The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-01-09
MONTANA BRIBERY CASE
MR.. wHITEsIDE's EFFORT TO EN-
POSE MIR. CLARK's METHODS.
Marcus DAILY Behind the Prosecution
of the Would-Be Senator-New
Definition of n Lie.

WASHINGTON, Jan. S.-Former State
Senator Whiteside, of Montana, continued
his testimony in the Clark senatorial case
before the Senate committee on privileges
and elections to-day. He was cross-exam-
ined by ex-senator Faulkner. The exam
ination brought out the fact that Mr..
Whiteside, as a member of a committee to
investigate the State Capitol Commission,
had made minority report charging cor
ruption. He was asked if this was the case
in which he suggested to Mr.. J. p. McCabe
that this minority report could be sup
pressed for $500, but denied that such was
the case, saying the money had been Of
fered and he had suggested that it be paid
over so to enable him to turn il in with
his report. He said his sole purpose in I'M
dertaking the exposure of bribery in the
Legislature that elected Mr.. Clark was to
protect the good name of the State. az de-
Sired he said. Ito have some one accept
the money as to expose the methods of
Mr.. Clark"
did you become a friend of Mr.. Clerks
friends for the purpose of entrapping
them?"
II can't say exactly. but suppose did"
I'm doing this, didn't you know you were
assuming attitude of misrepresenta-
tion?'
II did"
WAS this not position of falsehood?"
Il can't say as to that, but had to make
a number of Misrepresentation
What do you consider a lie?''
II consider a lie a misstatement to one
who has right to know the truth-not to
ore who has no right to know it,"
Mr.. Whiteside said he did not see how
any honest man could vote for Mr.. Clark
after the exposure of the committee on in
vestigation. and added under pressure. that
the remark applied to the fifty-four men,
berS OF the Legislature who cast their votes
for that gentleman. He said, in reply to a
question, that Marcus DAILY was an ac-
qudlntance OF his not friend, though he
would be glad to have him for friend.
Have you received $4,000 for this pre-
tended eXpoSure?' asked Mr.. Faulkner.
Il have not received $4,000 or any other
sum for that service" the witness replied.
Relating to his conversation held with
Senator Clark prior TO the latter.s election,
he said he was positive that Mr.. Clark him.
self had said, among other things, that
State Senator Anderson could not be in
fiuenced with money like some of the other
members, and that this statement was not
made by Mr.. Welcome appeared in the
printed report of his testimony before the
grand jury of Lewis and Clark counties.
The witness said the money to pay for the
present prosecution had been raised by
subscription and he understood that Mr..
DAILY was one of the subscribers to the
fund. The cross-examination further
brought out that the witness had no per-
sonal knowledge of bribery in the cases
of three of the members of the Assembly
who had been referred to.
The main object of the crosS-queStiOn-
ing was to bring out points of difference
between the witnesses statements now and
those made before the grand jury. One Of
the questions brought out a new state
ment from Mr.. Whiteside that his knowl-
edge that bribery was going on was con-
firmed when a party to. the transaction
took from his pocket roll or bills and
said: That's what we do the business
with.
The cross-examination sought to bring
out the circumstances of an alleged meet
ing between the witness and an election Of
fetal who held the ballots in the election
in which Whiteside had participated. The
witness was asked If he had not offered
81, 900 for the ballots. Mr.. Whteside de-
MED that this had occurred and asserted
that he had proof to show that party
had been paid to make such a statement
against him. He also said that a prosecu-
ton instituted against him in this connec-
ton was due to prejudice and was inspired
by one of Mr.. Clark's associates.
At one point Mr.. Pettus, of the commit
tee objected to having the witness bad
gered" by counsel. Ex-senator Edmunds,
of counsel against Clark, said many OF the
questions had been improper, but they
were not objected to, as the widest lati-
tude was desired in testing the witness.
Mr. Whiteside then went over the circum-
stances of his being authorized to oirer
| IS. 600 to each of two members, with $500
down, on condition that their votes would
be forthcoming if desired. He was closely
questioned on all the details.
The cross-examination of Whiteside was
still in progress when the committee adj
iourned till 1915 tomorrow morning.