Page images
PDF
EPUB

In view of the issue thus made, it is important to reexamine some of the facts showing exactly what Senator Clark's personal connection has been with the circumstances which have resulted in his resignation from the Senate.

It is not intended to reiterate at any length facts stated in the report to prove the correctness of what is asserted in the foregoing extract.

The preliminary arrangements for so influencing the nominations and elections to the legislature that he could be chosen Senator were made by Mr. Clark personally, as appears under the third head of the report. Nothing since the hearing closed has tended to impair the facts stated concerning Senator Clark's own personal connection with the course of his canvass for election as Senator.

In the case of Mr. E. C. Day, recited under the fourteenth head of the report, it appears that the transactions originated with Mr. Clark himself, who, on February 13, in writing, personally directed that the $5,000 should be given to Mr. Day for his services in the legislature and as a retainer as counsel in the future. Mr. Clark says that he wishes to correct a misstatement. He says, "I never wrote a letter couched in such language," but he then proceeds to say that the amount was paid to Mr. Day as a testimonial of friendship. The gloss which Mr. Clark now tries to put upon a very serious transaction of his own is not consistent with the language of Mr. Day, quoted in the report. In opposition to Mr. Clark's statement in the Senate may be put his testimony before the committee as follows:

"Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Day voted for you during the canvass?

"Senator CLARK. Mr. Day voted for me.

"Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes; he was one of the leaders of your force?

"Senator CLARK. Yes, sir.

'Mr. CAMPBELL. And was the recognized leader for what was called the Clark faction of the Democratic party?

"Senator CLARK. He ran as speaker of the house of representatives, I believe, representing our forces.

Mr. CAMPBELL. And upon the floor of the house he was the recognized leader for the Clark forces, was he not?

"Senator CLARK. I am not sure of that. I think he was. I never was in the house of representatives or in the joint assembly.

"Mr. CAMPBELL. Do you not know, as a matter of fact, that he was the man who made the motion to take a second ballot upon the day on which your election occurred?

"Senator CLARK. Yes; I believe he was.

I think he was recognized as the leader

of the Clark forces in the house of representatives. "Mr. CAMPBELL. And four days after your election you made him a present of $5,000?

"Senator CLARK. Yes, sir.

"Mr. CAMPBELL. What was that for?

"Senator CLARK. It was in consideration of my friendship for Mr. Day, and for the work performed by him in trying to organize the legislature to be elected speaker and in order to control our forces, in which, however, we failed. I recognized that he was worthy of this consideration. We expected to have, from the talk that was going around, more or less trouble or litigation, and Mr. Day was to take charge of everything of that kind, and has done so.

[ocr errors]

In the case of Mr. McLaughlin, stated under the sixth head of the report, Mr. Clark says of the statement of the committee that "In December, 1898, Senator Clark began negotiations with one H. W. McLaughlin, a member of the legislature, for the purchase of his wood lots and sawmills." "This statement, Mr. President, is not correct;" and he proceeds to justify this charge by stating that the negotiations were begun by Mr. Bickford and not by himself in the month of September before Mr. McLaughlin was ever nominated for the legislature. The fact was that Mr. McLaughlin and Mr. Bickford did enter into preliminary negotiations, without doubt growing out of Mr. McLaughlin's expected nomination and election to the legislature. The committee regarded all the excuses given for the purchase by Mr. Clark directly and personally of all Mr. McLaughlin's property at an extravagant price as a very clear case of improper arrangement with a member of the legislature. Although Mr. Clark calls the McLaughlin incident a "weak case" and a "flimsy expedient," the facts are convincing as to the character and purpose of the so-called "purely business enterprise."

As to the Woods case, stated under the seventh head of the report, Mr. Clark says that the statement of the report that he knew of Mr. Bickford's attempt to purchase the indebtedness which Woods owed is absolutely unfounded, and that he never heard of the transaction until it was disclosed in the testimony during the investigation. It is true that the scheme for controlling Mr. Woods by buying up his indebtedness originated with Mr. Bickford and that Mr. Bickford on December 31, 1898,

went to Missoula with five $1,000 bills and four $500 bills, which he had obtained from C. W. Clark for that purpose. But it also appears that Senator Clark in response to letters from Dr. Ector took up the case of Mr. Woods and came to comprehend what was intended. Mr. Ector's letter to Mr. Clark of December 7, 1898, and Mr. Clark's letters to Mr. Ector of December 10, 1898, and January 4, 1899, leave little doubt that Senator Clark knew what Mr. Bickford was engaged in doing, especially in view of the fact that Mr. Ector's letters of November 17, 1898. and January 3, 1899, are not produced.

