New-York tribune., 1900-04-11

feature against Mr. Clark as the basis for the
report against him. the general opinion being
that ii was the cumulative character of the tes-
timony that should be considered rather than
any one especial detail Senator Harris raised
the point in Mr.. Clark's favor that the cumuia-
tive effect of the testimony could not properly
be considered, but he overruled.
If prominence was given to any one lire OF
testimony more than to another, 1t was that
dealing with transactions apparently OF a Fesu-
lar business nature between Senator Clark or
his agents and members of the Legislature the
purchase of property from Senator Warner ana
Representative Mclaughlin and the money OF
fered Representative Wood to lift the mortgage
from his ranch were considered as bearing dl-
rectly the case. OF these matters the WOOD
case received especial attention The payment
OF. money to Representative Day after MI
ClGrks election also had weight. The opinion
expressed that no one of these facts was
sufficient basis for an adverse report, but all
agreed that all the facts many Of them ad-
mitted together with other occurrences connect
ed with the campaign, were sufficient to justify
positive declaration against the Senator's con
tinuing TO hold his place.
The fact that Senator Clark and his represen-
tatives had failed to make their reports to the
authorities of Montana. as required by the state
Law. also urged against him, as was the
fact that he and his representatives, had de-
stroyed all their vouchers showing where money
had been used and to whom paid. When atten-
tion was called to the fact that this course was
usual with campaign managers. 1t was contend
ed that while the plan might be more commonly
adopted than il should be, there could be no
reasonable excuse for ii after the w n1teSide ek-
posure. 1t then Known, it was asserted,
that there would be contest and the argument
was made that every scrap of paper bearing on
the election should have been preserved
MR. CLARK TAKES IT COOLLY.
Senator Clark at the Capitol when the
action Of the committee became known. He
was surprised at the result. but refused to make
a statement until he had consulted his friends
and attorneys. The Senator~bore himself with
p0r1T iS "A
but his voice calm and his manner collect
ed and he discussed other business affairs as II
nothing had happened. He was asked, is there
any truth in the report that you have decided to
resign?" and he replied. as he did to all other
questions bearing on his case, Il cannot at pres
ent answer any questions bearing upon the re-
port of the Committee on Elections.
Ex-senator Faulkner principal counsel for
Mr.. Clark. was summoned to the Capitol imme
diately after the verdict of the committee was
announced. and had long consultation with his
client.
There were many expressions in the commit
tee favorable to Senator Clark from personal
point of view and more than one Senator eX-
pressed doubt to whether he mad personal
knowledge of the expenditures Others thought
that Mr.. Clark was in a certain sense the victim
of environment and of habit. The outlay of
money in past elections in Montana was dwelt
on as one of the explanations of the liberal ex-
penditures in this case.
Senator Turey among those who dissent
ed from the view that Mr.. Clark could not have
known that money was being used to promote
his election and he made vigorous speech in
favor of an adverse report.
Senator Clark will ma Ike no statement at pres
ent. After conference with ex-senator Faux
ner he decided that the praper course would be
await the appearance of the committees re-
port containing its views on the evidence ana
the conclusions on which its report will be based.
This the Senator's friends feel, will be prefer
able to issuing a statement now, while the
reasons for the committees action not Off
cially known 1t is said that Senator Clark has
not yet considered resigning his seat.