed the extermination of Lorimerism
to be essential to the safety of free institutions. There was nothing
theatrical about the setting of the play. With the exception of a few
weeks in Chicago the committee held its hearings in a prosy, unadorned,
and small room on the ground floor of the senate office building. The
witness chair in the center in the front of the room--to one side the
long table of the press correspondents, at which sat some of the
cleverest men of the profession--on the opposite side the members of the
committee, and stretching back to the wall chairs for the audience.
These were often, for the most part, unoccupied, but usually they were
filled and many were standing--attaches of the capitol who dropped in
while on their errands to catch a few words of the witnesses. These
attaches were for the most part intense partisans of the accused
senator, who found ways of making their feeling felt. And strangely
enough the greater part of the audience through those hot summer days of
1911 and the winter days of 1912 were intensely loyal to the blond
boss--so much so that the capitol policeman stationed in the room was
requested by a Lorimer partisan to move the parties who were not
sufficiently demonstrative in their jubilation when the accused man
scored.
In the front row sat Lorimer--bland, humble, the picture of innocent
martyrdom--a pose he consistently maintained until he walked out of the
senate at the behest of his colleagues and to the applause of the
republic. Nothing so damaging as to disturb his composure, nothing so
startling as to coax to his placid features an expression of surprise.
And beside him sat the Symbol of his ruin--Edward Hines, the
millionaire lumber man whose boast of having “put Lorimer over”
whispered in the lobby of the Union League Club at Chicago resounded
through the country. This strangely indiscreet, purse-proud exponent of
Big Business at its worst hovered near Lorimer like a shadow. And there
too beside him sat the clever, brilliant, sarcastic and witty Judge
Henecy, his attorney--as resourceful and able as any lawyer in the
country. Across the room at another table were the counsel of the
committee, Healy and Marble, keen, alert, as resourceful as the judge
and buttressed about by a better cause.
Senator Kern was not eager for the task the senate had assigned him. It
meant his practical withdrawal from all other senate activities for an
indefinite period, and his concentration as in a case in court upon
every word of evidence adduced. While morally positive of Lorimer’s
guilt from the beginning, he was early convinced, and his sense of duty
gradually forced him into greater and greater prominence as a developer
of the case against the accused. A man of kindly instincts, he had never
relished the rôle of a prosecutor, and in his private practice of his
profession had seldom appeared except in defense in criminal cases. But
once convinced of Lorimer’s guilt, he determined that every possible
avenue of information tending to uncover what he considered a great
crime against American institutions should be followed to the end. It
was early whispered about and generally credited that the second
investigation, like the first, would end in a white wash. Very early he
was startled to find from their general attitude that the majority of
the committee were apparently not impressed by what he considered
overwhelming evidence of guilt. The honesty of this attitude he never
questioned, but, convinced himself, he set himself to the task of
developing the evidence along the line of his own conviction. This led
him to the position he unquestionably held at the conclusion of the
hearings as the leader in the fight for the unseating of the blond boss.
