When Notre Dame lawyer Daniel Donahoe filed suit in October 1911 alleging that the wealthy and moralizing Clarence Funk had “wrongfully, wickedly, and unjustly … debauched and carnally known” Josephine Henning he set in motion a chain of events that Hollywood would envy. The characters included private investigators, political bosses, ”disappeared” witnesses, and double-agents. The scenes ranged from Los Angeles to Atlantic City, from Denver to the north woods of Minnesota, from genteel Mobile, Alabama to feisty courtroom brawls in Chicago. The action included drama, death, and disbarment. Oh, and an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
This case had it all. The tale is long and winding, veering from tragic to comic and back.
It takes turns that are unexpected and inexplicable. It is worth your time. Settle in.
In September 1911 a bent and gangly unemployed man named John Henning appeared in the office of Daniel Donahoe, a fiery lawyer known as a “raging bull” and one of Chicago’s most successful criminal defense attorneys. Henning had a tough life. His back had been injured long ago, causing him to walk in an awkward gait and hold his head at a distinct angle. He had worked as a bellboy at the Congress Hotel – that’s where he met his wife, Josephine – but was laid off. He later found work as a streetcar conductor, but the constant jolting was too painful for him to keep the job. His lone bright spot had been his marriage to “Jo.”
Now even that light was dimmed. Henning told Donahoe that millionaire businessman Clarence Funk, general manager of the International Harvester Company, Sunday school teacher, and well-known leader of the “Upright” movement in protestant Chicago, had stolen Jo’s affections. She worked as a coat-checker at the Congress Hotel and a co-worker had recently told him that Jo was spending time with Mr. Funk in the hotel’s bedrooms, drinking, smoking, and God-only-knows-what-else. A female friend had seen Jo and Funk in the Grand Pacific Hotel; she had also seen them together in a taxicab. John and Jo had drifted apart, and Clarence Funk was the reason why. Henning wanted Funk brought to justice for the suffering he was causing.
The case was well outside Donahoe’s usual practice area, but he was touched by Henning’s confidence in him and outraged by Funk’s behavior towards Josephine. After mulling the matter over for a few days, Donahoe secured affidavits from several witnesses – including an acknowledgment from Josephine herself – corroborating the story that John had told. Then he filed a lawsuit against Clarence Funk.
At least that’s the story Dan Donahoe told. In today’s parlance he had used “alternate facts.” The truth was … different.
Dan Donahoe was born in rural Illinois, the son of Irish immigrants. He was academically gifted but delayed his schooling so that he could work the family farm. Eventually he made his way to Notre Dame where, in 1880 when he was nearly 30 years old, he received a Bachelor of Laws degree with highest honors. As a student he participated in debates over the U.S. electoral system; at graduation he was chosen to deliver a commencement address on Constitutional Law. Attention: this is your irony alert.
Upon graduation Donahoe established a very successful criminal defense practice in Chicago. He frequently represented defendants charged with murder, and he was active in support of labor unions (plenty of overlap with his murder cases in those days). He was ferocious in the courtroom, nearly coming to blows with opposing counsel on several occasions. He lived in a brownstone on West Jackson Boulevard, the happily married father of two boys and the brother of alderman James Donahoe. Daniel’s law office was high atop the Ashland Block, a new skyscraper towering 200 feet(!) above the corner of N. Clark and W. Randolph Streets. The offices of Clarence Darrow, Donahoe’s friend and one of the most celebrated lawyers in the country, were in the same building – five floors below. Donahoe was a player.
When he filed the lawsuit against Funk Donahoe took an unusual step. The typical route in this type of case was to file a complaint with very little detail so that the defendant could choose to settle and avoid a public scandal. It was good sportsmanship. Donahoe did the opposite: the papers he filed in court were so lurid that the newspapers avoided directly quoting the documents (although the term “debauchery” recurs with startling frequency in the press coverage). Donahoe announced to the press that he was not interested in a mere financial
settlement – he was interested in taking the case to trial. He wanted to inflict maximum pain on Clarence Funk.
Funk was outraged (no surprise) and vowed revenge (perhaps a more strident response than Donahoe anticipated). Funk insisted that he had never heard of or met Josephine Henning and certainly had not had improper relations with her. Funk demanded a quick trial and said he wanted to hear directly from the Hennings immediately. The lawsuit, Funk declared, was nothing but a “frame-up,” a smear campaign designed to ruin his reputation.
He was right.
Clarence Funk had recently testified before Congress that one of Chicago’s most powerful and corrupt politicians, William Lorimer (aka the “Blond Boss”), had bribed his way into a seat in the U.S. Senate. Funk swore that agents of Lorimer had asked International Harvester to kick in $10,000 to cover part of Lorimer’s expenses in buying the votes of Illinois legislators (refresher: the Constitution originally provided that senators were elected by state legislatures, not by direct popular vote). Donahoe and Henning accused Funk of being a lecher shortly after Funk testified in Congress; Funk (and most observers) concluded that the lawsuit was simply payback for his claims about Boss Lorimer.
Funk was angry, indignant, and had virtually unlimited financial resources at his disposal through International Harvester. The hunt was on to find John Henning. It wasn’t difficult, even in a pre-internet world.
Reporters quickly learned that the Hennings had moved out of their Chicago apartment about two weeks earlier, hurriedly and unexpectedly, with a year remaining on their lease. When a reporter visited Donahoe’s office he noticed a train schedule on the desk with the destination
“Mobile, Alabama” circled. It’s a scene straight out of the movies; who does that? And why would Donahoe allow a reporter into his office? Mysteries to this day.
