The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1900-04-05
CLARK BRIBERY CASE
The Counsel Foe the Proseestioa
Submits 4 Report.
SERIOUS CHARGES ARE PREFERRED.
Evideace Tends to Show That the
Senator Spent Money Lsvishiy In
the Senstsrial Campaign.

Washington, d. C.. STRAIGHTFORWARD
ter Clark. CT Montana, have submitted
Their brief 20 the Senate committee on
privileges and elections They pEesen:
the following as established facts IL
the case from the evidence adduced.
First-That at leas. Is members OF
the Legislature were paid by Mr. Clark
and his agents for their votes.
Second-That at least o:ne others
were offered money for their votes
and that the total amount CT offers
proved aggregate $4,000.
Tbird-That 500 900 was offered by
D.. TTeacy, friend and agent OF Mr..
Clark, 70 bribe the Attorney General
come case.
Mr.. Clark offered Justice Hunt OF the
Supreme Court, 500. 600 to dismiss the
Welcome case.
Fifth-That Mr.. Clark and his
friends engaged in wholesale bribery
and attempted bribery of members Of
the Legislature to secure the election
Of Mr.. Clark.
OF the IS members OF the Leg.sia-
ture, Including Mr.. Whitesides), Is
were sworn before this committee. or
these, the memorialists say, nine have
taken oaths that they were Offered
money to vote for Senator Clark. Two,
they claim, have admitted the receipt
Of money. 5000 each. after voting for
Mr.. Clark, but tried TO excuse f.
Either by direct testimony or other
! wise they claim that the acceptance OF
brides Is fixed upon Is others.
The testimony Of both Mr.. Clark and
Mr.. E. c. Day establish conclusively
the payment by Mr.. Clark to Mr. Day
few days after the election Of 5000.
which sum Mr.. Day says he accepted
in compensation for his services IS
friend Of Mr.. Clark while he was In
the city Of Helena as a member OF the
Legislature and and leader of the Clark
| forces upon the fcor of the House. Mr..
CClark testifies as To this transaction
as follows: 1T was in consideration
Of my friendship for Mr.. Day and for
the work performed by him in trying
| to organize the Legislature 10 be cleo
ted Speaker. and in order to control
our forces, in which. however, We
failed. l recognized that he was wor-
thy of this consideration"
| Mr.. Day admits that no part of
this $4,000 went to the other members
Of the law firm OF which he is a part
ner. The contention on the part Of
Mr.. Day and Mr.. Clark that Ills Vas
a gift will deceive no OF. II was re-
ceived in direct violation OF his cath
| Of Office"
On ahe general question OF fact the
following deductions are made:
First That general corruption was
praet!eed by Mr.. Clark's agents.
Second--That such corrupt practices
were known to and authorized by him
| Third-1,hat he personally made ef.
forts to SECURE votes by bribery.
Fourth-That through corruption by
means Of bribery OF members of the
Legislature mis- election was secured.
/ Fifth-1hat while the laws of his
State prohibit the use of more than
$1,000 by a candidate for the Senate te
secure his election. Mr. Clark EN-.
pioyed fog this purpose, by his OWL
confession, tleast S139 900; and thai
the commEee appointed by him to ex
pend this money violated the laws o,
the State by failing to make q report
thereof as required by the statutes.
1t is proved 'byond a custom tina
he paid to the committee OF shre,
900: to su ndry persons, $3.50; I.
Representative Day, 5000, to Repre-
sentative Fine, 5000; to William Nc
Dermott, $1,000: TO John B. Welcome
5000; to Senator Z. G.. Warner. 81,
600; to Represents tive Mclaughlin
$4,000; to Senator Whiteside, s. 600
to Senator Meyers. 10000; to Senate
Clark. OF Madison, 10000: total SCOT,
800.
Direct and circnmsta c.ial testimon,
establishes the further payment O
sos 500 as follows: To Representative
H. H. Carr, $1,000; to Representative
Bywater, $4,000: TO Representative
Jacqueth. $4,000: to Representativ
Woods, $1,000; 20 Repres sntative Soy
liz, $500; to Representative Parker
$1,000; to Representative Be.sley. S.,
600; to Representative Eversole, S..
600; to Senator Hobson, $4,000; =
Senator Giegar. s., 1000.