The age-herald., 1900-03-28
ARGUMENTS IN
 THE CLARK CASE
Hearing is Postponed But Briefs
 Are Submitted.
MARCUS DAILY DENOUNCED
The Defense Says That the Whole Pro- eeedings Were Instigated by the Montana Millionaire, Who
 Is Clark's Rival

Washington March 27.-The argument in the case of Senator Clark, of Montana, which was to have been heard by the sen- ate committee on provisions and elections tomorrow, has been postponed until Tues day of next week on account of the en- forced absence of some of the members of the committee.
 The briefs on both sides of the case have been distributed among members of the committee.
 The brief of the memoriaaists covers 142 pages, and is signed by ex-Senator Ed munds, Arthur A. Birney and ex-Congress- man Hartman.
 The brief of the defense, signed by Hon. Charles ]. Faulkner and Roger Foster, covers 2S2 pages. The document is through out an arraignment of the prosecution. It begins with the assertion that "an examin- ation of this testimony will confirm the most skeptical in the belief that those who seek to brand majority of the representa- tives of a sovereign state as dishonest and as 'bribe-takers' are influenced by no lofty purpose of remedying an evil, nor is 1t en- tered upon from desire to maintain the integrity of the membership of the senate of the United States. The facts shown in this record fully justify the assertion that those who originated this prosecution were controlled only by sentiments of the bitter est personal and political hostility"
 It is then declared that the sentiment in the state of Montana is so universal for MT. Clark that the Heading spirit Of the protestants, whose wealth has supported. and whose prejudice has animated this prosecution, has found it necessary to ln- vest large sums of money in the purchase of the press of the state, and in other cases by the establishment of newspapers with the hope of checking and dividing the sentiment of the people of Montana.
 Marcus paiy the Instigator
 After some other preliminary remarks, the brief definitely and specifically names Marcus Daily as the chief instigator or tine contest, and the statement on this point is as follows:
 Marcus Daly, having defeated Senator Clark dn 1882 for congress, and for the senate in 1893 through treachery to his party organization, was unwilling to re- strain his personal hostility and to permit the voice of the people through their le- sally constituted representatives to de- termine the election of their senator; and as early as the 10th of February, 1899, he organized a committee of his personal friends and agents to work up andPrepare a against the eating of Senator Clark by this body
 The testimony will bear out our asser- <~tionthat every member of this prosecuting committee was either one of the conspira- tors in the attempt to defeat Mir Clark's election or an employe of MT. Daly, or an adherent of his faction in the senate"
 The contention is then made that the prosecution of the case is the result of a conspiracy, former State Senator White side being represented as the chief con- Spirator.
 A review is made of the testimony re- lating to several members of the legisla- ture, and the point made that there is no evidence tending to show they were cor ruptly influenced.
 In the case of Representative McLaugh- lin, who sold some timber lands to Senator Clark about the time of the meeting of the legislature, the brief says:
 We assert that there is not a word of testimony in the record which can be con strued in any way against Senator Clark or upon which amy criticisms can be ad- vanced, as to the conduct of the senator and MT. Mclaughlin in this transaction"
 Legal Pciats of the ease
 In their brief on the law applicable to the case counsel discusses at length the effect legal propositions:
 Proof of an offer of bribe which was not accepted is no evidence of bribery.
 Stronger evidence is required to prove an offer of a bribe than in case where a bribe was accepted
 Payments to voters after election unless clearly proved to have been made in pur- suance of a previous agreed promise are no, evidence of bribery.
 'The burden of proof Is upon the mernor- ialists A senator cannot be unseated be- cause he obtained his election under sus- picious circumstances. or because he has failed to satifactorially explain charge against him which has not been proved.
 'Hearsay evidence has always been dis regarded by this committee and by similar tribunals in election cases.
 1.-The admission of a party that he has received a bribe Is not evidence against the party who is claimed to have given it.
 Bribery by his agent, which has not changed the result, does not affect a candi- date unless proved to have been expressly authorized by him.
 "The evidence of spies and informers is never credited unless strongly corrobo- rated.
 ''Circumstantial evidence, such as an un- explained increase of a legislators wealth. is insufficient to prove that he was bribed by Senator Clark
 "The purchases from Warner & Nc Laughlin were presumptively ordinary bus iness transactions, made in good faith and innocence. The burden of proof is upon the petitioners to show that they were made as a color for bribes.
 'tSince the alleged payments by Root to Cason are not shown to have been author ized by Senator Clark nor approved by him. it creates no presumption against the sen ator.'.