The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1900-04-07
arguing CLARK CASE.
COUNSEL CONCLUDE AND COMMIT
TEE WILL DETERMINE 1T.
Messrs. Foster and Faulkner Close
Argument for Clark. and ex-seu-
ator Edmunds for Memorialists-
Committee to Meet on Tuesday.

WASHINGTON, April 6.-Mr. roster con-
tlnued his argument today before the sem
ate committee on elections in the case cf
Senator Clark. OF Montana. He reviewed
at length the testimony OF witnesses for the
memoria,ists, contending that mucn of II
was hearsay and therefore not conipe tent
He contended that there was no bribery In
the employment OF a. legislator, unless the
employment was made conditional upon his
vote. He also argued that the fact mat
the leg. slators had obtained additional
wealth was no proof against Clark, as the
increase might easily come from other
sources. He declared that a majority or
witnesses for the prosecution were employ
ed by Marcus DAILY and two-thirds of them
were ccnfessedly corrupt. The evidence
was. he concluded incompetent to convict
a tramp for petit larceny and was ridiculous
when depended upon to unseat United
States senator.
Mr. Foster was followed by his colleague
ex-senator Faulkner, who also charged
corrupt motives in the prosecution. saying
that II was the result of a combination of
wealth and perjury. He laid the blame for
the proceedings at the door of Marcus DAILY
and his agents. alleging that II was in no
wise sustained by public sentiment in the
state of Montana
Faulkner contra sted the theory that
Clark's financial contributions, prior to the
sitting Of the Montana legislature, had been
issued to forward his own interests in con-
nection with the senatorial contest The
senator was. he said the only leader Of
the anti-Daly movement and the part he
was to perform was that OF supplying
funds. no enc will deny he had a perfect
right to do. Instead OF appearing as
candidate in the state campaign Clark had,
in explicit terms, refused TO permit the
use of his name. With reference to the
destruction OF bank checks Faulkner said
that that course was usual after the close
OF a political campaign.
Faulkner defended the action of the
Republican executive caucus in declaring
for Clark and dwelt at length on the
charge made by the defense that the pros
ecution was the result of n conspiracy.
quoting State Senator Cullen. Lawyer
Corbett, Witness Ringwall and others in
support of this theory. He urged that II
was inconceivabe that Clark's managers
would have delegated as much to White
side as was claimed. when they knew that
he was an enemy in disguise.
In conclusion. Faulkner discussed the
improba bilty that Welcome should have
paid out the $4,000 used by Whiteside in
his exposure, declaring that IL was impos-
sibe for him to do so. because, as he
claimed. the evidence shows that from
January to January TO- he, c. w. Clark,
Steele and Davidson, all told, had only
S21, 900 in their possession. The whole
matter has been explained by the bank
accounts which had been so freely exhb-
tied. Faulkner also reviewed the testi-
mony directly involving Clark. contend
ing that all of II was incompetent and I'M
worthy, and urging that Clark had come
through the ordeal unstained.
The last speech of the series was made
by ex-senator Edmunds, in support of
the prosecution. He took up the charge
OF conspiracy and undertook to show that
the $780, 900 used by whiteside In his ex-
poseure had been supplied by Mr.. Clark's
friends Instead of having less than
$50. 900, he eontended that Mr.. Welcome
and his associates had. according to the
evidence. received. up to the time of the
exposure more than SEQ. 900. True, the
claim was made that much OF this sum
had been expended in the campaign, prior
to the meeting OF the Legislature. but II
this was the case, the evidence which
would put to shame the whole charge
had been destroyed when the checks and
vouchers used In the campaign were
burned.
Mr. Edmunds defended Mr. Whiteslde,
saying that he had only acted In accord
ance with his conviction as TO what his
duty to his state was Detective service
such rs he performed was necessary I'm
order to uncover crime such as he under
took with honest purpose to expose Ho
accounted for the employment Of the per-
sons whose characters had been criticised
by saying that In cases OF bribery It was
absolutely necessary to employ go-be-
tweens. Bribery was universally the
mother OF perjury. rendering it almost
impossible to secure proof at first hands
II. however these agents were corrupt
II they were good or bad they had de-
rived their character from the hands Of
Mr.. Clark or his agents.
Mr. Edmunds defended the Montana z,l-
preme court, and ridiCu.cd the explanation
made by c. W Clark and Attorney cor
bett as to the special train from Butte
To Helena. when Justice Hunt claimed to
have been approached by Treacy As to
MIR. Clark. he had no enmity towards that
gentleman. He had no doubt that. In max
ing his canvass Tor tho senate he had act
| Cd up to his highest ideal Of right which
was the belief that he could purchase with
| money what he wanted
Referring 70 the legal points he main
/ taiued that the senate should declare va
/ cant amy senatorial seat whose occupant
had been elected BY corrupt practices r..
was also satisfied that the Montana stat
/ Ute prohibiting the use OF more than s. 50o
I In campaign was Tsffcieut 10 render
/ void Mr Clark's election.
Mr. Edmun3s concluded his remarks a
I O'Clock thus c.osiuE the hearing OF the
/ famous case
! Tho committee adjourned untu NEXT
I Tuesday, whon a meeting will be held TO
I consider the question o: a report