The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-11-09

looked, supposing he referred to some
picture on the wall, and saw Welcome
holding up some money"
You stated yesterday that you only
knew that the envelope contained cur
rency and only knew the amount from
what Mr.. Welcome said?"
Yes, sir; Mr. Clark may have stat
ed SO also, for there was an UNDER
standing between them that there
should be $4,000 put in.
Did you not testify before the leg
islative investigating committee that
Mr.. Welcome placed 10 $1,000 bills in
the envelope?"
II still say so'
But did you not testify so at that
time as a matter of your positive
knowledge?"
the envelope, for | saw Mr.. Welcome
place the money in 1t and he told me
the amount of it,
Mr.. Wallace asked the witness as
to testimony he gave before the grand
jury and Mr.. Nolan objected on the
ground that the witness was entitled
to see copy of his previous testi-
mony, if it is in writing, and if not,
his language, as near as possible, to-
gether with the time and place, must
be stated to him so that he may deny
1t or explain it. Mr. Nolan referred to
the code to sustain his contention.
Associate Justice Pigott asked If
that provision did not refer only to
testimony reduced to writing and re-
quired by law to be SO written out, and
to other testimony signed by the wit
ness.
E. G. Day said there was no provision
of law requiring testimony given be-
fore grand jury to be reduced to
writing, and on the contrary the law
was particularly opposed to it.
After brief consultation by the
judges, Chief Justice Brantly stated
that there was some difference of opin-
ion among them as to the meaning Of
the statute, but that the belief of the
majority was that the law meant
writings made by the witness himself
or such statements as We're required by
law to be reduced to writing or that
We're made with the knowledge ami
consent OF the witness. The objection of
Mr.. Nolan was therefore overruled
Associate Justice Pigott !. said that
while he agreed generally with the
chief justice. he did not wish at this
time to give an Interpretation to the
statute
Justice Hunt said he did not disagree
on the main points with the chief JUS
tice and associate justice, but it was
MS opinion in constituting the statute
ihat the witness should be asked, in the
language required by the statute, if he
mad not on a previous accession stated
so and so, at such and such place, in
the presence of so and SO. and give the
witness a chance to answer yes or nc,
and then, if it is desired to impeach
him. introduce evidence that he had
made previous contradictory or incon-
sistent statements.
Mr.. Whiteside was then asked IL he
mad made certain statements before the
grand jury relative to the attempted
bribery of MI. Clark of Virginia City,
and he replied that he had and that The
testimony differed in no respect from
the testimony he gave now
Request Came From Both.
Did you not state yesterday that
Welcome told you to take Mr.. Clark to
room 2O1 and that you brought Clark
there?'
'I think did"
Did you not testify before the iegis-
lative committee that you three went 70
room POI and that Welcome placed the
money in an envelope?"
Yes, sir; Isee no discrepancy between
the two statements. We met Mr.. Well
come either in the hall on in the ele-
vator.'' p.
You testified Yesterday that you went
to see Mr. Myers at the request of some
one; who made the request?"
Il don't remember. 1 had conversa-
tions with both Mr.. Welcome and
Charles w. Clark before I saw Mr.
Myers"
II did not ask you about any CONVEX
sations.' said Mr., Wallace. "Who re-
quested you to see Mr.. Myers?'
Both Mr. Welcome and Charles w.
Clark"
Did you not state before the legisla-
tive committee that it was at their
Joint request that you went to see Mr..
Myers?'
"I don't remember"
did you not say that you approac ched
him at the request of Welcome and
Charles w CIark?"
Il think l did; I say that now"
Did you say yesterday that any one
but Mr, Wellcome requested you?"
Il think, not. but I recall now, how
ever. that the request came from both"
Mr.. WhiteSide made a correction III
the testimony he gave on Tuesday rel
ative to the Myers transaction. He
said the conversation he had with Well
come in which the latter complained
about scarcity of large bills. referred
to Senator Clark of Virginia City and
not to Senator Myers.
Did you not testify before the grand
Jury that it ira 1spired in relation to the |
Carr matter?"
NO SIT, tne carr money at tnat time |
as in the hands of J. S. NJ. Neill."
We'll get at that later said Mr.. |
Wallace
Il think ! have a right to explain"
said Mr.. Whiteside. 1.-The talk about |
he delay in getting money IN the Carr
natter referred to the fact that Neil |
lad Cars money in safe and could
lot get it till the next day"
you don't claim that you ever got |
more than $4,000 from Mr.. Welcome for
mo. sir
You say that you got that at the
same time that you received the Carr
THAT is my recollection of it. now
Did you not say before the grand |
Jury that YOU got it at the time you |
'eceived the Myers money; that at the