Another reason it was easy to find Henning is that he violated the first rule of hiding out: you do not talk about hiding out. Henning sent a postcard to a friend in Chicago saying that he was in Mobile (at the lovely Bienville Hotel), spending a lot of money and grateful he would never have to worry about finances again. Tyler Durden would not have approved of John Henning.
Donahoe did not want anyone speaking to his client before trial. Funk’s investigators and newspaper reporters were on the scent, but Donahoe’s man, a young lawyer named William D. Bennett, got to Mobile first. Bennett had helped with previous matters involving Boss Lorimer. He paid the hotel bill and put John on a train to New Orleans.
By the time Funk’s team arrived, John Henning was gone. After some investigation and conversation with a compliant hotel manager, however, the detectives discovered a strange fact: John Henning, occupant of Room 364 in the Hotel Bienville, had not been alone. He had signed the guest register as “Mr. and Mrs. J. C. Henning” and the woman who was with him fit the description of Josephine, although the hair color was off. Hotel staff described the couple as very affectionate – indeed, the chambermaid assumed they were on their honeymoon. So much for a marriage torn apart by Clarence Funk. What was going on?
The answer wasn’t made clear until trial, but it was a doozy. From the very beginning, Josephine had been cooperating with Donahoe in concocting a scheme against Funk. He had hoped to find a woman willing to claim that she and Funk had engaged in an illicit relationship, that Funk had promised to marry her, and that after he had his way with her had reneged on the
promise. A friend who worked at a nearby hotel suggested Josephine for the role. When Jo first visited Donahoe’s office he asked whether she was interested in making some easy money; she said she would think about it. When she returned a few days later Donahoe learned she was already married. No matter – he would change the theory of the case.
Josephine hadn’t been jilted; John was a cuckold. Donahoe spoke with John and assured the Hennings that, if they went along, they would be set for life and never have to worry about money again. He had each of them sign affidavits regarding Josephine’s “relationship” with Funk, then he told them to get out of town. And it wouldn’t hurt if Jo dyed her hair and tried a disguise.
While Funk and the press had not yet learned these details they sensed that something was amiss, and Donahoe’s team knew it. So when William Bennett put John Henning on a train to New Orleans he put Josephine on a different train – to Memphis. Bennett understood the importance of maintaining the illusion that the Hennings’ marriage had foundered. He also provided Jo with a female traveling companion, someone to both keep an eye on Josephine and keep her flush with cash.
Over the next several months John Henning skittered into Chicago, signed affidavits, and slipped back out of town. The press never caught up with him. Josephine remained apart, always one step ahead of investigators, sheltered by her traveling companion. Luxury hotels, spa treatments at resorts (the glamorous Mudlavia!), whatever it took to keep her silent. When the case went to trial in June 1912 John was in the courtroom; Jo remained absent.
The trial was brutal for John Henning. Donahoe’s direct examination of him lasted less than five minutes; cross-exam by Funk’s attorneys continued for two days. He was frequently
surprised by evidence they had accumulated, and at the end of the experience he was a crumpled, beaten man. It was clear to all that the claim against Funk had been a scam. The jury took only 11 minutes to dismiss the case – not even long enough to have the court pay for their lunches.
Henning somehow managed to slip out of the courtroom before the press could get to him. Over the following months Bennett shepherded him around the country, while Josephine’s companion kept her out of the spotlight. But a big surprise was in store: Jo’s companion was a double-agent, working for Funk rather than Donahoe. The lid was about to be blown and the scandal reignited.
You’ll have to wait until the next installment of Story Time to read about that. You won’t be disappointed.
__________
JULY 13, 2021
To recap last week’s episode:
- Upright businessman Clarence Funk publicly claimed that U.S. Senator William Lorimer (the “Blond Boss”) had secured his seat by buying the votes of Illinois legislators
- A few weeks later, attorney Daniel Donahoe filed a lawsuit claiming that Funk had debauched Josephine Henning, thereby ruining the marriage of Donahoe’s client, John Henning
- Funk denied the allegations and insisted that the lawsuit was a transparent effort to ruin his reputation in retaliation for his claims against Lorimer
- Josephine did not appear at trial; John could not support his claims and was eviscerated on the witness stand; Funk’s lawyers produced mountains of evidence contradicting Henning’s claims
- The jury deliberated only a few minutes before declaring Clarence Funk the winner, Donahoe and Henning the losers
- John Henning, sensing that he was about to be arrested for perjury, fled the courtroom.
All caught up? It gets even more entertaining. Spoiler alert – entertaining stories ripped from the headlines rarely have a happy ending for everyone involved, and that’s the case for attorney Daniel Donahoe. Read on anyway. This story involves many characters, and you will discover at the end a bit of poetic justice for the man who started it all.
Donahoe filed suit in October 1911; the trial was delayed until June 1912. In the intervening months John Henning (former bellboy) and his wife Josephine (former coat-checker) lived a life of luxury. They traveled under aliases and were frequently separated to keep the press off their scent, but they lived well. Under the names “Billie Harris,” “George S. Ball,” “Mickey,” and others they stayed at the swankiest hotels in New Orleans, Denver, Venice Beach, Chicago, and Atlantic City. All of their expenses were paid, plus they had some walking around money to boot. They were being paid to lay low and steer clear of the press.
John Henning’s traveling companion for much of the next several months was William D. Bennett, a young attorney who had previously been engaged in matters involving Boss Lorimer’s associates. Bennett kept Henning flush with cash; it was Henning’s understanding that Bennett got the cash from Donahoe and that Donahoe was funded by Lorimer’s crew. Bennett was able to keep Henning tucked away until it was time for trial.
