Show I CLARKS CAS I Briefs on Both ll Sides Are Sllbllhitt1 Ijllh1Jtllis of Committee I II I I ARGUMENT POSTPONED Speeches Were to Have Been Heard Today WILL I BE MADE TUESDAY Delay is on Account of tho Enforced Absence of Some Members of tho Committee Brief of tho Memorial ists Signed by ExSenator Ed munds Arthur A Birney and Ex I Congressman Hartman Covers 148 PagesIt Shows that Evidence Discloses Dis-closes that Fifteen Members of the Legislature were Paid by Mr Clark I or His Agents and that Wholesale I Bribery is Shown Brief of Defense Sets Forth that Marcus Daly was tho Instigator of the Contest and Makes General Denial as to Bribery I Washington March 27The argument I argu-ment in the case of Senator Clark of I Montana which was to have been heard by the Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections tomorrow has been postponed until Tuesday of next week on account of the enforced absence of some of tho members of the committee The briefs on both sides of the case have been distributed among members of the committee The brief of the memorialists covers H2 pages and Is signed by exSenator Edmunds Mr Arthur A Blrney and tXrCongressman Hartman > BRIEF OF MEMO RIA LISTS Counsel for the memorialists In the case of Senator Clark of Montana have submitted their brief to the Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections After reviewing the testimony in detail de-tail counsel presents the following as established facts In the case of evidence adduced I FirstThat at least fifteen members of the Legislature AVCIC paid by Mr Clark and his agents for their votes SecondThat at least nine others were offered money for their votes and that the total amount of offers proved aggregate 175000 Third That 100000 was olfercd by Dr Treacy a friend and agent of Mr Clark to bribe the AttorneyGeneral to dismiss the proceedings In the Well come case FourthThat the same agent of Mr Clark offered Justice Hunt of the Su premo court 100000 to dismiss the Wellcome case Fifth That Mr Clark and his friends engaged in wholesale bribery and attempted at-tempted bribery of members of the Legislature to secure tho election of Mr Clark TESTIMONY REGARDING HUNT Much Is made of the testimony alleging al-leging J efforts to bribe Justice Hunt and Attorney Nolan In the Wellcome disbarment case It Is I evident they say that Mr Clark and hie friends fully realized thc importance of the decision de-cision of that court In Its bearing upon Mr Clarks contest t otherwise they would not have taken a special train to bring his agents to Helena to negotiate nego-tiate and arrange for the purchase of that court The fact that Mr Clarks agent Mr Jesse B Roole the law partner part-ner of Mr John B AVellcome paid Mr Z T Cnson 1500 to leave the State of Montana and not testfy before this committee Is another circumstance going go-Ing to bear out the charge of tho unlawful un-lawful expenditure and corrupt use of money by Mr Clark and his agents to carry out their purposes LONG STORY OF BRIBERY The offer of 100000 to bribe the At torneyGeneral to moAe the dismissal of the proceedings Is I but another chapter chap-ter of the long story of bribery and attempted at-tempted bribery that marks the entire history of Mr Clarlis campaign for tho Senatorsnlp from the time In August 1S9S when he agreed with Gov Hauser and others to put up 35000 for the primaries and from SIOOOO to 60000 for the general election and as much afterward aft-erward as was necessary up to and includIng In-cluding the 1500 payment to Cason WHAT LEGISLATORS SAID Of the ninetynix members of tho Legislature Including Mr Whlteside thirtysix wore sworn before this committee com-mittee Of these the memorlullHls say nine have taken oath that they were offered money to vote for Senator Clark viz Senators Whitcslde Mey ers Clark and McKay and Representatives Representa-tives Stiff Sullivan Coonoy Normoyle and Murray Two Messrs Day and Fine they claim have admitted the receipt re-ceipt of money 5000 each after voting for Clark but tried to excuse it Either Eith-er by direct testimony or otherwise they claim that the acceptance of bribes Is llxed upon fifteen others LARGE SUMS EXPENDED From the proof adduced It Is reasonably reas-onably determinable they say that In addition to 32SOOO actually paid to members of the Legislature by Mr Clark and his agents offers were made to other members aggregating about 175000CASE CASE OF DAY IS CITED Referring to the case of Mr Day the brief says The testimony of both Mr Clark and Mr E C Day establishes estab-lishes conclusively the payment by Mr Clark to Mr Day a few clays after the election the sum oC 5000 which sum Mr Day say he accepted In compensation compen-sation for his Hervlcos m a frIend of Mr Clark while he was In the city of Helena ax a member of lie Legislature Legisla-ture When K8ked what service hljd you rendered he replied I I acted as the rnunager yon might say or leader for his forces upon the llo > r of thl House I attended to keep lug a quorum presentand seeing that friends of his were sent for that weN not present at roljcall and made motions mo-tions and attended