Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1900-04-05

fore the senate, he having previously
sworn that he retained the money in
his possession. !
Yet it is noteworthy that most of these
details were either added to make
Whiteside's story agree with that Of
Clark of Madison, or else, like the bath
room payments and the presence In
Welcomes sitting room of a third par
to afford an explanation of the absence
of Welcome when Carr and Myers
were shown their money.
It may be that the bills were kept in
a deposit vault from the time Whiteside
received them from Days emissary till
that was concealed before from fear
that while the transaction was fresh it
might be discovered that the money was
there before the legislature opened.
FALSE SWEARING.
One inconsistency, although to the
casual observer it might seem slight,
upon a second examination is conclusive
proof of false swearing. When examined
before the legislative committee White
side swore tina to his own knowledge
Welcome placed ten $1,000 bills In
Clark's envelope. The envelope was
then opened and it correspondent to his
testimony. He then omitted the details
about the reference to the picture and
the payment in the corner. Clark OF
Madison was next called, and he swore
that Welcome took him into a corner
and there paid the money. When called
before the grand jury Whiteside altered
his evidence so as to agree as to the
! cCrne with Clark of Madison, and added
the picture story: but he still testified
to his seeing 10000 placed in the envel
ope When. before the supreme court
his attention had been called to the COM
ments upon the impossibility of his
having been able to see the number and
denominations of the bills. So he swore:
II only know it contained money. I
saw them put the money in" Cree, p:
did not see 1t counted but the agree
ment was that it was to be 10000 "
Clark of Madison swore here and before
the supreme court that he did not tell
Whiteside the denomination of the bills.
II that is true, how could Whiteside
have been able in the legislature before
the envelope was opened to describe it's
exact contents, unless he put them there
himself?
Before the supreme court, after this
senatorial election (when it was neces-
sary to prove the purchase of seven
votes in order to unseat the ~respondent),
Whiteside added, amongst other things,
a statement concerning his negotiations
with Bywater and Jacqueth. saying that
Bywater declined to accept the PROPOSE
ton unless the other republicans did;
and that Jacqueth at first accepted, but
afterwards withdrew. This last story.
with a few variations, he has repeated
here.
1t is significant that although a bluff
was made by the offer of the production
of the checks and bank counts of Mar
Gus DAILY and of his l~ieutenants, they
were not produced with the exception OF
one of the accounts of Campbell, whose
receipts were withheld. In the face OF
Days admission that he has given an
unlimited order for the expenditure OF
money to deprive enato Clark of his
seat, those who choose may believe in
his testimony concerning the amount OF
his expenses in the campaign of 1898.
AS bearing on the credibility Of Mr.
Days testimony-without calling the
attention of this committee to it's mani.
fest disingenuousness and argumenta,
tive character throughout mention q
single fact: He declared his disapprova
OF the employment of detectives, anf
testified that none had been used in this
investigation by his consent. Campbell
was forced to admit, by the production
of the McLain letters, what he other
wise would undoubtedly denied, thai
not only has Campbell himself employed
detectives to do work of the most de-
grading and illegal character, but thai
Days secretary has employed detec.
tives while DAILY was in New York? Is
1t possible that the secretary did this
against Days wishes, without consult.
ing him? If not, what faith can be
given to the other parts of Days testi-
mony?
The proof of a conspiracy offered by
; the respondent in addition to, that furn-
ished by the witnesses in chief. consist
ing of threats made by DAILY, Whiteside
and Toole before the legislature met and
. the subordination of witnesses. I shal
not take up your time by elaborate COM
. ments upon the testimony concerning
those threats which you remember, Sen
ators. The subordination of perjury was
nrnxyn6 6irorf1u nv TIM tactitoN ,,yv -
Lyon. Wright and Hill which was cor
roborated in nearly of all it's details by
admissions of Nolan n Campbell. They
were ~contradicted by the congressman
and attorney general only as to a few
passages in the conversations that Were
. admitted. The truth of their testimony
was also proved by the failure to cal
the witnesses who We're suborned wher
propositions We're mad to them.
(Mr. Foster then commented upon The
testimony of Nolan and argued that his
Inconsistencies made him unworthy O.
belief. He also said that i'm advising this
state treasurer to pay the expenses OF
the Welcome disbarment without Lawful
I authority, Nolan had made himself liable
! to ten years imprisonment
: WHAT OF CAMPBELL?
What shall I say of the congressman
from Montana? 1t would be impossible,
t to accuse him of more degradation thai
he has confessed without any sense u
shame. The friend of enator Clark, ad
mitted to his confidence, he betrayed hin
and his political associates in return TO
the support of Marcus Daily for congress
and a retainer Of IS, 900 a year for nom
= inal work for a corporation, with the at
fairs of which he has shown himself t
be so ignorant that he does not evel
know its relation with the Amalgamate,
Copper Company. You who have watch
= ed him throughout this investigation ar
, unlikely to believe his story, that h
= slept throughout the greater part of tn
e consultation of the Anti-Daly men a
q Senator Clark's house. A weasel woul
: be more likely to sleep when on tn