The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1900-04-10
CLARK MUST GO.
The Senate Committee Decides
Against Montana Man.
Senator Harris of Kansas In
clined to Be Lenient.
HE CONDEMNS TACTICS
Pursued by the Opposition to
the Defendant.
Committee Was Unanimous in
Its Decision.
HE CONDEMNS TACTICS

Washington, April 10.-The senate
committee on privileges and elections
have decided unanimously in favor of
the unseating of Senator Clark of Mon
tana.
The report is to declare the seat of
Senator Clark vacant and not to eXpel-
The decision was reached after d two
hours sitting, at which all of the mem
bers of the committee were present ex-
cept one. The absentee was Senator
Caffery of Louisiana, and he wired his
vote in opposition to Mr. Clark.
The ballot was not taken until all the
members present had expressed them
selves upon the question Some OF them
speaking at some length and all ex-
pressing different shades of opinion
Senator Harris (Kan) indicated the
most pronounced leaning toward leni-
ency for Mr.. Clark He did not express
any doubt that there had been a lavish
expenditure of money in Mr.. Clarks
behalf and while not condemning this
course he. spoke in terms of strong con-
demnation OF the tactics pursued by
some of his (Clark's) opponents, refer
ring especially to Congressman Camp
bell and former State Senator White
side. He said that whatever Mr.. Clark's
offense they were but little worse
than the methods pursued by Campbell
and Whiteside in their efforts to expose
| the senator and he insisted that if the
report was to be antagonistic to Mr.
| Clark. it should at the same time relate
| in full detail the methods pursued by
! thel two principal witnesses against
/ him.
| Senator Pettus practically agreed
1 with Mr.. Harris. The two senators also
| expressed some doubt as to the justifi-
| cation of the conclusion drawn by a
| majority of the committee, that Senate
| Clark 5 candidacy for the senate began
! in August, 1898, when he returned to
4 Butte from New York. The effect of
this conclusion was to charge up the
| $3.50 600 which Senator Clark confessed
| to having expended, to his campaign
for the senate. while the contention was
| made in Senator C1ark's behalf that he
had not become candidate until after
the state election thus eliminating from
| the campaign in his individual behalf
the amount spent in the general con-
| test
Senator McComas was among the
senators who expressed themselves as
| convinced that the senatorial seat was
in view from the beginning. Mr.. McCo-
mas. however, united with other sena-
tors in condemning the methods pur-
sued in prosecuting the case.
The consensus of opinion of the COM
| mittee appeared unfavOrable to accept
| ing any one especial feature against
Mr.. Clark as the basis for the report
against him, the general opinion
that it was the cumulative
character of the testimony that should
be considered rather than any one es-
pecial detail
Senator Harris raised the point in
Mr. Clark'S behalf that the cumulative
effect of the testimony could not proper
ly be considered but he was overruled
on his position.
If prominence was given to any one
line of testimony more than to another
1t was that dealing with transactions
apparently of regular business nature
| between Senator Clark or his agents
and members of the legislature.
The purchase of property from Sena-
tor Warner and Representative Nc
Laughlin and the money rendered Rep
resentative Wood to lift the mortgage
from his ranch were considered as
bearing directly upon the case. OF these
matters the Wood case received espec-
ial attention. The payment Of money
to Representative Day after Mr.. Clark's
election also had weight. The opinion
was expressed that no one of these
facts was sufficient basis for an ad-
verse report, but all agreed that al
facts, many of them admitted, together
with other occurrences connected with
the campaign were sufficient TO justify
a positive position against the senator's
continuing to hold his place.
The fact that Senator Clark and his
representatives had failed to make theil
reports to the state authorities of Mon
tana as required by the state Law
also was urged against him in the dis
cussion in the committee as was the
fact that his representative had de-
Stroyed all their vouchers showing
where money had been used and t.
whom paid.
5 When attention was called to the fac
} that this course was usual with cam
paign managers, the statement was me
with the contention that while the plaI
might be more commonly adopted thar
: it should be still there could be no rea
l | sonable excuse for it after the White
t side exposure. 1t was then known, :
was asserted that there would be a con
| test and the argument was made tina
every scrap of paper bearing upon TIL
2 | election should have been preserved af
ter this development in the case.
Senators Chandler and Turley wer
| directed to prepare the report. It is ex
pected to be presented at an early day
Senator Clark was at the capito
when the announcement of the actor
r. of the committee was made known. H
= was surprised at the result but refuse
= to make a statement until after consul
: tation with his friends and attorneys
g The senator bore himself with hi
: usual composure. His face appeare
! somewhat flushed, but his voice wa
s calm and his manner collected, and n
cient time had transpired. He wa
asked:
rs there any truth in the report tia
s you have decided to resign?'' and h
>, replied as he did to all other question
l. bearing upon his case:
# 7 cannot at present answer any ques
o tions bearing upon the report of til
It committee on elections"
, Senator Faulkner. principal couns,
d for Mr.. Clark. was summoned 10 til
I. capitol Immediately the verdict of til
l. / committee was announced and had
n ! long consultation with his client ove
r the situation.