Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1899-11-11

criminal conduct on the part OF Mr
Welcome. they likewise indicate the
Misunderstanding spirit that prevail
ed among the truly anointed, and made
such conduct very easy to follow. Some
OF the witnesses remind one of the story
of the old maid who lived alone, and who
backed up into the corner shyly, one
morning when a bachelor called or her,
with the remark Il know you have
come here to take advantage of me and
kiss me because l am alone, but you an
do it unless you are stronger than 1 am
and the Lord knows you are!'
While the accepting of a bride will not
excuse the giver. either in the eyes of
the law or good morals. it certainly di-
vides the moral responsibility when
members of the Legislature beg for an
| opportunity to sell their votes for a fl
nancial consideration. 1t ppear from
the testimony tina had Welcome no
original idea of buying votes he would
have acquired that habit while ASSOC
ciating with democratic legislators.
Possibly, the case of st. A%nthony's temp
tation ought to be cited by way of miti-
cation. When a preacher of the gospel
unblushingly confesses in court that he
tried to work the Clark forces for a bride
OF $4,000 for a friend in the legislature,
the presumption is that Welcome was
mighty popular between y
The ridiculous side of the present trial,
however, rests in the character of the
action. should Welcome be found guilty
as charged his punishment will be wholly
inadequate. Disbarment is no punish
Any man Who is ~undeniably guilty OF
such a crime ought to go to the peniten-
tiary. If Welcome is adjudged guilty
it will necessarily imply the guilt of those
who accepted the brides, and should lead
10 their conviction and punishment. But
II Welcome. as principal, is punished
only by being prohibited from practicing
law in this state, what jury will SEND his
victims to the ~penitentiary?
So ia" as Welcome is concerned, he Is
abundantly able to earn a livelihood
without practicinG law, and if disbarred
will be no more effectively out of prac-
tice than some lawyers in this state who
have not been disbarred. The blow would
rest in the injury to his reputation, yet
who will say that he has not already
suffered irreparably in that respect, as
the result of public ak and newspaper
gossip-whether innocent or guilty. 1t
less to lose in the outcome of the trial
than one might suppose, for the question
of personal pride n reputation are
about all he has in issue. IF innocent,
he has already seen his pride and his
reputation on the rack, with all the SUI
fering that implies: if guilty. another
twist in the screw Will amount to little,
for he will not be presumed to be over
sensitive on either point.
**
So the trial serves very little purpose,
after all. If it proves that members OF
the legislature accepted brides, it will in
directly protect them from adequate pun
ishment, by letting the chief factor in
the crime off with only the right to prae-
tee law withdrawn from him-a punish
ment to which he would scarcely give a
second thought. If the courts are to be
used as a theater for the exposure OF
the furtherance of their Jeffersonian
principles, it is to be regretted that &C.
tons cannot be undertaken that will lead
to the results that are usually aimed at
in criminal jurisprudence-the adequate
punishment of men actually guilty of Of
fences against the law. To properly pun
ish those who accepted brides, those who
bride must be made to feel, not
the polite injunction to change their vo-
but the strong arm of justice.
If Welcome is ~adjudged guilty, the
logic of the present situation is that the
principal in the crime escapes practically
without n punishment, other than the
humiliation which the verdict might
cause. If this be the case, what is to
meted out to the men who, by the same
token, have been found guilty of accept
brides? What is to be done with
those men who accepted brides in the
SENATORIAL contest. and in the cOrnoratiOn