Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1900-04-06

be submitted by the committee within ten
days.
Neither side will rest satisfied with the
decision unless unanimous. Both Daily
and Clark will carry the contest to fl
nal vote in the senate. The conservative
opinion here is that the committee is
about evenly divided with an odd vote
doubtful.
Washington, April 6-Mr. Foster con-
tinued his argument today before the
senate committee on elections in the case
of Senator Clark of Montana. He review
ed at length the testimony of the wit
nesses for the memorialsts, contending
that much Of it was hearsay and there
fore not competent. He contended that
there was no bribery in the employment
of legislator unless the employment was
made conditional upon his vote. He also
argued that the fact that the legislators
had obtained additional wealth was no
proof against Clark as the increase might
easily come from other resources. He de-
clared that majority of witnesses for
the prosecution We're employed by Mar
Gus Daily and two thirds of them We're
confessedly corrupt. The evidence was.
he concluded, incompetent to convict a
tramp for petit larceny and was ridicu-
lous when depended upon to unseat
United States senator. Mr. Foster was
followed by his colleague, ex-senator
Faulkner who alsoachsbrged corrupt mo-
tives Ia the prosecution saying that it
was the result of combination of wealth
and perjury. He laid the blame for the
proceeding at the door of Marcus Daily
and his agents, alleging that it was in no.
wise sustained by public sentiment in the
state Of Montana.
Faulkner contradicted the theory that
Clark's financial contributions prior to
the sitting of the Montana legislature
had been issued to forward his own in
terest in connection with the senatorial
contest. The senator, was he said, only
the leader of the anti-Daly movement
and the part he was to perform was that
of supplying funds which no one will
deny he had perfect right to do.
Instead of appearing as candidate
in the state campaign, Clark had, in ex-
plicit terms, refused to permit the use
of his name. With reference to the de-
SlIuClIOH OI UdIrk CHECKS, Faulkller said
that course was usual after the close of
political campaign. Faulkner Defend
ed the action of the republican executive
caucus in declaring for Clark. He dwelt
at length on the charge made by the de-
, fense that the prosecution was the re-
suit OF a conspiracy, quoting State Sem
ator Cullen, Lawyer Corbett, Witness
Ringwalt and others in support of this
theory. He urged that il was inconceiv-
able that the Clark managers would
have delegated as much to Whiteside as
was claimed, when they knew that he
was an enemy in Disguise In conclu-
sion, Faulkner discussed the improbable
lity that Welcome should have paid out
the $4,000, used by Whiteside in his ex-
posure. declaring it was impossible for
him to do so because, as he claimed, the
evidence shows that the following jan
uary to January 10, he, c. w. Clark,
Steele and Davidson, all told, had only
$21. 900 in their possession. The whole
matter has been explained by the bank
accounts which had been so freely ex-
hibited Faulkner also reviewed the tes-
timony directly involving Clark, con-
tending that all Of it was incompetent
and untrustworthy. and urging that
Clark had come through the ordeal un~
stained.