The evening times., 1900-04-03

the voluntary and natural support of about
fifty Democrats. 1t is true that during
the contest through one means or another.
uine or ten Of those whom Senator Clark
friends had a right to rely on, were in
duced to support Conrad the DAILY candi-
date. or others, which reduced his vote to
forty three or forty-four Democrats, Sill
yer Republicans. and Populists. Realizing
the personal strength OF Senator Clark be
fore that body. as had been shown in 1890
and 1898. his enemies hoped by bold play
to so disorganize his forces that il would
be Impossible for him TO succeed in being
elected. With this view. deliberate con-
spiracy was entered into the full details
of which will DC hereinafter analyzed, to
spring upon the Legislature on the day on
which the first ballot was to be taken.
distinct and deliberate charge of bribery
and corruption. The scheme succeeded
only to the extent of causing part OF
Senator Clark's friends to withdraw their
support temporarily from him until the
matter could be investigated by an Impair
tial tribunal, which was done through the
converting OF a grand jury of the county
of Lewis and Clark. This was demanded
by the Legislature, and the report was
vindIcation of Mr.. Clark and his friends.
The balloting continued from January 10
to IS; each successive day, Senator Clarks 5
adherents returned to him and on January
q he had forty-one votes. The contest
had resolved itself into the questions,
whether the Conrad forces, which were
composed of Marcus Daly's adherents and
employees. would break and vote for Mr..
Clark (which, except in the case of few
of Conrad's supporters. was not antic
pated) or whether the Republicans would
permit the deadlock to continue, or ter
inmate it by voting for Mr. Clark.
ION the morning of the 2Sth. at a regu-
lar caucus held by the Republican men,
bers. at which fifteen out of sixteen were
present. after discussion and the presen-
tation of petitions and letters from their
constituents, ten voted TO support Mr..
Clark One (Mr. Geiger) declined to vote.
but agreed to follow the views of the ma
jority and four voted against the propo-
sitiou One who favored the action taken
by a majority was absent through sick
ness. On the second ballot taken for Sena-
tor that day, eleven Republicans voted for
Mr.. Clark, making his vote in joint as
sembly fifty-four out of ninety-three mem
bers present, when he was declared elect
ed for the full term, commencing on Marcn
4. 1899.
This action of the Republicans termi-
mated the great contest between these war
ing factions, removed the only obstruction
to the attention of the Legislature to State
affairs, defeated Marcus Daly's attempt to
repeat the deadlock of 1898, and gave to
the State of Montana full representation
in the Senate.
Marcus Daily having defeated Senator
Clark in 1888 for Congress- and for the
Senate in 1898. through treachery to his
party organization was unwilling to re-
strain his personal hostility and to per-
nit the voice OF the people through their
legally constituted representatives. to de
termne the election Of their Senator; and.
according to his testimony, as early as the
10th of February, 1899, or according to
the testimony of Campbell, about the mid
die OF March. 1899, he organized a com
mittee of his personal friends and agents
TO work up and prepare a case against
the seating of Senator Clark by this
body
The brief summarizes and presents GER
tain features of the testimony of each
witness.
Describing the question whether Sena-
tor Clark should be called upon to defend
his honor and integrity impeached by al
legged conversations, claimed to have been
had with him by Whiteside, Hewett, War
rem. Cason, Jackson, and Ector, the brief
sets forth: 1T is one OF the misfortunes
of a public man. that he is not given in
some instances the protection which 9TH
ers enjoy under the law of the land, and
in other cases, where he would have the
right 10 avail himself of the protection
of law. occupying as he does a represen-
tative position, he is compelled to decline
10 resort to that shield which protects
others"
Thirty pages of the brief are de-
voted to the5 Law, applicable to the case
and to PRIOR ruling of the committee in
bribery enqutriesa