The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-04-26
THE MONTANA ENQUIRY
Minority Report on the Case of
Senator Clark Presented.
Concurrence in the Resolution of
the Committee Declaring Him Not
Legally Elected, but Objection to
Much of the Evidence ns Being Ir-
relevant and Based Upon Henrsny.

ate Committee on Privileges and Elections
| relati We to the case of Senator Clark of
Montana. were presented to the Senate
yesterday afternoon, and viii be printed
in connection with the majority report
which was submitted last Monday. The
minority report is signed by Messrs. Pettus
and Harris and begins with the statement
that they agreed and still agree to the
resolution of the committee declaring that
Mr. Clark was not legally elected.
They say, however. that the report is
merely the writing of the chairman of the
committee, who was aided by one other
member, and was never submitted to any
meeting of the committee and therefore
cannot be considered as embodying the
words of the committee. icy then state
their reasons for dissenting fla the or
ginal report which are based upon the
opinion that in this important enquiry the
committee was bound by and ought to act
on. the ordinary rules of evidence. OBJ
lection is made to much of the evidence as
being founded on hearsay or being irrele-
want, the statement being made that
large amount of this class of evidence was
received.
The minority report refers to Mr.. Chard-
iers connection with the~case as chairman
of the committee. and on that subject says:
| I'VE tried merely to discharge our duties
as members of this committee and as
judges in this most important case. but the
chairman kindly relieved the other mem
bers Of that labor. and determined that
| matter for the committee
1t then goes on to explain that their
reason for agreeing to the findings of the
I majority report are based on the opinion
that the friends of Senator Clark lille
gally and improperly used large amounts
of money, and thereby caused the election
| and that this election is not valid, but
under the law of the land Is void
In reviewing the conditions in Montana
the report refers to the first meeting of
Mr.. Clark's friends, to the attendance at
! it of A. J. Campbell and his later election
to Congress. and the following comment
is made: so. to the extent named, Mr..
| Campbell got the benefit of that private
meeting OF which he was a member, and
| the benefit of the money sent out by the
| committee to the executive committees in
| various counties Mr.. Campbell was
| welt-known opponent of the Daiy faction
prior to and in 1888
Regarding former State Senator White
! side. the report says. The evidence tends
| to show that Whiteside was unfriendly to
| W. 4. Clark and that he made a threat to
| explode a bomb if Clark became a candi-
same day Marcus DAILY, in New York, made
threat to run w. A. Clark and his fam
! lily out of Montana"
Reference is made. to the cooperation
of Campbell with Clark during the legis-
lative session and TO the fact that after
Campbell had heard the plan to entrap
and betray his friend, Senator Clark, he
told Whiteside not 10 rely on his own evil
dence to prove the charges
hue ha
bell and Whitesids became united in
common cause in December, 1898 And
from thar time Whiteside had the benefit
OF CampbeiiS advice. And Whiteside il
you credit his account of himself acted
well and naturally the part of spy and
traitor and did explode bomb After
the Legislature adjourned Mr.. Campbell,
with Marcus Days money, went into the
business Of buying newspapers and hiring
editors and setting them to work He
also became actively engaged in the bust
ness of hiring detectives with Days
money. Among other hard cases ne en-
ployeG one Benjamin Hill and set him to
hunting up evidence against his friend.
And Mr.. Campbell gives graphic account
Of how Hill brought to his office a sealed
letter from Bickford TO Roote. and how
he caused Hill to open the letter for
Campbell TO read it. And after reading it
it was interesting to hear Mr.. Campbell
describe how the letter was carefully re-
sealed and sent on by Mr.. Hill to its des-
tination."
Reference is then made to Campball's
connection with Ben Hill and to his pay
ments to certain witnesses. On this sub
ject the report says:
Mr.. Campbell became Days agent to
disburse money without limit as to
amount. ard he distursed it in that way.
a corporation controlled by DAILY at a
salary Of SIS, zoe per annum When last
heard from Mr.. Campbell had disbursed
about $40. 900 of Mr.. Days money in this
case. and had incurred liabilities for fees
to eminent counsels, amounts not named,
and still had power to go on spending.
without limit as to amount. He conducted
this case as leading counsel, and became
also one of the principal witnesses, but
other counsel made the arguments"
Reference is made to the connection of
State Attorney General Nolan with The
prosecution. and his action in using notes
of testimony taken before the grand jury
OF Lewis and Clark County is discussed
at some length and severely condemned
The report says: He could not be in
duced TO see the slightest improperly
in his disclosure of the secrets of the
grand jury or in this wholesale promise
Mr.. Campbell in the work in which he
was then engaged. This Attorney Cen
eral came to Washington took an active
part in the prosecution and in suggesting
witnesses, and on the witness stand could
not conceal his bias"
The testimony connecting the Justices
of the Montana Supreme Court with the
case, which was strongly brought out by
the prosecution and was referred to in
the majority report of the committee, is
pronounced utterly irrelevant, and, COM
menting upon it, the minority say:
This transaction so far as we are in
formed, occurred six or seven months
after the senatorial election: no fact
proved connects Mr.. Clark with any part
of that transaction. DR.. Tracy had no
sort of connection, directly or indirectly,
with Mr. Clark and il he had there was no
connection between the election in Janu-
are and the Supreme Judges in the fall
of that year. All of the evidence was
nothing more than what may be called
coloring matter And it was admitted
against the protest Of the Senator from
Maryland and others
The report states further that in the
conduct of this case much other 'coloring
matter" was received as evidence, which.
In the opinion OF the minority, should
have received no consideration.
The majority report is criticised as con-
tanning several curious statements of
part Of the evidence as TO the thing stated.
AS an example of this, reference is made
to the statement that Senator Clark in
June. 1899, destroyed the checks that he
had drawn on his bank" But" the mi
nority report continues. the report fails
n state that wears mast IL was his