The evening times., 1900-04-03

brief proper. but submitted a part OF
she brief is a 27-page resume and criti-
cal review of the testimony Of Senator
Clark. the individual work of Mr.. Ed
muuds.
At the close of the brief is a note re-
citing that Hon. Albert J. Campbell. NJ.
C.. who appeared during the trial as coun-
sci. has not signed this brief for the rea-
son that he testified as a witness and his
testimony has been and win be the sub
Ject OF comment
The brief in part follows:
we submit the following FIVE PROPOSE
tions Of law as those upon which we think
this cause should be considered:
First That proof of general and eT-
tensive corrupt practices in connection
with the election. and operating upon the
members OF the Legislature is sufficient
10 warrant and require judgment OF the
Senate that the election was void. mas
much as in such a case il would not be
such an election as the Constitution re
Ouires-that is. an election by the free.
uncontrolled and undlsturbed action of
that body. II is fundamental in the ma
ture OF a republic that its electorate,
whether the people or the Legislature.
shall exercise their suffrages freely. with
out being the subjects either Of direct
personal corruption. or that OF undue in
fiuence which would show that the cleo
tion was not free and untrammeled duty
OF the body, but was the product of evil
means and inducements. The right and
duty Of the Senate in such cases is, under
the Constitution. complete and unlimited.
and uncontrolled otherwise than by the
principles of justice and reason
I'VE believe the foregoing proposition
10 be in accordance with me state of Eng
Iish law at the time our Constitution WAS
adopted.
Second. We maintain that If, as the uu-
disputed evidence proves. Mr.. Clark ap-
pointed a committee or a body OF agents.
by whatever name they may be called 10
whom he confided the general charge Of the
operations looking to his election as Sena-
tor and supplied them with money to car
ry on his cause and they entered upon
such agency. and in the course OF il were
guilty Of corrupt prl ctices to secure votes
for him. Mr.. Clark is just as much affected
thereby as II he had himself done the same
thing. although be may not have known
that such conduct was to be. or was prac-
ticed. and did not intend that t should be.
This proposition We believe to be in ac-
cordance with the state OF English law at
the time OF the adoption Of our Constitu-
Iicn. as it certainly is in accordance with
ihe general principles Of our own laws and
Of justice.
Third We maintain that II. as the un-
- disputed evidence proves Mr.. Clark was
present at the capital during substantially
the whole time OF the struggle. and in con-
stant communication with his agents. he
was bound 10 know what means OF accom-
plishiUg his election -are being resortcd
10. and must be charged with knowledge
OF their acts
Fourth We maiutail that If 10 appears
10 the satisfaction Of the Committee that
voters were corrupUy Influenced and pro-
cured to vote for Mr. Clark without whose
votes he could not have secured a majority.
then the election was void without regard
to the question whether such votes were
obtained 10y himself, his agents or by
strangers.
Fifth Il Mr.. Clark employed the means
and used the money which the statutes Of
Montana command he shall not employ AMI
use, 10 procure his election. the election is
absolutely yoid-as much so as If direct
bribery had confessadly been practiced.
The use OF money for the purpose CT ac-
complishiug his election in excess Of the
sum fixed hy law, was as much forbidden
a direct bribery. and therefore if direct
bribery would vitiate the election. so viii
The influence produced by the use Of money
forbidden o. the statute. effect the same
TesulL
Propositions OF Fact.
Upon the evidence adduccd We shall
contend that it is abundauuy proven:
"First-That general corruption was
pr1cticcd by Mr.. Clarks agents.
'SCCOud-That such corrupt practice.
were known TO and authorized by him.
"Third-That he not only authorized
such practices by his agents. but person
ally engaged in them and made efforts Il
secure votes by bribery.
"Fourth-That through corruption. bJ
means Of bribery OF members OF the Leg
islatUre. his election was secured.
"Fifth-Thdt. while the laws Of his State
prohibit the use Of more than 81 .O0G by q
candidate for the Senate to secure his cleo
gion. Mr. Clark employed for this purpose
at least Sl39. 900. and that The committee
appointed by him to expend this money
violated the laws OF the State by falling
10 make a report thereof as required by
the statutes.
Review of the Testimony.
The proofs establish that pricr to the
general election in Montana Of November
S. 1S9S Senator Clark had always been de-
feated in his aspirations to political Office.
in 1883 he was defeated for the House OF
Representatives. In 1890 he was refused
after a contest a seat in the United States
Senate. and in 1893 he received a majority
or the votes Of the Democratic members
OF the Legislature for the Senate. but
therc was no election
In August. 1898. he determined 10 again
become a candidate for the Senate. and by
means OF his great wealth 10 secure his
election. That his purpose to be a candi-
date was formed so early, the testimony
OF the witnesses Hauser and NcDermott
and NJ. Clark himself makes clear. al
Though the latter wishes it understood
h. 4 4 4si
after the election.
The Committee of Three.
The committee Of three was in the in
serest only OF Mr.. Clark. and not Of the
Democratic party. Il consisted OF Charles