Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1900-04-25
Dissenting Opinion in the Montana
Senatorship Case.
COMPLAIN FMUCHHEARSAYEVlDENCE
Report. They Say, Was Not Sub
mitted to Committee.
FACTS ONLY HALF STATED

The minority of the members of the Sem
| ate committee on privileges and elections
consisting of Senators Pettus and Harris
who do not accept all the views of the ma
jority of the committee in the case of Sem
ator Clark Of Montana, today presented
| their dissenting opinion in the sc. The
report begins with the following statement:
I'VE agreed, and still agree. to the resolu-
ton reported by the committee through ats
chairman. That resolution was adopted by
the committee itself. But the report is
merely the writing Of the chairman with
the aid of one other member. and never
was submitted to any meeting OF the COM
mittee. and therefore cannot be considered
as the words OF the committee
They then proceed to state their reasons
| for dissent which arc based. they say
upon the opinion that. in this important
inquiry, the committee was bound by. and
ought to act on. the ordinary rules OF evi.
dence." Complaint is made that much OF
the testimony was "hearsay evidence,
which they say was received in great
| volumes"
Referring to Senator Chandler connec-
ton with the case as chairman of the COM
mittee they say: I'VE tried merely to dis
lscharge our duties members OF this com
mittee and as judges in this most important
case, but the chairman kindly relieved the
other members of that labor. and deter
| mined that matter for the committee.
They then state their reasons for consent
ing to the majority report. which Is based
| on the opinion that the friends OF Senator
| Clark illegally and improperly used large
amounts Of money. and thereby caused the
election and that this election is not valid
| but under the law of the land Is void
! Conditions in Montana.
They then enter upon review of the
present conditions in Montana. Referring
to the initiative meeting of the Clark men
or1 tba Of rayn ,ho11 OF
this conference. and his later election to
| Congress, Messrs Pettus and Harris re-
| mark: $50, to the extent named Mr.. Camp
| bell got the benefit of that private meeting
of which he was member, and the benefit
of the money sent out by the committee to
the executive committees in various coun-
ties. Mr.. Campbell was a well-known OPP
ponent of the DAILY faction prior to and in
1888
Taking up ex-State Senator Whiteside
they say. THE evidence tends to show
that WhitesiGe was unfriendly to W. A.
Clark and that he made a threat to explode
q. bomb if Clark became a candidate for
the Senate: and that about the same day
Marcus Daily, in New York. made a threat
| to run w. A Clark and his family out of
| Montana.
| Whfteside's Course.
Referring to the cooperation during the
| legislative session of Campbell and Clark.
they say that after Mr.. Campbell had
| the plan 10 ana Detfay MS
friend, Senator Clark, he told Whiteside, In
substance, Do not rely on your own evil
| deuce to prove the charges Thus they
| continue, Campbell and Whiteside became
united in common cause in December,
1898. And from that time Whiteside had
| the benefit of Campbelrs advice. And
Whitesde. if you credit his account of him
self acted well and naturally the part of
spy and traitbr, and did explode bomb
After the legislature adjourned Mr.. Camp
| bpu WITT I'M n
| the business of buying newspapers and hir-
ing editors and setting them to work. He
also became actively engaged in the bust
ness Of hiring detectives with Days money.
Among other hard cases he employed one
Benjamin Hill, and set him to hunting up
evidence against his friend. And Mr. Camp
| bell gives a graphic account of how Hill
brought to his office a sealed letter from
Bickford to Roote. and how he caused Hill
| to open the letter for Campbell to read 1t.
And after reading 1t 1t was interesting to
hear Mr.. Campbell describe how the letter
| was carefully resealed and sent on by Mr..
| Hill to its destination
Campbell and Hill.
Mr.. Campbell's connection with Ben Hill
Ia then reviewed. Reference is made to his
payments to certain witnesses, and 1t is
remarked that Mr.. Campbell became
Days agent to disburse money without
limit as to amount. and he dsbursed it in
that way. And in 1899 Mr.. Campbell was
employed by a corporation controlled by
| DAILY at salary of $4,000 per annum. When
last heard from Mr.. Campbell had disbursed
| about $4,000 of Mr.. Days money in this
| case, and had incurred liabilities for fees
to eminent counsels, amounts not named.
| and still had power to go on spending, with
| out limit to amount. He conducted this
| case as leading counsel. and became also
| one of the principal witnesses, but ether
| counsel made the arguments"
| They also review the connection of State
| Attorney General Nolan with the prosecu-
ton, referring with especial pointedness to
| his use of notes of testimony taken before
the grand jury of Lewis and Clark county.
saying: He could not be induced to see
the slightest improperly in his disclosure
of the secrets Of the grand jury or in this
wholesale promise of pardons. specially
| given for the use of Mr.. Campbell in the
| work in which he was then engaged. This
attorney general came to Washington. took
an active part in the prosecution and in
| suggesting witnesses. and the witness
stand could not conceal his bias.
! Testimony Regarding the justices.
| They pronounce the testimony connect
ing the Montana supreme court with the
case as Irrelevant. and say: This trans
action, so far, We are informed, oc-
CURED six or seven months after the sena-
torial election: no fact proved connects
Mr. Clark with any part of that transac-
ton. DR.. Tracy had sort Of connec-
ton. directly or. indirectly with Mr. Clark,
tween the election in January and the
supreme judges in the fall of that year.
All of the evidence was nothing more than
what may be called 'coloring matter And
1t was admitted against the protest of the
| senator 3sprn Maryland and Others
And in, the conduct of this case much
other mere coloring matter was. received
| as evidence"
They efiticiss the report of the commit
| tee, saying that 1t contains several curl
Gus statements of part of the evidence
as to thee thing stated. For example, they
say it Is statedfthat Senator Clark in June,
1895, destroyed the checks which he had
drawn OF his 'eank. But the report fails
habit to destroy his checks when his ac-
count was repaered by the bank and ex-
amined. And the report failed to state that
the committee bad the bank account of Mr..
Clark during AZ the time in which it was
charged that money had been illegally
| used" ,sI 40
They also assert that in the main re-
port "StstemeRts are made as facts which
are basei fonly3on the testimony of a wit
ness OF doubtful credit. and that testimony
plainly contradicted"
Closing they say: The only proposition