The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1900-04-11
some Minor r.ception..

htsatS h'ths
some Minor Exceptions.
Pettus practically agreed with Harris
Tho two senators also expressed some
doubt as to the Justification of the con-
clusion drawn by the majority of the
committee that Clark's candidacy for the
senate began in August. 1898. when he
rturned TO Butte from New York The
effect OF this conclusion was to charge
up the entire $4,000 which Clark con-
fessed TO having expended. to his cam
paign for the senate, while tho conten-
tion was made In Clarks behalf that he
did not become candidate until after
the state election. thus eliminating from
the campaign in his individual behalf, the
amount spent in the general contest.
McComas was amongst the senator's
who expressed himself as convinced that
the senatorial seat was In view from the
beginning. McComaS however united
with other senator's in con1emnng the
methods pursued in prosecuting the case.
No stress on Any Particular Point.
The consensus Of opinion OF the commit
tee appeared unfavorabe 20 accepting
any one special feature against Clark as
tho basis for the report against HIM the
the general opinion being that 81 was The
cumulative character Of the testimony
that should he considered rather than
any special detail Harris raised a point
IN Clarks behalf that the cumulative ef-
feet ot testimony could not properly be
considered. but he was oycrulei Tn his
position.
Apparently Regular TransactIons.
u prominence was given to auy one line
OF the testimony more than o. another IL
was dealing wlth the TRANSACTIONS ApIar-
entity 90 regular business nature be-
twecn Clark or his agents and the mem.
bcrs of The legislature The purchase of
property from senator Warner and Rep
rcsentstlve Mclaughlin and the money
rendered Representative Wood Co Ift
mortgage from hts ranch were coasli-
Erred a. besriux tlrcetly upon the case. OF
these matters the Wood case resolved
speclal attention..
T7ae payment of money 20 Representa-
tive Day after Clarks e.e-tioa also ha1
weight
The opinion Vas expressed that On one
of thc~o facts was a saiTi-irnt nasis tor
an adverse report. but ava agreed that al
tho facts, many ot them a4mHtrL to-
gctEcr With Other occurrences connected
MttA inc cam la4AN were Nsl4a'tfs-t t1 Ia-e-
tify the positive position against tae s.u-
Ator cou;inlans GO hold his place
Failure TO Report Expenditures.
Tae fact thai CLARK ard his representa-
tives lad failed to make their reports 90
state authorities ot Montana, as repaired
by the state law. Vas also arge4 against
him ia tae tise-ssloa ia committee. as
was the fac. that Pc and h.s representa-
lives haA destroyed AN the.y vouchers
showing where money had h-aeu tisel ana
90 whom paid
Destruction of Vouchers.
W-ben uttentlou was called Go the fact
that this course vas usual with campaign
manaeers. thr statement was mel with
contention that while the plan might De-
mere commonly adopted than &c should be
there should be no reasonable excuse FOR
II after the whiteside exposure Il was
known that there would De contest and
the arEumeut was made that every scrap
OF paper bearing upon the election should
Continued on PAxe Iva