Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1900-02-20
CLARK'S TESTIMONY.
Montana Senator Takes the Stand
and Explains How Ills Elec-
ton was Accomplished.

Washington, ID. c., Feb 17.-Before
the Senate committee began it's work in
the Clark investigation today the word
went around that Senator Clark himself
was to take the stand. The senator was
not present, however, when the commit
tee was called to order and Justice Pig
Sott OF the Montana Supreme court was
| recalled TO make some additions TO his
testimony. He said among things that
he and Justice Hunt had consulted as to
the wisdom Of criminal proceeding
against DR.. Tracey on account OF his ad-
yances toward Mr. Hunt ia connection
with the Welcome disbarment case He
said their consultation had been more a
matter of speculation than anything else
and that both seemed to concur that the
situation did not call for such action as
they thought DR.. Tracey was more
sinned against than SHINING.
While Justice Piggott was testifyin 6
Mr.. Clark came into the room Justice
Piggott was followed by Chief Justice
Theodore Brentley, also OF the Montana
state Supreme court. Justice Hunt had
advised with him and with Justice Pig
gott as to the wisdom of proceeding
against DR.. Tracey. They had advised
against such course.
Sema,or Clark Testifes.
Senator Clark was called to the stand
Mr.. Clark's appearance caused q ripple
OF interest throughout the room. After
being sworn the senator took his seat
quietly and Mr.. Faulkner Immediately
began his questions the first Of which
brought out the facts concerning Clark
career, political and otherwise III
Montana. He said he mad resided
ia Montana since 1868, most Of the time
in Butte. and had been engaged in many
occupations, the principal OF which were
merchandising, banking. mining and the
reduction OF ores. He had, he said, TAX
en- an active part in politics, especially for
the past fifteen years.
Coming TO the campaign of 1898. he
said he had entered at the solicitation of
q nnmber Of friends who had asked me
TO organize the state against what was
called the DAILY power, which | agreed
TO dc with their aid and assistance
Wsuid Fay All Rxpsnsos.
meeting OF his friends. the particulars
OF which were related by Gov. Hauser,
in which he made the agreement above
related by agreeing to pay all the cx-
penses if the others would do the organic
ing and perform the work necessary in
the campaign.
Relating further the motives actuating
him in entering into this campaign which
was for few OF the state officers and
for members of the Legisa ture he said
he had sent out some friends to feel the
pulse of the state He also stated that
Democratic politics in the state had been
running wild for some years. The
Democrats had been fusing with
Populists and Silver Republicans and
he was opposed to such n course be-
cause it resulted in the nomination Of
people who were not Democrats. The OBJ
10, L low
the ''one-man power in the state. After
aScertaining these facts the senator said
that he had very reluctantly agreed to
the proposition of his friends and to
sist financially, furnishing such funds as
were absolutely necessary in a prudent
way To accomplish the object aimed at.
Simply 10 bows Daily.
Senator Clark said he had at the pre-
liminary meeting with his friends in Hell
ena agreed to enter the campaign to
wrest the power from DAILY, but not with
the understanding that he would be a SEN
atcral candidate. That conclusion had
come later. He said that all told he had
spent about $4,000 in the campaign.
There were four different contributions.
preliminary one of $50, 600; then $50, 900;
then $4,000. and then $4,000. He de-
MED explicitly all the statements made
by Whiteside, Mark Hewitt and others
connecting him with corrupt methods ia
securing his election to the Senate, say
ing that 80 far as he knew no money had
been used corruptly in his behalf. He
said he might have written the letter tes-
tilted to by Justice Brantley, but that he
could not remember.
The InAueuce of Money.
Senator Clark said he had told White
side that he was pleased 10 hear this,
because he and Mr.. Anderson had long
been friends and he had confidently
counted upon his vote before the final
ballot would be taken. Mr.. Clark said
positively that Anderson was the only
member OF the Legislature spoken Of ia
this conversation and he explicitly denied
saying that Anderson could not be REu-
enccd with money Ike other members.
He also denied having told Whiteside
that C. w. Clark or Mr. Welcome or
anyone else was his agent.
Mr.. Clark admitted that he had met
Mark Hewitt often during the sittin. OF
the Legislature, as Mr.. Hewitt had pro-
fessed to be a friend of his III his sena-
however. he said, been SO completely de-
veid cf feature that he did act remem-
her any Of them.
He was sure he had never told Hewitt.
as the latter had testified, that he coR-
sidered Whiteside reliable, for he had
not talked with him concerning White
side: that he had never told Hewitt after
the Whiteside so-called exposure that
they would make believe that Mr.. DAILY
had furnished the $4,000 used by White
side in that exposure.
Some Trouble Absut Expenses.
He had never told Hewitt that he
would have his son Charles or Welcome,
or anyone else, see Tom Lyons with
view to satisfying him. He did, however,
remember that Hewitt had told him that
Lyons was making some trouble about
his expenses in the senatorial campaign.
With reference to the testimony Of Leg
islator Jackson Of Utah, Mr.. Clark said
he had no recollection whatever of hav-
ing met that gentleman and that he was
sure that he Clark had not tried to in
fuence Jackson to vote for Mr.. Mcclure
for United States senator from Utah. He
was equally sure that he had made no
corrupt or improper proposals to Jackson
in that connection and that he had not
told him that he Clark had just pur-
chased the vote Of a member Of the Mon
tana Legislature in his own behalf.
Equally certain was he that he had never
said TO Mr.. Jackson or anyone else that
Senate Hanna of Ohio had secured his
election to the Senate by corrupt means.
sST 81 ali