II
The line of cleavage on the committee was clear very soon after the
hearings began. Feeling as he did early in the proceedings, that a
majority of the committee would support a report favorable to the
accused, Kern, intensely convinced of his guilt, keenly felt the
responsibility which fell to him. This feeling was shared by two other
members of the committee, Kenyon and Lea. It was during the period of
the Lorimer hearing that the feeling of mutual respect and affection
sprang up between the three men which continued until Senator Kern’s
death. All three were new members of the senate, but Kern had a long
career behind him and was more than sixty years old, while Kenyon and
Lea were unusually young and comparatively new to public life. They
were both of the same general type and this a type that strongly
appealed to the older man--the clean-cut, buoyant, independent,
courageous and incorruptible type, bubbling with the enthusiasms of
youth, and ardently anxious to serve the country according to their
light. Both were men of vigorous mentality, keen and alert and “spoiling
for a fight” with such wrongs as might present themselves, and both were
skilled lawyers and competent for the task assigned them. It was most
natural that young men, new to the senate, and sharing in a desire to
serve the people, should have drifted together; the fact that both
drifted toward the veteran of sixty was wonderfully complimentary to the
character of the older man. Their common hatred of political corruption,
their common indifference to party lines where corruption was involved,
their common contempt for the fetish of “senatorial courtesy” which has
so frequently served a sinister end, and their common conviction of the
guilt of the blond boss, gave them a common cause, and the three stood
together, drawing closer all the while, throughout the long-drawn
battle. When the committee was not in session the two younger senators
frequently called at Kern’s office for informal discussions of the
evidence. “My boys,” Kern called them. And to a somewhat less degree he
became strongly attached to John Marble, the brilliant young lawyer
employed by the committee as counsel. The fervor and whole-heartedness
with which the lawyer threw himself into the preparation of his case and
into the cross-examination of witnesses early won his admiration. He
loved youth, with its shining armor, and especially when he conceived it
to be “fighting the battles of the Lord.” The brunt of the actual battle
against Lorimerism was thus waged by youth grouped about the venerable
statesman to whose judgment it often looked for guidance on questionable
points.
And Kern was well qualified for leadership. His almost half century of
participation in politics and association with politicians had left
little for him to learn of the ways and wiles of the breed. He knew how
the game was played according to Springfield, for that capital of
Illinois had no monopoly on the combination of bi-partisan politicians
with unscrupulous business interests. It was not easy to deceive him.
And here, too, his unusual gift at cross-examination which had been his
forte in the trial of cases all his life was to stand him in good stead.
He knew men, understood human nature, and was quick in the appraisement
of the character and truthfulness of witnesses. Nature, acquirements and
character combined to make him an important factor in the extirpation of
Lorimerism.
III
An examination of the voluminous evidence in the case will disclose that
the majority of the committee took little or no part in the examination
of witnesses, and the major part, and practically all the
cross-examination of Lorimer witnesses was done by the three members who
came to the conclusion of Lorimer’s guilt, Kern, Kenyon and Lea. Senator
Kern was the most active.
The theory on which Kern worked after a careful reading of the evidence
before the Burrows committee and the Helm committee of the state senate
of Illinois and the statement of Funk was about this: Edward Hines,
interested in the lumber schedule of the Payne-Aldrich bill and lobbying
in Washington, was urged by Aldrich and Penrose to help hurry a new
Republican vote into the senate from Illinois to help out in the tariff
fight. After conferences it was agreed that Lorimer should be the
choice, and Hines undertook to put the agreement into effect. He
financed the fight for Lorimer. The money was used through the
management of Lee O’Neil Browne, the clever leader of the majority wing
of the Democrats in the lower house of the legislature, and with the
knowledge of Lorimer. He was absolutely positive that the wholesale
defection of the Democrats to Lorimer could only have been the result of
corrupt influence because the election of a reactionary Republican
senator might, in view of the conditions surrounding the tariff fight in
the senate, determine a national policy to which Democrats were
elementally opposed and upon which they had made their campaign one year
before. Had these Democrats gone to a Republican who would vote with
Dolliver and Beveridge he might not have been so sure. Going to Lorimer,
he was predisposed to the belief that money had been used. This frame of
mind manifested itself repeatedly in all his examination of political
witnesses. He appealed to Governor Deneen for one reason for Democrats
deserting their party to vote for a reactionary Republican under
conditions existing in Washington; to Yates, to Hopkins, to Stringer, to
the members of the legislature who deserted and without once securing a
plausible reply.
The hatred Senator Kern engendered at this time among the friends of
Lorimer or the men accused did not appear upon the surface. The blond
boss proved himself a consummate artist in the concealment of his
hostility until after Kern had summed up the case against him.
But the existence of this hostility was not concealed. For a period of
two months there was scarcely a day that did not bring its batch of
scurrilous unsigned letters with a Chicago date mark.