Josephine’s traveling companions, on the other hand, changed fairly frequently. This proved to be her undoing. Donahoe had no intention of making Josephine available for trial. He personally introduced Josephine to her first chaperone (Mrs. Minnie Dowd), but Josephine complained frequently, reported that she was ill and needed rest at a spa, and seems overall to have been fairly high maintenance. As a result, she cycled through several
companions over the following months. It’s hard to stay secluded when you’re making a lot of noise, and a private detective hired by Funk managed to track Josephine down in Atlantic City.
The agent befriended Josephine, enjoyed the high life with her, and tried her best to get Josephine to talk about the Funk matter in advance of trial. Josephine wouldn’t talk. That’s when the pool – which was already dirty – got downright nasty.
Josephine seemed to Funk’s planted “chaperone” like a decent, though misguided, young woman whose head had been turned by the opportunity to live well. How could she be coaxed into spilling the beans on the Funk scandal? Maybe if she became convinced that her own name was being ruined right alongside Clarence Funk’s. The problem for Funk was that the world was NOT saying anything negative about Josephine; she was portrayed in the press as an innocent dupe.
So Funk had the Chicago Examiner print a story purporting to cover the testimony of the Henning v. Funk trial but actually loaded with false and lurid details designed to provoke Josephine to break her silence and issue a denial. That’s right:
- A mainstream news outlet (tagline “The Best Newspaper … For The Best Homes”)
- printed a single copy of an edition
- bearing a story which it knew to be false
- for the sole purpose of coaxing Josephine Henning to speak.
Why? To sell papers, of course. To please Clarence Funk, who was paying them. And to take a swipe at Boss Lorimer, the corrupt U.S. Senator at the root of it all.
The ploy worked better than Funk or the Examiner could have hoped. When she read the “news” of the trial Josephine was horrified. She enjoyed a nice spa treatment as much as the next person, but this business had gone too far. Josephine contacted the newspaper, traveled from Atlantic City to New York, and told reporters and investigators that she had never met Clarence Funk. She had certainly not cavorted with him in boozy and smoke-filled hotel rooms as “revealed” at trial. Her lawyer, Daniel Donahoe, had promised that the case would never go to trial, and this was all his fault. Yes, she had signed an affidavit, but it had been prepared by Donahoe – and who reads such things? She never meant to hurt anybody. Josephine just wanted to go home. Now.
Her wish was granted. The events and multiple trials that followed are complex, involving dozens of characters across several jurisdictions. There is a book to be written, a movie to be made, and too much information to share in the format of this story. I will hit just a few of the highlights:
John Henning remained in hiding for over a year, although now in less glamorous locations (central Illinois, lumber camps in Minnesota). He was captured in Minneapolis in 1913 and offered a full confession of his role in framing Clarence Funk. He, like Josephine, received immunity in exchange for testifying against others involved in the plot.
Based on the testimony of the Hennings, Daniel Donahoe and two others were indicted for conspiracy to defame Clarence Funk. Donahoe did not take the stand on his own behalf, but he offered 73(!) character witnesses – including the sitting Mayor of Chicago – to prove that he was an honorable man, incapable of having committed such treachery. The jury didn’t buy it. Donahoe was convicted, fined $2,000.00 (the maximum), and ultimately disbarred. He never revealed who was really
behind the plot, but all evidence suggests the Lorimer gang was involved. The other two defendants were acquitted, including on charges of perjury; the State’s attorneys were not surprised. Juries did not have the stomach to send to the penitentiary a defendant who everyone knew to be a functionary, taking orders from much higher up, especially when Donahoe had received only a financial penalty.
During Donahoe’s trial a dozen witnesses that the State intended to call went “missing.” The most important of these was William Bennett, the attorney who raced to Mobile, Alabama at the beginning of the saga, directed the Hennings to get out of town, and served as John’s minder for several months before trial. He apparently continued in that role when Henning hid out after trial. When Henning was captured he held a check for $75 from Willliam D. Bennett, but when the conspiracy trial was conducted, the State could not find him.
I found him. He was in Portland, Oregon, along with his brothers, Harry and Pliny (yes, that’s his real name). Not coincidentally, they were sought as witnesses in the Donahoe trial as well. The family was from small town Indiana and had no prior connection to Portland; John Henning, on the other hand, was known to have visited Portland while hiding out, suggesting a Lorimer connection to the city. In any event, the clan Bennett moved to Portland en masse and was not located at the time for Donahoe’s trial. The State apparently lost interest after Donahoe’s conviction; the Bennetts certainly did not make any effort to hide. William D. Bennett lived a long and very public life in Portland, running for local office and practicing law until his death in 1941.
The marriage of John and Josephine did not last. John moved to Iowa, where he obtained a divorce from Josephine on the grounds of desertion. A few months later, Josephine filed for divorce from John – also on the grounds of desertion, and apparently unaware that she was already divorced. Each of them remarried and lived long and full lives.
Clarence Funk went on to continue with a very successful career in business, leaving a large estate to his family upon his death. As a result of Funk’s testimony, William Lorimer was expelled from the Senate. The expulsion hearings – in which the Henning-Funk-Donahoe scandal played a prominent role – added momentum to an initiative that would become the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. No longer would individuals like Boss Lorimer be able to obtain a seat in the world’s most exclusive club simply by bribing a few state legislators; senators would be chosen by direct popular election.
