The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-04-24

I mittee. The citizens and Legislature Of
/ Montana in 1895. conscious Of the discredit
/ into which the State had fallen by the
! enormous expenditure Of money in previou,
/ elections, made an earnest and Legitimate
/ effort TO prevent corruption in politics in
| the future, and the act Of February %
| 1895, was passed and incorporated into the
! penal code Of that year
Under the heading Questions Of Law
Involved in the Case" the committee says.
In justifying the finding Of the commit
tee IL is not necessary to discuss any
doubtful questions of law. According tc
the law as understood by the committee
/ Senator Clark cannot be permitted to re-
tain his seat He received ifty-four votes
and there were twenty-nine against him
leaving him an apparent majority OF fifteen
/ If he obtained through illegal and corrupt
practice eight votes which would other
wise have been cast against him, he was
not Legally elected. More than this number
Of votes. the committee find from all the
evidence was thus obtained.
1t is also a reasonable conclusion upon
the whole case that Senator Clark is fairly
to be charged with knowledge Of the acts
| done il his behalf by his committee and
his agents conducting his canvass. He
arrived in Helena from Butte on January
and remained there until after his cleo
ton on January IS and was in constant
conference with his committee and
agents"
Criticism for Prosecutors.
In criticising the prosecutors Of Senator
Clark, the report sets forth that:
There has been much testimony re-
ceived by the committee which has not
g g H..
witnesses were unreliable, having made
contradictory statements and having ap-
parently sought TO obtain from both sides
Of the controversy money for testifying.
Much criticism has been made of the
contestants, especially Of MIR. A. J. Camp
bell a member of the House of RepreseH-
tatives, and an active prosecutor Of the
charges against Senator Clark. Some men,
bers OF the committee cannot refrain from
expressing their disapproval of many Of the
methods pursued by Mr.. Campbell and Mr.
Whiteside in the prosecution Of the charges
against Senator Clark, and they do not ap-
prove Of the actions of Mr. Daily in agree
ing to furnish an unlimited amount of
money to carry on the prosecution.
1t appears from the evidence that Mr..
Campbell. ahung other things. made q sug-
gestion in a letter to a detective employed
by him Indicating that he wished the de-
tective to obtain information from some
member Of the grand jury Of one Of the
counties in Montana and. further, that his
stenogTapher or secretary gave several
hundred dollars TO two persons. who made
affdavits bearing on matters involved in
this prosecution, the drafts for which sum
Mr. Campbell paid. 1t also appears that
Mr. Campbell in the course OF the prose-
cution, participated in opening a letter
written by Mr.. Bickford to one Jesse B.
Root
1t further appears that Mr. Campbell
was one Of the committee Of friends con-
suited by Senator Clark in the summer Of
1898 at the opening Of the canvass, and
that he was nominated for Congress at the
Democratic convention held that year by
the supporters Of Senator Clark as well
as other members of the convention. In
June, 1899, Mr.. Campbell became the at
torney for corporation in which Marcus
DAILY was largely interested. sla.r. ...aa,
While IT is true that bribery can never
be proved by the testimony Of the briber
nor of the person bribed, and that 1t is
almost always necessary to obtain the re-
quired information from go-betweens or
persons who have explored the field and
made reports backward and forward as to
the probability of obtaining results by
bribery. yet some members of the commit
tee believe that this does not justify the
character of acts which are proved and
established against Mr. Campbell Some
members Of the committee. however, do
not join in any criticism Of Mr. Campbell
and Mr. DAILY
These go-betweens who were employed
by Mr.. Campbell testified before the COM
mittee, most of them in the last instance.
in behalf Of Senator Clark Some of their
statements were true and some false
The testimony of these persons, where
they had made conflicting statements, has
not been regarded by the committee IN
less corroborated. as the testimony OF ac-
completes and detectives ought always to
be corrOborated. These witnesses whose
conduct has occasioned comment, had all
been originally employed by Senator Clark
or his committee or his friends"
2. r. Carson, Benjamin Hill l. L.
Wright, and Thomas T. Lyon are men
toned under this head, and in concluding
the subject the report states:
William F. RectOr's testimony was con-
sidered by the committee entirely unre-
liable. So was that Of f. L. p Ector, ex-
cept where he was corroborated. as he Y as
upon the important parts of his evidence
by Senator Clark and Mr. Bckford aud by
his correspondence with those two gem
tlemen."
The majority Of the committee express
the opinion that the transactions con-
nected with the judges Of the Supreme /
Court Of Montana need special considera- /
ton, and make the following comment on (.
that subject
Upon the foregoing undisputed facts
and other facts which are controverted, a /
of the committee believe that
Senator Clarks agents, in their despera-
ton on account OF the decision of the .
court to take jurisdiction in the Welcome
case. attempted an improper approach to
the judges of the court and to Attorney
General Nolan, which fact cannot but
have a certain influence in the considera- I
tiOn Of the other acts of those agents in .
with the Senatorial election. 4
A minority Of the committee, however be-
lieve that the transactions were res inter
altos acta, and that the evidence does rot T.
sufficiently bring home to Senator Clark .
Or his agents any improper attempt 20 in .