Meanwhile the hearings seemed destined to drag on interminably. Long
before the last witness was heard enough evidence had been submitted
upon which any member of the committee might have formed an opinion.
Newspapers began to hint that the purpose was to tire and disgust and
confuse by the accumulation of the pages of the testimony.
The official stenographer of the committee throughout the hearings had
been Milton W. Blumenberg, who stood high in his profession. One
Saturday afternoon when the Burns stenographer was testifying,
Blumenberg stood behind his chair looking at the witness’s notes. The
hearing was adjourned for dinner to be renewed in the evening. The
evidence disclosed that upon leaving the room on adjournment Blumenberg
met a woman employed by the committee who immediately, and, strangely
enough, challenged his opinion on the genuineness of the notes. He
declared them “manufactured,” “faked,” and immediately after that Edward
Hines and others of the Lorimer party appeared upon the scene and
Blumenberg’s opinion was repeated for their edification. At the hearing
that night Blumenberg broke in unexpectedly with a declaration that the
notes were manufactured, and when the startled members of the committee
undertook to question him as to his motive they were told they were “not
the most important people in the world.” He was immediately placed under
arrest for contempt and placed in the custody of the sergeant-at-arms,
with instructions that no one should be permitted to communicate with
him. The whole atmosphere had become so colored with the idea of
corruption that the incident created a painful impression. He was
discharged from the service of the committee, and the matter was dropped
on the representation of Blumenberg’s friends that he was the victim of
a nervous breakdown.
But hard on the heels of this incident another sensational incident fed
the public curiosity when a twenty-year-old telegraph operator of the
Postal Company, stationed at the New Willard Hotel, who had sent a
telegram for the Burns detective, testified that Edward Hines had
attempted to bribe her with a roll of bills in his hand to let him read
the message given in by the detective. The girl had not sought the
notoriety and was so transparently truthful in her charming girlish way
that no one not directly interested in the case could have doubted her
veracity. Thus the trail of the serpent seemed to lead directly back to
Washington.
IV
After the conclusion of the hearings the chief concern of the supporters
of Lorimer was to postpone a vote in the senate as long as possible; and
the first step toward this end was to indefinitely postpone the filing
of a report. The hearings closed February 9, 1912, and it was not until
May 20th that a report was presented to the senate, and it was largely
due to the insistence of Kern, Kenyon and Lea that the delay was not
greater. The proceedings of the committee when it met on March 27th to
vote on a report are of historic importance and belong to the public.
The first resolution offered by Senator Jones was to the effect that
nothing had developed in the hearings to justify a reversal of the
solemn and deliberate judgment of the senate in the vote on the result
of the first hearings. This challenge was promptly met by Senator Kern
in the following resolution:
“That in the opinion of the committee there were used and employed
in the election of William Lorimer to the senate of the United
States corrupt methods and practices.”
Before a vote was taken on the Kern resolution, which was offered as a
substitute for the Jones resolution, the committee voted on an amendment
to the latter offered by Senator Lea to the effect that the
investigation had disclosed that corrupt practices and methods had been
employed. This went directly to the heart of the matter and was defeated
by a vote of five to three, Kern, Lea and Kenyon voting for the
amendment.
Senator Lea then followed with a point of order to the effect that the
Jones resolution was not responsive to the resolution of the senate
authorizing the investigation in that the committee was only instructed
to investigate and report whether corrupt methods and practices had been
used in the election of Lorimer. Senator Dillingham promptly ruled this
out of order; Lea appealed from the decision; Jones moved to lay Lea’s
appeal on the table, and this was done by a vote of four to three, Kern,
Kenyon and Lea voting against the tabling of Lea’s appeal.
Kern’s substitute motion was then defeated by the usual vote of five to
three and by the same vote the Jones resolution was adopted.
