The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-03-28

ate TO be an attempt to use the terms
purity and honesty TO cover the cloven
foot of personal malice. 1t has been shown
by the testimony to be an attempt to use
the great powers conferred upon the United
States Senate, not with a view of correct
ing an evil. but with the hope of destroy
ing the character and impeaching the in
tegrity of a personal and political rival"
After some other preliminary remarks the
brief definitely and specifically names Mr..
Marcus DAILY as the chief instigator of the
contest, and the statement on this point is
as follows:
Marcus DAILY, having defeated Senator
Clark in 1883 for Congress, and for the
Senate in 1893. through treachery TO his
party organization, was unwilling to re-
strain his personal hostility and to permit
the voice of the people. through their le
gally constituted representatives, to deter
mine the election of their senator's; and
cOrding TO his testimony, as early as the
10th of February, 1899. he organized a COM
mittee of his personal friends and agents
10 work up and prepare case against the
seating of Senator Clark by this body. The
testimony will bear out the assertion that
every member of this prosecuting commit
tee was either one of the conspirators in
the attempt to defeat Mr.. Clark's election
or an employe of Mr.. DAILY or an adherent
OF his faction in the State. In the attempt
to fasten some fact upon Senator Clark or
his friends tending to show bribery or cor
ruption, this self-constituteG committee has
employed every means which the unlimited
use of money could command, including the
use of detectives in Montana, in Washing
ton and in New York, with the view of OBJ
tanning some confederation of testimony of
the conSpiratorS.
The testimony Is reviewed at length In
the brief On the law applicable to the case
counsel discuss at length the effect of
bribery and lay down the following legal
propositions:
Proof of an offer of a bride which was
not accepted is no evidence of bribery.
Stronger evidence is required to prove an
offer of a bride than In case where
bride was accepted.
Payments to voters after election, I'M
less clearly proved to have been made in
pursuance of previous agreed promise,
are no evidence of bribery.
THE burden of proof is upon the me-
moriaiists. A senator cannot be unseated
because he obtained his election under sus-
picious circumstances, or because he has
failed to satisfa ctoriiy explain a charge
against him which has not been proved.
"Hearsay evidence has always been dis
regarded by this committee and by similar
tribunals in election cases.
1.-THE admission of a party that he has
received bribe-iS not evidence against the
party who is claimed to have given it.
Bribery by his agent, which has not
changed the right. does not affect a candi-
date, unless proved to have been expressly
authorized by him.
1.-The alleged narratives to Whiteside by
Welcome and Charles w. Clark of bribery
previously committed by them is not evil
dence against Senator Clark, even though
the narrators should be considered his
agents or as engaged in conspiracy with
him.
mo presumption can be made against the
defendant because of the absence of legisla-
tors against whom charges of bribery have
been made.
1.-The evidence of spies and informers is
never credited, unless strongly corrobo-
rated
IF Mr.. Welcome had paid the money to
Whiteside and Clark, of Madison, at their
request, he would not have been guilty of
bribery.
"Circumstantial evidence, such as unex-
planned increase of q legislators wealth, is
insufficient to prove that he was bribed by
Senator Clark.
1.-The purchases from Warner and Nc
Laughlin were presumptively ordinary bust
ness transa ctions made in good faith and
innocence. The burden of proof is upon the
petitioners to show that they were made as
color for brides.
"Since the alleged payment by Root to
Cason is not shown to have been author
lied by Senator Clark nor approved by him,
it creates no presumption against the sem
ator."