| Show fAY SAY THEY RAVE HAVE I PROVED BRIBERY I Opposition to Senator Clark Cark of Montana File a Briefs Brief I 15 LEGiSLATORS or orID ID 01 II r 1 March for tor torIn fort In the case of Senn t 11 C have hae tr t r 3 on senate brIef bT N t the U n n J elections T fter rt In the th testimony In de the g ji fit iP the ca case o ot of I I members of hit lit t I were paid by Mr r Clark I Ih be their votes tor or St that lit At least nine nino others were erLd mo p for their ther votes anti that of otters proved ag agete be total AU hundred ete oil hundred dot dol ThIrd that Ihal was 11 t tf red b by Dr n a friend m Irl agent arDt of Mr r Clark to bribe the Ei t Iral to the pro lIra the Wellcome case caser In ft r tha Iha the tho n nen tnt of Mr Irk Ju JustICe Hunt Bunt of if the Su p thousand ToP Cui t one hundred Well case 1 ri tel t the como Ih t Mr tr lark Clark and his hll friends In 10 bribery anti ani lit at rJ of of the log leg ru tv t the election of Mr Much loch rk IS II 18 5 made of the testimony nl at err Ill t bribe Justice Hunt d Attorn Nolan olan In the Wellcome J UP It Is evident they Nr Ir Clark and lila friends of the de deI delon fr f T the I lon of that court In Its bearing upon contest otherwise they 1 Jd nt have han taken n a special train to Helena to s 4 It sod and arrange for tor the purchase of that court The TIu tact fact that Mr Ir Clarks Clarka r t Mt Mr Jsse D B Hoote foote the tho law part rr rf ol O Mt Ir Jhn U D Wellcome PaW Mr Ir IrI I 7 T CaJun hundred dollars to toa tart a the th Stilt State of It Montana Montan and not beC before re this committee II ADother ing to bear out the theare targe are or o till iII unlawful expenditure and andr r C Pi e f money by Mr Clark and ald hi DI U carry catry out their purposes Tte ITer 1 to bribe GeT ru to mo the of the thet t dID I is but another chapter of l thi e ng Itt st ry ot of bribery briber and attempted that marks the th entire historY of lit lIr t for tor the senator 1 lp p tio hI In August 1593 ibn D be agreed with Governor Hau er I to put flut up thirty thou Id Ed for fr the and tram from t f 7 to J thousand more for tor the and as much after ri at as necessary up to and In nj ig tb ft en hundred dollars to 10 l useD the nine lire m members of the Including Mr r Whiteside cro sworn before this corn com Ilee atee Ot Dt these the say nine nino la laken oath that they were offered ruey LlIe to lih for Senator Clark vIi nalon Clark Meyers and f Ka and Stilt Stiff Sal Sui Una Coony antI Murray t TI Day and claim ae admitted the receipt of money moner t ft dollars mho h after atter voting oUn for r lark tJark but tried to excuse It Either or otherwise they that the acceptance of bribes Is IsI I upon en others otherl From the proof adduced It is b ret reason iv i determinable they say that In l to the three hundred and thou thousand and dollars actually d 4 to t rs of the legislature b by It Clar Clark and his hla agents offers were tlde Cae to other olber members aggregating i ut One hundred and five to Referring IMming I ti the case of Mr Ir Day the ther r 1 says 18 The Tb t us IlmOn of both Mr Clark and Eo E Da establishes conclusively he e by Mr Clark to Mr Ir Day S tew da days after the sum of bi re thousand dollars which sum Ur Mr fr fys hs he In compensation compensation bl as a friend ot of Mr Clark he was In the city of Helena as asI I of If the legislature When liked hat service had bad you rendered L e replied KI I aCed ace the manager you ou might lay Ii or of his forces upon the of oC the th house I Attended to keep kg a qU present and seeing that f hl were sent for that were n tt t presen It at roll call and made rao mo and attended to the as you would call It rf if lii friends In that body Mr lIr lark Clark as AI follo follows It flU as In of my friend tu ta Mr lay bay and the work he per hi n rl r In ng to or organize the legis lature to ti b ette speaker and in 11 or tr r to our ur forces In which how Ir eer u n f leJ t recognized that he Wurth r f this consideration sr r that no part of this Ce p dollars went to the other 1 h f I the law firm ot of which he a parne The contention on the Crt rrt 1 Lt 1 Mr ir Da By antI and Mr Clark that thi u f deceive no one Jl It rei re I I in direct violation of at the ath t f Mr ir Day that he be would e or Indirectly