The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1900-04-04
THE CLARK CASE.
The Array of Evidence Against
the Montana Senate.
BUYING A LEGISLATURE.
1t Came High, But Clark Had to
Have II, and He Bought
1t for Cash.

Counsel for the memo1ialists in the
case of Senator CLARK Of Montana have
submitted their brief to the senate
committee on privileges and elections.
They present the following as estab,
lished facts in the race from the evl-
dence adduccd:
First. That at least Is members Of
the legislature we're paid by Mr. Clark
and his agents for their votes.
Second. That at least nine others
were offered moaey for their votes and
that the to al amount of offers proved
aggregate SITS 400
Third. That ST 900 was offered by
Dr.. Tracy, friend and agent Of Mr.
Clark, to bribe the attorney general TO
dismiss the proceedings in the Well
come.
Fourth. That the same agent Of Mr.
Clark offered Justice Hunt Of tho su-
prene court 500, OC0 to dismiss the
Welcome case.
Fifth. That Mr.. Clark and his
friends engaged in Wholesale bribery Of
members Of the legislature to secure
the election Of Mr. Clark.
Of the IS members Of the legislature
Gooluding Mr.. Whiteside) 26 were
sworn before this committee. Of these
the mrmorialists say, nine havo taken
oaths that they we're offered money to
vote for Senstor Clark. Two, they
claim, have admitted the receipt of
money. s. 0U0 each, after voting for
Nr. Clark. but tried to excuse it
Either by direct testimony or otherwi-e
they clsim that the acceptance If
oribes is fixed upon Is others.
The testimony Of both Mr. Clark and
Mr. E q. Day established rcncluslvrIy
the payment by Mr. CLARK 10 Mr Day
q few da, after the election of s., 0uU.
which SUN Mr.. Day says he accepted in
COMPENSATION for bis services as q
freud Of Mr. CLARK while he was in the
city Of Helena as member Of the leg
isla,ure aud leader Of the Clark forces
ai.Yn the foor of the house. Dir
Clark testi6rs as to this transaction as
follows: 1T was in consideration Of
my friendship for MIR Day and for the
work performed by him In trying to or
gauisc the legislature 10 be elee,ed
50, aker, and in order to control our
forces, 10 which however, We failed |
recognized that he was worthy Of this
consideration
MIR. Day admits that no part Of this
$5 0OO went TO the other members Of
;he law firm Of which he is partner.
The contention On the part Of Dir. Day
and Mr.. CLARK that this was gift will
deceive no one. 1t was received in di-
rect violation of bis cath Of Office"
On the general question Of fact the
following deductions are made:
First. That general corruption was
practi>cd by Mr.. Clark's agents.
Second. That such corrupt practices
were known to and authorized by him.
Third. That he personally made ef
forts to secure votes by bribery.
Fourth. That through corruption by
means of bribery of members of the
legislature his election was secutel.
Fifth. That while the laws Of his
State prohibit the use Of more than
$1,000 by candidate for the senate to
secure his electioa, MI. CLARK employed
for this purpose. by his own confession,
at least sl39, 900; aud that the commit
tee appointed by him to expend this
money violated tho laws of the State
by failing to make report there,f as
reqlircd by the statutes.
The following Eve propositions Of
law are submitted IS properly controll-
ing in this cause:
First. That proof Of these general and
extensive corrupt practices Is sufficient
to require a judgment Of the senate
that the election was void.
Second. That Mr. CLARK is just as
much affected by prsciises Of his agents
as if he had himself doae the same
thing.
Third. That be was bound to know
what means of accomplishing his cleo,
tion were being resorted to.
Fourth. That If the committee is
satisfied thatsvot,rs were corrup,ly in
fueuced aud procured to vote for Mr..
Clark, without whose votes he could
not have received majority, then the
election was void without regard to the
question Of whether such votes were
ob,aiued by himself, his agents or by
strangers.
Filth. If Mr.. Clark employed the
means and used the money which the
Montana statutes prohibit the election
is absolutely void, as much as if direct
bribery had been pra ctlocd.
Ia summarizing, the memorlallsts
say:
THAT after the general election his
ag' nts Travelled about the State to Sc
cur: votes for him; that during the %
days .! inc session OF the legislature
bcivrc h:s LECTION he maintaiued 10
Hell, pa !ruui - % 400 mea called in
from all parts Of n: State to intucnce
uleui brrs aud that he paid at least their
expeu-es ,hroe amounting 10 not less
than s43 0uO, ss sdmllsed; and that it
Wa, co nmon kuosledse in Helena that
vuies were boug BIT in his interest
1T is proves beyond question that
he paid:
To the committee Of three. sl36. .0ne
To suudry persons. 2S9U
TO Representative Day.. 5000
To Il preventative Fine 800. 5,UUU
To William McDermott. 5 400
To Johu B. Welcome ....... 5000
10 Senator D. Il Warner. 5uU
To Rept We McLaug ghlin $1,000
To Senator Whi,eside 80. 5000
To Senator Meyers rs........ 10 GUO
10 Senator Clark Of Madison. 10000