In the case of Mr. B. F. Fine, stated under thetwelfth head of the report, it is not denied that the arrangement with him to work for Mr. Clark, for which he received $5,000 for nominal or useless services, was made by Mr. Clark personally during the session of the legislature after Mr. Clark's election. The criticism made by Senator Clark is "that there was no agreement, but merely a statement made by me to him after my election.' This different form of putting the case is not material. The committee did not claim that Mr. Fine would not have voted for Mr. Clark had it not been for this arrangement, but that it was like the case of Mr. E. C. Day, a payment afterwards for services as a member of the legislature under circumstances which at least aroused suspicion that there was an understanding to that effect before the election.

In the case of Mr. Z. T. Cason, who gives an account of Mr. Bickford's efforts to induce him to endeavor to corrupt Mr. Marcyes, it appears from Mr. Clark's own testimony that he had interviews with Mr. Cason, and at last, on the 3d day of February, 1899, sent to Mr. Cason $500 in a letter giving thanks for his services. The personal activity of Senator Clark in conducting the details of his canvass is thus very clearly indicated. The testimony of Mr. Cason was not credited by the committee because he wrote a recantation at the instigation of Mr. Jesse B. Root, Mr. Wellcome's law partner, upon receiving $1,500 from Mr. Root for copying and signing the recantation and going into hiding in Baker City, Oreg., as stated on page 13 of the report. But Senator Clark's own testimony as to his relation with Cason and his letter to him inclosing the $500 stand as undisputed facts.

As to the approach to Mr. Justice William H. Hunt, of the supreme court of Montana, stated on page 14 of the report, while it does not directly appear that Senator Clark had knowledge of this approach made by Dr. Treacy, who also in a similar way approached Attorney-General Nolan, yet there stands against Senator Clark the significant fact, proved by Mr. Clark's letter to Rev. A. B. Martin, that he urged Mr. Martin to approach Chief Justice Brantley in order to prevent the disbarment of "that splendid man, John B. Wellcome." This admitted fact certainly justifies a strong suspicion that the other attempts to reach the court made by Dr. Treacy, under the circumstances narrated in the report, were known to Senator Clark.

Reference will now be made in this report to the criticisms of the chairman made by the minority of the committee in their addendum to the report, by annexing the following memorandum by the chairman.

MEMORANDUM BY THE CHAIRMAN.

The statement that the chairman left the committee little to do is unjust. The chairman did nothing except what such an officer is expected to do. Every impor tant ruling was made either by decision of the committee or by the chairman in the first instance after an order of the committee was made prescribing that course of proceeding, with the understanding that any member of the committee might dis sent on any point and have it decided by the vote of the committee.

The minority say that the committee made an order at the beginning appointing the chairman and another member to determine what witnesses should be summoned and it was determined that way at first, but the chairman kindly relieved the other member of that labor and determined that matter for the committee. The Senator from Alabama and the chairman were appointed to consider in the first instance applications for subpoenas for witnesses. Forty-four witnesses were summoned and heard for the prosecution; 41 witnesses summoned and heard for the defense, and 7 witnesses summoned directly by the committee. As to witnesses for the prosecution and defense, the lists which were submitted in the first instance by the two sides were deliberately considered by the chairman and the Senator from Alabama, and every question arising was passed upon.

Those lists covered three-quarters of the witnesses summoned. Subsequently in some few cases the chairman summoned witnesses where previous decisions to summon had established a principle which covered the new requests, and there the formality of consulting the Senator from Alabama may have been omitted. Such cases probably did not exceed a dozen. Various witnesses are upon the list who came to

Washington without being summoned, and were called to the stand by the respective parties. The question of summoning witnesses to prove the attempt upon the supreme court of Montana was decided by the whole committee; and it may be further and finally added that, so far as Senator Clark was concerned, there was no refusal to summon any witness whom his counsel insisted upon obtaining.

While the chairman was sick at his house he received an important communication, which seemed to him to require the instantaneous summoning of two witnesses. For those witnesses he telegraphed immediately, and at once sent to the committee a report of what he had done, in the following words, on the 3d of March, 1900:

66

There are two more witnesses whom I have taken the responsibility of summoning, and do not wish to state the facts and reasons until I am sure that I shall get them here. The principal witness claims to be sick.”

The circumstances connected with the summoning of this principal witness are detailed in memorandum which is in the hands of the committee. His name is J. A. Largent, of Greatfalls, Mont.

Another statement, on page 24, of the two Senators is that the report fails to state in connection with the destruction by Senator Clark, in June, 1889, of his checks, that it was his habit to destroy such checks. The two Senators are mistaken. The report distinctly states that fact on page 11, where it says that the destruction of the checks was "in accordance with what he testified was his custom."

