The Portland daily press., 1900-02-23
Expenditures During Fight
Were $11 5000.

WhhnluRtou, reuruaiy 49, w. N'"'N,
son Of Senator Clark OF Montana told
the Senate committee on elections today
that he had an Independent income OF
$3.50, OC0 a year and that he Was In bust.
ness for himself. With the exception OF a
brief interval given to the testimony OF
Rev. A. b. Martin. Mr.. Clark occupied
the the entire day before the committee
In connection with the inquiry being con-
Quoted into the methods pur sued In the
election of the young mans father to the
United States Senate. lie denied In de-
tail the assertions OF suoh witnesses as
MIR. whitsside, MIR. Hewitt. Stats Senator
Miers and others. Mr.. CLARK submitted
what he said was q detailed statement OF
his receipts and expenditures for political
purposes during the Montana campaign.
The aggregate footed up sllS,O90.
DIR. Martin testified concerning his In
tervisw With Chief Justice Brantly. pro-
ducing the letter written him By Mr..
Clark in the Welcome case.
John b. Welcome was RECALLED before
the Clark investigating COMMITTEES today
to MAKE two slight corrections In his
bank account testimony.
Charles W. Clark, son Of the Senator
from Montana was then ca lied. He said
4, had been treasurer OF the CLARK oam-
paign committee. There had been fully
three hundred people In Hsleua from first
to last, most Of whom wished to help Mr..
Clark In the contest, though witness had
no doubt some OF them hoped to earn
little expense monsy. Witness denied all
liner iminating testimony given by White
side who mad told witness that he was tired
OF the DAILY people; Was unpledged and
wan ted to support Senator Clark. He did
not want any money but sought an
equal chance with others in bidding on
buildings contemplated by Senator Clark.
| This had bsen promised and Whiteside
had said he would vote for witnesses
father.
Rev. Albert b. Martin, principal Of the
female seminary at Deer Lodge. testified
next He produced the letter written him
by Senator Clark last October. which the
doctor had taken to Chief Justice Brant-
ly In connection with the Welcome dis
barnent case. The letter ran as follows:
Dear MIR. Martin:
eli you could see our mutual friend
Judge Is, and state to him what John Il.
4. told you, outlining the plan Of the
ampaign. which practically showed that
everything was practically prearranged, 1
am sure that he would have better un-
Outstanding OF the Welcome proceedings
and would not allow that splendid man
to be disbarred. He has a lovely wife
AMI children, and 1t Is a shame that he
should suffer disgrace through two such
dis reputable men as whiteside and my
namssnks, W. A. CLARK, Of Madison
county.
(Signed) Nv. A. CLARK.
MIR. Martin said that ''our mutual
trisnd Judge b. was Judge Brantly.
and that -. X. T." was John Il. Toole
who four weeks previous to the meeting
OF the legislature had told him that the
rumo:s concerning Senator Clnrk's
methods would be Investigated by CON-
mission. He said he felt interested in
Mr.. Welcome because his father-in law
WIS an old Prssby terrain minister. He
had hoped that they could influence the
supreme court to sand the case back to
the Silver Bow county court but he saw
no indie licscy In doing that.
'It was no more improper than Ii
would be for ma to approach q senator
here and ask him to vote for Mr.. Clark. !"
said the witness. The interview with
Justice Bransley was perfectly friendly.
DR.. Martin said that he had also received
another letter from Mr.. Clark after the
Whitesids exposure in which Mr.. CLARK
had referred to his own good character
saying this was the test legacy he could
leave tc his children.
G. W. Clark, recalled, continued bis
specific dsnials Of the testimony OF wit.
nessss for the prosecution who had made
statements indicating his connection with
efforts to oorruptly influence members Of
the legislature. MIR. CLARK said that +.
e. Lyons had told him that Mark Hewitt
was protesting to have infof nation OF the
purchase of votes for his fathers siectioa.