to the ordinary pnr l lamontary you would call ll procedure pro-cedure of his friends In that body CLARK JUSTIFIED HIS ACT Mr Clark Justified as follows It was in consideration of my friendship for Mr Day and the work ho performed I In trying to organize the Legislature to be l elected Speaker and In order to control con-trol our fores in Avhlch however we failed I recognized that he was worthy I of this consideration I Mr Day admits that no part of this S5000 went to the other members of the I law llrm of which he is a partner WAS IT A GIFT The contention on the part of Mr Day and Mr Clark that this was a gift will deceive no one It waa received re-ceived In direct violation of the oath of Mr Day that would not knowingly receive directly or indirectly any money or other valuable thing for the performance or nonperformance of any act or duty pertaining to my ofllce etc And by a strange coincidence it was recorded on the same day that Representative Bywalers mythical brother who Byes all over the coast reached Helena and according to By water paid him 5000 for some mining stock which 3000 together with GOOO Bywatcr had kept l In his trunk alt Inter was deposited in the Montana National bank OVERLOOKED BY DAVIDSON This SoOOO which according to the testimony of Mr Clark was delivered to Mr Day by Mr Davidson was cn tlrely overlooked by Mr Davidson when he gave his testimony He remembered re-membered having paid Mr Day 200 or 5300 and Unit he had paid him money mon-ey but once But he had entirely forgotten for-gotten the payment for 5000 to Mr Day GOOD PAY FOR SERVICES Mr Fine informed the committee that ho had been employed by Mr Clark since the adjournment of the I Legislature In working up a case lookIng look-Ing toward the disbarment of W A Clark of Madison county that he had I not been in his employ before and that he had arranged l this employment AvHh Mr Clark himself He had copied two papers In the t court records of Madl con county which consumed from a half to threequarters of an hour of lime and had seen seven or eight witnesses wit-nesses regarding their testimony beforetime before-time Supreme court This was all the service he had performed but he had received the sum of 5480 and Avas still In Mr Clarks employ lie also voted for Clark WHAT DEDUCTIONS ARE On tho general question of fact the following deductions are made First that general corruption was practiced l by Mr Clarks agents Second that such corrupt practices were known and authorized by him Third that he not only authorized such practices by his agents but personally per-sonally in them and made efforts ef-forts to secure votes by bribery Fourth that through corruption by means of bribery of members of the Legislature his election was secured Fifth that while the laws of his State prohibit the use of more than f no thousand dollars by a candidate for the JScjmto Jo pipe his election Mr MjlaTk employed for his purpose by his own confession at least ono hundred and thirtynine thousand dollars and that the committee appointed by him to expend this money violated the laws of the State by falling to make a report thereof as required by the statutes L LAW CONTROLLING THE CASE The following fie propositions of law are submitted as properly controlling control-ling In this cause First that proof 1 of general and extensive ex-tensive corrupt practices in connection connec-tion with the election and operating upon the members of the Legislature IM sufficient to warrant and require a judgment of the Senate that the election elec-tion was void GUILTY OF CORRUPT PRACTICES Second that If as the undisputed evidence proves Mr Clark appointed a committee or a body of agents by Avhuluvcr means they may bo called to whom ho confided the general charge of the operations looking to his election elec-tion as Senator and supplied them with money to carry on his cause mid they entered upon sUch agency and In the course of it were guilty of corrupt pracie8 to secure votes for him Mr Clark Is just as much affected thereby as if he had himself done the tame thing although he may not have known l that such conduct wasto be or was practiced and did not intend that It should be KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS Third that if the undisputed OAi deuce proves Mr Clark was present at the capital during substantially the whole time of the struggle and In constant con-stant communication with his agents ho was bound to know what means of accomplishing his election were being resorted to and mUst be charged with knowledge of their acts < ELECTION VOID Fourth lint Jf if appears to the satisfaction of tho committee that voters were corruptly influenced and procured to vote for Mr Clark without with-out whose votes he could not have received re-ceived a majority then the election was void without regard as to Avhether the votes were secured by himself agents or by strangers Fifth if Mr Clark employed the means and imsed the money which the statules of Montana command he shall not eniDlov and use to procure his election the election is absolutely void as much so as If direct bribery had been practiced