The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1900-05-18
HIS SPEECH IN HIS OWN BEHALF
Attracts Much Attention From a Full
Senate-His Criticism of the Report
Of the Committee and the Latter's
Disregard Of h Rules of Evidence
and Precedents He Compares His
Trial to that of Dreyfus House
Passes asst Appropriation Bill.
SENATE.

g IAAd1 1t q SSAN h1o
as senator to the governor of Monta-
ma The announcement came without
any previous intimation.
Mr.. Clark struck just at the instant
the iron was hottest. Senator Chan
dler, chairman of the committee on
privileges and elections, had given no
tice that at 1 o'clock he would call up
imously reported from the committee
declaring Mr.. Clark not entitled to his
seat in the senate.
A spirited contest over the resolution
was expected. Every senator in the
city was at his desk.
At 1890 o'clock. just as the routine
business was concluded, Mr.. Clark
quietly arose and addressed the chair.
He desired, he said, in a low tense
voice, to address the senate on a ques-
ton Of privilege personal to himself.
Instantly there was a buzz of expecta-
btion in the chamber. His address was
a sharp arraignment Of the commit
tees action, an analytical discussion
OF the evidence, an explanation of po-
litical and business affairs in Montana
and a bitter eXcoriation of Marcus
DAILY and his friends who have antag-
onized the ambitions of Mr.. Clark.
AS Mr.. Clark adverted to his desire
to hand down to his children a name
untarnished ever by the breath of dis
grace, tears welled to his eyes and he
almost broke down. 1t was a dramatic
scene. Then he read the letter he had
sent to the governor of Montana, ten
dering his resignation. At the conclu-
CInn Of tho cDnaah Il TI~l
the centre of a group of senators, all
DESTROYS of pressing his hand.
Little other business of Importance
was transacted. The Clark resolution
went over until tomorrow.
Mr.. Clark said he had no desire to
case aSperSions or the members of the
election committee, but yet he was
forced to the conclusion, which he be-
lieved met with the concurrence of,
not only a large number of senators
on both sides of the chamber, but also
of 80 per cent. of his constituency in
Montana, regardless of political affil-
iations, that the methods of procedure
in the investigation were manifestly
unfair, n~on-judicial and the verdict
entirely opposite to that which would
have occurred if the evidence had been
confined to that which was admissible
and pertinent to the issue.
1t is true, he said, that there was a
strong effort made by the senators
from Alabama, Maryland, Kansas and
North Carolina, at the beginning of
the investigation, to exclude all the
irrelevant testimony, but their efforts
were unavailing.
THE result of the admission OF all
kinds of hearsay, irrelevant, malicious
and perjured testimony" he continued,
was damaging in the extreme to the,
respondent, as through the medium of
both the rQSnpnf4 hla and Unna1 nroSS
the most widespread publicity was
given throughout the land to some of
the pernicious falsehoods, touching the
respondent, and, likewise, a large
number of most eminent and upright
legislators who supported him and who
are the peer of the boosted men of any
state in this union.
The prevailing theory Of presump-
tive innocence was largely ignored and
the entire proceedings were closely
analogous to the Dreyfus case where
the prosecution was based upon a pre-
sumption of guilt. Precedents estab-
lished since 1895 have been lightly con-
sidered, if not entirely disregarded. It
a heretofore, been held that there
must be proved actual completely of
fraud on the part of the principal or
actual, not presumptive, knowledge Of
corruption on the part of his agents,
or that 1t must be proved, n o inferred,
NhAt a lQI1Ut y loglSlaCOrS
have been ~corruptly Influenced to
change the result Of the election.
A to the first proposition, no proof
was adduced thai was accepted by the
committee and no charge of compiled
ty has been made in the report.
AS to the second proposition, not
in a single instance, in my opinion, or
in the opinion of the eminent counse
who aided me in this investigation, has
there been any proof sufficient to es-
tablish the guilt of a single legislator.
On the contrary, positive evidence has
been ELECTED in every case where the
respondent was allowed to introduce
testimony that no consideration was
given or received, or promised, nor
any consideration made to secure a
vote for the respondent.
In order to change the result of the
election it would be necessary to es-
tablish that eight members of the leg
islature were corruptly influenced.
Much stress has been laid upon the
comparative financial condition of two
or three legislators before and after
the senatorial contest. These men
gave full explanation of the circum-
stances and conditions relating to such
matter. The presumption is hat if
their financial condition was better
they acquired it in~noceptly. This is
a plain proposition of Law and the
burden of proof did not rest upon them
From their we'll known character ]
do not believe them dishonest, and
even if they were it u be remem-
bered that there was much legislation
before that assembly involving mil.
lions of dollars, in which, some of the
memorialists were deeply interested
and although they appear here as
apostles of purity, it is well known in
Montana they would o fail to test
the probity of every man in the mos'
inscriptions to promote theiI
own interests. They were actively en-
gagged in preventing the revision of the
Infamous election law enacted at their
instance which the honest people OF
Montana were endeavoring to correct
with regard to the cross in the circle,
by which these people have been ena-
bled to coerce every man in their en-
ploy into casting his ballot to suit their
wishes. They were also deeply inter
ested in attempting the repeal Of law
requiring safety cages in every mine,
which law they have totally disregard
ed. 1t is charged that many lives have