Fergus County argus. [volume] (Lewistown, Mont.) 1886-1946, 1900-02-28
,i the Silver Bow delegation as an interme-

OF the Silver Bow delegation as an interme-
diary
Mr.. Welcome said that after his election
Mr.. Clark had given him s5 900 for his ser.
vices, and that he had also been
paid $4,000 by Others for his
work In the interest OF legislation. His
partner, Mr.. Root, had received $4,000
from Clark for his legal services in the
Welcome disharment case.
In reply to Senator Murley, the witness
said the friends OF Senator Clark had made
an effort after the Whiteside exposure to
trace the source from whence the $780,
had been received, but had not succeeded
satisfactorily.
"You did not get uuquestionable proof
Of conspiracy"
al doubt it,"
"Did you get proof sufficient TO convince
fair-minded man, regardless OF court
rules?"
II could not say as to that"
Senator Clark's son will be heard tomor.
row.
Washington, Feb. 22.-C. W. Clark, son
of Senator Clark, OF Montana told the
senate committee on elections today that
he had an independent income OF S25O,OOO
a year aud that he was in business for
himself Clark submitted what he said
was detailed statement OF his receipts
and expenditures for political purposes
during the Montana campaign. The az
gregate footed up to SllS,O00.
DR.. Martin testified concerning his vari-
Gus interviews with Justice Brantley, pro-
ducins letter written him by Clark in the
Welcome case.
The letter was as follows:
Dear Mr.. Martin: II you could see our
mutual friend, Judge b., and state to him
what John Il. I. told you, outlining the
plan OF the campaign, which practically
showed that everything was practically
pre-arrauged, am sure that he would have
better understanding OF the Welcome
proceeding, and would not allow that
splendid nan to be disbarred. He has a
lovely wife and children and II is II shame
that he should suffer disgrace through two
such disreputable meu as Whiteside and
my namesake, w. A. Clark, OF Madison
county. (signed')
"W. A. CLARK"
Martin said that "our mutual friend,
Judge b." was Judge Brantley and John
X. r. was John X. Toole, who for iour
weeks previous to the meeting OF the legis-
lature had told him that the reports con-
cerning Senator Clark's methods would be
investigated by u committee.
In the course OF the examination OF
Charlie Clark and in response to Senator
Hoar, Clark said he did not think single
vote had been changed by the expenditure
OF the money. 1t was deemed necessary,
however, to employ men to prevent their
friends in the legislature from being intim-
idated by usual DAILY methods. large
amount of money had been expended in
entertaining friends. HOar pressed the
inquiry:
What did you expect these men to do?'
he asked "Were they to sleep with the
members?"
"No. They were with them great deal,
however. We expected them to lobby"
''Do you think men who voted for your
father would have done 50 II you had not
spent any money!" asked Senator Gallery.
81 think so.''
"Then why did you spend it'"
"Wel, hotels in Helena put up their
charges when the legislature is in session
and living is high"
In reply to Campbell, Clark said that
no part OF the 100000 put up by
, Whteside was bis money.
The committee closed the day with re-
quest upon Clark and his father to allow
its subcommittee to examine their private
bank accounts for the period covered.