CASE SUMMARIZED After analyzing the testimony in the brief of 112 pages the memorialists close with the following summary First Our first proposition of fact Is that general corruption Avas practiced prac-ticed by Mr Clarks agents We submit sub-mit that the evidence reviewed gives abundant support to this contention It Is conceded thct 139000 or more wits sp nt to secure his election that after the general election his agents traveled about time State to secure votes for him that during the twentyeight days of Ilia session of the Iiugislaturc before his election ho maintained In Helena from 230 to 100 men called In from all parts of tho State to Influence In-fluence members and that ho paid at least heir expenses these amounting thousand to not less than fortythree dollars as admitted and that it was common knowledge in Helena that votes were bought In his Interest SECOND PROPOSITION Second Our second proposition that such corrupt practices were known to and authorized by him Is established by the proofs which show that after having placed with this committee time I great sums which he admits he made nolnqniry as to how they spent them asking no accounting and no uxpiana i tion nnd statement from them even when In the most solemn way they were charged with having used that money for purposes of bribers Ho was In Helena during the whole timo of LCorUIntmd oi p1g iKS CASEI l Continued from Page 1 the struggle In constant conference wilh the men who gave the biibes and expended the money and referred persons per-sons to then to get money and In conversation con-versation with Air Whltetdde and again with Mr Hewett showed beyond contradiction his knowledge of what was being done WHAT TESTIMONY SHOWS Third Our third proposition that Air Clark personally engaged In corrupt cor-rupt practices and miule eitorts to secure se-cure voles by bribery Is established by the lesllmony of the I Eclor Icttcrii and his commtinleatlon wilh BJekfoid concerning con-cerning the t Woods transaction as testified I testi-fied by both Mr Clark and Mr Jilck ford by the testimony of Rev Mr Warren that I Mr lark accented the suggestion that he should pay Representative Repre-sentative riosmer JO 000 for his vote by the testimony of Mr ruson supported sup-ported by l lh letter he produced that Mr i tlark directed him to see Representative Repre-sentative Marcyes and offer him SIO nCO for ills Hervlr es by the I fad hat ho paid Representative Day SMHiO for no olher services than hint performed In the General Assembly and foi his vote by the fact that he paid Ucprcsenia Ito Fine r000 for his vote and lint he told the witness Jackton at Stilt Lake City that he had used money lo seeine his own clecllon MONEY PAID OUT ft is proved beyend a cuiestion that he paid to the commute of three t 130000 to sundry persons 2SOO to Representative Day 5000 to Representative Repre-sentative Fine 5W0 to Milllam Mc I DermDll riOOO to John H l Wellcome 5000 to Senator D C Warner STOO to Senator McLaughlin SlGfOO to Senator Whileylde 5000 lo Senalor Myers 10000 lo Senator dark of Madison 10000 toial 207390 and direct di-rect and circumstantial testimony established es-tablished lie further payment of 105 500 as follows To Representative 11 I 11 Garr 3000 to Kepresentallve TIerney Slono lo Representative I By water 15000 1 to Representative Jacquelh 10000 lo Representative I I Woods SOCO to Representative Repre-sentative Shovlln 500 In Represenla tie llarker 2000 lo Representative Beascly GiX0 to Representative Ever sole 5000 lo Senator Hobson J5000 to Senator Gleger 5000 HOW HE m SECURED ELECTION Fourth Our fourth proposition that through bribery of the members ot the Legislature Mr Clark election was ivoured Is established by l the evidence lint money was pild in return for the voles of Senators and members whose names are given as well us by l the lack of proof of any reason why other Representatives elected upon a 1 ticket which bound them lo vole for Mr I Conrad Con-rad for United Stales Senalor should have defeated the will of their constituents con-stituents by l voting for Mr Mark and the further lack of any satisfactory ex planallon of a sudden change of voles of the eleven Republicans who on the day of his election east their ballots I for him It is certain hint but for these corrupt ballots ho could not have been elected Fifth Oui fifth proposition that Mr Clark llagrantlv violated the statutes of Montana In securing ills election IS l established by the statutes and Senator Clarks admissions In conclusion ve submit that lie evidence taken as a whole establishes corruption In this election of a Senator unparalleled In recorded precedents and conduct which If justified would bring shame and disgrace upon the in slilullons of our country BRIEF OF DEFENSE The brief of the defense signed by lion Charles J Faulkner and tiIi Roger Foslei covers 232 pages and Is divided inlo a discussion of Ihe facts and lie law in lie case from Senator Clarks standpoint The document Is throughout an arraignment of the prosecution pros-ecution It begins with lie assertion that an examination of this testimony will