The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-06-13
ARGUED FOR DEMURRER
Welcome Disbarment Proceed
ings Before Supreme Court.
EARLY DECISION EXPECTED
STATE Printing Contract the Subject of an
Exhaustive Opinion by Chief Justice
Brantly Two Minor Cases
From Deer Lodge.
Special Dispatch to the Standard.

Special Dispatch to the Standard.
Helena, June 1.-THE supreme court
this afternoon listened to arguments
upon the demurrer filed to-day by ]. B
Root, Mr.. Carpenter and William Wal.
lace, jr, for John B. Welcome to the
appeal application for the disbarment
of Welcome that was presented to the
court several weeks ago upon the affi-
davit of Fred Whitesde, charging the
Butte lawyer with having committed
bribery in the last legislature in the in
terest of w. A. Clark. The demurrer
denied all the allegations contained in
the affidavit of Whiteside, and asked to
have the proceedings dismissed for a
number of reasons. Among the reasons
alleged are that Welcome is not accused
of any act committed as an attorney at
law or in his professional capacity: that
none of the alleged acts have been trIp-
plemented by a criminal conviction;
that no act amounting to deceit or mall
practice in the line of professional duty
is charged; that the court has no jur-
isdiction to determine his guilt or limo
cence; that the accusation was not veri-
fed by anyone authorized by law to do
so and numerous other alleged reasons.
The demurrer claimed that the accu-
sations as to the amounts Welcome
was alleged to have paid to certain
named members of the legislature to
vote for Clark are Irrelevant and imma-
terial. The demurrer concludes by ask
ing to have the petition dismissed be-
cause the said accusations in the par
ticulars hereinbefore set out are too in
definite, uncertain. unintelligible and
ambiguous for the respondent herein to
understand the specific charges at
tempted to be made and because the
said accusation does not sufficiently in
form the respondent herein as to en-
able him to prepare his defense by rea
son of the said accusation being unin-
telligible, uncertain. vague and ambig
uous, as hereinbefore set forth.
Messrs. Root, Wallace and Carpenter
argued in favor of the demurrer and
Attorney General Nolan opposed IT.
Counsel for Welcome laid great stress
upon the fact that there had been no
conviction and since the alleged acts
were not claimed to have been commit
ted in professional capacity, the SUI
preme court had no jurisdiction in the
matter. The attorney general on The
contrary argued there was sufficient
ground for the court to take cognizance
of the charges even though there had
been no professional conduct and no
conviction.
An early decision is expected. In the
event the demurrer is oyerruled Well
come will probably answer and more
arguments be presented.
The Printing Contract.
The row over the state printing con-
tract that has been on several months
between the State Publishing company
and the Independent again occupied
the attention of the court to-day, when
an opinion was handed down Diminishing
the writ of mandamus recently issued
commanding the governor and the
treasurer to approve the contract with
the State Publishing company. This is
the second time the matter has been be-
fore the court this year. In March the
governor and the treasurer refused 10
approve the contract that the state fur
nishing board had made with the State
Publishing company and mandamus
proceedings We're commenced to compel
the secretary of state to furnish the
State Publishing company with the
work. This was in March annd the su-
preme court decided that it was neces-
sary to make the contract valid that
those officials approve it. AS soon as
this decision was rendered the governor
and treasurer approved another con-
tract made with the Independent, the
lowest bidder. Mandamus proceedings
were then commenced to compel the
two state officials to approve the State
Publishing company contract as that of
the lowest bidder.
The independent attorneys moved to
quash the writ, and this the court did
to-day in an opinion by the chief JUS
tice. The court finds that it does not
possess jurisdiction by mandamus over
coordinate branch of the state gov
eminent such as the executive depart
ment is, and that department is respon-
sible to the people only just as are the
individual members of the court The
court did not go into the question of