William Lorimer returned to the Windy City after being expelled from the Senate, not in disgrace but to an enthusiastic welcome by his cronies and the public. His hold over the city remained strong; his appetite for wealth and power was large. He founded a bank, bilked investors of millions of dollars, yet remained untouched by the law.
But the long finger of fate touched Lorimer, and it did so in a most unceremonious way. Prepare to have an image indelibly planted in your mind. Lorimer and some colleagues were traveling; before the train departed the station, Lorimer visited the lavatory. That’s where he was discovered, dead of a heart attack, a few minutes later. The Blond Boss, recognized to this day as one of the most powerful and corrupt politicians in Chicago history, died in a public restroom at the train station.
It’s hard to believe, but I know it’s true. I read it in the newspaper.
*An earlier version of this story may be found in Story Time – The Complete Collection: Strange But True Stories Of Early Notre Dame Lawyers (Checkerboard Heart: 2021), available to download for free on Amazon and Google
Sources and Additional Reading [revise, especially to include sources used in part two of story]
1860 U.S. Census, Grafton, McHenry County, Illinois, Digital Image, s.v. ‘Daniel Danehar.” 1860. Ancestry.com
1870 U.S. Census, Grafton, McHenry County, Illinois, Digital Image, s.v. ‘Dan Donohue.” 1870. Ancestry.com
1880 U.S. Census, Franklin, Henry County, Indiana, Digital Image, s.v. ‘William Bennet.” 1880. Ancestry.com
1880 U.S. Census, Grafton, McHenry County, Illinois, Digital Image, s.v. ‘Daniel Donahue.” 1880. Ancestry.com
1900 U.S. Census, Chicago, Cook County, Illinois, Digital Image, s.v. ‘Daniel Donahoe.” 1900. Ancestry.com
1910 U.S. Census, Chicago, Cook County, Illinois, Digital Image, s.v. ‘Daniel Donahue.”
American Biographical Publishing Co. BenchandBarofChicago. Chicago: H.C. Cooper, 1883. https://archive.org/details/benchbarofchica00chic.
“Asks Henning Particulars.” ChicagoExaminer. November 26, 1911. https://
www.newspapers.com/clip/80619187/asks-henning-particulars/.
“Attorneys for Funk Want Trial At Once.” InterOcean(Chicago). October 22, 1911.
“Bill of Details To Be Given Funk.” ChicagoTribune. December 2, 1911. https://
www.newspapers.com/clip/80619737/bill-of-details-to-be-given-funk/.
“Character Murder.” ChicagoTribune. June 29, 1912. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/
“Clarence S. Funk Is Named In $25,000 Suit By Injured Husband.” Inter Ocean (Chicago). October 15, 1911. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/78346199/clarence-s-funk-is-
“C.S. Funk Files Depositions To Disprove ‘Alienation.’” ChicagoTribune. December 19, 1911. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/80621345/cs-funk-files-depositions-to-disprove/.
“Daniel Donahoe.” ChicagoEagle. June 23, 1900. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/
“Daniel Donahoe Marries.” Dixon(IL)EveningTelegraph, June 1, 1899. https://
newspaperarchive.com/dixon~evening~telegraph~jun-01-1899-p-5/.
“Deaths – Teresa Donahoe.” InterOcean(Chicago). June 4, 1897. https://
www.newspapers.com/clip/78826774/deaths-teresa-donahoe/.
Detroit Publishing Co. “Bienville Hotel, Mobile, Ala.” Digital image. Library of Congress, 1901. https://www.loc.gov/item/2016808663/.
“Doesn’t Know Mrs. Henning.” NewYorkTimes, June 27, 1912. https://nyti.ms/3fkeLvu. “Expect Henning’s Here Today.” Chicago Tribune. October 20, 1911. https://
www.newspapers.com/clip/78346875/expect-hennings-here-today/.
Field, Roswell. “‘Lid’ Is Torn Off Inquiry Into Senator’s Election.” Chicago Examiner.
April 6, 1911. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/80573630/lid-is-torn-off-inquiry-into/. “Files New Bill Against Funk.” Chicago Tribune. December 21, 1911. https://
www.newspapers.com/clip/80621511/files-new-bill-against-funk/.
“Funk Calls Suit A Plot.” New York Times, October 16, 1911. https://nyti.ms/3fneCaN. “Funk Case Tried.” ChicagoTribune. June 25, 1912. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/
“Funk, Defendant in Alienation Suit, Calls It A Plot.” ChicagoTribune. October 15, 1911. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/79518004/funk-defendant-in-alienation-suit/.
“Funk Demands Trial But Fails.” ChicagoTribune. October 18, 1911. https://
www.newspapers.com/clip/78355106/funk-demands-trial-but-fails/.
“Funk Denies Charges, Asks Speedy Trial.” InterOcean(Chicago). October 18, 1911.
“Funk On Stand This Mornng.” Inter Ocean(Chicago). October 24, 1911. https://
www.newspapers.com/clip/80617002/funk-on-stand-this-mornng/.
“Funk Suit Will Be Pressed By Henning.” InterOcean(Chicago). October 17, 1911.
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/78354854/funk-suit-will-be-pressed-by-henning/. “Funk’s Accuser Admits Identity.” ChicagoTribune. October 16, 1911. https://
www.newspapers.com/clip/78346442/funks-accuser-admits-identity/.
“Funk’s Accusers Fly From Mobile.” ChicagoTribune. October 19, 1911. https://
www.newspapers.com/clip/80615927/funks-accusers-fly-from-mobile/.
“Funk’s Lawyer Asks Bill of Particulars In Henning Suit.” InterOcean (Chicago).
