The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1900-04-26
DAYS FIGHT ON CLARK
MINORITY REPORT ON MONTANA
SENATORIAL INVESTIGATION
A SPICY DOCUMENT
MUCH EVIDENCE IRRELEVANT
Minority Members Severely Crlti-
else Action of Mr.. CIarIz's Pros
ecutOrs-Mr. Campbell
Arraigned.


of the senate committee on privileges and
elections, consisting of Senators Pettus
and Harris, who do not accept all the
views Of the majority of the committee
in the case of Senator Clark CMont.) to-
day presented their dissenting opinion in
the case. The report begins with the fol-
lowing statement:
We agree and still agree to the reso-
luton adopted by the committee itself
But the opinion is merely the writing Of
the chairman, without the assent of any
OF the members, and, therefore, not in
dersed by all the members of the commit
tee"
They then state their reasons for dis
sent, which are based, they say, upon the
ground that the committee did not regard
the ordinary rules of evidence, but re-
ceived hearsay evidence in great vol
umes." They assert their reasons for as
senting to the statement of the majority
report that the friends of Senator Clark
Illegally and improperly used large
amounts of money and thereby secured
the election, and that this election is not
valid, but, under the law of the land, is
void''
Then they enter upon review Of the
situation in Montana. Taking up ex-
Senator Whiteside they say:
THE evidence tends to show that White
side was unfriendly to Mr. Clark, and
that he made "a threat to explode a
bomb if Clark became a candidate for
the senate, and that about the same day
Marcus Daily in New York, made threat
to run Mr.. Clark and his family cut of
Montana :"
Referring to the cooperation during
the legislative session of Campbell and
Clark they say that latter Mr. Camp
bell had heard the plan to entrap and be-
tray his friend Senator Clark, he told
Whiteside, in substance, DO not rely on
your own evidence to prove the charg-
es'"
Thus" they continue, Campbell and
Whiteside became united in a common
cause in the campaign of 1896. And from
that Whiteside had the benefit Of Camp
bells advice. And Whiteside, if you cred
it his account of himself, acted we'll and
maturely the part of spy and traitor,
and did explode a bomb. After the leg
islature adjourned Mr.. Campbell with
Marcus Days money, went into the
business of buying newspapers and hiring
editors and setting them to work. He
also became actively engaged in the
business of hiring detectives with Daily s
money. Among other cases he employed
one Benjamin Hill, and set him to hunt
hing up evidence against his friend"
CAMPBELL ARRAIGNED.
Mr. Campbell is severely arraigned for
the opening, reading and resealing of q
sealed letter from Bickford TO Roote,
brought to Campbell by Hill. Reference
is made to CampbelPs payments to sew
eral witnesses, and it is remarked that
'Mr. Campbell became Daly's agent to
disburse money without limit as to
amount. and in 1899 was employed by a
corporation controlled by DAILY, at a sal
airy of $1,000 per annum. When last
heard from Mr., Campbell had disbursed
about $40, GOO of Days money in this case,
and had incurred liabilities for fees to
eminent counsel, amounts not named, and
still had power to go on spending with
out limit. He conducted this case as lead
ing counsel, and became also one of the
principal witnesses, but other counsel
made the arguments"
They also review the connection of
State Attorney General Nolan with the
prosecution, referring with especial point
edness to his use of notes of testimony
taken before the grand jury of Lead and
Clark counties, saying ''he could not be
Induced to see the slightest improperly
of the disclosure of the secrets of the
grand jury, and in the wholesale promise
Mr.. Campbell in the work in which he
was engaged. This attorney general
came to Washington, took an active part
in the prosecution and In influencing
witnesses, and on the witness stand
could not conceal his bias"
IRRELEVANT TESTIMONY.
They pronounce the testimony connect
ing the Montana supreme court with the
case as irrelevant, and said:
This transaction, SO far as we are in
formed, occurred six or seven months
after the senatorial election. No fact
connecting Mr.. Clark with any part Of
that transaction was given They had
no sort of connection, directly or indi-
rectly, with Mr.. Clark, and If they had
there was no connection between the
election In January and the supreme
court judges in the fall of that year. All
the evidence was nothing more than what
might be called "coloring matter And
it was admitted against the protest of
the senator from Maryland and others
And in the conduct of this case many
other mere 'coloring matter was received
as evidence"
They criticise the report of the commit
tee, saying that it contains several curl
Gus statements of a part of the evidence
as to the election
sit is stated that Senator Clark. in
June 1895, destroyed the checks which he
had drawn on his bank But the report
fails to state that for years past it was
his habit to destroy his checks when his
account was rendered by the bank and
examined. And the report failed to state
that the committee had the bank accourst
of Mr.. Clark during all the time it was
charged money had been illegally used"
Round Runners Over.