Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1900-03-28
tablishes the further payment of s1O5, 800,

tablishes the further payment of s105,5o0,
as follows:
To Representative II. II. Carr. 5000 ~
To Representative Tierney. .......-..-. loco W
To Representative Bywater. .....- loeoo "
To Representative Jacqueth. -......- loooo 90
To Representative Woods ............. 5000 90
To Representative Soylin. .........-... 95oo W
To Representative Parker. ............. 2oV0 ~
To Representative BeAsley. 5000 90
To Representative Eyersnle. ........... a00 w
To Senator HchSon. Observation-Disclosures. 23W0 20
To Senator Gicger- oeoo W
''Fourth-Our fourth proposition, that
through bribery of the members the
legislature Mr.. Ciarks election was Sc
cured. is established by the evidence that
money was paid in return for the votes OF
senators and members twhose names are
given. well as by the lack of proof OF
any reason why other representatives.
elected upon ticket which bound them to
vote for Mr. Conrad for United States sem
atOr. should have defeated the will OF their
constituents by voting for Mr.. Clark ana
the further lack of any satisfactory eX-
PLANTATION of a sudden change of the votes
of the eleven republicans who on the day
of his election cast their ballots for him.
1t is certain that but for these corrupt pal
lots he could not have been elected.
'tFifth-OuT fifth proposition. that Mr.
Clark 1agrantly violated the statutes of
Montana in securing his election. is eS-an-
lished by the statutes and Senator Clark
admissions.
IN conclusion. we submit that the evil
dence taken a whole establishes cor
rupt in this election of senator unparal-
leled in recorded presidents and conduct
which, If justified would bring shame ana
disgrace upon the institutions of our coun-
try"
Brief of the Defense.
The brief of the defense. signed by Chas.
]. Faulkner and Mr.. Roger Foster, covers
% pages and is divided into discussion
of the facts and the law in the case from
Senator Clark's standpoint. The document
is throughout an arraignnent of the prose-
cution.
1t begins with the assertion that IAN eX-
animation of this testimony will confirm
the most skeptieal in the belief that those
who seek to brand majority of the repre-
SentativeS of a sovereign state 'diShon-
est and as bride takers are influenced by
| no lofty purpose Of remedying an evil, nor
is it entered upon from Il desire to main
tain the integrity of the membership of the
Senate Of the United States The facts
shown in this record fully justify the asser-
| ton that those who originated this pTosecu-
| ton were controlled on.y by sentiments of
| the bitterest personal and political HOSTILE
ty.
Marcus DAILY Arraigned.
After some other preliminary remarks
| the brief definitely and specifically names
| Mr.. Marcus DAILY as the chief instigator OF
| the contest. the statement this point be-
| ing as follows:
| Marcus DAILY having defeated Senator
| Clark in 1SSS for Congress. and for the
1 Senate in 1893. through treachery to his
| party organization, was unwilling to re-
| strain his personal hostility and to permit
| the vo.ce of the people through their legally
| constituted representatives to determine
! the election of their senator. and, according
| to his testimony. early the 10th OF
| February. 1889. he organized a committee
| of his personal friends and agents to work
| up and prepare Il case against the seating
| of Senator Clark by this body. The testi-
| mony will bear out the assertion that every
| member of this prosecuting committee was
! either one of the conspirators in the at
| tempt to defeat Mr. Ciark'S election, or an
| employe of Mr.. Daily. or an adherent of his
| faction in the state. In the attempt to
| fasten some fact upon Senator Clark. or his
| friends. tending to show bribery corrup-
| ton, this self-constituted committee has
| employed every means which the unlimited
| use of money could command. including the
| use of detectives in Montana, in Washing
| ton and in New York. with the view of OBJ
| tanning some Confederation of the testimony
| of the conspirators.
Reviewing the charges made in the me-
| mortal in opposition to Mr. Clark 1t is
| claimed that ''out of the thirty-seven names
given of members who were bribed, there
| is absolute failure TO introduce any
proof of any character by Whiteside or any
| one else that they know of any act by
which twenty of these men were bribed. OIL
have heard any friends of Senator Clark in
any conversation claim that they were
| brided."
| The statement is made that only about
$!1.GN was spent in the state campaigns Of
| 1888, and it is urged that this amount, IL
a state of the size of Montana, where tn,
| contest is bitter and active, even in an east
:. | ern state would be regarded by those wn'
manage political affairs to be very mod
crate expenditure.
The Supreme Court.
With reference to the testimony of th'
judges of the Montana supreme court it il
said that "it is only material to the cas-.
, from the light 1t throws on the characte
. and reputation of the members of the court
/ SC as to prove the wisdom of Mr.. Well
comes determination not to testify befor
them in the proceedings for his disbar
ment-" II Is also claimed that this testi
mony can in way affect the right u
: Senator Clark to his seat, and also that
, , is not within the scope of the resolution o
l inquiry.
$ In their belief on the law applicable to tn
case counsel discuss at length the effect O
| bribery and lay down the following leSa
| propositions:
f Propositions of the Defense.
e Proof of an offer of bride which was 10
accepted is no evidence of bribery.
t Stronger evidence is required to prove a
: offer of a bride than in case where
: bribe was accepted.
Payments to voters after election unles
: | clearly proved to have been made in pun
. | evidence of bribery.
:. The burden of proof is upon the memo
= ! rialists senator cannot be unseated be
- | cause he obtained his election under sus
e | piciOus circumstances. or because he ha
= | failed to satisfactorily explain a charg
. | against him which has not been proved.
! Hearsay evidence has always been disre
=. | garded by this committee and by simia
: | tribunals in election cases.
= The admission of party that he has re
J. ceived bride is not evidence against tf
- party who is claimed to have given it.
, Bribery by his agent which has nc
!, changed the result does not affect cand
!; date unless proved to have been expressl
" authorized by him.
= The alleged narratives to Whiteside
| Welcome and Charles W. Clark of briber
" previously committed by them is not ev
- dence against Senator Clark, even thong
10 | the narrators should be considered as h
n agents or as engaged in conspiracy wit
n | him.
d No presumption can be made against ii
an | defendant because of the absence of legi.
r lators against whom charges of briber
I | have been mada.
70 The evidence of spies and informers