The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-12-29

M
~ spondent of the Salt Lake
Tribune says:
''Clark's opponents are trying to GUST
him on the theory that he is guilty of
bribery in securing his seat but the In
dications are that they will not be sue
cessful. A poll of the senate shows a ma
Jority in favor of seating him in spite of
the testimony which may be presented.
There will, however. be a great many
witnesses heard on both sides, and the
case promises to be one of the most in
teresting ever brought before the cleo
lions committee Of the upper branch of
congress"
If the correspondent had simply
added: IT received this informa ton
from Clark. himself" it would doubt
less give a very fair idea Of the real
value of the statement. 1t is entirely
safe to say that there has been no
polling of the senate, ard that no
human being has any authority fer
stating that a majority will be for
Clark regardless of the testimony.
The senate Is a very conservative
body, and it's members as a rule are
men of some discretion. The statement
of what the majority VII do bears
upon its face the highest evidence of
improbability. In dealing with a sena-
torial contest the senate acts judicially,
and we venture the opinion that the
correspondent of the Tribune cannot
name a half dozen senators who will
confirm his statement If there are
men in the United States senate who
are willing to say in advance that they
will seat man charged with bribery
in spite Of the testimony, not having
heard the testimony, the country ought
to know it.
The members of the senate are now
aware that Mr.. Clarks chief agent has
| been disbarred by the supreme court
of Montana for attempted bribery in
Clark's interest. Probably a majority
of them are lawyers. and whe her Trey
are or not they are intelligent enough
to know that the conviction of an agent
of a crime committed in the interest Of
his principal, raises a tolerably strong
presumption against the principal him
self And especially so in a case Ike
that of John B. Welcome, in which
pended in the attempted bribery ard
| in which Mr.. Clark himself could have
made just as good a defense as he can
before the senate committee.
Manifestly, Mr.. Clark's idea was that
no matter what the supreme court did,
the senate would be the final judge In
his case. Therefore he would not go
| ness of his defense. He would hold
| off be sworn in and take the chances
of no contest being made. But If his
seat were contested, he would be
| on the inside, where he would he
| thought, have the ears Of senators, and
pour into them his tale of woe about
the foul conspiracy of the DAILY gang"
to deprive him of the seat which he
so honestly acquired through his COM
manding abilities and tremendous popu-
larity.
That he has been doing this, so far
as the senators would allow him to,
admits Of no doubt, and meanwhile he
also gets the ears Of the reporters and
explains through the press what an
Outrage" somebody is seeking to FER
petrate upon him. Perhaps he actually
thinks from the qualified and guarded
expressions of senators that he has
majority of them. But let him welt
until they hear the evidence.
The Standard makes the prediction
here and now that Mr.. Clark will rot
produce any evidence wha fever Of a
Conspiracy" against him, more than
was offered in the Welcome trial,
which the supreme court said amounted
not to a "scintilla," and scarcely re-
qured consideration. Mr.. Clark VII
learn before he gets through that it is
one thing for him to acquit himself
| by talking to newspaper repor- ar5 Ir
having his agents do 1t, ana proving
his alleged conspiracy" before tie
senatorial committee. It takes evidence
| to prove a conspiracy.