The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-04-11
Hut the Committee rs OF Opinion the
Testimony shows His Agents Were
Authorized TO buy votes.
CLARK'S MIND NOT MADE UP
HAS NOT YET DECIDED To TENDER
HIS RESIGNATION.
senate 40 Vote the Quay Case
April "a, After Members Have
worked on Their Speeches.
WAsHINGToN April 1o.-The senals

WASHINGTON, April l0.-The Senafe
committee privileges and elections tc-
day decided, by a unanimous vote, 10
recommend the adoption of a resolution
declaring that the Hon. w. A. Clark, or
Montana. is not entitled TO occupy his
seat as senator from Montana The decis-
ion was reached after a two-hour' sitting.
at which all the members OF the commit
tee were present except one. The absentee
was Senator Caffery, of Louisiana, and he
wired his vote in opposition to Mr.. Clark.
The ballot was not taken until all the
members present had expressed themselves
on the question, some OF them speaking at
some length and all expressing different
shades of opinion.
Senator Harris, of Kansas. indicated the
most pronounced leaning toward leniency
for Mr.. Clark. He did not express any
doubt that there had been a lavish ex-
penditure of money in Mr.. Clark's behalf
and, while not condoning his course. he
spoke in terms of strong condemnation OF
the tactics pursued by some OF his tClarks)
opponents, referring especially TO Repre-
sentative Campbell and former State Sena-
tor Mhiteside. He said that whatever Mr..
Clark's offenses they were but little worse
than the methods pursued by Campbell
and Whiteside in their efforts to expose
the senator, and he insisted that IL the
report was to be antagonistic TO Mr.. Clark
it should at the same time relate in full
detail the course pursued by the two prin-
cipal witnesses against him.
PETTUs SUPPORTED HARRIS.
Senator Pettus practically agreed witirV
Mr.. Harris. The two senator's also ex-
pressed some doubt as to the justification
of the conclusion drawn by majority
of the committee, that Senator Clark's can-
didacy for the Senate began in August,
1898, when he returned TO Butte from New
York The effect of this conclusion was to
charge up the entire s13s.00o which Sena-
tor Clark confessed to having expended,
TO his campaign for the Senate. while the
contention was made in Senator Clark's
behalf that he had not become a candi-
date until after the state election, thus
eliminating from the campaign I'm his In
dividual behalf the amount spent In the
general contest.
Senator McComas was among the sena-
tors who expressed himself as convinced
that the senatorial seat was I'm view from
the beginning. Mr.. McComas. however.
united with other senator's In condemning
case The concensus of opinion of the COM
mittee appeared unfavorable TO accepting
any one especial feature against Mr.. Clark
as the basis for the report against him.
the general opinion being that 1t was the
cumulative character OF the testimony
that should be considered rather than any
one especial detail Senator Harris raised
the point in Mr.. ClarS's behalf that the
rloff Of he
not properly be considered, but he was
overruled on his position
THE GO-BETwEENs.
II prominence was given TO any one line
of testimony more than to another 1t was
that dealing with transactions apparently
OF a regular business nature between
Senator Clark's agents and members Of
the Legislature. The purchase OF property
from Senator Warner and Representative
Mclaughlin. and the money rendered
Representative Wood TO lift the mortgage
from his ranch were considered as bearing
directly on the case. OF these matters the
Wood case received especial attention. The
payment of money to Representative Day
after Mr.. Clark's election also had weight.
The opinion was expressed that not one OF
these facts was sufficient basis for an adj
verse report. but all agreed that al. facts,
many OF them admitted. together with
other occurrences connected with the cam
paign were sufficient TO justify positive
position against the senator continuing to
hold his place.
The fact that Senator Clark and hio
representatives had failed 10 make their
reports to the state authorities OF Mon
tana, as required by the state law. was
also urged against him I'm the discussion
in the committee. as was the fact that he
and his representatives had destroyed all
their vouchers showing where money had
been used and to whom paid When atten-
tion was called 10 the fact that this course
was usual with campaign managers. the
statement was met with the contention that
while the plan might be more commonly
| adopted than IL should be, stfli there
| should be no reasonable excuse for II after
the whiteside exposure. IL was then
known, IL was asserted. that there would b
contest and the argument was made that
| every scrap of paper bearing on the cleo
| tion should have been preserved after this
| development in the case. Senators Chandler
and Turley were directed 10 prepare the
report. IL is expected TO be completed at
an early day.
There were many expressions I'm the COM
mittee favorable 10 Senator Clark from 4
personal point OF view and more than one
senator gave utterance 10 doubts as "a
/ whether he had actual personal part In
| knowledge OF the expenditures. Others ex-
pressed the opinion that the senator was
| in a certain sense the victim OF environ
ment and habit. The outlay OF money In
J past elections In Montana was dweit upon