November 26, 1911. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/80619344/funks-lawyer-asks-bill-of-
“Henning Delays His Funk Suit.” ChicagoTribune. October 25, 1911. https://
www.newspapers.com/clip/78346997/henning-delays-his-funk-suit/.
“Henning Trapped On Witness Stand.” ChicagoTribune. June 26, 1912. https://
www.newspapers.com/clip/79253343/henning-trapped-on-witness-stand/. “Jury Gets Funk Case Today.” Chicago Examiner, June 28, 1912.
“Local Items.” NotreDameScholastic, May 8, 1880. http://archives.nd.edu/Scholastic/
VOL_0013/VOL_0013_ISSUE_0035.pdf.
“Local Items.” NotreDameScholastic, May 29, 1880. http://archives.nd.edu/Scholastic/
VOL_0013/VOL_0013_ISSUE_0038.pdf.
“Marriage Licenses.” ChicagoTribune. August 19, 1886. https://www.newspapers.com/
clip/78827151/marriage-licenses/.
“Mystery Woman in Alienation Suit Against C.S. Funk.” ChicagoTribune. October 18, 1911. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/78355192/mystery-woman-in-alienation-suit/.
“Nearly Had A Fight.” Sterling(IL)DailyStandard, February 6, 1894. https://
newspaperarchive.com/sterling-daily-standard-feb-06-1894-p-2/.
“Ring Ticket Put Up.” Inter Ocean(Chicago). April 25, 1897. https://
www.newspapers.com/clip/80045635/ring-ticket-put-up/.
“Senate Committee Rejects Funk Plea.” InterOcean(Chicago). October 19, 1911.
“Sleuth Hired By Funk Tells Story.” InterOcean(Chicago). December 19, 1911. https://
www.newspapers.com/clip/80621078/sleuth-hired-by-funk-tells-story/.
“Sues Lorimer Witness.” NewYorkTimes, October 15, 1911. https://nyti.ms/34ft2Dx.
SEX, LIES, AND AFFIDAVITS: THE SEQUEL
July13, 2021
To recap last week’s episode:
- Upright businessman Clarence Funk publicly claimed that U.S. Senator William Lorimer (the “Blond Boss”) had secured his seat by buying the votes of Illinois legislators
- A few weeks later, attorney Daniel Donahoe filed a lawsuit claiming that Funk had debauched Josephine Henning, thereby ruining the marriage of Donahoe’s client, John Henning
- Funk denied the allegations and insisted that the lawsuit was a transparent effort to ruin his reputation in retaliation for his claims against Lorimer
- Josephine did not appear at trial; John could not support his claims and was eviscerated on the witness stand; Funk’s lawyers produced mountains of evidence contradicting Henning’s claims
- The jury deliberated only a few minutes before declaring Clarence Funk the winner, Donahoe and Henning the losers
- John Henning, sensing that he was about to be arrested for perjury, fled the courtroom.
All caught up? It gets even more entertaining. Spoiler alert – entertaining stories ripped from the headlines rarely have a happy ending for everyone involved, and that’s the case for attorney Daniel Donahoe. Read on anyway. This story involves many characters, and you will discover at the end a bit of poetic justice for the man who started it all.
Donahoe filed suit in October 1911; the trial was delayed until June 1912. In the intervening months John Henning (former bellboy) and his wife Josephine (former coat-checker) lived a life of luxury. They traveled under aliases and were frequently separated to keep the press off their scent, but they lived well. Under the names “Billie Harris,” “George S. Ball,” “Mickey,” and others they stayed at the swankiest hotels in New Orleans, Denver, Venice Beach, Chicago, and Atlantic City. All of their expenses were paid, plus they had some walking around money to boot. They were being paid to lay low and steer clear of the press.
John Henning’s traveling companion for much of the next several months was William
D. Bennett, a young attorney who had previously been engaged in matters involving Boss Lorimer’s associates. Bennett kept Henning flush with cash; it was Henning’s understanding that Bennett got the cash from Donahoe and that Donahoe was funded by Lorimer’s crew. Bennett was able to keep Henning tucked away until it was time for trial.
Josephine’s traveling companions, on the other hand, changed fairly frequently. This proved to be her undoing. Donahoe had no intention of making Josephine available for trial. He
personally introduced Josephine to her first chaperone (Mrs. Minnie Dowd), but Josephine complained frequently, reported that she was ill and needed rest at a spa, and seems overall to have been fairly high maintenance. As a result, she cycled through several companions over the following months. It’s hard to stay secluded when you’re making a lot of noise, and a private detective hired by Funk managed to track Josephine down in Atlantic City.
The agent befriended Josephine, enjoyed the high life with her, and tried her best to get Josephine to talk about the Funk matter in advance of trial. Josephine wouldn’t talk. That’s when the pool – which was already dirty – got downright nasty.
Josephine seemed to Funk’s planted “chaperone” like a decent, though misguided, young woman whose head had been turned by the opportunity to live well. How could she be coaxed into spilling the beans on the Funk scandal? Maybe if she became convinced that her own name was being ruined right alongside Clarence Funk’s. The problem for Funk was that the world was NOT saying anything negative about Josephine; she was portrayed in the press as an innocent dupe.
So Funk had the Chicago Examiner print a story purporting to cover the testimony of the Henning v. Funk trial but actually loaded with false and lurid details designed to provoke Josephine to break her silence and issue a denial. That’s right:
- A mainstream news outlet (tagline “The Best Newspaper … For The Best Homes”)
- printed a single copy of an edition
- bearing a story which it knew to be false
- for the sole purpose of coaxing Josephine Henning to speak.