any Cliney re lr r valuable thing for the P r r ot of any let or r to my office ti II At I by a strange e coincidence It 11 p dod Ott on the same lame day that I 5 Dw mythical ih h all 1111 Over the coast retch I 1 Ot If r And according to Dy By ter t i j t rn nine thousand dollars mining stock which nine nino tb i Lir rs together r with six hi hg trunk Yater had kept In all 1111 Winter WILl was depo In e I b hank This live tL which according to n i of Mr Clark was Ced f to 1 Day ly by Mr Dald Davidson on was waa by Mr Davidson cc e rae lit ht testimony lie He reo re n having paid Mr Day two red lIr r ibe alile dollars and at b had bad PaId ald him m money ney but once Dt entirely the pay of D T live thousand dollars to Mr Mr Ir p informed the committee t h had ben employed by Mr r I the lIt adjournment of the tl I in working up a ca Case e looking k 5 t f th disbarment ot W A tI l b county that he had Ih s h b en It lila hll employ before and bd arranged this Ir employment l lark ne He had copied I t r In i the C Court recOrds of ht t COunty COUry to Which consumed from a 0 I and ot of an hour of lles bid Pe or eight Wits It hp hI their testimony be Ib court wa nit all alli i t lit iP hail had performed hd but he re C f nr r 1 the th lum sum of t ne thousand h Slid and eighty dollars and ari las C i In Mr Clark larks 10 53 oled for tor Clark employ lie Ile On Ih 7 k ueral question ot of fact the following deductions ate made Ft Firc tWit that general corruption was by Mr r Clarks agents Second that corrUpt practices practice were known and authorIzed by him Third that he not only authorized euch practicEs by his but per In then and made ct at forts to cure votes otes b by bribery Fourth that h cOrruption by bym m means of bribery i f of the thele le ture his hll Was secured Fifth that while the laws of his State the u use e ot of more than one dollars b by a candidate for tor the Senate to Us election Mr r Clark for p purpose by his own confession at leut one hundred and dollars and that the tee appointed by him to ox ex pend this money moncy the tho laws ot of the State b by tailing to make I a report thereof M required by the lie statutes rho rhe following fIve propositions of laware submitted as properly controllIng Ing In this cause First that proof of general enel land and lx cx corrupt practices In with the election and upon the of the legislature Is l tU dent clent to warrant and require a Judg Judgment merit ment of the Senate that the lie election was wa void ala Second that It as the tho undisputed evidence proves Mr Clark appointed a committee or a 11 body ot of b what whatever over ever name they ma may be culled called to ho he confided the he general charge of the operations l to his III a senator and supplied them with money to carry ar on his cause unit th they entered upon such agency and in the coute coui of It were guilty of corrupt to secure lecure votes for him Mr Clark Is just justas as much affected thereby as al It ht he hall had himself done the same samo thing although he mn not have haG known that such sueh con conduct conduct duct was Willi to be or was Practiced and did not Intend that It should he Third that If the undisputed eI dence proves Mr Clark was wal present itt at atthe the capital during durin substantiallY the whole time ot of tho ho and In con stunt stanl communication sitti his agents he way wan bound to know what means of oC accomplishing ln his election were beIng to an and must be charred charged with knowledge of their acts Fourth that It It appears to the satisfaction of the committee that vot ot I ent were and proS pro procured cured to vote ote for tor Mr Clark without whose votes otes hI he could not hare received a maJority then the election was 18 void without regard as to whether the votes otee were secured by himself a agents or b by strangers Fifth It if Mr Clark employed the means and used the money which the lie statutes of Montana command he shall I not employ and Use to procure his dec elec ton the election Is absolutely void old I as al much so liS as it If direct bribery briber had I been praCticed After analyzing the testimony In the ho brief of U pares pages the he close with the following summary First our first proposition of fact Is that general corruption was al practiced