Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1900-02-22
DENIES THE CHARGES
Senator Clark's Son Contradicts
Whiteside's Testimony.
DESCRIBES ASSOCIATION WITH Him
Dr. Martin Tells of His Visit to
Judge BrantIey.
Mr.. WELCOME RECALLED

I c. W. Clark, son Of the senator, testified
before the Clark investigating committee to-
day. Mr.. Clark said he had taken an active
part in the Montana legislative campaign in
1898 and in the senatorial fight following.
He was treasurer of the Clark campaign
committee. The first effort Of the commit
tee was to take the state convention from
the Daily people, the next the election OF
the democratic state legislative ticket
making practically two campaigns. The
money placed in his hands was for the pur-
pose of covering both of these campaigns.
Mr. Clark thought there were an average
of $50 persons in Helena in his fathers be-
half just prior to the election, and, all told,
there were fully 300 people there from first
to last. Most Of these had come with the
view Of helping Mr.. Clark in the contest.
but the witness had no doubt that some Of
them came with the hope Of earning lit
tie expense money"
Whiteside's Statements Denied.
Mr.. Clark said he had never authorized
Whiteside to see members of the legislature
in his fathers behalf; never had Tailed off
the members Of the legislature with him
and had never told him that any state sem
ator or legislative member was 10 get any
specified sum for his vote. He denied all
discriminating testimony given by White
side. Mr.. Clark said that with the first
meeting with Whiteside the latter had said
he was tired of the Daily people; that he
was unpledged, and that he wanted to sup
port Senator Clark. He had said he did
not want any money for his support, but
that he wanted an equal chance with others
in bidding upon buildings contemplated by
his father. This was promised, and Mr.
Whiteside then said he would vote for Mr.
Clark.
>oyro TO,
under which he had written to State Sem
ator Myers, inclosing him a check for $500
He considered the sum in the nature of
retainer for legal services at Bridger. He
admitted that, after the Whiteside expo
sure, he had asked Mr.. Myers not to give
the letter out, because he feared that at
that time, when public excitement was so
great, the letter might be connected with
the bribery case.
DIR. Martins Testimony.
Rev. Albert B. Martin, principal of the
female seminary at Deer Lodge. testified
next. He produced the letter written him
by Senator Clark last October, which the
doctor had taken to Chief Justice Brantley
in connection with the Welcome disbar-
ment case.
The letter was as follows:
Dear DR.. Martin: If you could see our
mutual friend, Judge B., and state to him
what John r. T. told you, outlining the
showed that everything was practically
prearranged. am sure that he would have
better understanding of the Welcome
proceeding and would not allow that splen-
did man to be disbarred. He has a lovely
wife and Children and 1t is a shame that
he should suffer disgrace through two such
disreputable, men as Whiteside and my
namesake, W. A. Clark of Madison county.
(Signed ''W. A. CLARK"
Mr.. Martin said that our mutual friend.
Judge B.. was Judge Brantley, and that
weeks previous TO the meeting of the
legislature had told him that the reports
concerning Senator Clark's methods would
be investigated by a committee. He said
he felt interested in Mr.. Welcome because
| his father-in-law was an old Presbyterian
| minister. He had hoped that he could in
huence the supreme court to send the case
| back to the Silver Bow county court but
| he saw no indelicacy in doing that.
ut was no more improper than it would
be for me to approach a senator here and
ask him to vote for Mr.. Clark said the
witness. The interview with Justice Brant-
| ley was perfectly friendly.
DR.. Martin said that he had also re-
ceived another letter from Mr.. Clark after
| the Whiteside exposure, in which Mr..
Clark had referred to his own good charac-
ter. saying this was the best legacy he
| could leave to his children.
C. w. Clark Recalled.
| c. w. Clark was recalled. He continued
his specific dentals of the testimony of wit
| nesses for the prosecution who had made
statements indicating his connection with
efforts to corruptly influence members of
the legislature. He thus reviewed the tes-
| timony Of Whteside, Butler, Hewitt and
| Senator Myers.
! Prior to Mr. Clarks testimony John B.
Welcome was recalled. At the instance of
| Senator Chandler, Mr.. Welcome related
| that he had been present when Senators
| Chandler and Gallery had examined his
| bank account and that, according to their
| nndlng, ne had only two corrections to
make. They had found two checks ono
for $3.50 and the other for 800. which
| should be added.
| IDAHO LABOR TROUBLES