Why? To sell papers, of course. To please Clarence Funk, who was paying them. And to take a swipe at Boss Lorimer, the corrupt U.S. Senator at the root of it all.
The ploy worked better than Funk or the Examiner could have hoped. When she read the “news” of the trial Josephine was horrified. She enjoyed a nice spa treatment as much as the next person, but this business had gone too far. Josephine contacted the newspaper, traveled from Atlantic City to New York, and told reporters and investigators that she had never met Clarence Funk. She had certainly not cavorted with him in boozy and smoke-filled hotel rooms as “revealed” at trial. Her lawyer, Daniel Donahoe, had promised that the case would never go to trial, and this was all his fault. Yes, she had signed an affidavit, but it had been prepared by Donahoe – and who reads such things? She never meant to hurt anybody. Josephine just wanted to go home. Now.
Her wish was granted. The events and multiple trials that followed are complex, involving dozens of characters across several jurisdictions. There is a book to be written, a movie to be made, and too much information to share in the format of this story. I will hit just a few of the highlights:
John Henning remained in hiding for over a year, although now in less glamorous locations (central Illinois, lumber camps in Minnesota). He was captured in Minneapolis in 1913 and offered a full confession of his role in framing Clarence Funk. He, like Josephine, received immunity in exchange for testifying against others involved in the plot.
Based on the testimony of the Hennings, Daniel Donahoe and two others were indicted for conspiracy to defame Clarence Funk. Donahoe did not take the stand on his own behalf, but he offered 73(!) character witnesses – including the sitting Mayor of Chicago – to prove that he
was an honorable man, incapable of having committed such treachery. The jury didn’t buy it. Donahoe was convicted, fined $2,000.00 (the maximum), and ultimately disbarred. He never revealed who was really behind the plot, but all evidence suggests the Lorimer gang was involved. The other two defendants were acquitted, including on charges of perjury; the State’s attorneys were not surprised. Juries did not have the stomach to send to the penitentiary a defendant who everyone knew to be a functionary, taking orders from much higher up, especially when Donahoe had received only a financial penalty.
During Donahoe’s trial a dozen witnesses that the State intended to call went “missing.” The most important of these was William Bennett, the attorney who raced to Mobile, Alabama at the beginning of the saga, directed the Hennings to get out of town, and served as John’s minder for several months before trial. He apparently continued in that role when Henning hid out after trial. When Henning was captured he held a check for $75 from Willliam D. Bennett, but when the conspiracy trial was conducted, the State could not find him.
I found him. He was in Portland, Oregon, along with his brothers, Harry and Pliny (yes, that’s his real name). Not coincidentally, they were sought as witnesses in the Donahoe trial as well. The family was from small town Indiana and had no prior connection to Portland; John Henning, on the other hand, was known to have visited Portland while hiding out, suggesting a Lorimer connection to the city. In any event, the clan Bennett moved to Portland en masse and was not located at the time for Donahoe’s trial. The State apparently lost interest after Donahoe’s conviction; the Bennetts certainly did not make any effort to hide. William D. Bennett lived a long and very public life in Portland, running for local office and practicing law until his death in 1941.
The marriage of John and Josephine did not last. John moved to Iowa, where he obtained a divorce from Josephine on the grounds of desertion. A few months later, Josephine filed for divorce from John – also on the grounds of desertion, and apparently unaware that she was already divorced. Each of them remarried and lived long and full lives.
Clarence Funk went on to continue with a very successful career in business, leaving a large estate to his family upon his death. As a result of Funk’s testimony, William Lorimer was expelled from the Senate. The expulsion hearings – in which the Henning-Funk-Donahoe scandal played a prominent role – added momentum to an initiative that would become the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. No longer would individuals like Boss Lorimer be able to obtain a seat in the world’s most exclusive club simply by bribing a few state legislators; senators would be chosen by direct popular election.
William Lorimer returned to the Windy City after being expelled from the Senate, not in disgrace but to an enthusiastic welcome by his cronies and the public. His hold over the city remained strong; his appetite for wealth and power was large. He founded a bank, bilked investors of millions of dollars, yet remained untouched by the law.
But the long finger of fate touched Lorimer, and it did so in a most unceremonious way.
Prepare to have an image indelibly planted in your mind. Lorimer and some colleagues were traveling; before the train departed the station, Lorimer visited the lavatory. That’s where he was discovered, dead of a heart attack, a few minutes later. The Blond Boss, recognized to this day as one of the most powerful and corrupt politicians in Chicago history, died in a public restroom at the train station.
It’s hard to believe, but I know it’s true. I read it in the newspaper.
SourcesandAdditional Reading
“$2,500 For Lorimer Vote.” NewYorkTimes, May 29, 1910. https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/
timesmachine/1910/05/29/105079509.html?pageNumber=2.
1900 U.S. Census, Sims, Grant County, Indiana, digital image, s.v. ‘Wm D Bennet.” Ancestry.com.
“1919 Census Supervisors Are Appointed.” Gazette-Times(Heppner,OR), August 21, 1919. https://newspaperarchive.com/other-articles-clipping-apr-29-1915-2474338/.
1920 U.S. Census, Chicago, Cook County, Illinois, digital image, s.v. ‘Daniel Donohue.”
“1920 U.S. Census, Portland, Multnomah County, Oregon, digital image, s.v. ‘William D Bennett,’” Ancestry.com
“About People.” HancockDemocrat(Greenfield,IN). January 28, 1909. https://
www.newspapers.com/clip/80046472/about-people/.
