The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-02-25

Grest ter interest than usual was shown
by the public in the Montana Senatorial
enquiry yesterday. This YVES due not SO
much TO the character of thu testimony
presented as TO the fact that Marcus DAILY.
who ii is commended by the partisans Of
Senator William A. Clark, is the instiaa.or
OF the present Investigation. was in at
tendance. Mr.. Daily and Senator Clark
sat within fifteen feet of each other, and
face to face. for three or four hour: res
terday.
Among those prominent in Montana
affairs in addition to Senator Clark and
Mr.. Daly, who attended the hearing yes
terday we're State Senator Conrad. who
was defeated by Senator Clark; former
Governor Houser and Alexs nder Botkin.
National Democratic Committeeman from
Montai,l in 1896. The witnesses of the
day we're Attorney General Nolan. of Mon
tans: John Il. Toole. Mr.. Days political
manager. and W. G. Conrad. Mr.. Daily did
not go upon the stand. but he may be called
on Monday afternoon. He was summoned
by the Committee on Privileges and Elec-
lions because of the theory put forward
on the Clark side to account for the $50 900
given up by Whteside to the legislative
corruption purposes. was part of a
spiracy and that the money had been
supplied bv Mr.. DAILY in order to furnish
evidence Of bribery.
Nolan Cross-Examined.
The proceedings opened with Attorney
General Nolan still in the witness chair.
He was subjected to some further cross
examining on the part of Mr.. Faulkner
80 11Ns. 49, L.
General promising immunity TO persons
who would testify in the matter of bribery
II their testimony should incriminate them.
He was asked why he confined his offer
of immunity to the bribery side of the
question instead of extending 1t also to
the conspiring side. His answer was:
There was nobody In Montana who held
there was conspiracy while the evidence
of bribery was in the air. II was so thick
that you could cut 1t with knife
did you make the experiment."
NO: but I was constantly striking
against It on my way to and from my Of
fee
why did you take one-sded view OF
The matter?"
Because had no reason TO believe that
there was any evidence to indicate that the |
money fs30.o00) was in existence pursuant |
TO conspiracy.
ny ulu you not write a letter.
saying that anybody who would testify as |
10 any bribery or conspiracy. on one side |
or the other. would have protection
Il did not care TO indulge in idle dis
cussion OF imaginary things. ] might as
well discuss the existence OF the man in |
the moon
Then you became a partisan in the mat
ter TO The extent OF only looking at one
side2''
ssThe,.a vrae onix ono side coDr,antI,- v;ug
bic
Why did you not promise. in your let
ter. immunity 10 those who would testify /
about the conspiracy"
Because there was no evidence of
conspiracy that could merit the consider
alton of man who had sense enough 10 be
outside OF an insane asylum
TooIe on the stand.
John r. roole. Of Anaconda. was the
next witness. He worked mining property. !
he said. for Mr.. DAILY under salary and
with a contingent interest He was a
member of the Legislature. and was the
MIR. Tooie frequently referred to in the tes-
timony- He and Mr.. Daily had been asso-
ciated together in friendly way in poll
ties and business
Mr.. Campbell asked:
After you were elected TO the Legisla-
ture. did you talk with Mr.. DAILY about the
Senatorial contest?'
-'Ycs; We discussed 1t in a general way"
did he attempt TO dictate 10 you, or to
any other member Of the Legislature, SO
Tar as you know, how TO vote on the Sena-
torial questions
He did not. His position was the same
as my own-favoring the support of any
man who might be nominated by the
Democratic Caucus"
Was there any attempt TO hold Demo-
cratic caucus for the nomination of a
candidate?"
did you, in any manner. aid. assist. or
attempt to get UP any conspiracy for the
purpose of defeating Mr.. Clark"
Positively no."
when did you first see the So. 900 which
has been introduced in evidence in this
case"
''on the evening Of the session Of the in
yestigating committee OF which 1 was a
member
did Mr.. DAILY give you that money, or
any other money, for the purpose of de-
feating Mr.. Clark"
mo. sir; cannot find words to make
that strong enough. il is an outrage that
such thing should he charged
did you know of any none. being put
up by Mr.. DAILY or any of his friends for
the purpose OF defeating Mr. Clark"
mo. sir; ! do not
did you try TO get any member OF The
Legislature to vote against Mr.. Clark for
money or other consideration"
Absolutely no.
Was Mr.. DAILY active in attempting TO |
defeat Mr. Clark" asked Senator Gallery |
When Mr.. DAILY left Montana for the
East he never believed the election Of Mr..
Clark possible. When l vert to Helena to
attend ihe Legislature ! ne ger imagined
that IL was possible to NOW down the Leg
isisture by the use OF money as was done"
WAS there any organized DAILY faction
in the Legislature as opposed to an or
ganized Clark faction?''
at can be safely said that the persons
who opposed Clark we're friends of Mr.
DAILY. as a rule"
That does not answer the question
whether there was any organized or unor-
ganizei action" said Senator Hoar.
There was a concerted action, but no
organization
The witness was questioned by counsel
for the contestants as 10 the truth or fals.-
y OF testimony OF some Clark witnesses
relating 20 promises to them by him if they
would furnish evidence against Clark.
which statements the witness positively
denied ard declared TO be utterly false
Intimate With Daily.
Under cross-examination by Mr. Faux
ner the witness said that he had been in
innate for a number of gears with MIR.
Daily; that they discussed polltiSsl nat
tiers in Montana and were agreed
Then asked Mr.. Faulkner, "ig Il not
surprising that MIR. DAILY never suggested
10 you as TO how you should vote on any