Scott Lucas, Everett Dirksen; and the 1950 Senate election in Illinois

Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society, Spring 2002 by Deason, Brian

In an effort to accommodate Lucas and the party, and in fairness, Kefauver directed that the committee's hearings in Chicago prior to the election be closed to the press and the public. Beyond this, in late October he temporarily stopped the hearings; they would resume after the November 7 election.' However, these precautions would prove inadequate.

The Kefauver Committee held its first hearing in Chicago on October 5.55 Gilbert himself eventually appeared before the committee. Reporters, of course, wanted very much to uncover his testimony. On October 31, an unknown individual attempted to obtain a record of Gilbert's testimony by offering a bribe to Al Klein, an attorney working for Kefauver. This tactic failed, but on November 1, Ray Brennan, an investigative reporter working for the Chicago Sun-Times, succeeded in getting a portion of the testimony by pretending to be an office manager working for the committee.

On November 2, the Sun-Times ran Dan Gilbert's secret testimony on page one. The Sun-Times was a Democratic newspaper and endorsed Lucas's candidacy, though not that of Gilbert. The publication of the testimony, however, would benefit Dirksen and other Illinois Republicans enormously" Even before the publication, Gilbert was seen as a gambler, and he had already admitted to having acquired more than $300,000. Nevertheless, the testimony contained new information, and the timing greatly heightened its impact on the election.' Gilbert's words also had a strong negative impact-he seemed to be a remarkably inappropriate candidate for sheriff, and his place on the Democratic ticket reflected badly on the entire ticket. For example, committee attorney Rudolph Halley had asked him, "This gambling you do-that is not legal gambling, is it?" Gilbert had responded: "Well, no. No, it is not legal. No."59

In an article with a November 3 dateline, Associated Press reporter Louis Kramp wrote concerning Lucas and Dirksen: "The rough and tumble Senate race is generally regarded as nip and tuck, likely to be decided by a close margin." Kramp noted, however, that Lucas had often been "on the defensive" in recent weeks, denying charges of being Truman's lackey, or "puppet," as Dirksen called him. Lucas, firing back, had called Dirksen "a flip-flopping wool-gatherer who had drifted back into the isolationist, America first, Chicago Tribune line." Furthermore, Lucas, Douglas, and Stevenson had been engaging in a "hard-hitting stretch drive" taking Lucas's case before the people. Kramp noted, however, that the Kefauver Committee could have an impact on the election. Less convincingly, he wrote: "Downstate, where the G.O.P. is stronger, it may be affected by the Lucas claims that Dirksen is a negative, destructive critic with no specific constructive suggestions." Dirksen's campaign had sought to tie Lucas to the Truman administration and criticize the administration; Lucas had countered by asserting his independence. Dirksen had labeled his opponent "a political faker and a moral fraud," as well as a "foreign affairs bungler." Lucas argued that Dirksen had voted against the interests of farmers, a claim Dirksen considered a "distortion." Kramp also noted that there were "large groups of physicians, dentists and pharmacists for Dirksen."60