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

ed States senator This is admitted.
1t may be further noted that in his
testimony Whitesde details several
conversations with Welcome as to
Welcomes negotiations with many
other members of the assembly whose
votes he was trying to secure by the
use of money and otherwise The
same remark may be made touching
the testimony of Clark. Another cir
cumstance, somewhat corroborative of
the stories of Clark and Whiteside,
in view of the conversation first had
by Clark with Welcome as to the in
tention of certain supporters of w.
A. Clark of Butte, is the fact that when
the election did finally take place,
many democrats and republicans who
heretofore had opposed Clark's can
didacy shifted over and voted for him
without apparent cause. Steele was
not called as a witness. Clark and
Whiteside, prior to their examination
in this court. had twice been exam
ined touching these transactions-once
before the legislative committee and
once before a grand jury called by one
of the judges of the First district to
inquire into the charges made before
the committee. Their statemel-s mace
on both these occasions were in the
hands of counsel at the hearing. And
though both were thoroughly cross
ers, and every opportunity was af-
forded to test their truthfulness by a
comparison of these statements, no
substantial discrepancies were shown
Their Testimony True.
A careful and painstaking examina-
ton Of their accounts given at the
hearing, in SO far as they relate to the
same matters, also fails to reveal any
substantial contradiction or omission.
These statements are not unreasona-
BILE in the light of this whole record,
and it is highly improbable that such
story could be deliberately concoct-
ed and repeated so many times without
being discredited in some substantial
particular. After seeing and hearing
the witnesses ourselves, and noting the
silence of the accused when he ought
to speak, and his failure to produce
other witnesses to rebut material state
ments made by Clark and Whiteside,
which it was in his power to do. we
can reach no other reasonable conclu-
sion than that this charge is true
Second-Having reached this conclu-
sion, nothing would be left to do but
TO direct the order of disbarment to
be entered, were 1t not that we feel
it our duty to notice briefly the prn-
cipal reasons presented by counsel
why this order should not be made.
incumbent on Welcome to Speak.
It is urged by counsel that the failure
on the part of the accused to be sworn
in his own behalf may not be used to
his prejudice. Counsel say that this is
to all intents and purposes a criminal
investigation and that the rule laid
down on this subject in section 2442 of
the penal code should be applied. The
answer to this is that this is not a
criminal prosecution nor an aid to a
criminal investigation, but is to ascer-
tain if the accused is worthy of the
confidence, and is possessed of that
good moral character which is condi-
ton precedent to the privilege of prac-
ticing law and continuing in the prac-
tice thereof" In re Welcome. 23
Mont, IS Pac. Rep. AID This is a spe-
cial proceeding of a civil nature, and
the rules applicable to criminal cases
do not apply. In re Welcome, %
Mont, 5S Pac. Rep. I'll; in re Randel,
1853 n. Y. 216l If the accused is not
guilty, nothing would have been easier
than for him to deny all knowledge of
the charges laid at his door. His hav-
ing failed to testify in his own defense,