The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1900-04-08
ARGUMENTS IN CLARK CASE
Hearing Ended - Committee VIII
Meet Tuesday to Consider.

Hearing Ended Committee VIII
Meet Tuesday to Consider.
Washington, April G.-Mr. Foster con- !
tinued his argument today before the
senate committee on elections in the case
of Senator Clark of Montana He review
ed at length the testimony of witnesses
for the memorialists, contending that
much Of it was hearsay and therefore
not competent He contended that there
was no bribery in the employment of a
legislator unless his employment was
made conditional upon his vote. He also
argued that the fact that legislators had
obtained additional wealth was no proof
against Mr.. Clark, as the increase might
easily come from other sources. He de-
clared that majority Of the witnesses
for the prosecution We're employed by
Marcus DAILY and that two-thirds of
them were confessedly corrupt. The
evidence, was. he concluded, incompetent
to convict a tramp for petit larceny and
it was ridiculous when depended upon to
unseat United States senator.
Mr.. Foster was followed by his col
leagues, former United States Senator
Faulkner, who also charged corrupt mo-
tives in the prosecution, saying that it
was the result of a combination Of
wealth and perjury. He laid the blame
for the proceeding at the door of Marcus
DAILY and his agents, alleging that it was
in no wise sustained by public sentiment
in the state Of Montana. Faulkner con-
tradicted the theory that Mr.. Clarks
financial conditions prior to the sitting OF
the Montana legislature had been used to
forward his own interests in connection
with the senatorial contest. The senator
was, he said, only a leader of the anti
Daily movement and the part he was to
perform was that of supplying the funds
which no one would deny he had a per-
| feet right to do Instead of appearing
as a candidate in the state campaign,
Clark had in explicit terms refused to
permit the use of his name. With refer
ence to the destruction of bank checks
Faulkner said this course was usual al
ter the close of political campaigns. Mr..
Faulkner defended the action of the Re
publican legislative caucus in declaring
for Mr.. Clark. He dwelt at length on the
point made by the defense that the prose-
cution was the result of conspiracy, quot
! ing State Senator Cullen, Lawyer Cor
bett, Witness Ringwan and others in
support of this theory. He urged that it
was inconceivable that the Clark mana
gers would have delegated 50 much to
Whiteside as was claimed, when they
knew that he was an enemy in disguise.
In conclusion Faulkner discussed the
probability that Welcome should have
paid out the $4,000 used by Whiteside in
his exposure declaring that it was i'm
possible for him to do so because, as he
claimed, the evidence showed that from
| January 1 to January 10, he, c. w. Clark,
Steele and Davidson, all told, had only
$4,000 in their possession. The whole
matter had been explained by the bank
accounts which had been so freely ex-
hibited Faulkner also reviewed the tes-
timony directly involving Clark contend
ing that all Of it was incompetent and
unworthy, and urging that Clark had
come through the ordeal unstained.
The last speech in the series was made
by ex-senator Edmunds, in support of
the prosecution. He took up the charge
of the conspiracy and undertook to show
that the $4,000 used by Whiteside in his
exposure had been supplied by Mr..
Clarks friends. Instead of having less
than $4,000. he contended that Mr.. Well
come and his associates had, according
to the evidence, received up to the time
Of the exposure more than 100000. True,
the claim was made that much of this
sum had been expended in the campaign
prior to the meeting of the legislature.
bur If this was the case the evidence
which would put to shame the whole
committee had been destroyed when the
checks and vouchers used in the cam
paign were burned. Mr.. Edmunds defend
ed Mr.. Whiteside, saying that he had
only acted in accordance with his con-
yiction as to what his duty to his state
was. Detective service such as he per
formed was necessary in order to I'M
cover crime such as he undertook with
honest purpose to expose. he accounted
for the employment of the persons who's
characters had been criticized, by saying
that in cases of bribery it was absolutely
necessary to employ go-hetweens. Brib-
cry was universally the mother OF per
jury, rendering it almost impossible t
secure proof at first hands. II, however
these agents were corrupt. If they were
good. they had derived their character
from the hands Of Mr.. Clark or III.
agents. Mr.. Edmunds defended the Mon
rana supreme court and ridiculed the ex
planation made by c. W. Clark and At
tornev Corbett as TO the special trail
from Butte 10 Helena on the occasion
when Justice Hunt claimed 10 have beef
approached by DR.. Tracey. As Tor Mr.
| Clark. he had no ennity towards ina
gentleman He had no doubt that Il
making his canvass for the senate n
, had acted up 70 his highest ideal
. right. which was the belief that ne cou''
purchase with money what he wanted
referring to the legal points, he main
tanned that the senate. sould declare va
can't any senatorial seat whose occupan
had been elected by corrupt practices Il
T., was also satisfied that the Montan
!, statute prohibiting the use OF more 5ha'
- 800 in a campaign was sufficient TO rsn
der void Mr.. Clark's election Mr.. Ed
MINDS concluded his remarks AT
o'clock thus closing thu hearing IN IN
. lannon's case The committee sijourne'
: unttl next Tuesday. when a meeting W
\ be held to consider the question Of r.
: port