The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1900-03-28

| Va tire uOntana
l. Were Bribed-Nine Others offered
Money-Itemized Statement of the
Payments Said to Have Been Made.
Conclusions From the Evidence.
Washington, March 27.-Counsel for the
memorialists in the case of Senator Clark
OF Montana, have submitted their brief
to the Senate Committee on Privileges AMI
Elections. They present the following as
established facts in the case from the
evidence adduced:
First. That at least fifteen members
of the Legislature were paid by Mr..
Clark and his agents for their votes.
Second. That at least nine others were
offered money for their votes, and that
the total amount of offers proved, aggre-
gate $175,000.
Third. That 100000 was offered by Dr.
| Treacy, friend and agent of Mr.. Clark
to bribe the attorney general to dismiss
the proceedings in the Welcome case.
Fourth. That the same agent of Mr.
Clark's offered Justice Hunt of the su-
preme Court, 100000 to dismiss the Well
! come case.
| Fifth. That Mr.. Clark and his friends
engaged in wholesale bribery, and at
tempted bribery of members of the Leg
| islature to secure the election of Mr.
Clark.
| Instances of Bribery.
OF the ninety-five members of the Leg
islature Qncluding Mr.. Whiteside), twen-
ty-six were sworn before this commit
tee. OF these the memoralists say nine
| have taken oaths that. they were offered
| money to vote for Senator Clark Two
they claim, have admitted the receipt of
money, $1,000 each, after voting for Mr..
| Clark, but tried to excuse it. Either by
| direct testimony or otherwise they claun
that the acceptance of bribes is fixed upon
fifteen others.
The testimony of both Mr.. Clark and
Mr.. E. c. Day establish conclusively the
| payment by Mr. Clark to Mr. Day a few
days after the election of 5000, which
sum Mr.. Day says he accepted in COM
| pensation for his services as a friend of
Mr.. Clark while he was in the city of
Helena as member of the Legislature
and leader of the Clark forces upon the
floor of the House. Mr. Clark testihes
as to this transaction as follows:
1T was in consideration of my friend
ship for Mr.. Day and for the work per-
formed by him in trying TO organize the
Legislature to be elected speaker, and in
| order to control our forces, in which, how
ever, we failed. l recognized that he
was worthy of this consideration
| "Mr. Day admits that no part of this
| 5000 went to the other members of the
law firm of which he is partner. The
| contention on the part of Mr.. Day ard
| Mr. Clark that this was a gift will deceive
no one. 1t was received in direct violation
| of his oath of office
| Deductions From the Facts.
On the general question of fact the fol-
| lowing deductions are made:
| First. That general corruption was
| praciced by Mr. Clark's agents.
Second. That such corrupt practices
| were known to and authorized by him.
Third. That he personally made efforts
| TO secure votes by bribery.
Fourth. That through corruption by
| means of bribery of members of the Leg
| isature his election was secured.
Fifth That while the laws of his state
| prohibit the use of more than $1,000 by a
| candidate for the Senate to secure mis-
| election, Mr. Clark employed for this pur-
! pose by his own confession, at least $780,
| 600; and that the committee appointed by
him to expend this money violated the
laws of the state by failing to make re-
port thereof as required by the statutes
The Law in the Case.
The following five propositions of law
are submitted as properly controlling in
| this cause:
First. That proof of these general and
extensive. corrupt practices is sufficient to
| require Judgment of the Senate that the
| election was void
Second. That Mr. Clark is just as much
| affected by practices of his. agents as if
he had himself done the same thing.
| Third. That he was bound TO know
| vub means of accommodating his election
| were being resorted to.
| Fourth That if the committee is salts
| fed that voters were corruptly influence
| ed and procured to vote for Mr. Clark
without whose votes he could not have
| received a majority, then the election was
void without regard to the question of
whether such votes were obtained by him
| self, his agents or by strangers.
Fifth. If Mr.. Clark employed the means
! and used the money which the Montana
| statutes prohibit, the election is absolute
| " void as much as if direct bribery had
been practiced.
CIariS's Heavy Expenses.
In summarizing, the memorialists say:
THAT after the general election his
| agents Travelled about the state to secure
| votes for him; that during the twenty
eight days of the session of the Legis-
| lature before his election he maintained
| in Helena from $50 TO 400 men, called in
| from all phIlS VI lliG SlstNtt " iilHucI-G
members and that he paid at least their
| expenses, these amounting to not less
than $4,000, as admitted, and that it was
| common knowledge in Helena that votes
were bought in his interest.
1t is proved beyond a question that he
paid:
To the committee of three ......... .$136 900
| To sundry persons ................... 2,S90
To Representative Day .............. 5000
To Representative Fine ............ 5000
To william McDermott .............. 5000
| To John b. Welcome .............. 5000
To Senator j.. G.. Warner .......... 1900
| To Representative Mclaughlin .... 1900
To Senator Whiteside ............... 5000
To Senator Meyers .................. TO- 900
To Senator Clark of Madison ...... 1000
|
Total ........ .........................$ .$27 $50
Direct and circumstantial testimony es-
tablishes the further payment OF $lO5,50O
| as follows:
| To RenresentatiVe II H. Carr - & O01