Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1900-03-28
Counsel on Both Sides Review the
Arguments.
ALLEGE GENERAL CORRUPT PRACTICES
Defense Claim That Nothing Grim
inaI Has Been Shown.
SALIENT POINTS CIV EN-

The argument in the case of Senator
Clark of Montana. which was to have been
heard by the Senate committee on privileges
and elections today. has been postponed I'M
ill Tuesday of next week on account OF Tue
enforced absence OF some of the members
of the committee.
The briefs on both SIDES of the case
have been distributed among members OF
the committee The brief of the memorial
ISIS covers H. pages and is signed by ex-
Senator Edmunds Mr.. Arthur A B!rney
and ex-Representative Hartman
Counsel for the memorialists. after re-
Viewing the testimony in detail, present the
following as established facts III the c'se
from the evidence adduced; 20
Firs;-That at least fifteen members OF
the legislature were paid by Mr. clark anu
his agents for their votes: ..,,o-- WOW,
S4cond-That at least nine others Were
altered money for their votes. and tnat
the total amount of offers proved assre-
gate $1I5,o"o. M
Trsacy. a friend and agent of Mr.. Clark 10
bribe the attorney general to dismiss the
proceedings in the Welcome case; c.,or,-
Fourth-That the same agent OF Mr. CIarh
offered Justice Hunt of the supreme court
s1rnOOn to dismiss the Welcome case
FJfth-That Mr.. Clark and his friends en-
gagged in wholesale bribery and attempted
bribery of members of the legislature 10 Sc
cure the election of Mr. Clark
Alleged Corrupt Practices.
On the genera, question of facts the 1ol-
lowing deductions are made:
First-That general corruption was prac-
ttced by Mr. Clark's agents.
Second-That such corrupt practices were
Lnovn TO and authorized by him.
Tbfrt-That he not only authorized such
,ractiCes by his agents. but personally en-
gagged in them and made efforts TO secure
votes by bribery.
Fourti-That through corruption. by
means of bribery Of members OF the legls-
lature his election was secured.
Fifth-That while the laws of the state
n-nhIbit the use of more than s1,ooo by a
candidate for the Senate 10 secure MS eiec-
ton Mr. Clark employed for this purpose
by his own confession. at least sl"S'op''
and that the committee appointed py nun
10 expeud this money violated the laws Of
the state by failing 10 make report there-
Of as required by the statutes.
The following five propositions OF law
are submitted as properly controlling in this
cause:
First-That proof of general and extern
sive corrupt practices in connection with
the election. and operating upon the mem
beEs of the legislature. is suthcient TO war
rant and require a Judgment or the senate
that the election was void.
SeCond-That if. as the undisputed evil
dence proves. Mr. Clark appointed COM
mIttee or a body of agents, by whatever
name they may be called, to whom he con-
fded the general charge of the operations
locking 10 his election as senator, and sup
Piled them with money to carry on his
cause. ard they entered upon such agency
and in the course of it were guilty OF cor
rup- practices to secure votes for him, MT
Clark is Just as much affected thereby as II
he had himself done the same thing, al
though he may not have known that sucf
conduct To be or was pracuced and die
not intend that it should be.
Third-That if as the undisputed evidence
proves. Mr.. Clark was present az the cap
ital during substantially the whole time o
the struggle and in constant communication
with his agents. he was bound to know
what means Of accomplishing his election
were being resOrted To and must be charged
with knowledge of their acts.
Tourth-That if it appears to the salts
faction Of the committee that voters wer'
cu=ruptly influenced and procured to vot
for Mr. Clark. without whose votes h.
could not have received a majority, thel
the election was void without regard to tn
question of whether such votes were oh
tanned By himself. his agents or by stran
gers.
Fisth-Tf Mr. Clark employed the mean
an. used the money which the statutes o
Montana command he shall not employ an
Ms" - procure his election. the election
absolutely void. as much as if direct briber
had been practiced-
Summary of Charges.
After anhyzins the testimony in the brie
Of 142 pages the memoraiists close with tn
following summary:
''First-Our first proposition of fact is tina
general corruption was practiced by NJ
C3ark's agents We submit that the ev
GsGcr reviewed gives abundant support
This contention. 1t is conceded that $3.50
b1at more MAS spent 10 secure his eleC
ton that after the general election hi
agents Travelled about the state to secur
votes for him; that during the twenty-eigT
days of the session OF the legislature befoI
his election he maintained in Helena frol
flE.l Prg.Ty oil 2
thu state To Influence members, and tka
he paid at least their expenses. thes
amounting To noJ less than $40, GO, as az
miJred. and that it was common knowleda
III Helena. that votes were bought in h
interest
'Serond-our second proposition that sue
corrupt practices were known to and al
tEpTlz-;t by him Is established by the proof
which show that after having placed wit
this cor1uittee the great sums which he az
mItS r. Tnlde no inquiry as to how the
spent tn IN. asking no accounting ar
no explanation and statement from ther
even when in the most solemn wa
they were charged with having use
that money for purposes Of bribery. I
was in Helena during the whole time
the struggle. in constant conference Wi
the men who gave the brides and expend,
the money. and referred persons TO the
To GIT money. and in conversation with NJ
Whitssde and again with Mr. Hewet
showed beyond contradiction his knowIed
of what WAS being done
clark Personally Arraigned.
Th!rd-Our third proposition. that NJ
Clark personally engaged in corrupt pra
tices and made efforts to secure votes
bribery. IS established by the testimony
the Ector letters and his communicate
with Bickford concerning the Woods tran
action. testified to both by Mr.. Cha
and Mr. Bickford: by the testimony of Re
Mr. Warren. that Mr. Clark accepted t
suggestion that he should pay Represent
tive Bonner $1,000 for his vote: by the te
tiIlOny of Mr.. CaSon, supported by I
letter he produced that Mr.. Clark direct
him To see Representative Marcyes and
fer him slo.tsD for his vote. and actua
paid C2sun $JD for his services by I
fact that he paid Representative Day S5.t
for no other service than that performed
the general assembly and for his vote;
the fact that he paid Representative Fl
5000 for his vote. and that he told
witness Jackson at Salt Lake City that
had used money to secure his own electit
Ii Is proved beyond a question that ne p;
IT,.