Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1900-02-16
YESTERDAYS TESTIMONY

On the face of things the testimony
given Yesterday by Justices Hunt ana
Pisott of the supreme court of this state
is of a nature to create a profound I'M
preston. Those opposed to Mr.. Clark will
at once pronounce it conclusive as to that
gentleman's guilt, while the champions
of the defendant will make the equally
serious mistake of attacking the motives
or the veracity Of the witnesses. In this,
as in many other features of the senator
ial controversy, the public Will look to the
independent and unbiased press for a fair
and impartial analysis of the situation,
realizing that the ardor of ~partisanship
is incapable of drawing the proper con-
illusions from the statements made.
The high character and standing of the
witne sses will be used by the opponents
of Mr.. Clark to impartto their testimony
a great deal more h the statements
they made would imply; while the friends
of the defense, recognizing this tendency.
will make the mistake of attacking the
witnesses by implication, instead of an
alyzing the evidence they gave. 1t goes
without saying, that the public will &C
credit the honorable members of the
supreme court with telling the truth. But
it does not follow that the evidence given
by them is as weighty on the face of it
as the friends of the prosecution would
have the public believe.
AS vet, it has not been shown that DR..
Treacey was acting upon any authority
delegated to him by Mr.. Clark or any Of
his friends, or that he was not trying to
serve the prosecution a good turn in view
Of the senatorial! Investigation which was
then approaching. Without imputing
most prominent physicians, the public
must never lose sight of all kinds of pos
sibilities in a case of such magnitude,
where two multi-millionaires areas the
Chicago Inter Ocean so aptly puts it
fighting to the death.
1t remains to be seen whether any Incl
dent crops out in this case similar to hat
which startled the country in the state of
Kansas some years ago. 1t will be re-
membered that Ingalls, and Pomeroy were
rival candidates for the senate before the
legislative assembly of that state. Upon
ROLL call it developed that Pomeroy had
a clear majority of the votes, but whe
the last name on the List was reached
Senator York, that gentleman arose and
drawing 1000 from his pocket made the
startling announcement that the money
had been given him as a bride to vote for
money to the state. Instantly, great ex-
citement prevailed, and, figuratively
speaking, the men who had voted for
Pomeroy "tumbled over each other" to
change their votes to ingalls, before the
result of the roll-call was announced. A
few months later it was absolutely prov
en- that the money fiourished by York had
been given him by the heelers of Ingalls,,
to be used in case the roll-call indicated
the election of Pomeroy.
While it is to be hoped that the Clark
case may offer no parallels to the Kan
san scheme, the public has seen enough of
trickery on both sides to keep its eyes
and ears open whenever the occasion
arises. This is said in no disrespect to a
gentleman of as high standing in the
community as DR.. Treacey, but merely
because it has been wisely remarked by
an unknown sage h a ut is peculiar how
curious some strange things are" Grant
ing, on the other hand, that any suspicion
that the doctor is another amicus curio
is too remote and too absurd to be enter
tanned, the fact still remains that it has
not been shown that he is a friend of the
defense or. was authorized to act for it.
-
According to Mr.. Hunts testimony, his
family physician tried to pass the matter
OF as joke, having approached him on
the subject four times. Had the asso-
ciate justice looked upon the doctor as
being in earnest. the first time he was ap-
preached. he would have administered so