Another statement of the two Senators is that "statements are made as facts which are based only on the testimony of a witness of doubtful credit, and that testimony plainly contradicted." This is an error. The report from beginning to end shows no statement made as a fact unless it is an undisputed fact, and no conclusion appears to be reached by the majority of the committee on contradicted testimony without the contradiction being plainly noted; and one important statement appearing on page 8 should be constantly borne in mind, that, laying aside substantially all the controverted facts, "there would still remain sufficient evidence in the case to lead the committee to find, as they do, that Mr. Clark's election is void.

WM. E. CHANDLER.

At the second session of the Fifty-sixth Congress Mr. Chandler submitted a resolution in the Senate on Saturday, the 2d day of March, 1901, declaring Mr. Clark to be personally responsible for the offenses set forth in the report of the Committee on Privileges and Elections, submitted April 23, 1900.

(Cong. Rec., vol. 34, pp. 3420, 3421.)

Upon this resolution Mr. Chandler addressed the Senate March 2, 1901, his remarks being found in the Congressional Record, volume 34, pages 3421 to 3435.

[Fifty-seventh Congress, second session; Fifty-eighth Congress, first and second sessions; Fifty-ninth Congress, first and second sessions.]

REED SMOOT,
Of Utah.

On Monday, February 23, 1903, the credentials of Reed Smoot, elected a Senator by the Legislature of Utah for the term of six years beginning March 4, 1903, were presented to the Senate of the United States and placed on file. On the same day a memorial, signed by 18 citizens of Utah, was also presented protesting against his being "permitted to qualify by taking the oath of office or to sit as a Member of the United States Senate." On the following Thursday another protest, signed by John L. Leilich, also one of the signers of the original memorial, was filed, charging that Reed Smoot was a polygamist and that as an apostle of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints-commonly called the Mormon Churchhe had taken an oath "of such a nature and character as that he is thereby disqualified from taking the oath of office required of a United States Senator." The original memorial was a document of consid erable length and is set forth in full in the report of the Committee on Privileges and Elections, which forms a part of this history of the case.

On the first day of a special session of Congress, which convened on the 5th of March, 1903, following a statement by the chairman of the Committee on Privileges and Elections with reference to cases involving the question of the qualification of persons submitting proper credentials, Reed Smoot was allowed to be sworn in as a Senator without objection. Subsequently, on January 25, 1904, at the second session of the Fifty-eighth Congress, a resolution was reported by the chairman of the Committee on Privileges and Elections authorizing an investigation by that committee of the right and title of Reed Smoot to a seat in the Senate. On January 27, 1904, this resolution was reported by the Committee to Audit and Control the Contingent Expenses of the Senate, to which it was referred, and agreed to by the Senate. After an investigation and consideration of the case of more than two years' duration, it was not until the last month of the first session of the Fifty-ninth Congress, or, to be exact, until June 11, 1906, that the committee submitted a report, accompanied by a resolution, declaring Reed Smoot not to be entitled to a seat in the Senate. A minority report, signed by five members of the committee, was also presented and made a part of the record. There was a division among the members of the committee with reference to the question of whether or not the case should be handled as one of expulsion, and one member of the committee, who joined in the committee report, stated on the floor of the Senate that it was his view that Reed Smoot could not be deprived of his seat, under the Constitution, except by expulsion. In the proceedings by the committee no evidence was produced tending to substantiate the charge that Reed Smoot was a polygamist and no such charge was made on the floor of the Senate; neither was his personal character assailed by Senators for or against the resolution.

The debate in the Senate on the above-mentioned resolution did not commence until the second session of the Fifty-ninth Congress had convened, but it continued at various times during the months of December, 1906, January, 1907, and February of the same year, the final vote on the resolution being taken on February 20, four years almost to a day after the filing of his credentials. The Senate amended the committee resolution in such a manner as to require a two-thirds vote to declare Reed Smoot not entitled to a seat in the Senate. This amendment, offered by Mr. Hopkins, was adopted by a vote of 49 to 22. A substitute amendment to the resolution, offered by Mr. Carmack, that Reed Smoot "be expelled" from the Senate, failed of adoption by a vote of 27 to 43. The final vote on the resolution declaring Reed Smoot not entitled to a seat in the Senate, as amended by Mr. Hopkins, failed of adoption by a vote of 28 to 42. The history of the case here given consists of a statement of the proceedings of the Senate in the case is published in the Congressional Record, the report of the Committee on Privileges and Elections, the views of the minority of the committee, a statement of the days on which the question was debated in the Senate with reference to the record of the same as published in the Congressional Record, references to the speeches by different Senators for and against the committee resolution as found in the Congres sional Record, the result of the vote on the "two-thirds" amendment to the resolution, the vote on the, "expulsion" amendment to the resolution, and the final vote on the resolution as amended.

