Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1899-12-29
Disbarment Decision of the State
Supreme Court.
ALLEGED BRIBERY TO SECURE VOTES
Document to Be Presented to the
Senate.
DETAILS OF THE DEAL

having used money to secure votes for
Senator Vim. \. Clark in the Montana
legislature, has been received here and will
b. presented in the Senate upon the meet
ing Of Congress
In summing up the evidence the supreme
court thus speaks Of Fred Whiteside. wnp.
with state Senator Clark Of Madison. gave
the principal testimony considered by the
court:
He tWhitesidel frankly states thai he
came to Helena about the 31st of Deem
Der. 1>gS with the intention to expose those
guilty of corrupt practices in connection
with the approaching election of United
States senator. it having already come to
his ears TINT money was being used cor
ruptly To influence members of the assem-
bly, IN casting their votes | pom learning
that Welcome. the accused. was managing
the campaign of W. A Clark Of Butte, he
at once sought acquaintance with him with
the intention of gaining his confidence, and
: II he found him engaged in corrupt Drac-
tees to expose him and others who We're
also guilty BY the LIST or 81 of January
this acquaintance had become sufficiently
intimate to induce the accused to arrange
with WhiteSiie to pay the latter the sum
OF Sl0,On0 for his vote and for his aid in
securing others by similar means. To this
end he saw State Senator Myers and Clark
and Representative Carr.
Myers and Clark were induced to go
into his scheme Of exposure. to pretend to
barter their votes for S10.nGO, and to turn
the money over to WhiteSide that they
would be able. as witnesses. to establish
the bribery. Carr. who had already been
tempered with ny Welcome, was not cog
infant Of the plan. but it was sought by
Whitesiue 10 get the 5000 intended for
Carr into his tWhitaside'S) hands so as to
be.Tay him also.
The Deal Contaminated.
In pursuance of this plan whiteside
brought Clark and Welcome together at
u-ba
arrangements for Clark's vote was made
as Clark states. The story of this transac-
ton is repeated by Whiteside in all sub
stantial particulars as 1T is told by Clark
The deal was contaminated on the evening
of January 4 at room 201 at the Helena
Hotel. and the sealed envelope containing
the money. marked for identification, as
stated by Clark. remained in Whiteside's
Possession until turned over, on January O.
to the joint committee of the two houses
sitting to investigate charges of bribery.
In the meantime. and until the meeting of
the committee. negotiations We're going
for the vote of Myers. This finally ar
ranged for on the 9th or It'll of January.
On one Of these days Myers and Whiteside
went to room POS, OF an adjoining room,
at the Helena Hotel. Whiteside went to
Welcomes room to bring Welcome to
pay over the money, but. finding him oc-
cupied. he received the money-$1O. 000-and
returned with il TO the room where Myers
was There IL was counted, sealed up,
marked lDT 1uentluCaUOn, ana turned over
10 Whiteside for safe-keeping. This was
opened by the investigating committee.
While these negotiations Were going on
Whiteside also approached Carr. Finding
out from him that he had arranged TO
vote for W. A Clark for s. 900 and had
the money deposited with one A. ]. Steele
bur dissatisfied with the arrangement, he
set about persuading Carr to have this
money also placed in his hands He finally
succeeded in getting the money returned to
Welcome by Steele and then turned over
-lIF -
January 6 or al Welcomes room at the
hotel Carr was not present, but. going
in search Of Carr Whiteside found him,
went with him TO another room, and then
Carr wrote his initials upon the envelope
containing the money. This was likewise
turned over to the committee on the 9th
At this time he Whiteside) also obtained
from Welcome 5000 in part payment of
the sum promised him for his vote. This
was also sealed up and turned over to the
committee The bills in each package were
SlGo bills. except the Myers package
which contained S1o.DD in bills of different
denominations. including six $1,000. The
packages were all marked with the initials
Of the respective parties for whom they
Were held, the Clark package being marked,
as stated by Clark. in Welcomes presence
al the time ii was delivered. The envel-
opes were introduced in evidence as ex-
h1biIs 10 Whiteside's statement. This is
the substance Of Whiteside's testimony
about the origin OF the $31.0J0 turned over
10 tne committee by him. Carr did not
cnrT"horaTed the statement of Whiteside
a 10 the occurrence i'll the room when the
contents Of the package intended for Myers
were counted and sealed up"
Defense of Welcome.
With reference to the defense of Mr.
Welcome. the cour. says that the accused
was not sworn as a witness in his own be-
half but his answer was made under oath.
upon information and belief by his counsel
.f,sf
81 Ives are not challenged by any direct de-
ntal by him. The statements of Clark and
W aIt"Side are not contradicted by any one.
The accused is the only person executing
Carr and Steele in relation to the Carr
matter who could fleny them or otherwise
eNlEhitu The court concerning them. for il
Hftt3rri from the evidence of the wit
hesSeS that not more than one person was
present with the accused at any Of the ne
EQUATIONS except in one instance. when
Clark paid the $1,000 al room an If
the Helena Hotel In the formal charges il
X ALLEGED that Welcome was active IN IN
support OF w 4. Clark II Butte for Irnitsd
states senator This is admitted /: may
D. further noted that in tla testimony
w hi'eSi'ie details seva-aI conye-sa+ic,s
with Welcome To Welcomes nepotia-
tl"ns with many "ther mer:be-s of the as
cure by the use p money ana oiherE,iSa -
Clark ard WhIteside.
The court says that the fact that MANY
democrats and republicans tefore opposed
10 Clark Of Butte shifted over and voted
Tor him j. a circumstance somewhat cor
ro50Fstive Of he stories told by Wh!teside
and Clark Of Madison.
Clark and WhiIesidc" the court ROM
t-nteS. prior to their examination in Ibis
court. had been examined touching these
transacJions-onCc before the IegisIaiiZ-e
'"ntnitts" and once before a grand Jury
called ry one Of the Judges of the first dis
tr4ct {" inquire into The charges made he
fSFg the committee. Their statements made
or noih these occasions were in the hands
OF Esel A. he hearing. and though both
were thoroughly crOss-eXamined by able
anu aStute GIestioners. and every oppor-
tunlly was afforded To test their trutbfIIl-
hess by a comparison of these statements
no SUBSTANTIAL discrepancies were shown
careful and painstaking examination of
their accounts given at the hearing in so
lar as Lney relate TO the same matters also
i2-lS 10 reveal any substantial contradiction
or omission. These statements are not un-
reasonable in the light Of this whole rec
ord, and it is highly improbable that such a
story could be deliberately concocted and
repeated 50 many times without being dis
credited in some substantial parriclIfar AZ