The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-04-24
AGAINST MIR. CLARK.


AGAINST MIR. CLARK.
Finding of the Senate Committee on
Privileges and Elections.
WASHINGTON, April Ex-senator Chand-
Ter, from the committee on privileges and
elections to-day submitted to the Senate
the report of that committee in the case OF
Senator Clark of Montana. The report is
comparatively brief, covering only about
fifteen pages of printed matter. 1t does
not rehearse the testimony, but simply
presents the findings of the committee and
it's reasons for its course. The finding of
the committee is stated as follows: THE
finding of the committee is that the cleo
ton to the Senate of William A. Clark, OF
Montana, Is null and void on account or
briberies, attempted briberies, and corrupt
practices by his agents and of violation OF
the laws of Montana defining and punish
ing crimes against the elective franchise"
In view of this finding, the committee re-
ports, and unanimously recommends the
adoption by the Senate Of the following
resolution:
Resolved, That William A. Clark was
not duly and legally elected to a seat in
Legislature of the State OF Montana"
The report concludes with a strong rec
ommendation for early consideration OF the
case as follows: 1.-THE Senate should. as a
duty to itself and the country, demonstrate
by its action In this case, that seats in the
United States Senate procured as Senator
Clark's has been procured, cannot be re-
tanned by the deliberate Judgment of the
Senate The Senate also owes a duty to the
people of Montana. who, conscious of the
bad repute into which the State had fallen
by reason of vast expenditures of money
in connection with its elections, manifested
such a public sentiment that the Legisla-
ture of 1895 passed a statute which, If
obeyed, would have redeemed the State
from its bad name. For the direct and
gross violations of that statute and the
consequent discredit which continues to
rest on the State, Montana has right to
expect a prompt and decisive remedy from
the action of the Senate on the report Of
this committee"
BASIS OF THE FINDING.
The committee states that it's finding is
made in view of certain admitted or undis-
puted facts, with their attendant circum-
stances, appearing in the testimony taken
by the committee and these are enumer-
ated under fifteen headings as follows:
First-The expenditures in the contest of
1895 as testified to by Senator Clark and
Governor Hauser.
to crimes against the elective franchise,
which limited in purpose and amount the
political expenditures which could be made
in any election, either by a political COM
mittee or candidate especially naming a
candidate for United States Senator, who
could not give more than $1,000 to any one
committee in county and could not pay
more than $1,000 for his personal expenses
in lawful ways, specified.
Third-Asserts that Senator Clark has
been constantly a candidate for office and
gives his record in that respect and notes
the organization of committee In his in
terest in the summer of 1898, after the con-
sultation with his friends in Butte. To this
committee, the report says, he gave I'M
limited authority to spend money which he
agreed to furnish; an estimate, however,
being made that at least, $4,000 would be
necessary to secure the State convention
and that $4,000 might be needed to secure
the State Legislature.
Fourth-In the canvass which ensued, the
approximate expenditures admitted by the
various members of his committee, and
their assistant were as follows: BY Charles
w. Clark, $4,000; by McDermott, $4,000; by
600. of which sum Charles w. Clark re-
600; by Steele, ST., 600; by Corbett, $1,000; by
Whitmore, $4,000; by Cooper. $500. mainly
furnished by Charles w. Clark; and the
amount of these expenditures Senator
Clark himself paid to his son. The adj
vance and payments made by Senator
Clark to his committee and agents. as
admitted by him, amounted to about $780,
600. of which such Charles w. Clark re-
ceived from him, Oh Aug. II, 1898, $35 600;
1900. S20.592; and I'm addition to this $4,000
Senator Clark paid 5000 TO McDermott,
one of his agents, $1,000 to Welcome his
attorney, and 5000 to f. G. Day, a men,
Der of the Legislature.
F'ifth-None of the members of his COM
mittee or their assistants made the sworn
returns required by law. nor did Senator
Clark himself make any return
20 xx-if fha httof
transactions of Mr. Clark and his repre-
sentatives with members Of the Legisla-
ture including the purchase of Represent
alive McLauglin's property, the tender of
5000 to Representative Woods 10 raise the
mortgage on his ranch and the subsequent
sale of the ranch; the establishment of
bank after the adjournment of the Legis-
lature. largely through the efforts of Sem
ator Tirney and Representatives Eversole
and Sevlin, of Broadwater county; the
sale of lots and other property in Jefferson
county to a representative of Mr.. Clark by
Senator Warner; the conduct of Messrs
and the present of S. 900 to Representative
Day after the adjournment of the Legisla-
ture.
TWO POINTS OF LAW.
The report then goes into details already
covered in the testimony and arguments of
counsel and printed at the time. Only two
points of law are printed. as follows:
''First-It is clear that If by bribery or
corrupt practices on the part of friends OF
a candidate who are conducting his can
vass votes are obtained by him, without
which he would not have had a majority,
his election should be annulled. although
proof Is lacking that he knew of the brib-
cry or corrupt practices.
.'Second-It seems TO have been admitted
that il the person elected clearly pargfci-
pated In any one act OF bribery or attempt
ed bribery he should be deprived OF his Of
flee. although the result of his election was
not thereby changed
Commenting on the legal phases of the
case the committee says: According to
the law, as understood by the committee,
Senator Clark cannot be permitted to re-
tain his seat. He received fifty-four votes,
and there were twenty-nine against him.
leaving him an apparent majority OF