Arizona silver belt., 1900-03-08
CLARK AND DAILY.
Some of the Events Leading Up to the Senatorial
 Investigation.
FEUD OF MULTI.MILLloNAIREs
Origin of the Clark and Dalys Ani. mosities Clark's Political Ambi- ton Effort to Bribe the Su-
 premc Court.

premc Court.
 X special correspondent of the Globe Democrat, writing from Hcl. ena. Montana, under date Of Fehru- ary 10, gives interesting details of the teud between Senator W. A. Clark and MarcuS Daly of Montana, and will be all the more interesting to the readers of the SILVER BELT. because of the fact that both gentlemen are we'll known in Arizona, and the trial now progressing at Washington City will be closely watched. The writer says;
 In view uf the extremely sensational evidence adduced recently during the inquiry by the senate committee on privileges and elections, into the al- eged corrupt and illegal manner in which multi-millionaire W. A. Clark. of Butte. obtained his seat in the up per branch of Congress, it may prove interesting to recount some of the events leading up to the investigation and the probable outcome.
 In former years Marcus Daly and W. A. Clark were intimate friends. but an apparently never ending en- mity between them Sprang from liti- gation over some water rights near Butte, in which the former was wOrSted. Then Clark secured the democratic nomination for Territor- ial Delegate in Congress, but, it is averred, was defeated through Dalys support being bestowed upon T. II. Carter, republican. With the ad- mission of Montana into statehood Clark developed a senatorial bee and along with Mai. Martin MaginniS, was elected as democrat by the di- yided legislature. and seated by the senate. Four years later the demo- cratS were successful in the legisla tive election, and Clark was made the caucus nominee, but the So-called Daly faction bolted the nomination, and deadlock resulted. Lee Mantle republican was appointed by Gov. Richards, but the senate refused to seat him. The next legislature was republican,, and elected Lee Mantle and T. II. Carter, the formers term expiring March 1 last.
 Again was Clark put forth, the democrats having a sweeping major ity, elected in 1898. It was proclaimed on all sides that Clark mad 50 votes out of a democratic membership of I2, or a majority over both republicans and Daly democrats. Then came Sen ator Whiteside's sensational exposure upon the first day of the meeting of the joint assembly. Rising to a ques- tion of privilege, he produced S30,000 in sl0O0 bills, stating that they had been given to him by John B. We'll come, for Senators Clark, Myers and himself and Representative Carr, in return for their votes for w. A. Clark, in his candidacy for United States senator. Clark, as result, re- ceived but two votes in the senate and i've in the house, instead of 50 on the first ballot.
 The legislative and grand jury in- yestigation, before both of which Whiteside testified that he accepted the money to expose the alleged cor rupt methods being resorte,i to by Clark; but the grand jury returned no indictments, although declaring that money was heinz used in the contest On the sixteenth day and seventeenth ballot of the session, Clark re ceived 52 votes, including Il republicans, who declared in justification of their ac- tiOn that Clark was high protection iSt and an eXpansionist, and there fore, as much a republican as demo- crat. In the meantime the seat of Whitesde (who was elected by one majority was successfully contested by Geiger, republican. Geilyer voted for Clark The 50, ,000 was ,ieposited with State Treasurer Collius, who still has possession Of it. It h stated that Senator Chandler, when Mir. Col linS exhibited the money in Washing ton, had it sent to the trea,ury de- partment for inspection, where it was pronounced genuine. Sena- tor Chandler was loath to be- lieve that votes were so valuable in Montana, he said with smile.
 Next came the Welcome disbar- ment case, which was instituted be- fore the supreme court by Attorney General Nolan and former SsnatOr WmteSide. It lasted three weeks and was hutly contested, Welcome being defended by some of the abest attor- neyS in the state. 1t is charged that Welcome, in his capacity of manager of Senator Clark $ candidacy, had, in buying votes of the legislature, in- dulged in conduct unbecoming an at torney; but before the trial ended 1t Was acknowledged by witnesses that they were after larger game" or in other words they deslred not so much Welcomes disbirment as they did conclusive evidence against Clark, to