[Fifty-seventh Congress, second session.]

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1903.

Mr. Kearns presented the credentials of Reed Smoot, elected a Senator by the Legislature of the State of Utah for the term of six years beginning March 4, 1903, which were read and placed on file.

Mr. Burrows presented a memorial of citizens of Utah, remonstrating against the admission of Reed Smoot to a seat in the Senate as a Senator of the United States from the State of Utah; which was placed on file. (Cong. Rec., vol. 36, p. 2496.)

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1903.

Mr. Burrows presented a memorial of John L. Leilich, of Utah, remonstrating against the admission of Reed Smoot to a seat in the Senate as a Senator of the United States from the State of Utah; which was placed on file. (Cong. Rec., vol. 36, p. 2689.)

[Fifty-eighth Congress, first session.]

THURSDAY, MARCH 5, 1903. Mr. Hoar, for the chairman of the Committee on Privileges and Elections, made a statement to the effect that he (the chairman) understood the orderly and constitutional method of procedure in regard to administering the oath to newly elected Senators to be that when any gentleman brings with him or presents a credential consisting of the certificate of his due election from the executive of his State he is entitled to be sworn in, and that all questions relating to his qualification should be postponed and acted upon by the Senate afterwards.

His reasons for this procedure are here set forth as follows:

"If there were any other procedure the result would be that a third of the Senate might be kept out of their seats for an indefinite time on the presenting of objection without responsibility, and never established before the Senate by any judicial inquiry. The result of that might be that a change in the political power of this Government which the people desired to accomplish would be indefinitely postponed." The same day Mr. Smoot took the oath of office as Senator from Utah. (Cong. Rec., vol. 37, p. 1.)

[Fifty-eighth Congress, second session.]

MONDAY, JANUARY 25, 1904. Mr. Burrows, from the Committee on Privileges and Elections, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee to Audit and Control the Contingent Expenses of the Senate:

Resolved, That the Committee on Privileges and Elections of the Senate, or any subcommittee thereof, be authorized and directed to investigate the right and title of Reed Smoot to a seat in the Senate as a Senator from the State of Utah; and said committee, or any subcommittee thereof, is authorized to sit during the sessions of the Senate and during the recess of Congress, to employ a stenographer, to send for persons and papers, and to administer oaths; and that the expense of the inquiry shall be paid from the contingent fund of the Senate upon vouchers to be approved by the chairman of the committee." (Cong. Rec., vol. 38, p. 1100.)

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 27, 1904.

Mr. Kean, from the Committee to Audit and Control the Contingent Expenses of the Senate, to whom was referred the resolution submitted by Mr. Burrows on the 25th instant, authorizing the Committee on Privileges and Elections, or any subcommittee thereof, to investigate the right and title of Reed Smoot to a seat in the Senate as a Senator from the State of Utah, reported it with an amendment striking out "and during the recess of Congress;". The Senate proceeded by unanimous consent to consider the resolution, and agreed to it as amended. (Cong. Rec., vol. 38, p. 1239.)

TUESDAY, APRIL 26, 1904.

Mr. Burrows, from the Committee on Privileges and Elections, reported a resolution authorizing the committee in the Smoot case to sit during the recess of the Senate. The resolution was referred to the Committee to Audit and Control the Contingent Expenses of the Senate, subsequently reported by Mr. Kean from that committee, and agreed to. (Cong. Rec., vol. 38, p. 5628.)

[Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.]

SATURDAY, JUNE 2, 1906.

Mr. Burrows, from the Committee on Privileges and Elections, who were instructed by the resolution of the Senate of January 27, 1904, to investigate the right and title of Reed Smoot to a seat in the Senate as a Senator from the State of Utah, reported that in the opinion of the committee he was not entitled to a seat in the Senate of the United States. He stated that a formal report would be made later. He stated that the committee was divided on the question of the nature of the resolution which should follow the acceptance by the Senate of the committee report; whether it should be one to expel the Senator, or whether a declaration that he was not entitled to his seat would be sufficient. (Cong. Rec., vol. 40, p. 7715.)

MONDAY, JUNE 11, 1906.

Mr. Burrows, from the Committee on Privileges and Elections, submitted a report No. 4253), accompanied by the following resolution:

'Resolved, That Reed Smoot is not entitled to a seat as a Senator of the United States from the State of Utah."

« PreviousContinue »