This, however, was not sufficiently vindicative of the blond boss, and
Senator Jones moved a resolution denying the existence of any proof
indicative of the existence of a “jackpot” fund in the legislature that
elected Lorimer “other than the statements of White, Beckemeyer, Link
and Holslaw that they were paid money after the election.” Senator Kern
moved to amend by adding after the word “Holslaw” the words “and certain
circumstances corroborating said statements.” The Kern amendment was
defeated by the usual vote of five to three.
Senator Kern next introduced the following resolution:
“That in the opinion of this committee there was a fund distributed
in the city of St. Louis to certain members of the Illinois
legislature who had voted for William Lorimer and also that
Senator Broderick paid to Senator Holslaw in the city of Chicago
money on two occasions.”
This was met at once by Senator Johnston with the amendment that if
money was paid out at Chicago or any other city it was not to vote for
Lorimer. After some discussion Senator Lea offered a substitute for
Kern’s resolution, which the latter accepted, to the effect that on
certain specified dates certain specified men distributed money to
members of the Illinois legislature at St. Louis. The evidence had been
overwhelmingly convincing on this point, but the resolution failed to
secure votes other than those of Kern, Kenyon and Lea. Other resolutions
followed completely and rather aggressively exonerating both Edward
Hines and Lorimer, and the line of cleavage on the committee was
unmistakably made.
The committee having taken its stand the three anti-Lorimer senators
were insistent upon an early report to the senate. Night after night
Kern, Kenyon and Lea met to go over the evidence with a view to the
preparation of the minority report. Acting upon the theory that if they
could show from the evidence that votes had been purchased for Lorimer
their position would be vindicated and unassailable, they agreed to
brush aside all reference to much of the evidence and to concentrate on
the essentials and to make their report both brief and vigorous.
Expressing a vigorous dissent from the proposed white washing of Hines
by the majority, expressing confidence in the truth of the testimony of
Funk and Burgess, they briefly analyzed the evidence of a number of the
witnesses, and concluded:
“Believing that the confession of the members of the legislature,
strengthened by corroborating circumstances and by other evidence
relating to the members of the legislature who did not confess,
establish conclusively not only that at least ten members were
purchased for the purpose of electing William Lorimer to the
senate, but that the record reeks and teems with evidence of a
general scheme of corruption, we have no hesitancy in stating that
the investigation establishes beyond contradiction that the
election of William Lorimer was obtained by corrupt means and was
therefore invalid, and we submit the following resolution:
“Resolved, That corrupt methods and practices were employed in the
election of William Lorimer to the senate of the United States from
the state of Illinois, and that his election was therefore invalid.
“WILLIAM S. KENYON.
“JOHN W. KERN.
“LUKE LEA.”
While all three of the minority members were active in the preparation
of their report, there appears to be no doubt that Senator Kern’s
judgment was largely the determining factor in laying out the line of
battle.
The majority report was lengthy and argumentative, covering ninety
pages, while the minority were able to state their case in twenty-two.
The moment it became known that a majority of the committee had
vigorously espoused the cause of Lorimer the press and magazines of the
country declared that the nation was to be treated to another white
washing of Lorimer. _The Nation’s_ comment was that:
...“All that is left for the senate to say is whether its sense of
smell is less acute than that of the country.”
V
The filing of the reports did not end Senator Kern’s labors in the case,
for it was decided that he should open the debate in favor of the
expulsion of Lorimer and analyze the evidence submitted for the benefit
of the senate and the country. It is little less than remarkable that he
was not given greater credit by the press of the country for the part he
played in ridding the senate of Lorimerism. To satisfy myself that his
was the dominating part I have appealed to the three men who were in
position to know, the two senators who acted with him and the Washington
correspondent of _The Chicago Tribune_, who followed every detail of the
case. The three unite in crediting Kern with having been the dominating
influence. Senator Kenyon said that “John Kern’s ideas were the
predominating influence.” Senator Lea said:
“Senator Kern was a dominating force in that part of the Lorimer
committee that resulted in the full investigation of the case. The
committee was intended by some to be a white wash and it was Kern’s
determination to prevent that. His insight into human nature and
knowledge of men enabled us to extricate from unwilling witnesses
incidents in Illinois politics which gave color and meaning to much
testimony that would otherwise have been barren of significance.
