The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1900-03-28


that It was returned to Charles w. Clark.
There is not a word in the testimony, as
shown by this record, that would justify
any conclusion that would affect the in
tegrity and honesty of Representative
Woods"
The Present to Day.
With reference to Mr.. Day, this state
ment is made:
"a month after the election Senator
Clark, in recognition Of the services OF
certain Of his supporters, sent them
present in the form Of a check or certif-
cate OF deposit. Gentlemen selected for
this recognition Of his appreciation were
John b. welcome, VIM. McDermott and
f. c. Day. the sum Of each being 5000
Had Mr. Day not been member OF the
legislature. Welcome and McDermott,
members OF the committee, we suppose
would NOT have permitted any evidence
upon this subject to be spread upon the
records.
with the plain straightforward and
consistent statements made by both Sen
ator Clark and Mr.. Day we feel satished
that this transaction cannot even create
an unfavorable impression upon the minds
of this committee
senator Warmers Case.
In the case of Senator Warner; we
feel that the testimony of Lyons, Nolen
tion we have taken, that It never entered
the minds Of those managing the prosecu-
tion 10 RELY upon this ordinary business
transaction Of the transfer OF property
from Warner to Charles w. Clark through
his agent until they found that theY coulo
no, rely upon Lyons to sustain by MS tes-
tirnonv the statement that was manufae-
tured and every word Of which Lyons
su,oa ra was false . II should be I'M
derstood that there Is no testimony con-
Meeting Senator w a. Clark even re-
motely with the transaction
sneaker stift Is scored.
In the case of Speaker Stift:
"a man who could in any state secure
tho supnort of any faction for the posi-
ton Of speaker after permitting three at
tennis to be made upon his honesty anu
manhood without manifesting the slght-
est Indignation. and who continues TO pre-
serve the friendly relations which had
previously existed between himself ana
his tempters evinces a very low plane or
morals in Montana, or the committee
must be convinced that the statement Is
untrue 1t is even shown by his own tes-
timony that after the occurrence with
Rickford he told him he would meet him
in Butte, and after the first conversation
with Cook he accepted an invitation as
his guest to visit the Montana club.
I'm Justice to SUIT, we feel that the
committee must come to the conclusion
that these statements are the result OF
the opinion which he must have reached,
that the exgencies OF this proceeding de-
mand the narration of Cooks story be-
fore this committee.
other bribery Cnses.
The cases of Representatives Cullen,
Jacqueth and Bywater are then referred
to, counsel saying:
The only witnesses who pretend to give
direct testimony as to those three mem
bers Of the legislature are Fred Whiteside
and VIM. +. Rector. Every material al
legation contained in the evidence OF
either Of these witnesses in reference to
the three members mentioned has been
not only denied by every person whom
either of them alleged had knowledge OF
the facts, but 1t is contradicted by all
these denials as against the uncorroborat-
ed statements OF these two discredlted
Witnesses
The Money Paid Whiteside.
Much space Is devoted to the question
az 70 whether John r. Welcome furnish
ed the $50 o01 which Whiteside presented
to the Montana bribery investigation
committee, and In this connection the
testimony OF Whiteside IS analysed at
length. IN an effort to break It down.
Twenty pages are devoted to sitting
Whitesides testimony, and then the brief
says,
1--WE have shown by the evidence Of John
b. Welcome, Charles W. Clark. William
McDermott A steele John S Neu.
W NJ Bckford and Walter Cooper the
most active ana earnest friends OF Senator
Clark that not dollar OF money was cor
rupty used 90 influence the action Of mem
beers OF the Montana legislature II 1899 10
vote for senator Clark We have also
shown hV tho evidence nf t'auafr~ t'Iaryg