The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1900-01-25
SOME VIEWS AT WASHINGTON.
LRY q. a. nnMARns.


III there ever was any doubt In the minds
Of the people here about the right Of Gen.
ator Clark OF Montana to his scat in the
senate Of the United States, that doubt has
been dssipated by the testimony Of the
witnesses brought here by the prescott
ton 20 assist In the unseatiug Of the sena-
tor. have attended several meetings OF
the committee on privileges AMI elcetlons
Of the senate and | say Il solemnly TO
the people OF the Southwest, that I never
saw in my life so many msguiiicently
equipped liars. ! thought / knew some
thing about liars, especially the scrollwork
liar whose tales OF improbable things de-
light and amuse people. but these fellows
who are here at somebody's expense TO
testify against Mr.. Clark are the most
monumental aud splendid liars on the
face OF the earth. They lie unblushingly
and with great JUNCTION and when they
are cornered by Mr.. Clark's attorney OF
cross examination they admit that they
have lied and then give some of the most
unique definitions Of lie that any body
ever heard. They have the ha2iest ideas
regarding the truth OF any set of men
that ever testified before an investigating
committee in the congress OF the United
States. The chief witness against Mr..
Clark. Mr.. Fred Whitesides by name gives
this definition OF a lie "A lie is not a
lie when told to some one who had no
right to know the truth" Another Wit
ness, Mr.. Cascn. says; "a lie is not a
lie II made with the understanding that
It Is false"
Did anybody ever hear OF any such thing
beforeg The whole truth OF this matter is
bribery in this case against Mr.. Clark and
they never will. They have adduced no
evidence to prove that Mr.. Clark ever
bribed or had any man acting as his agent
bride any man to vote for him. No man
has ever been able to put his finger on
receive money to vote for Mr.. Clark. and
no man has ever testified, of his own
knowledge, that any man ever said he got
money. Mr.. Whitesdes may be the single
exception to this statement He did testi-
ty that he knew of four men who got
money. When his was pinned down to the
bedrock facts he was compelled to admit
that three of those men did not vote for
one man who. Mr.. Whitesides says. got
money was a Mr.. Carr. and who voted for
Clark, and Mr. Carr says that Whitesides
Is liar and so dubSed him on the floor
of the Montana legislature and has since
done so under oath. SO 1t has narrowed
itself down to question of veracity be-
tween those two men. In order to satisfy
any reasonable man as to the correct
statement. when there is a question OF
he tvpin hn sfr
stances surrounding the case should be
taken into consideration and the motive
Of each man for making the statement
should be understood. II is admitted by
Mr.. Whitesldes that he is under deep OBJ
legations TO Marcus DAILY, the millionaire
who is so bitterly fighting Clark, aud that
he is or has been in his employ.
1t is very easy to see why he is so
deeply interested in the unseating of
Clark. He is undoubtedly getting we'll
paid for his work, Another thing, his
testimony here and that given out in Mon
tana does not tally at all and his expla-
nation is not at all satisfactory to honest
men who are used TO telling the truth
The Impression IS gaining ground here
that the bribery business. II any was in
dulged in was done by the DAILY faction
with the intention Of fastening 1t upon
Clark and his friends. and | think the
senate COMMITTEES is about coming to that
conclusion, All OF tho testimony of the
prosecution so far has been vague and in
definite, with the exception Of the White
sides statement. When the witnesses
have been subjected to the test Of the
cross examination they have been COM
PEELED to admit that they never saw any
4 thing themselves and that they were
simply repeating heresay evidence. That
sort of evidence is no good any where
/ and il will be no good before this COM
mittee. My opinion is that the whole
| thing is a conspiracy to unseat Clark for
1 the qualification Of rival millionaire in
The state or Montana
| " IL a safe het that Mr., Clark will
never be enseated on any such evidence
as has been given before this committee.
So far there has been no testimony that
any man was brihed except the testimony
OF Whitesldes as to this man Carr Even
ut the committee had no reason 10 be-
/ lieve that Whtesides had motive In Civ
! ing such testimony even II IL believed
1 that Carr did receive money from some OF
! Clark's agents TO vote for him. that fact
/ would not have any effect on the report
1
/ prccedents for seating senators when the
number OF voters in the Legislature OF any
state ALLEGED TO have been bribed. does
! not affect the result II was proved clear
| ~ and absolutely in the case OF Henry y,
/ Payne of Ohio that money was used in
( his canvass to influence the votes OF menu
I bers of The legislature OF that State. but
IN WAS moi shown that Payne had any
l knowledge OF IT, and 1t was also shown
/ that the number OF men so influenced did
not affect the result OF the vote in the
/ legislature
That settled the matter and Payne was
not disturbed in the possession OF his
seat Now then II the committee should
report that this man Carr was Influenced
TO vote for Clark by the use OF money in
the hands OF one OF the friends of sena-
tor Clsk, which it probably will not do
In the face of all the facts, still It would
not affect their decision, because Il would
not have changed the result of tho Mon
tana senatorial contest. Clark being elected
/ by more than one vote.
! The senate OF the United States Is averse
\ TO having the dirty linen OF senatorial
contest washed in the presence OF the
senate and | think that 1t win promptly
/ turn down Mr. naIvss attafnnf IN mako n