New-York tribune., 1900-01-09
THE CLARK INVESTIGATION.
ONE OF THE WITNESSES AGAINST THE
MONTANA SENATOR CRoss-ExAMINED


Washington, Jan. s.-Ex-Senator Whiteside, Of
Montana, continued his testimony in the Clark
case before the Senate Committee on Privileges and
Elections to-day. He was cross-examned by ex-
Senator Faulkner. The examination brought out
the fact that Mr. Whiteside as a member of
committee to investigate the State Capitol Com
mission had made minority report charging cor
ruption, He asked If this was the in
which he had suggested to J. P. McCabe that the
minority report could be suppressed for $500, but
denied that such the case saying that the
money had been offered, and he had suggested that
1t be paid over, so as to enable him to 1t In
with his report. He said that his sole purpose in
undertaking the exposure of bribery in the Legis-
lature that elected Mr.. Clark was protect the
good name of the State. Il desired he said. ito
have some accept the money, so as to expose
the methods Of Mr. Clark"
did you become friend Of Mr. Clark's friends
for the purpose of entrapping them?"
II can't say exactly, but 1 suppose did"
I'm doing this didn't you know that you were
assuming attitude of Misrepresentation"
'I did"
'"Was not this a position of falsehood?"
81 can't say to that. but I had to make a
Der Of misrepresentation"
What do you consider lie?'
II consider a lie a misstatement to one who has
q right to know the truth-not to one who has no
right to know it..
Mr. Whiteside said he did not see how any honest
man could vote for Mr.. Clark after the exposure
OF the investigating committee, and added under
pressure that the remark applied to the hfty-four
members Of the Legislature who cast their votes
for Mr. Clark. He said in reply to a question
that Marcus Daily acquaintance of his, not
friend though he should be glad TO have him for
a friend.
Have you received s35,0Oo for this pretended
exposure2" asked Mr.. Faulkner
Il have not received $50, 900 any other sum for
that service" the witness replied
The cross-examination further brought out chat
the witness had no personal knowledge of bribery
of Of he hers of As
Relating his conversation held with Senator Clark
prior TO the latters election he said he posi-
things that state Senator Anderson could not
be influenced with money like some Of the other
by Mr. Welcome. as appeared in the printed report
of his testimony before the Grand Jury of Lewis
The witness said the money to pay for the
present prosecution had been raised by subscrip
ton, and that he understood that Mr. Daily was
one OF the subscribers to the fund.
from Mr.. Whitesde that his knowledge that bribery
was going on confirmed when party to the
and said: That's what We do the business With;
The cross-examination sought to bring out the
witness and election official who held the ballots
IN the election in which Whitesde had partcipat-
$1,000 for the ballots Mr.. Whiteside denied that
this had occurred, and asserted that he had
proof to show that person had been paid to make
such statement against him. He also said that
prosecution instituted against him due to
prejudice and was inspired by one Of Mr.. Clarks
At one point Mr. Pettus, of the committee, OBJ
jected to having the witness 'badgered" by coun-
sci. Ex-senator Edmunds, of counsel against Mr..
proper but they were not objected to- as the widest
latitude desired in testing the witness.
of his being authorized to offer 5000 to each Of
two members. with $500 down on condition ;Hl that
questioned all the details.
The cross-examination was still IN progress when
the committee adjourned until 1O15 o'clock to-
morrow morning