The evening times., 1900-04-03

brief proper. but submitted as a part Of
the brief, is a 27-page resume and criti-
cal review OF the testimony of Senator
Clark. the individual work of Mr.. Ed
munds
At the close of the brief is note re-
citing that Hon Albert ]. Campbell, NJ
C.. who appeared during the trial as coun-
sci. has not signed this brief for the rea-
son that he testified as a witness and his
testimony has been and will be the sub
5ect of comment
The brief in part follows;
We submit the following FIVE PROPOSE
fions Of law as those upon which we think
this cause should be considered:
First That proof of general aud eN-
tensiye corrupt practices in connection
with the election. and operating upon the
members Of the Legislature is sufficient
10 warrant and require judgment OF the
Senate that the election was void, mas
much as in such A case il would not be
such an election as the Constitution re-
Gures-that is, an election by the free
uncontrolled. and undisturbed action OF
that body Ii is fundamental in the ma
ture of a republic that its electorate,
whether the people or the Legislature,
shall exercise their suffrages freely, with
out being the subjects either of direct
personal corruption. or that Of undue in
fiuence which would show that the cleo
fion was not free and untrammeled duty
OF the body but was the product OF evil
means and inducements. The right and
duty OF the Senate in such cases is. under
the Constitution. complete and unlimited.
and uncontrolled otherwise than by the
principles of Justice and reason.
I'VE believe the foregoing proposition
70 be in accordance with the state of Eng
Iish law at the time our Constitution WAS
adopted.
second We maintain that il. as the un-
disputed evidence proves. MIR. Clark ap-
pointed a committee. or body OF agents,
by whatever name they may be called. 10
whom he confded the general charge CT the
operations looking to his election as SEND
tor. and supplied them with money to car
ny on his cause. and they entered upon
such agency, and in the course of ii were
guilty of corrupt practices TO secure votes
for him. Mr.. Clark is just as much affected
thereby as il he had himself done the same
thing. although he may not have known
that such conduct was TO be, or was, prac-
ficed. and did not intend that IL should be
This proposition We believe to be in ac-
cordance with the state of English Law at
the time of the adoption Of our Constltu-
tion. as it certainly is in accordance With
ihe general principles of our own laws and
Of Justice.
Third We maintain that IT, as the un-
disputed evidence proves, Mr.. Clark was
present at the capital during substantially
the whole time Of the struggle and in con-
stant communication with his agents. he
was bound TO know what means OF accom-
pishing his election were being resorted
,E, D L rl.1rlrr
o. their acts.
Fourth We maintain that If 1t appears
10 the satisfaction of the Committee that
voters were corrupuy Influenced and pro-
cured TO vote for Mr.. Clark without whose
votes he could not have secured a majority
then the election was void without regard
10 the question whether such votes were
obtained by himself his agents. or by
strangers.
Fifth II Mr.. Clark employed the means
and used The money which the statutes Of
Montana command he shall not employ and
use TO procure his election. the election is
absolutely VOd-as much 30 as il direct
bribery had c0nfesssdly been praCticed
The use Of money for the purpose of ac-
cUmplishiug his election. In excess Of the
sum fixed by law. was as much forbidden
as direct bribery. and therefore if direct
bribery would vitiate the election. 50 viii
The influence produced by the use Of money,
forbidden By the statute. effect the same
TesuiD
Propositions OF Fact.
"Upon the evidence adduced vo shall
contend that it is abundantly proven.
"First-That general corruption was
practiced by Mr.. Clark's agents.
-Sccoud-That such corrupt practices
were known to and authorized 10y him.
'.Third-That he not only authorized
such practices by mis- agents. but person
ally engaged in them and made efforts TO
secure votes by bribery.
'Fourth-That through corruption. by
means Of bribery of members OF the Leg
isatUre. his election was secured.
'Fifth-That, while the laws Of his State
prohibit the use Of more than 81 600 by a
candidate for the Senate to secure his cleo
zion Mr. Clark employed for this purpose
at least s139. O00. and that The committee
appointed by him to expend this money
violated the laws OF the State by failing
60 make a report thereof as required by
the statutes.
Review of the Testimony.
The proofs establish that prior to the
general election in Montana OF November
s. 1925 Senator Clark had always been de-
feated in his aspirations to political office.
in 1853 he was defeated for the House of
Representatives. In 1890 he was refused.
after contest q seat in the United States
Senate, and in 1893 he received a majority
OF the votes Of the Democratic members
OF the Legislature for the Senate. but
there was no election.
In August 1898, he determined TO again
Become a candidate for the Senate, and by
means OF his great wealth to secure his
election. That his purpose to be a candi-
date was formed SO early, the testimony
of the witnesses Hauser and McDermOtt
and Mr. Clark himself makes clear, al
though the latter wishes it understood
that he did not come to this purpose until
after The election.
The Committee of Three.
The committee Of three was in the in
serest only of Mr.. Clark. and not Of the
Democratic party. Il consisted Of Charles