The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-12-24

when he should do SO, and deny the
statements of Whiteside and Clark, not
only justities, but irresistibly impels
this court upon the evidence before 1t,
which is credible to the conclusion that
he is guilty
he innocent until the contrary appears,
but in this kind of proceeding this
presumption remains with him only un-
til it appears to the court with reason
able certainty that he is guilty. (State
VS.. Wines and Booth, 21 Mont. 464.)
When this is made to appear, then it is
incumbent upon him to speak.
These remarks also dispose of the
contention of counsel that the court
must be satisfied of the truth of the
charges beyond reasonable doubt.
This rule applies only to criminal cases
as such. The rule of state vs. Wines
and Booth, supra. is the one applicable
here. But even if the rule contended
for should be applied, we are of the
opinion that the proof in this record
as heard by us from the witnesses
themselves, and tested by the ordinary
rules Of weighing evidence, is sufficient
to satisfy any impartial, farminded
person beyond a reasonable doubt that
the accused paid w. A. Clark Of Madi-
son county $4,000 for his vote.
Tho Character witnesses.
Counsel also contend that the wit
nesses Whiteside and Clark are not
worthy of belief because six men from
their respective neighborhoods where
they live, sWere that each of them bears
a bad reputation there for truth, hon
esty and integrity. That these wit
nesses did so swear is true. The six
witnesses by whom it was sought to
impeach Whiteside swore that they
would not believe him on oath. Those
that they would not believe him on
oath. An analysis of the testimony of
the witnesses who testified as to the
reputation of Whiteside shows that
most of them were the staunch advo-
Yates of the candidacy of w. A. Clark
for the senate, and political enemies Of
Whiteside. Some of them had had diff
ferences with him about money mat
ters, and at least one stated that he
had had a good opinion of Whiteside
until he had made the charges of cor
ruption against w. A. Clark OF Butte
and his friends. This witness admitted
that he had loaned considerable sums
of money to Whiteside without any
security up to the time of the election
of 1898, and that he had voted for
Whiteside at that election. 1t further
appeared that Whiteside was declared
the successful candidate at that cleo
ton, though he was afterward de-
prived of his seat upon a contest in the
state senate, wherein his opponent was
declared elected by less than a dozen
majority.
The result of the attempt to impeach
Clark tended to show that he is by ma
ture an avaricious man, and no more.
This testimony also came from persons
evidently made unfriendly by litigation
i'll which Clark was the attorney for
the adverse party, or by differences
arising out of his professional rela-
tions to them. Moreover, it appears
that majority of the people of Madi-
son county had sufficient confidence in
him to elect him to the state senate
from that county. Neighbors and ac-.
quaintances testified to the good repu-
tation of both Whiteside and Clark for
truth.
Evident They Spoke the Truth.
But the most convincing proof of he
truth of their testimony is their man
ner and behavior under examination.
and the manifest impossibiiity that
they could concoct such a story, In