New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1900-02-03
MONTANA BRIBERY CHARGES
WITNESS FOR SENATOR CLARK AC-
CUsES ONE OF THE PRosECU-
TONS ATTORNEYS

Washington. Feb. 2-The defence in the case
OF senator Clark Of Montana, before the Senate
Committee on Privileges and Elections to-day
began the presentation of its side of the contro-
versy. The first half of the day was given to
three witnesses for the memorialists after which
Thomas T. Lyons, County Attorney of Jefferson
County, was put the stand by Mr. Faulkner
in Mr.. Clarks behalf. His testimony was star
ting in several respects. He brought Represent
alive Campbell, Of the attorneys for the
prosecution, into the controversy as an active
participant in the case, saying that Mr. Camp
bell had promised him $1,000 to testify in the
case against Mr. Clark. He had previously been
a worker for Mr. Clark. and said that he acted in
this matter at the instance of c. w Clark, play
Ing the part, as the witness put II, "of White
side on the other side"
PURCHASE OF EVIDENCE ALLEGED
After hearing his proposition to testify that
several members of the Legislature had been
orioed to his knowledge Mr.. Campbell, the wit
ness dec. AIRED. had agreed to pay him the sum
mentioned for the evidence, afterward agreeing
to double it. He said that afterward Mr. Camp
bell had told him that he Qyons) would ruin
him WampbelD if he revealed these facts before
the committee, but that he had never said to
Campbell that the story he had told Campbell
he would tell false
Mr.. Campbell conducted the cross-examina-
ton, and in reply to his question Mr. Lyons said
that during the sitting of the Legislature he
had been in Helena keeping the Boulder County
delegation In line for Mr.. Clark, and that he
had received $3.50 for his expenses
Mr.. Campbell asked the witness if 1t was his
desire that the committee should understand
that he offered him an inducement to commit
perjury. Mr.. Lyons replied that he would leave
the committee to draw its inference" He
mad not told Mr.. Campbell that what he had led
MIN to believe he would testify to was not true,
put possibly Campbell had a right to infer that
it true. Really, he had not at that time
given the matter of perjury any thought He
mad simply sought to impress upon Campbes
mind that he would testify he had outlined.
out not whether the facts were true or false.
The witness also denied emphatiCaly that
Campbe!l had told him in the presence of Ben
Hill and Mark Hewitt that 1t was impossible
for MN 10 make any promises of remuneration
FOR testimony, repeating that the matter of re-
muneration had Let been discussed in the pres
ence of others.
Mr.. Lyons having made a statement in an
aitldaVit that Mr.. Campbells proposition
pugnant, Mr.. Campbell asked him what feature
of it was repugnant. The reply was that he OBJ
jected TO being asked to concoct story that was
untrue.
Did I know that you proposed to tell a story
that was not true?" Mr.. Campbell asked
You never asked me whether it was true
stood there not much truth in it. Nothing
was said on that proposition. The whole thing
was repugnant to me; the whole situation was
Lyons admitted tha; he had not gone to see
Campbell until after he had seen Clark and the
He said he had not told Mr.. Campbell that he
had made an affidavit because Charles Clark
had asked him to give Campbell a chance to put
up the 5000 promised.
Mir. CampbeIi-Is it not true that | told you
over and over again that wanted YOU t. testify
to the absolute truth, and 10 nothing else?
Mr.. Lyons-YoU told me that in the Raleigh
Hotel and You may haze run that kind Of
bluff on US at Butte.
H said he had gone TO the RaIeirh to see if
MI NaIAphr' would pat Lp the $4,000. that he