confirm the most skeptical in the belief that those who seek lo brand a majority of the representatives of a sovereign Slates as dishonest and as bribe takers are influenced by no lofty purpose of remedying an evil nor is It entered upon from a desire to maintain the integrity of the membership member-ship of the Senate of the United States The facts shown in this record fully justify the assertion thai Ihose who originated this prosecution were con rolled only by sentiments of the bit crest personal and political hostility SENTIMENT OF MONTANA It is then declared that no man who was a candidate for lie Senate in oppo sillon to Mr Clark has given encouragement encour-agement or countenance to the contest that flftylwo of lie fiftysix newspapers news-papers In the State supported Mi Clark and that the sentiment In the State of Montana is fo universal for Mr Clark thai the leading spirit of the Protestants whose wealth has supported sup-ported and whose prejudice has animated ani-mated this prosecution hits found it necessary lo invest large sums of money In the purchase of the press of the State and In other cases by the establishment es-tablishment of newspapers with the hope of checking and dividing the sentiment sen-timent of the puoplo of Montana WHO INSTIGATED CONTEST After some other preliminary remarks re-marks the brief definitely and specifically specifi-cally names Mr Marcus Daly as the chief instigator of he contest The staiemenl 011 Oils point Is as follows Marcus Daly having defeated Senator Clerk In 1SSS for Congress and for the Senale In 1RIKJ through treat I horj to his parly organization was unwilling lo restrain re-strain his personal I hostility I and to par mil the voice of the people through their legally conHllluted representatives lo determine lie election of their Sena tom and according lo lilo testimony an early as Ihe lOlh of bnmry dSW he organized a committee of his personal friends and agents to vork up and prepart a case agaInst the seating of Senator Mark by this buds f WHAT TESTIMONY DISCLOSES The tesllmony will boar out the assent as-sent lout lhal every member of this prosecuting committee was either one uf the conspirators In tin attempt to defeat Mr Clarks election or an employee em-ployee of Mr Daly or an adherent of his faction In the Stale In the attempt to fasten some fact upon Senator Clark or his friends lending lo show bribery or corruption this itch fconisI tuted committee has employed every means which the unlimited un-limited use of money could command including the use of detectives In Montana Mon-tana In Washington and in New York with the t view of obtaining some cot roborallon of the testimony of lie con splrnlory Reviewing the charges made In the memorial In opposition to Mr Clark It IB claimed that out of the thirtyseven names given of members who were bribed there lo an absolute fit iltmre lo Introduce any proof of any character by AVhiteslde or any one else what they know of any act by which twenty I of these men were bribed or have hoard any friends of Senator Clark In any conversation claim lhal they were bribed CHIEF CONSPIRATOR The contention Is then mads that the prosecution of the case Is lie result of a conspiracy former Stale Senator Whlleslds being represenled as the chief conspIrator Mr Whllcsldes statemenls It iti l declared can not be I accepted because of their improbability I improb-ability when taken in connection with uneontradlcted facts The connection of the prosecution with the wItnesses Hill Wright llln chell Cowan Eclor Lyon Jackson Hewitt Cason Varren Representative I Normoyle and Representative Murray is reviewed at length after which the authors of the brief remark i Fortunately for the honor of this great body truth und Justice In the case of the witnesses named has triumphed over fraud perjury and attempted at-tempted Perjury The development of the methods employed In the cases mentioned must throw discredit and excite the suspicion of all falrmlnderl men as to all the testimony Introduce with a view of sustaining the theory of this proxfcutlon TESTIMONY REVIEWED A r vieu Is made of the testimony relating re-lating to the following members of the Legislature Measis Cooniy McKay Sullivan Long llobson Moore Black Connolly Fin Bearley TIerney Gel ger McLaughlin Woods Day Warner and Sneaker Stiff and the point made that ihen IK no evidence tending lo show that they were corruptly Influenced In-fluenced In I the case of Mr McLaughlin who sold Home timber land to Senator Clark about the lime of the meeting of the LcglBlalure the brief says We assert thai there Is not a word of testimony In the record whIch can be construed in any way against Sana Lair Clark or upon which any crIticism can be advanced as to the conduct of Senalor Clark and Air McLaughlin in this transaction CASE OF WOODS I In the case of Woodx to whom 7000 was tendered by Mr Rlckford 11 is remarked re-marked Taking the account of the transaction In which Mr l Eetor differs fiom Judge Blekfon1 It stands as a eompletM vindication I of Woods Both admit that Ihe h money was returned lo Charles W Clark Then IH not a word