The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-01-16
THE CLARK CASE
The Contestants Securing the Coun-
try for witnesses.

| rue opponents OF senator CldIh Oh MVh-
tana having utterly failed in bringing out
any evidence to prove that single one of
the votes cast for him in the Montana
Legislature were influenced by money.
nave undertaken to work up a sentiment
/ IN the newspapers to make good their
shortcomings before the Senate Committee
on Privileges and Elections
New York paper heads an article with
\ the statement that Mr. Clark's seat. ..is
said TO have cost 81 ESQ 000." and promises
that this declaration will be supported in
the next few hearings by ample testimony.
Eleven witnesses have been heard and
among them the two whom the prosecu-
ton have all along claimed to be the most
important. namely: Clark. the member OF
the Montana Senate, who Is said to have
been the recipient of $4,000 OF Senator
| Clark's money. although he voted against
him, and Whteside. who. while it was
generally asserted and firmly belle, ed that
he had for a long time been in the pay
OF Senator Clark's bltterest enemy. Marcus
DAILY. declares himself to have been In
the confidence OF the Senator's forces dur
ing the senatorial election, and the con-
hdentidl disburser of the money cor
ruptly used.
1t is difficult to establish motives for
this attempt at outside influence. Nobody
can expect, reasonably. with legislature
| so largely Democratic. that any successor
to Senator Clark, II he should not be con-
| hrmed- would be other than a Democrat.
The Governor might appoint. but while
ne is an anti-Clark man. and a Populist
at present. it would be unlikely that he
would appoint any other than one of his
own party.
One or two newspapers which were in
clined to be friendly to the Clark side of
the controversy a short time ago. have seen
light Of some kind, and II now not abso-
lutely hostile appear TO be dubious Of his
success. On the contrary. those who have
heard or read the testimony brought out
by the Senate committee, are of the opin-
ion that beyond the testimony Of State Sen
ator Clark and Mr.. Whiteside everything
has been practically in Senator Clark's
favor. These two gentlemen are the life Of
the contest. They made IL. Whiteside adj
mits that he engaged in the fight for the
purpose Of betraying II. II was matter
of common repute, and has so been proven.
that whiteside was an enemy of Clark
and the partner or employee of Daily, who
has declared that Clark shall never be
Senator from Montana IL he can prevent il.
1t does not strike anyone, and certainly
no one who has heard Whiteside's testi-
mony, and noticed the cautious, calculating
manner In which he delivered it and tried
to guard himself against any admission
that might perplex him hereafter or be con-
troverted or disproven, unless they have
very poor opinion Of Senator Clark's ability
or that Of his managers-even admitting
that he was willing to buy the senatorship
that they would put themselves in the
power OF so evident a betrayer. The only
man who voted for Senator Clark who is
alleged to have taken money for il. is Ii.
III. Carr. All the rest whose names have
been brought into the case. fought him to
the last Mr.. Carr Indignantly denies that
he ever got any money or was ever offered
any money.
The Daly-Clark fight has been long and
bitter one. Mr.. DAILY tits said, cares very
little for money, at least it is said that he
never hesitates TO put up any amount re-
quired il necessary to effect an object, II
is therefore probable that the case will drag
aioSs. until everybody whose testimony can
be obtained, whether based on actual
knowledge or conjecture, will be brought
forward. IL requires money to do this. and
a good deal Of 1t. and something stronger
than a patriotic desire to purify elections.
Mr.. Daily has money, but IL would hardly
be claimed by anybody who has seen or
heard Mr.. Whiteside. that he was the sole
possessor Of luch patriotic desire. The
Senate committee has adjourned for two
more witnesses ready. Those they have
brought forward have not fulfilled their
expectations One or two of them have
turned out TO be witnesses for the de-
fence. One OF them, Mr.. Dougherty, a
man by whom 1t was expected to prove
that his sleeping room was the place
where all the trading was done and the
money paid over. testified that to his
knowledge nothing of the kind occurred.
He gave his room occasionally to per-
sonaI friends TO hold private conferences
in. very usual proceeding in every
capital town.
The defence promises to wipe away the
little direct testimony that has been
given. They are obliged TO wait upon the
prosecution until their case is closed;
then they will probably show what the
$40 900 State Senator Clark is, and the
animus Of his testimony. II will hardly
be necessary to confute the last principal
Witness who was brought forward by the
a man named Hewett. a
miner who declared that he had talked
with everybody connected with the case, on
both sides and that they had poured out
to him their closest condolences. He says
young Clark. Senator Clarks son. told
him that $4,000 was in a number Of per-
sons hands to be given to State Senator
Meyers. and that he was asked to see
Meyers and tell him about it. Meyers
told him that he had heard that the
money was waiting for him, and that
Whiteside had it, and he was going to
get il.
Then Hewett stated that he had talked
the whole matter over with Senator CLARK.
and that Clark said it was the usual
thing to buy senatorial elections and
that he had plenty of money to pay for
this one, was going to get It, and II
afterward there was any trouble about it
he would lay it all on the DAILY fac
ton.
Mr. Hewett was obliged. however. to
admit that he was a Republican. that he
mad positively denied when brought be-
fore the grand jury that he knew any
hing about the payment of money, or
Knew anybody who had any to pay or any
body who was attempting to procure votes.
but that he had come to Washington. had
refused to talk to any Of the attorneys
for the contestants whom he knew but
had hunted up Washington lawyer. Mr..
Birney. and had poured out to him this
mass OF information. IL is probably nee
essary TO allow such an exhibition of de-
oravity. IL preferred by the contestants.
but ID would be too much TO expect that
it would have any influence on COM
nittee Of lawyers or honest men.