The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1900-04-24
ton with the conclusions reached b.
the committee.

ton with the conclusions reached py
the committee.
Corruption Clearly Established.
On this point the committee adds the
following:
HE expended sum vastly in excess Of
the limit provided in law, and failed TO
receive any return, and such return was
made by the persons acting In his be-
half"
Referring 10 the destruction of checks
and vouchers. IL Is remarked that the
committee find the case proved, without
relying upon such destruction of checks.
failure to render accounts and disregard
of the legal limit OF expenditure. But
they furnish to the committee strong ad-
ditfonal reasons for believing the other
evidence which seems to them to estab
fish the corruption charged"
Law Points Presented.
Only two points of law are presented, as
follows:
l. 1t is clear that If. by bribery or
corrupt practices on the part of friends
of a candidate who are conducting his
he would not have had a majority, his
election should be annulled. although
proof Is lacking that he knew of the
bribery or corrupt practice
2. 1t seems to have been admitted that.
If the person elected clearly participated
in any one act of bribery or attempted
bribery, he should be deprived of his
Office although the result of the election
was not thereby changed.
Clark Must Have known.
Commenting on the legal phases of
the case. the committee says:
According to the law, as understood
by the committee, Senator Clark cannot
be permitted to retain his seat. He re-
ceived 81 votes. and there were %
against him, leaving him an apparent ma
jority of Is. If he obtained, through ile-
gal and corrupt practices. eight votes.
which would otherwise have been cast
against him, he was not legally elected
More than this number of votes. the COM
mittee find from all the evidence, were
thus obtained
ut also is a reasonable conclusion, On
the whole case. that Senator Clark is fair
ly to be charged with knowledge of the
acts done In his behalf by his commit ee
and his agents conducting his canvass. He
arrived in Helena from Butte on January
and remain there until after his election
and was in constant conference with his
committee and agents"
Campbell and DAILY Criticized.
Referring to Mr.. Campbelrs connection
with the case. the report says:
Much criticism has been made OF the
contestants, especially of A. j. Campbell
a member OF the house OF representatives
and an active prosecutor OF the charges
the committee cannot refrain from ex-
pressing their disapproval Of many of the
methods pursued by Campbell and White
side In the prosecution Of the charges
against Senator Clark and they do not ap-
prove OF the action of Mr., DAILY In agree
ing to furnish an unlimited amount OF
money to carry on the prosecution.
while II IL true that bribery can never
be proved by the testimony or the brlber
nor OF the person bribed. and that it is
almost necessary to obtain the required
information from go.betweens. or persons
who have explored the field and made re-
ports backward and forward as 10 the
probability OF obtaining results by bribery
yet some members of the committee believe
4 I......
which are proved and established against
Mr.. Campbell. Some members OF the COM
mittee. however. do not join in any crit
icism of Mr. Campbell and AR DAILY
Attempt to Brfbe Judges.
The majority of the committee express
ing the judges of the supreme court ~
Montana need special consideration, and
relating the circumstances connected with
this episode they remark:
Upon the FOREGOING undisputed facts
and other facts which are controverted. a
majority of the committee believe that Sem
ator Clark's agents, In their desperation
on account of the decision Of the court to
take jurisdiction In the Welcome case. at
tempted an improper approach to the
judges az the court and to Attorney Gem
era Nolan. which OF itself cannot hut have
had certain influence In the consideration
of the other acts OF the agents in con-
nection with the senatorial election.
majority OF the committee. however, be-
acta and that the evidence does not suf-
ficiently bring home to Senator Clark or
his agents any improper attempt to In
fiuence the court or the attorney general"
Clark Has Nothing to Say.
The report was presented by Senator
Chandler for the entire committee and was
not signed a minority of the committee
did not approve of some of the features.
The views of the minority win be submit
ted later. Senator Clark refused to make
any statement at this time.
Big Buffalo Mine sold.
LEWISTON, Idaho April 22-Charles
Sweeney. a Well-knnMn Snnkane canitaIist