Again Senator Kern’s tact prevented much friction in the committee
that might have resulted in outbursts that would have diverted
attention from the main issue--the guilt or innocence of Lorimer.
Again Kern’s droll and ridiculing sense of humor so discomfited
many of the witnesses that they could not adhere to their prepared
testimony.”
John Callan O’Loughlin said:
“I am so glad that you are writing the biography of Senator Kern.
He was a big man, straightforward, wholesome, and one with a high
ethical sense. His conduct in connection with the Lorimer case in
itself justifies the country in holding up his memory to remind
future generations of what they owe to him.
“Mr. Kern, when he began his duty as a member of the Lorimer
investigating committee--it was a distasteful duty--realized as did
we all that the country stood at the parting of the ways. Whether
corruption was to continue in connection with the election of
United States senators or whether the people were to be given an
opportunity to have their own representatives in the upper house
was the question he was called upon to investigate and determine. I
know the pressure that was brought to bear upon him directly,
indirectly, openly and insiduously, and I know that he stood up
against it with that whole-hearted courage which he manifested in
other matters he faced.
“As a member of the investigating committee it was Mr. Kern’s
cross-examination which frequently brought out points that even
members of the committee were endeavoring to cover up. If he had
not been on the committee, I hesitate to say what the result might
have been. Not only in the committee, but on the floor of the
senate he pressed the fight against corruption. His arguments, or
rather his presentation of facts, were absolutely convincing, but
more than this, the fact that he had come to the conclusion that
Lorimer’s seat had been purchased unquestionably influenced
senators who recognized his integrity and the reliability of his
judgment.
“There is no doubt that the expulsion of Lorimer from the senate,
which was due largely to Senator Kern’s efforts, brought about the
amendment to the Constitution for the direct election of senators.
In itself, this is a monument to Mr. Kern.”
VI
It fell to Senator Kern to open the debate on the reports of the
committee and to review the evidence upon which the minority had
reached its conviction of the guilt of the accused senator. It was not
an easy task to adequately, concisely, survey the field that had been
covered by hearings covering more than a hundred days, requiring 8,588
printed pages, and including the testimony of 180 witnesses. Kern’s
training and skill as a lawyer made it possible for him to quickly brush
aside the non-essentials, but it was necessary for him to go over the
greater part of the record for the proper verification and marshaling of
his facts. He spent many days carefully going through the voluminous
testimony jotting down his notes on scrap paper, and the greater part of
the week preceding the delivery of his speech found him at his room at
Congress Hall engaged in the writing of his speech--for the major part
of it was reduced to writing and read in the senate. The speech was
delivered in four parts on four separate days, and when he began the
delivery of the first part nothing of that which had been prepared was
to be delivered in the second part. In fact each day he spoke found him
working upon his speech up to the moment he was summoned to the senate,
and he found time for the typewriting of practically none of it. The
Press Gallery was clamoring for advance copy, but not a line was
furnished any paper in advance of its delivery, and the Chicago papers
which published it in full were forced to make special arrangements
with the official reporter of the senate. He was physically almost
exhausted when he began and almost ill before he concluded. That it was
a powerful, unanswerable, logical and eloquent arraignment of the
accused senator was the consensus of opinion among the lawyers of the
senate, and while other senators spoke with comparative brevity in favor
of the minority report, the ground had been so exhaustively and
conclusively covered by Kern that these confined themselves to one or
two features of the case. He did not spare in his sarcasms the untenable
positions of the majority members of the committee. He took the position
that members of the legislature had been bribed; showed from the
evidence that there was no escape from that position; traced the
relationship between those members and Lee O’Neil Browne, the Lorimer
leader, and between Browne and the senator and then invited the senate
to accept the reasoning of the majority report if it could. The plea of
res adjudicata, upon which the friends of Lorimer made their final
stand, and which was suggested by the Lorimer attorney in the last hours
of the hearings, appealed to Kern as a brazen daylight attempt to thwart
the ends of justice.
