Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1899-11-09
Special to the Inter Mountain.

Speclai TO the Inter Mountain.
Helena, Nov. 9.-The Welcome dis
barment proceedings advanced several
pegs today Senators Anderson and Clark.
two of the most important witnesses for
Whitesde, testified, telling about the
same story as before the joint commit
tee There We're other witnesses and the
famous 100000 was again in evidence.
Clark's cross-eXamnation had Just
commenced when court adjourned at
noon. 1t was resumed this afternoon
and continued in detail
When court adjourned last night it
took under advisement the matter of
admitting the testimony of Senator An
derson as to a converse ton with White
side. 1t decided this morning to hear it
and then pass upon it's relevancy.
Anderson told of Whteside approach
ing him. telling him that the Clark peo-
pie would pay $4,000 for democra tic
votes, and that Welcome had authorized
him to make even a larger offer for wit
ness vote. naWing $4,000 as the amount
they We're willing to give.
The witness said he absolutely refused
to consider the proposition, after which
Whiteside explained his motive, claim
ing he sought to expose bribery. The
witness again declined to go into the
proposition.
e. c. Day moved to strike out all Of
the evidence as Irrelevant and imma terial
and not connecting the accused with the
transaction.
Justice Hunt asked if the witness con-
sidered the offer a bona fide one at
first.
Senator Anderson replied that at the
be eginning of the conversation Whiteside
said nothing as to his making the offer.
II unders TODD al first it was bona fide
Offer
The court, through the chief justice,
ordered the conversation stricken out
Justice Hunt said he hardly consented
to the ruling. 1t seemed to him that the
testimony has some relevancy. He ad-
mitted it was a perplexing question, but
felt that for the present at least it should
be admitted.
The attorney general asked if the court
excluded it because the name of Senator
| Anderson was not included in the bill
of particulars. He contended that con-
!; spracy was alleged and no demand for
bill of particulars Il. d requested any
lIlIiS lSidtl " NHdl. |AHS CoilN tioIi
with a member looking to the use of
money, he commended, was admissible.
There was no allegation. it was true,
that money had been paid witness. AS a
member he had been approached by the
accused for the purpose of giving him
money and this he deemed competent
The authority of Whiteside to act for
| Welcome he contended was shown by
Whiteside's testimony. The accused
could not question it was a bona fide
! offer.
! Justice Pgott said he had doubts as
! to the admissbility of the evidence. The
| chief justice said he did not believe il
| tended to establish anything at issue in
| the case, and that it did not tend to es.
| tablish a conspiracy between Welcome
| and Whiteside. He failed to see how a
man could act for himself and as the
agent for another The question was q
very difficult one to decide.
When did Welcomes authority ceas.
and Whiteside's begin?" asked one of tn,
justices. The attorney general said tha
was when Whiteside announced hi
motive.
After counsel had argued their respec
tive contentious the chief justice said i
would revoke it's former ruling and per
NIT the evidence to stand for the pres
ent until the court had more light upol
the subject. E. c. Day contended tha
the time was ripe for argument as tn
accused's counsel desired settled ruling
The prosecution might be bringing II
witnesses to thk, number of hundre,
who had such CO o,rsations. hearsay evi
dence, to relate y thought the matt e