Iced by Mr Clarks agents We that boY the evidence reviewed gives II abundant SUD support Ort to this contention It Is conceded that 13 or more was WILS spent to secure his election that after aCter the general election his agents traveled about the State Slate to secure votes otes for tor him that during the days das of the session ot of the legislature before his election h he maintained In helena from to men called in III from all parts or of the State to Influence members and that he be paid at least their ex cx expenses these to nut ices than ns as admitted and that It wall Wa common knowledge In Helena that votes were bought In ht his Interest Second Our second pro proposition that such luch corrupt practices were known to and authorized by him Is e established by the proofs which show that after having placed with this committee the great sums lums which ho he admits he made madeno no Inquiry as to how the they then them no accounting And no explanation tion and statement from them even when in lie mo most t solemn way the they were charged with having used that money for tor purposes ot of briber lie He was In helena during the tho whole time of the struggle In constant conference with wih the men who gave the bribes and ox ex expended the mone money and referred persons to them to get money and In conversa conversation tion with Mr Ir and again with Mr showed beyond contradiction tion his hll knowledge of what was waa being done third pro proposition that Mr Clark personally engaged In cor corrupt rapt rupt practices and made nade efforts to so se secure cure votes otes b by bribery briber Is II established b by bylie the lie testimony of the he Ector letters and hl his communications with DIckford con concerning the Woods transaction as fled to b by both Mr Clark and Mr b by the testimony of Re Mr Warren that Mr Clark accepted the suggestion tha lint t lie he should pa pay Donner ten thousand dollars for his rotc b by the testimony of Mr Cason supported b by the Itter he pro produced produced that Mr Clark directed him to see Representative and offer him ton ten thou thousand and dollars for his ser services vices Ices by the tact fact that he paid Day live fhe thou thousand and dollars for tor torno forno no other service than that performed In Inthe inthe the assembly and for tor his vote ote by the tact fact that be paid Representative Fine the five thousand dollars fur his hll vote and that he told the witness Jackson at Salt Bait Lake City that be had used mone money to secure lecure lila hll own election It Is I Proved beyond a 11 question that he paid to the tho committee of three to sundry persons to Day to Re Representative Fine 5 to Wm cDermott to John Ii 11 Wellcome to Senator D 0 Warner arner to McLaughlin to Senator to to Clark of Madison Madlon total and dl di direct and circumstantial testimony o es establishes the further payment of OO nl as follows ro If 11 H Gurr to Tierney to Representative Bywater to Representative to to Rep Bep r to Representative Harker 2000 to Representative to Eversole to Senator to Senator Gieger fourth proposition that through bribery briber ot of the members of the legislature Mr r election was so se secured cured is 18 established by the evidence that money Will was paid In return for the lie Votes otes of senators and members whose names are given as well as by the lack of proof of any reason wh why other rep representatives elected upon a ticket which bound them to vote ote for tor Mr Conrad tOI or United States senator should have tie de tented the will of their constituents by voting for tor Mr Clark and the further lUck lIck of nn any satisfactory explanation of ofa n a sudden change chane ot of votes of the eleven eleen Republicans who on the da day of at his elec ion cast their for him It is II cere tam that but for tor these corrupt ballots he could not have hac been fifth proposition that Mr Clark flagrantly vIolated the statutes of Montana In securing his hll election Is es Cs by the statutes thid nd Senator Clark In conclusion we submit that the evidence taken as al a whole establishes corruption In title this election ot of It a senator unparalleled In recorded precedents and conduct which If justified would bring shame and disgrace upon the institutions of our country countr |
