Fergus County argus. [volume] (Lewistown, Mont.) 1886-1946, 1900-04-11

ntdNy COdtO VI WultcW hsu 10
Clark-that was what they were
hired for-but there was a distinct
difference in methods. The formers
was an impasslve. logical argument,
bringing out the very best points In
Clark's favor. There were not many,
but the counsel made the most Of
what there we're. On the contrary.
Foster INDUCED In little but abuse OF
every one who had testified against
Clark. His arraignment OF the JUS
tees OF the supreme court OF Mon
tana, the attorney general and other
leading witnesses, was n positive
disgrace and an insult to every cltl-
zen OF the state. The argument
save the mark-abounded in billings
gate and questionable language and
must have been a severe shock to the
honorable senator's compelled to
listen. To the lesser witnesses In the
ase Foster freely ascribed perjury.
He did not attempt to point outcon-
tradictions-he simply said they had
lied. Every one who disagreed with
his side OF the case had lied.
This Foster has been the most an
noying feature OF the whole case.
Where he comes from or where no
was trained the ARGUS does not
know. But that he il lacking abso-
lutely in the characteristics OF a gen
tleman there Is not the sllghteat
doubt. His conduct during the TAX
ing OF the testimony was so unman-
nerly and contemplate that fire.
quently members of the committee
had To severely score him and upon
one occasion demanded that he re-
trGct and offer an apology for what
he said. To Faulkner, the leading
counsel for Clark, he was a positive
injury. While Faulkner labored to
gain the confidence and esteem Of the
committee Foster constantly encoun-
tered their enmity and toward the
close Of the investigation II was
thought probable that Foster would
either be discharged or that Faux
ner would quit. Foster proved him.
sell nothing more than q ranting
pettifogger, a form OF being without
decency or manhood, n conceited
puppy without the brains of an ass
and a monacled mOnstrosity more
fitted for the duties Of secretary" 70
a demi-monde than association with
the members OF the American bar.
In the course OF a twenty-eight col
umn presentation OF his side OF the
case-abounding In abuse Of every
one oa the opposite side-he said:
"Th9 last witness who offered any
material testimony iR. support Of the
petition was Halsey X. Watson. He
clearly proved subornation of perjury
by Congressman Campbell. For he
testified to the contents Of a letter
from Neill directly opposed to the
fact AZ was proven by the introdue
ton OF the letter press copy OF the
original. The person to whom The
letter was addressed attended the
supreme court during the Welcome
disbarment trial with the letter. hut
was not called by Mr.. Nolan. Camp
bell secured the witness upon thai
trial, as Nolan testified, and Camp
bell and Nolan consequently botf
knew that the statement of Watson
concerning the contents of this letter
was absolutely false. But they put
him on the stand to testify to thii
perjury In the hope that the origina
might he lost and no copy OF thu
same preserved"
Let us take up the facts In the mat
ter.
The letter which Mr.. Watson testi
fled to having seen, was written b..
John 3. NJ. Neill, Of the Helena Indc
pendent, to L. J. Johns, Of the Lewis
town Democrat. 1t was dated som,
time In January, 1899, and nfte
reaching Johns fell into the hands O
his bosom friend, DR.. Hogan, togethe
with one or more other letters from
the same source and also received b,
Johns. The particular letter referre'
to consisted OF three pages, upon tn
bottom OF one and the top OF anothe
Of which language the same or sim
lar to the following appeared
CLARK Is going to be elected. ii
will get nine Republicans; they cam
high, but we got them. He will ge
Hobson, Phillips" So much OF tn
: letter was seen by Mr.. Watson
shown him by DIR. Hogan. at the la,
ter's Office a few days prior to tn
time Clark did get the votes Of Hot
! son and Phillips and was elected. Dl
! Hogan and Mr.. Watson had been en-
. gagged In argument and to prove hi
; assertion that he knew some Reput
licnns would vote for Clark, DIR. He
J gan asked Mr.. Watson to accompan,
! him to his Office and there he showe
the foregoing portion OF that letter
To these facts Nr. Watson t%estife,
when called before the senate CON
mittee.
Had the committee desired II othe
witnesses to the same facts coul
have been secured. Mr.. G. +. Littl
: and Mr.. +. Z. Smith both saw tn
same lester and possibly Others
Several Others were informed OF 1t b
DR.. Hogan himself and the letter wa
known and talked about in Lewis
: town ut the time.
Had Mr.. Clark's attorneys desire
II 4 NJ FL