Beginning on June 4 he closed after an exhaustive analysis of the
evidence on June 8th with an eloquent denunciation of the bi-partisan
system of which Lorimer was a member, a beneficiary, and was to become
a victim.
Almost a month later the discussion was resumed with Kern departing
radically from his custom of not interrupting senators. Time and again
he challenged senators speaking for the majority report with the
evidence and seldom without disclosing the weakness of the speaker’s
contention. It is not surprising in view of the important part he played
in the development of the case against Lorimer and Lorimerism that the
anonymous attacks that had been made upon him should find open
expression on the floor of the senate. This attack came in the course of
Lorimer’s speech in his own defense.
This speech was in many respects a remarkable one; not remarkable in
that it was convincing, for the speaker made no attempt to discuss the
evidence, but in its eloquence and human appeal. It was a masterly
appeal to the emotions from a consummate criminal lawyer conscious of a
desperate cause and bent on diverting the jury from the irresistible
facts to the non-essentials. The manner of the delivery would have
rejoiced the heart of a Belasco. It was dramatic, intensely so. No one
listening to Lorimer as he spoke that day to a packed gallery and with
the floor of the senate thronged with attaches and members of the house
would have been surprised had he been told that the speaker was one of
the greatest jury orators in the country. It was in the course of this
speech that Lorimer entered upon a bitter attack upon Kern which
indicated unmistakably the object of his special animus.
At the time he began this attack Senator Kern, who had been ill for a
month, but able to attend the sessions of the senate, was lying down in
his room in the senate office building asleep. As soon as the attack
began one of his friends sent word of the trend of the Lorimer speech
and Kern immediately started for the capitol. He was met in the subway
under the capitol and told of the nature of the attack. It was then and
there decided that unless the attack became too virulent Kern should
utterly ignore it. Those participating in the conference were agreed
that such an incident as a personal exchange between Kern and Lorimer
could only tend to divert attention from the real issue and to possibly
postpone the hour of voting. With this understanding Kern proceeded to
the senate chamber and finding a chair within a few feet of Lorimer
turned it so as to face the speaker, and in that position remained
through the remainder of the speech. He found no occasion to interrupt.
VII
The scene in the senate chamber at the conclusion of Lorimer’s speech in
his own defense was dramatic. The walls were lined with members of the
house and attaches of the senate, the press gallery was filled to
capacity, the other galleries packed with men and women, and from the
latter came stifled sobs as Lorimer rather pathetically described the
consolation that would counter affect his probable humiliation in going
home to the embrace of his family. With an impassioned assertion that
his expulsion would be a “crime” of “the senate of the United States,”
he paused for a moment, still a picture of outraged innocence, and then
in his best theatrical manner said, “I am ready,” and sank exhausted
into his seat. The roll call on the final vote was followed with intense
interest, not to determine the result which had now become inevitable,
but to satisfy the curiosity of spectators as to the position of
individual members. Throughout the roll call the accused senator sat
expressionless, as during the hearings, and even the trembling voice of
Cullom, his venerable colleague who had voted to sustain him over a year
before, casting a vote for his expulsion had no effect. The breakdown of
the indomitable Tillman in reading his explanation of his vote against
expulsion added an unexpected thrill to the occasion.
The vote was announced in the official tone of monotony.
The minority report was adopted by a vote of 55 to 28. Senator Newlands
immediately rose in the resulting silence to present the credentials of
a new senator and the business of the senate proceeded as though the
waters of oblivion had not just closed over a career.
For a few moments Lorimer sat motionless in his seat--then rose and
looking neither to the right nor the left passed back the center aisle
and into the Republican cloak room for the last time. At that moment
there were probably some who felt a fierce joy in his degradation, but
Senator Kern was not one of these.