Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1900-04-05

Suppose that Stiff. Normoyle, Sullivan
and Cooney were proved to be pure and
incorruptible patriots; that Clark OF i
Madison was a lawyer Observant of the ,
highest traditions of the bar; that the
supreme court of Montana was as re-3
that Nolan was an upright statesman;
that Whiteside was free from malice |
and truthful; that Campbell had sense
OF decency. Admit all their evidence. !
and that Of every witness, except jack |
son, to be absolutely true, uncontradict-
ed and convincing, and still Senator
Clark would be entitled to retain his
seat in this senate unqucstioned. !
LAW ON THE SUBJECT.
The law upon the subject has been
stated a number of times by this COM
mittee in reports which have been ap-
proved by the senate. The doctrine thus
lsid down is that Of the common law.
for bribery only in case where 1t 10
proved that the votes corruptly OBJ
tained were sufficient to- o-change the re-
suit; and that otherwise proof of brib-
cry in an election is immaterial to an
investigation such as this, except where
it is proved that the senator was per-
sonally connected with the corruption,
in which case he may be disciplined.
(Mr. Foster then cited a number of au-
thorities in support of this proposition.)
Welcome and Mr.. Charles Clark be ad-
mitted, and it be further admitted that
both of them were guilty of attempts to
bribe members of the legislature of Mon
tana, still in the absence of proof that
such conduct by them was directly au-
thorized by Senator Clark he can not be
punished by the deprivation of his seat
for their misconduct, unless 1t be proved
that such misconduct affected the result.
OF such proof there is an entire absence,
even We're not the charges against these
two gentlemen exploded by the testimony
offered by the defense.
Thre is another principle of law OF
which it may be well for me to remind
you before we begin the consideration Of
the evidence. No narrative to Whiteside
by Mr.. Welcome or Mr.. Charles Clark
concerning bribery which they said that
they had previously committed is evil
/ dence against Senator Clark, even al
though the narrators should be consider
ed as his agents, or as engaged in a con-
spiracy with him. Admissions by an
! agent are not evidence against his prin-
cipal, unless made at the time of a trans
! action, proof of which is competent upon
other grounds and they constitute part
of the same transaction. This Is estab-
| lished by the rule of law which requires
! in every case the best evidence that the
| nature of the case will permit and ex-
! cludes hearsay, because the original
speaker who had personal knowledge of
the transaction is not produced, and his
statement is not given under the sancity
of an oath subject to the pains and pen
alties for perjury, and tested by cross
! examination in the presence of the ac-
cused.
Next turning to the facts, as set forth
in the evidence Of the prosecution, you
will remember that Senator Clark was
! elected by fifty-four votes out OF ninety
, four cast by the legislature, having ac-
cordingly a majority Of fourteen. In the
/. absence of proof that he was himself
personally guilty of corruption, proof le-
gal and competent must be afforded to
establish that seven out OF those four
j teen votes were corruptly obtained. The
petition of the memoriallsts, you will
bear in mind was framed or i'm large
part copiel--using more decent language
from the signed statement of BenJa-
min Hill, and charges specifically the
purchase of IS members of the leglsla-
ture for various considerations. as we'll
as a large number of offers.
After reviewing evidence for prosecu.
tion, he continued:
= The petition also contains charges of
number of offers, none of which, ac-
cording to the evidence offered by the
memoralists, was shown to have been
made by the authority of Senator Clark.
Consequently, admitting the evidence of
petitioners to. be true, the only member
OF the legislature against whom there is
any legal proof of corruption is Jac-
queth. Even had he not disproved the
SANDER and demonstrated that 1t was
supported by forgery as we'll as perjury
on the part Of Whiteside, still, there
nection between this alleged offer and
Senator Clark, that evidence, even IL be-
lieved, can in no respect affect the re-
suit.
! VINDICATION WANTED.
Here, senators, I might stop and re-
: leve you from the tedium of listening
to my voice, were a report sustaining
! the only object of our defense. But we
wish something stronger than a formal
decision that the charges are not prov
en-. We wish-and justice requires that
we obtain, not only for Senator Clark,
but for the numerous men who have
been so unjustly slandered, and for the
commonwealth of Montana herself, a
complete vindication. For this reason
shall detain you by an examination OF
the evidence at large.
; / ask you first to consider the testi-
mony of Whiteside and those who have
been summoned to corroborate him, con-
cerning the source of these thirty thou
sand dollar bills, which have been put
: in evidence. Upon this the petitioners
} base their case. This is the foundation
OF the whole structure, which must fall
upon its removal. AS has been shown
even If Whiteside's testimony were true
: since no authority from Senator CLARK
to Mr.. Welcome to commit bribery or
ton in your minds Of his veracity would
} be insufficient to set aside the senatorial
election. The issue here Is sharply de.
fined between us. They insist that thu
money which has been produced came
from Welcome and was furnished Il
h i'm W af SonQf0N ri nr he Ia