“Admitted to the Bar.” HancockDemocrat(Greenfield,IN). March 7, 1907. https://
www.newspapers.com/clip/78490181/admitted-to-the-bar/.
“After Others In Funk Plot.” New YorkTimes, October 4, 1913. http://
timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1913/10/04/100279780.html.
“Another Witness Flees Funk Trial.” ChicagoTribune. November 2, 1913. https://
www.newspapers.com/clip/78469684/another-witness-flees-funk-trial/.
“Argues All Day Over Funk Case.” ChicagoTribune. October 7, 1913. https://
www.newspapers.com/clip/80045915/argues-all-day-over-funk-case/. “Attorneys Appeal Disbarment.” ChicagoTribune. July 17, 1917. https://
www.newspapers.com/clip/78370856/attorneys-appeal-disbarment/.
“Bar Asks Disbarment of Donahoe, Funk Defamer.” ChicagoTribune. October 17, 1917.
Bennett. “Marriage of Finley.” Leon(IA)Journal-Reporter. November 14, 1912. https://
www.newspapers.com/clip/78478187/marriage-of-finley-bennett/.
Brown, Elgar. “The Great Lorimer Frame-Up.” AmericanWeekly. August 18, 1946.
“‘Calendar Girl’ Takes Stand In Funk Plot Trial.” InterOcean(Chicago). November 5, 1913. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/78939227/calendar-girl/.
“Clarence Funk, Lorimer Case Figure, Dead.” ChicagoTribune. January 7, 1930. https://
www.newspapers.com/clip/78380456/clarence-funk-lorimer-case-figure-dead/. “Clarence Funk Will Is Filed.” ChicagoTribune. January 15, 1930. https://
www.newspapers.com/clip/78380773/clarence-funk-will-is-filed/.
“Confesses Funk Suit A Plot.” NewYorkTimes, July 10, 1912. https://nyti.ms/3hPpMXn. “Dan Donahoe Found Guilty.” Chicago Tribune. November 13, 1913. https://
www.newspapers.com/clip/79063398/dan-donahoe-found-guilty/.
“Daniel Donahoe, Lawyer In Funk Scandal, Is Dead.” ChicagoTribune. July 12, 1922.
“Desertion Divorce Ground.” SiouxCityJournal. December 3, 1914. https://
www.newspapers.com/clip/79193459/desertion-divorce-ground/.
“Disbars Foe of Clarence Funk in Lorimer Case.” ChicagoTribune. April 7, 1921.
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/51642213/disbars-foe-of-clarence-funk-in-lorimer/. “Doctor Secretes Funk Witness.” ChicagoTribune. November 6, 1913. https://
www.newspapers.com/clip/79065351/doctor-secretes-funk-witness/.
“Donahoe And Aid Not To Testify In Own Defense.” InterOcean(Chicago). November 6, 1913. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/78369365/donahoe-and-aid-not-to-testify-in-own/.
“Donahoe Charges Venireman Asked To Help Defense.” InterOcean(Chicago). October 16, 1913. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/78677599/donahoe-charges-venireman-asked-to-
“Donahoe Guilty.” InterOcean(Chicago). November 13, 1913. https://
www.newspapers.com/clip/79040614/donahoe-guilty/.
“Donahoe Is Disbarred By The Supreme Court.” Dispatch(Moline,IL). April 6, 1921.
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/51641977/donahoe-is-disbarred-by-the-supreme/. “Donahoe Must Pay Fine in Funk Case.” ChicagoExaminer, February 2, 1916. https://
newspaperarchive.com/other-articles-clipping-feb-02-1916-2490350/.
“Donahoe Verdict Affirmed.” Pittsburg(KS)Headlight. February 3, 1916. https://
www.newspapers.com/clip/78805142/donahoe-verdict-affirmed/.
“Former Iowa Girl Held For Perjury In Funk Case.” DesMoinesRegister. July 7, 1912.
“Funk Case Witness Is Cleared Of Perjury.” SantaFeNewMexican. March 3, 1914.
“Funk Will Take Stand Today At His Own Request.” InterOcean(Chicago). November 4, 1913. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/78369185/funk-will-take-stand-today-at-his-own/.
“Funk’s Real Foe May Be Exposed.” ChicagoTribune. November 14, 1913. https://
www.newspapers.com/clip/79058236/funks-real-foe-may-be-exposed/.
“Guilty of Funk Conspiracy.” NewYorkTimes. November 13, 1913. https://nyti.ms/
“Held For Plot Against Funk.” NewYorkTimes. August 1, 1912. https://nyti.ms/
“Henning Caught By Burns’ Men?” ChicagoTribune. July 15, 1912. https://
www.newspapers.com/clip/78470065/henning-caught-by-burns-men/.
“Henning Caught In Minneapolis.” Dixon(IL)EveningTelegraph. October 2, 1913.
“Henning Confesses Funk Plot And Names Higher Ups.” ChicagoExaminer, October 3, 1913. https://newspaperarchive.com/chicago-examiner-oct-03-1913-p-1/.
“Hopes For Funk Jury Today.” ChicagoTribune. October 24, 1913. https://
www.newspapers.com/clip/79068852/hopes-for-funk-jury-today/.
“Hotel Arrivals.” SantaFeNewMexican. November 10, 1913. https://
www.newspapers.com/clip/81267198/hotel-arrivals/.
“Hotel Bellboys Shed More Light On Funk Plot Case.” ChicagoTribune. November 1, 1913. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/79066028/hotel-bellboys-shed-more-light-on-funk/.
