The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-02-03

ana waiter hartman ABOUT tne way lhe
Clark people had treated yuu?'
We'll, ! may have said something in
general way TO make them think that /
was on their side
Did you tell me that Luddy. Hill. and
Warner had deposited their bride money
in bank"
NO, sir"
why then did /, as you say / did. ask
you TO enquire about their deposits?'
The witness answer was not audible.
Mr.. Lyon was severely quizzed by GER
tain members of the committee. especially
by Senator Hosr, Senator Chandler, sena-
tor Turley and Senator Burrows.
An affidavit which Lyon made some time
ago and which he gave 20 Charles W.
Clark, was produced. and certain discrep-
ancies between statements contained in 1t
and the witness present testimony were
pointed out.
Lyon. had said on the stand that he did
not when he entered into the alleged deal
with Mr.. Campbell expect TO be called en-
20 testify that Luddy, Hi. and Warner
had been bribed.
Mr.. Hoar asked: you did not mean to
testify that any of these gentlemen had
been bribed?"
NO. sir
You were simply trying TO get Mr.
Campbell TO expose his yiews?"
Yes
Then why did you say TO Mr.. Campbell
that you did not wish to incriminate Mr..
Hill. IL you did not intend 10 ineriminate
Luddy or Warner
The witness answer could not be heard
by the spectators.
Mr.. Campbell asked You said in your
affidavit that the proposition made 10 you
was repugnant What was repugnant 10
you; was it that you were not going 10 get
the $1,000 at once
NO. sir: it was repugnant 10 me TO con-
coct a story that was untrue
Did l ask you TO concoct Story tnat
WIS untrue?'
You never asked me whether it was
true or not"
RcpuRnant 10 Lyon.
Mr.. Hosr-Whst was Mr. Campbell's
proposition 10 you, which you regarded as
repugnant? The substance of this thing is
that Campbell told you that you knew
there had been bribery; that yol said,
Suppose / should testify that these men
from my county were bribed; how much
would there be in it?'' Was that the prop
osition which shocked you?
That he was willing 10 pay me $1,000"
But ii seems TO have been your psoposi-
ton and not Mr.. Campbell's?"
Mr.. Chandler-You did not tell him that
1t was false. What was repugnant to YOU
the fact that he was willing 10 pay you
$1,000 even if your testimony was true?'
Yes"
THAT in itself was repugnant to your
sense of honor?" ILaughterl
Yes"
Mr. campbell-You and Mr. Charlie Clark
expected that this affidavit would be used
before this committee instead OF your YER
bal testimony?
Yes, sir"
The affidavit contained allegations which
could product no other impression than |
that Mr.. Campbell had made the PROPOSE /
ton that the afliant, Lyon, should commit |
perjury for s., coo. The testimony of the |
witness was that the proposition had orig |
mated with him.
The first witness yesterday was Frank /
E. Wright, cashier of the Fergus County |
Bank. He was called by the memorialists |
against Senator Clark to testify as TO the |
financial condition Of c. C. Long and S. s.
Hobson, members of the Montana Legisla-
ture, before and after they voted for Sem
ator Clark. Little material evidence was !
irawn from the witness, he making no
statement not wrung from him either by
or by members of the committee.
Olsen r. Watson, manager of the Fer
gus County Argus" testified that he had
seen letter signed by John S. NJ. Neil TO
+. J. Johns, OF Lewistown. Mon, in which
he writer told the addressee that they
had secured the votes of nine Republican
members of the Legislature for Senator
Clark.
W. W. Beasly, who was n member of
he State Senate from Sweetgrass county,
vas called on TO tell of his financial condi
ion before and after the meeting of The |
Legislature He said that the reason ten
,ut of the fourteen or fifteen Republicans
n the Legislature had voted for Senator
lark was that he, Senator Clark, had is
ued statement saying that IL elected to
he United States Senate he would favor
ariff protection on such raw materials as
we're produced in Montana.