The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1900-04-24

by Senator Clark to his committee and
agents, as admitted by him, amounted TO
about $4,000, OF which sum Charles w.
Clark received from him on August ~.
1895 $ss. 0O0: October IL. $50 000; Novem
her 2s. $4,000. and February IL, 1900,
500. sas. and in addition to this $4,000 |
Senator Clark paid $4,000 10 McIlermott. |
one of his agents; $4,000 to Welcome, his
attorney, and $4,000 TO e. {. Day, a mem
Der OF the legislature None OF the mem
bers OF this committee nor their associates
made the sworn statements required by
| law. nor did Senator Clark himself make
Sections to Is deal with the business
transactions OF Mr. Clark and his repre-
sentatlves with the members OF the legis-
| lature.
After detailing the evidence concerning
transactions with Messrs. Tierney and
Day, the committee says while the ind
ings of the committee are justified by the
foregoing admitted and undisputed facts,
with their attendant circumstances alone.
| these facts are strengthened by additional
facts. including various unsuccessful at
| tempts to secure votes by offers Of money,
which, although denied, are found by the
majority OF the committee TO be sustained
| by the preponderance of the testimony. In
| addition TO these unsuccessful attempts at
| bribery, certain other alleged attempts
are omitted because there Is difference Of
opinion In the committee concerning them.
These latter attempts relate especially to
I former Senator Whttestdes connection
! with the candidacy of Senator Clark ana
his efforts to expose the senator's meth
| DDS
THE three accusers, Whiteside, Meyers
and state Senator Clark undoubtedly oc-
eupied the situation of detectives who Will
fully deceived the parties with whom they
were dealing and against whom they
made charges. On the other hand, the
parties against whom they testified and
who make the denial are charged with
crimes to which. If guilty, they would he
quite certain TO add the oftense OF false
testimony.
THE majority Of the committee, under
all circumstances appearing, are not VIII
ing to consider the situation as one OF
equilibrium between the detectives on the
one hand and the alleged law breakers on
the other. If Messrs. Clark OF Madison,
Meyers and Whiteside testified falsely,
they must have contemplated in the be-
ginning a conspiracy OF the basest char
acter to be followed up by perjury Of the
worst sort. and they must. have INTENDED
to pass through ordeals 10 the course OF
the investigations which would be made,
to which 1t can not be Inferred that they
were willing TO subject themselves mere
ly to prevent Senator Clark from beeom-
ing n United States senator.
''ln the opinion OF the majority there
was no affirmative disproof introduced by
Senator Clark at any time showing that
the facts in connection with the 100000
were not true. The charge that the ac-
cusations and the exposure resulted from
a conspiracy formed and carried forward
ny Mr., Marcus Daily was a necessity OF
MIR. Clark's canvass and defense But Mr..
DAILY and Mr.. Conrad and others who were
suspected of conspiracy denied all knowl-
edge of the $50, 600"
The report then shows from the testi-
: mony that these large bills were in the
hands of Cl3rk's supporters, and adds:
I'm connection with the consideration OF
these last four cases OF attempted brlb-
cry of Clark Of Madison Meyers, Carr
and Whites!de, IL is important to stale.
in view Of difference OF opinion In the
: committee concerning the oredlbility o.
Messrs Clark OF Madison Meyers and
, Whiteside. that the whole committee is
OF the oplnion that II the Testimony con-
corning the 100000 and the testimony
of Whiteside and Meyers was laid aside,
| there would still remain sufficient evil
dence in the case to lead the committce
to find as we do--Mr. Clark's election
is void"
The committee says the direct violations
by Senator Clark and his agents OF the
provisions OF the Montana law are OF FIRST
. by the committee. On this po.1t the com
mittes adds: ale expended gum vastly
! In excess Of the limit provided by law,
and failed to render a return; and no
such return was made by the persons act
ing in his behalf"
According to the law. KS understood by
: the committee, Senator Clars can not
be permitted to retain his seat He re-
ceived iifty-four votes and there were
nj Ct Ian ,tn i'm, an
apparent majority of fifteen. If he OBJ
tanned through Illegal and corrupt prae-
tees eight votes which would otherwise
Z have bean cast against him. be was not
+. legally elected" More than this number
Q of votes, the committee says, from all
$ the evidence, was thus obtained.
e Referring to Mr.. Campbell's connection
with the case the report SAYS: Much
= criticism has been made of the coltes-
tants and the politics of Mr.. A. J. Camp
I bell a member OF the house of represen-
9 t2tiyes and an active prosecutor OF the
Il charges against Senator Clark Some OF
n the members of the committee caa MOI
4 refrain from expressing their approval o.
many Of the methods pursued by Mr.
I Campbell and Mr. Wh!toslde in the prose
e cution of the charges against Senate
Clark. and they do not approve Of tins
J actions OF Mr.. DAILY in agreeing to fur
I nish an unlimited amount OF money e
:, carry on the prosecution. While it Il
I. true that bribery can never be proved
by the testimony of the brlher nor o
the person bribed. and that It is almost
. always necessary to obtain the required
information from o-betweens or person.
who have explored the field as to tn,
. probability OF obtaining results by brib
Z cry. yet some members OF the committe,
believe the decisions justify the cha acte
OF acts which are proved and estab.is
4 against Mr.. Campbell. Some members o
4 the committee, however, do not Join II
any criticism OF Mr.. Campbell"
0 The report was presented by Senator
;. Chandler for the entire committee ant
e was not signed. a minority of the com
a mittee did not approve OF some OF III.
: features. The views OF the minority will
g be submitted later sensor Clark refuse.
o to make a statement al this time.