The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1900-04-11
Sharp Criticism Of The Methods Pursued BY
the Prosecution In Case.
THE TESTIMONY WAS CUMULATIVE.
And as Such Il Was Grsn Weight BY Committee
Ssna.ors. Chandler and TurIsy Selected 10
Prepare Report 10 Ssnas.


yesterday decided by a unanimous vote
TO recommend the adoption of a resolu-
tion declaring that Hon w. A. Clark of
Montana is not entitled to occupy his
seat as a senator from Montana. The
decision was reached after a two hours
sitting. at which all the members of the
committee were present except one.
The absentee was Senator Caffery of
Louisiana. and he wired his vote in op-
position to Mr.. Clark. The ballot was
not taken until all the members present
had expressed themselves upon the
question, some of them speaking at
some length. and all expressing differ
ent shades of opinion.
Senator Harris OF Kansas Indicated
the most pronounced leaning toward
leniency for Mr.. Clark. He did not ex-
press any doubt that there had been a
lavish expenditure of money i'm MIR.
Clark's behalf, and while not condoning
this course. he spoke in terms of strong
condemnation of the tactics pursued by
some of Clark's opponents. referring es-
pecially to Congressman Campbell and
former State Senator Whiteside. He
said that whatever were Mr.. Clark's
offences they were but little worse
than the methods pursued by Campbell
and Whiteside in their efforts to expose
the senator, and he insisted that IL the
report was TO be antagonistic TO Mr..
Clark IL should at the same time relate
in full detail the course pursued by the
two pr ncipai witnesses against him.
SENATOR PETTUS AGREED.
Senator Pettus practically agreed
with Mr.. Harris. The two senators also
expressed some doubt as 10 the justif'-
cation of the conclusion drawn by a
majority of the committee that Sena-
tor Clark's candidacy for the senate be-
gan in August, 1S9S when he returned
TO Butte from New York. The effect
of this conclusion was TO charge up the
entire $l39, 900 which Senator Clark con-
fessed TO have expended to his cam
paign for the senate. while the>conten-
tion was made in Senator Clark's be-
half that he had not become a candi-
date until after the state election. thus
eliminating from the campaign in his
Individual behalf the amount spent in
the general contest.
Senator McComas was among the
senators who expressed themselves as
convinced that the senate seat was in
view from the beginning. Mr.. Nc
Comas. however, united with other sem
ators in condemning the methods pur-
The consensus of opinion of the COM
mittee appeared unfavorable to accept
ing any one special feature against Mr.
Clark as the bass for the report
against him, the general opinion being
that IL was the cumulative character OF
the testimony that should be con-
sidered rather. than any one special
detail. Senator Harris raised the point
in Mr.. Clark's behalf that the cumula-
&c tl,x, saGf fffan
properly be considered. but he was
overruled in this position.
THE WOOD AND OTHER CASES.
If prominence was given to any one
line Of testimony more than TO another
IL was that dealing with transactions
apparently of a regular business ma
ture between Senator Clark and MS
agents and members of the legislature.
The purchase Of property from Senator
Warner and Representative McLaugh-
i'm and the money rendered Represent
ative Wood to lift the mortgage from
his ranch were considered as bearing
directly upon the case. OF these mat
ters, the Wood case received especial
attention The payment of money TO
Representative Day after the election
of Mr.. Clark also had weight. Inc
opinion was expressed that no one or
these facts was sufficient basis for an
adverse report, but all agreed that all
those facts, many OF them admitted.
together with other occurrences con-
nected with the campaign, were sufii-
cient to justify positive position
against the senator's continuing TO
hold his place.
The fact that Senator Clark and his
representatives had failed TO make
their reports to the state AUTHORITIES
of Montana as required by the state
10 n alg.
discussion IN The committee. as was the
fact that he and his representatives
had destroyed all their vouchers show
ing where money had been used and
to whom paid.
When attentios was called TO the fact
that this course was usual with cam
paign managers. the statement was met
with the contention that while the plan
might be more conm'ialy adopted than
IA should be. still there could he no
reasonable excuse for II after the
Whteside exposure II was then known.
II was asserted. there would be con-
test, and the argument was made that
every scrap OF paper bearing upon the
election should have been preserved
after this development in the cnse.
VICTIM OF ENVIRONMENT.
, There were many expressions in the
committee favorable to Senator Clark
from personal point or view, and
more thaG one senator gave uttcrance
To doubts as to whether he had actual
personal part i'm or knowledge OF the
expenditures. Others expressed the
opinion that the sepator was In GER
tain snnse the victim. Of environment
and of habit The outlay OF money in
past elections in Montana was dwelt
upon as one OF the explanations 81 the
liberal expenditures in this case
Senator Turley was among the sena-
tors who diss@ated from the view that
Mr.. Clark could have been uniformed
OF the fact that money was being used
to promote 1iis election. and he made
one OF the most vigorous tallcr on the
series I'm favor Of an adverse report.
Senators Chandler and Turley were
directed tn pf,ppare the fepOrt III ia