In that testimony as shvn by this record lint would justify any conclusion conclu-sion thai ould affect the Integrity and honesty of Representative Woods PRESENTS TO CLARK MEN Wilii reference lo Mr Day thus state ment Is mad A month after the election elec-tion Senator Clark In recognition of the services of certain of hH supporters sent them a present In the form of a check or certificate of deposit Gen I men seleeicd for this recognition of his appreciation were John B Wellcome William McDrrmotl and E C Day the sum to each being 000 Had Mr m Day not been a niember of the Legislature as Wellcome and McDermott were not the I committee we suppose would not have permitted I any evidence upon this t subject to be spread upon the records Witli lie plain straightforward and consistent statements made by both Senalor Clark and Mr Day we feel sal Islied that this transaction cannot even ereale an unfavorable impression upon lie minds of Ihls committee TRANSACTION WITH WARNER In the case of Senator Warner We feel thai Ihe testimony of Lyons Nolan and Campbell completely sustains the Position we have taken that it never entered en-tered the minds of those managing the prosecution lo rely upon this ordinary business transaction of the transfer of properly from Warner to fharles W Clark through hIs agent until they found lint they could not rely upon Lyons to sustain by I his lestlmony Ihe slatemenl thai wns manufactured and every word of which Lyons swears was false a ° It j should be understood under-stood hint there Is no testimony connecting con-necting Senalor W A Clark I even remotely re-motely with this transuellon FOR SPEAKER STIFF In the case of Speaker Stiff A man who could in any Slate secure the support sup-port of any faction for the position of Speaker after permitting three attempts at-tempts to be made upon his honesty and manhood without manifesting the t slightest Indignation and who continues to preserve the friendly relations ihlch had previously existed between himself and his tempiers evinces a very low plane of morals in Montana or lie commlllec must be convinced that the I statement is untrue It Is even shown by Ills own testimony that after the occurrence with Blckford he told him ho would meet him In I I3utle and aftertime after-time lust conversallon with Cook he accepted ac-cepted an Invitation as his guest to visit the Montana club In justice to Stiff we feel thai the committee must come to the conclusion that those stale ments are the result of the opinion wlileh he must have reached that Ihe exigencies of this proceeding demand the narration of Cooks story before this commlllee EVIDENCE DENIED The cases of Representatives Cullen Jacqueth and Bywaler arc lien referred re-ferred to counsel saying The only wilnesses who pretend to give direct testimony as lo those three members of the Legislature are Fred Whltcslde and William F Eclor Every material allegation contained in the evidence of 1 either of these witnesses In reference i to tho three members mentioned has been not only denied by every person a hom either oC them alleged had knowledge of the facts but IH cnntra dlcled by all these denials as against the uncorroborated statements of these two discredited wilnesses ANALYZING TESTIMONY Much space is devoted to the question as to whether John B Wellcome fur nislud lie 30000 which Whlleslde presented pre-sented to the Montana bribery Investigation Investi-gation commission and in tills connection connec-tion the testImony of biteside is ana S lyzcd at length In an effort to break it down Twenty pages are devoted to sifting Whlleskles testimony and then lie brief says We have shown by the evidence of John B Wellcome Charles W Clark William McDermott A J Steele JohnS John-S Nelll W M Bickford and Walter Cooper the most active and earnest friends of Senator Clark that not a dollar dol-lar of money was corruptly used to Influence In-fluence tin action of members of lie I Montana Legislature of IbtiO to vote for Senator Clark We have also shown by S the evidence of Senator Clark that he personally did not know about the corrupt cor-rupt use of money to Influence members of the Legislatures S CLARKS ACCOUNTS Reference Is next made to tile exhibit of Senator Clark ucroums and thus comment thereon I If 1 those accounts 1 are I rue 11 I has been demonstrated beyond be-yond the possibility of a doubt by the evidence of transactions which took place and were recorded at the time of tile occurrences that Ihe 30000 placed by Whlleslde before the Legislature f could not have been received from SPU I ator Clark or his friends With reference to the testimony of lie Judges of the Montana Supreme court it Is said thai il is only material to the case from the light it throws on the character and reputation of the member mem-ber of the court so as to prove the I wisdom of Mr Wellcomes determlna I 1 lion not to testify before ilium in the proceedings for his dlsbarmonl It is also claimed thai ihia testimony can In no way affect the right of Senator Sena-tor Clark to his seat and also thai It i IK i not within the scope of the resolution of Inquiry |