“Indictment in Funk Case Is Attacked.” InterOcean(Chicago). October 8, 1913. https://
www.newspapers.com/clip/79069472/indictment-in-funk-case-is-attacked/. “Indicts Three For Funk Plot.” ChicagoTribune. August 1, 1912. https://
www.newspapers.com/clip/80035372/indicts-three-for-funk-plot/.
“John C. Henning Confesses Plot To Defame C.S. Funk.” ChicagoTribune. October 3, 1913. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/78368366/john-c-henning-confesses-plot-to/.
“John Henning Granted Divorce.” SiouxCityJournal. February 2, 1915. https://
www.newspapers.com/clip/80768713/john-henning-granted-divorce/.
“Josephine Henning Is Granted Divorce.” RockIsland(IL)Argus. May 5, 1915. https://
www.newspapers.com/clip/78805688/josephine-henning-is-granted-divorce/.
“Jury Hears Inside Story of Funk Plot.” ChicagoTribune. October 25, 1913. https://
www.newspapers.com/clip/79067153/jury-hears-inside-story-of-funk-plot/.
“Last Echo Of Funk Case.” Leavenworth(KS)Post. March 23, 1914. https://
www.newspapers.com/clip/78806304/last-echo-of-funk-case/.
“Legal Advisors Named By Board.” PortlandOregonian, December 16, 1917. “Lorimer A Senator.” New York Times, May 27, 1909. https://
timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1909/05/27/101882557.html?pageNumber=6. “Lorimer Case Goes to Vote.” Los Angeles Times. July 11, 1912. https://
www.newspapers.com/clip/81255522/lorimer-case-goes-to-vote/.
“Lorimer Drops Dead in Depot.” Dispatch(Moline,IL). September 13, 1934. https://
www.newspapers.com/clip/81383747/lorimer-drops-dead-in-depot/.
“‘Man with the Bankroll’ Sought as Accomplice in Henning Case.” Chicago Tribune.
October 5, 1913. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/79116156/man-with-the-bankroll-sought-as/. “Marriage Licenses – Josephine O’Reilly and Albert H. Blair.” Indianapolis Star.
November 26, 1916. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/80963195/marriage-licenses-josephine-
“Miss Aileen Heppner Former Iowa Girl.” Gazette(CedarRapids,IA). July 6, 1912.
“Mr. Bennett’s Charges.” OregonDailyJournal(Portland). October 23, 1920. https://
www.newspapers.com/clip/81246445/mr-bennetts-charges/.
“Mrs. Henning Admits Plot Against Funk.” ChicagoExaminer, July 9, 1912. “Mrs. Henning Tells Of Plot.” Chicago Tribune. February 25, 1914. https://
www.newspapers.com/clip/78370534/mrs-henning-tells-of-plot/.
“Mrs. Hennings Names Funk Foe Gobetween.” ChicagoExaminer, July 16, 1912. https://
newspaperarchive.com/other-articles-clipping-jul-16-1912-2472948/.
“Mrs. J.C. Henning, Funk Plot Figure, Sues For Divorce.” ChicagoTribune. February 21, 1915. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/78805932/mrs-jc-henning-funk-plot-figure/.
“New Evidence Aids Funk.” NewYorkTimes, July 12, 1912. https://nyti.ms/3wyo6FH. “News of the Day Concerning Chicago.” Day Book (Chicago). July 9, 1912. https://
www.newspapers.com/clip/78347255/news-of-the-day-concerning-chicago/.
“Old Case Against Funk Recalled.” SantaFeNewMexican. February 19, 1914. https://
www.newspapers.com/clip/81037546/old-case-against-funk-recalled/.
“Palmer In City Day Henning Told Of Scandal Plot.” ChicagoTribune. October 6, 1913.
People v. Donahoe, 198 Ill. App. 1 (1916).
People v. Donahoe, 117 N.E. 105 (Ill. 1917).
“P.H. O’Donnell Counsel In Dynamiting Case.” IndianapolisNews. March 7, 1912.
“Pliny Bennett Resides Spokane.” DailyReporter(Greenfield,IN). August 24, 1916.
“Pliny Bennett Visiting.” DailyReporter(Greenfield,IN). October 18, 1912. https://
www.newspapers.com/clip/80035459/pliny-bennett-visiting/.
“Political Chiefs of Long Ago at Lorimer Rites.” ChicagoTribune. September 18, 1934.
“Portland Attorney Said In Line For Phillipine Post.” LaGrande(OR)Observer. January 10, 1939. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/78477333/portland-attorney-said-in-line-for/.
“Seek To Indict Man Higher Up In Funk Plot.” Chicago Tribune. July 10, 1912. https://
www.newspapers.com/clip/78347351/seek-to-indict-man-higher-up-in-funk/. “Senate Adopts Popular Vote.” NewYorkTimes, June 13, 1911. https://
timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1911/06/13/104783915.html?pageNumber=1. “State’s Witnesses in Funk Conspiracy Case.” ChicagoTribune. October 25, 1913.
https://www.newspapers.com/clip/81243978/states-witnesses-infunk-conspiracy-case/. “Watch This Trial.” Chicago Tribune. September 16, 1913. https://
www.newspapers.com/clip/78347476/watch-this-trial/.
“Who Paid? Query In Funk Case.” ChicagoTribune. November 9, 1913. https://
www.newspapers.com/clip/78369724/who-paid-query-in-funk-case/.
“Wm. Lorimer, Once Senator, Dies in Station.” ChicagoTribune. September 14, 1934.
“Woman Witness For Funk Accuser Held As Perjurer.” ChicagoTribune. July 3, 1912.