The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1900-02-19
1T WAS GROWING TOO TAME
EVIDENCE IN CLARK CASE NEEDED
BRUSHING UP.


Court Were CaIIed-An Objection
to Their Testimony Was overrui-
cd-This Was Contrary to a Former
RuIing-Quay Case Not TO BE Taken
Up just at Present.
Washington Feb 1S.-Chairman Chand-
Ter of the Senate Committee on Privileges
and Elections during the past week has
found the interest in the Clark alleged
bribery case Tagging, and cast about for
something to revive the dropping spirits
of the spectators. who had been keyed
up to a high state of expectancy by rea-
son of the startling testimony during the
early days of the trial.
Since Fred Whiteside, Speaker Stiff. old
man Ector and witnesses of that class,
called by the remonstrants, have disap
peared the testimony has lost much of its
/ picturesqueness and become rather prosaic.
The Witnesses for Senator Clark were evil
IDENTIFY not so imaginative and were unable
to tell stories so interesting and entertain
ing as those told when Representative
Campbell had charge of the prosecution,
Mr.. Chandler came TO the rescue and has
discovered two Witnesses in the person of
associate justices of Montana's Supreme
| Court, who recently told a very entertain
| ing story, which was enjoyed by the mem
bers of the committee and the spectators.
but which seemed to have little if any
bearing upon the case which the commit
tee is called upon to judge. 1t threw some
light. however. upon the general drift of
political affairs in Montana and showed
III
CRATE to for a man who was a political
soldier of fortune and intended 10 prac-
tice the game of politics. Aside from this
it has not yet been discovered what the
| purpose of Senator Chandler was in sum-
/ moning these two members of the Supreme
Court, for their evidence did not pretend
| to mix in with the Clark case or involve
/ that gentleman IN the least, and IL is the
| integrity of his election that Is now on
trial.
These witnesses were Associate Justices
Hunt and Piggott, and they testified to
| certain alleged facts that conveyed the
| impression they had been approached with
offers of brides to drop the disbarment
proceedings against Mr.. John B. Well
come, which was pending before the SUI
preme Court at Helena. Their testimony
related to matters that happened long
after the senatorial election and to which
| Senator Clark could not, by any posi-
| bility have been connected. These two
| witnesses, justices Hunt. and Piggott,
| were summoned entirely at the instance
of the committee, through the motion of
| Mr.. Chandler It was a surprise to the
attorneys on both sides. The effect of
| that surprise was lessened when it was
seen, however, that both men had been
summoned here TO tell what they knew,
not of the alleged bribery charges but of
alleged efforts to bride members of the
court to secure dismissal of the disber-
ment proceedings against John B. Well
| come, in which the friends of Senator
| Clark had no other interest beyond the
| fact that Mr. Welcome was a personal
| friend of Senator Clark and as such
| friend was anxious to see him win out in
the last senatorial contest.-r sia-..-4 ". l-si
objection Was OverruIed.
The case being conducted according to
the rules of legal evidence as fixed by
the committee in cases that have estab-
| llshed presidents, the attorneys for Mr.
Clark objected to the introduction of this
sort of evidence, which. as they contend
ed, had no business in the case The OBJ
jections were overruled, Notwithstanding
the fact such ruling was in direct con-
| fiict with a previous ruling of the COM
mittee on the request of Senator Faulk-
ner.
At the time of the ruling referred to
| Senator Faulkner sought to introduce
| testimony to impeach the character of
/ Fred Whitesidesr one of the Witnesses of
| the remonstrants, and the man who was
| the head and front of what Mr. Faulk-
ner had characterized as the conspiracy
to keep Senator Clark out of his seat
| in the Senate. II was sought at that time
to show that Whiteside offered bride
| of $1,000 to get hold of the election re-
| turns from his county he being the can
didate for state senator, and he knowing
| the election was very close. Whiteside,
10. SIsv,rr
offered, wanted to make sure of his cleo
| ton. He was an anti-Clark man and the
effort to bride in the legislative election
which was the first step in the senatorial
election, seemed pertinent to the general
| inquiry, from Senator Faulkner's point of
view. The committee however, ruled it
out.
Now, on its own motion, the committee
| summoned and heard the evidence of two
very eminent men as to how money had
been offered to secure the dismissal Of
disbarment proceedings against one of
| Senator Clark's friends, the evident pur-
pose OF the testimony being to impeach
| Mr.. Welcome and discredit his evidence
| before the Senate committee The COM
| mittee, therefore, is doing that which 1t
refused permission to the attorneys for
| the defense to do, and this action called
forth some sharp comments in the COM
mittee room before these witnesses were
placed on the stand
Both of these justices testified that they
understood the offer made them were in
the nature of brides, but under cross ex-
animation they stated explicitly that The
name of Senator Clark was never named
and that there was never a suggestion
that he had anything to do with il or was
cognizant of the alleged offers which had
been made them. The whole trend of the
evidence was aimed at the disbarment
case in which it was sought. by inference
| at least, to show that IL Welcomes
friends were willing to put up, 800 900 to
prevent his disbarment, IL was quite likely
that Welcome and his friends were
ready and willing TO put up that much or
more to secure the election of Senator
| Clark to the United States Senate. This
may be false reasoning but II is the only
| reasoning that can apparently justify the
| summoning of these Two justices who
known, by their own admissions, .abso-