The evening times., 1900-04-03

Argument in the Montana Senatorial
enquiry was begun before the Committee
on Privileges and Elections OF the Sen
ate az 10 O'Clock this morning. Owing 10
a rule adopted by the committee there
were no spectators present Only the
members 0f the committee and The cCuB.
sci Ct either we're present
Mr. Birney opened the argument. He
called attention TO the five propositions
Of law as laid down In the memorialists'
brief But he said that the men.oriaIisrs
stood CD stronger ground than mere TEN
ri-alt,ies- Il was upon the propositions
I Of fact that he memcri1Iists we-e con
tent 10 rest their case. He thought il
could be abu1daHJly proved taat general
corruption was Practced in the Senate
rial campaign and that Senator Clark wss
! cosnizanJ Of this. Senator Clark had been
defeated previously for the Senate ana
I ether Offices Of trust He determined in
The last 20 have a seat in The United
States Senate without regard 10 cost or
I morals.'
Mr. Birney dWelt upon the point that
/ the committee Of three was appointed sim
I ply 10 further the interests Of Senator
1 Ct2Ik- To this committee Senator Clark
I maze great contributions. substantially
flstCuO. while to the regular Democratic
! organization he contributed about $500
Mr.. BiT1ey maintained that Senator CLARK
Z became a candidate for the United States
senate in August. 1855 though he said
serator Clark had testified thar be had no
I -u'a OF becoming a candidate until The
inter Of 1898, about The time OF rbe meet
/ 'Hg Of the Legislature. Mr. Birnrv sought
Z 10 maintain this contention by quoting
:FCm the conversations between former
Governor iauser Of Montana. and Senator
ozark as testified % by those gentlemen on
I the witness stand
I Mr. Birney charged that Senator Clark
( sought to gratify his personal ambition
] largely because Of his hostility 10 Nfarrus
4 Daly- When he was asked on the stand
/ what he would 90 IN the matter Of the con-
4 duct Of ahaiIs 10 Montana that the regular
! Democratic orgauiza,ion did not. or had
I not done. the witness could not answer He
/ could not point 20 single difference in
I public policy between him and M DAILY
] counsel dwelt with force upon the fact
T tnat Senator Clark. though ne had handed
/ over Sl-r oo0 10 his committee OF three he
! did not know. or could not tell how or
where il had been used The three mem
{ hers % the committee who admitted havin..
/ received This money from Senator CLARK.
/ did not know. or could not or would not
J tell. how they had used it. Gradually MI
I Birney drew around 10 the proposition that
/ certain members OF the LEGISLATURE. who
! bad been shown TO have come into posses
I zioE OF large sums OF money during the
/ 5eszion OF the Legislature. could uot or
/ would Eo- explain where how. or from
/ whom the money came
.- Discrepancies in Evidence
Various differences. termed By counsel
/ discreUaucics and omissions. are pointed
/ out between the deposition made IN Mon
/ tana by Senator Clark in relation TO the
| committee OF three and his testimony
/ given before the Senate committee on this
] subject Mr. Birney said that II these
! discrepancies had been shown in The -es-
/ tiUcny Cf any witness FOR tn memuriaIists.
! counsel Tor the defence would have held a
/ witness mp before the committee as IN
/ worthy Of belief.
/ The lawyer held it 20 he an indication
! OF guilt that the members Of the Clark
/ committee Of three when CHARGED with
/ the corrupt use OF the money provided by
/ Senator Clark. had destroyed all vouchers
/ and burned checks and stubs He called
! attention 20 the fact that Senator Clark
| had burned his checks and produced an
I unswoTn statement Of certain Of his ac-
! counts.
Nr- Birney compared the testimony OF
Senator Clark, his son. Charles W. Clark.
] anu -At~~l - AaolAHNls 81 elltlal. ElHhl0IQ
! Steele. Davidson. and McDermoJt. cam
paign iieurenanJs Of the Senator.
The fact was emphasized thlt the con
/ t~ituuons Of Marcus DAILY amounted 10
$3.50 and the sums aggregaICE this
amount were paid by Nr. Daily 20 The
state and county committees Of the Ie--
ular Democratic party Do was pointed
out thaJ Nr. DAILY offered o. submit his
books. vouchers and checks frr the l1sI
ten wears 90 the Senate committee. Nr-
HirGey tcCk Up the statement c. Senator
Clark ttlt so per cent Cf The Democratic
/ voters OF the STATE favored him Then 90
I qusrIej The attorney. -Is long as Montana
is overwhelmingly a Democratic State.
why did he hCd IL necessary TO spend
SltVlc-tO be exact. according 10 he
I figures ~ Senator Clark $3.50 Doo--o GET
these vc-es that We're his any how
/ Nr BiIuey touched upon the alleged at
. tempt 10 briba rhe Supreme Court and the
/ Attorney General Of Montana 20 seek To
cover up the crime Of the bribery Of The
/ Legislature" He pointed out that nine
/ members Of the MOnt5na Legislature had
testified before the Senate committee tnat
they had been offered bribes to vote for
Senator Clark. and that two members Of
the Legislature had admitted having re-
I celVed large sums OF money from the ar-
cused after having voted for him He said
that bribery had been fastened by the
rules of evidence upon about fifteen other
members OF the Legislature He reviewed
the Whiteside exposure and compared the
testimony OF Whiteside. ". a. Clark. a.
Madison county. and State Senators Myers
and Carr
Passing to the matter Of $1,000 bills
Mr. Brney said that the only men shown
/ Dy The record TO have had bills Of this
| denomination in their possession were
Welcome and Charlie Clark. The 81 600
I bills which had accumulated in Helena
banks had been drawn from Butte banks
| because when the banks in the latter city
| had become embarrassed for the want OF
big bills they had called on the Helena
banks for the return Of the 81 600 bills"
Attention was called to che letter writ
! ten by Senator Clark to Dr.. Ector. con-
| corning the Indebtedness on the ranch OF
/ Representative Woods. Of RaValie county
and the purchase OF the property Of State
| Senator's Mclaughlin and Warner. Mr..
Birney said. These were poorly conceal
ed cases Of arrant bribery
Z The committee at 1-10 O'Clock adjourn
ed until Thursday morning at 10 o'clock,
when argument viii be resumed.
THE MEMoRIALISTS' BRIEF.