The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-11-24
A REVIEW OF THE CASE
CONTINUED from Page One.

would necessarily be affected. If the
proof affirmatively showed that MI
clark rei1giously refrained from using
money, evidence showing it's wrong.
full use by Mr.. Welcome in his behail
would not be as convincing as il the
! proof showed that the money was used
pursuant to the authorization Of Mr.
Clark, and that Mr.. Welcome was au-
thorized to expend same. Mr.. CLARK
was present during the session Of the
legislative assembly, and that Mr.. CLARK
au1horlzed the use of money upon the
members OF the legislative assembly
the proof unquestionably Shows. The
testimony of Mr.. Warren and Mr.. Ca
son leaves no room for doubt upon this
point. The testimony of those two
witnesses is uncontradicted, and surely
tne constderation of all of the evidence
Wonld not warrant the inference OF
suspicion that their statements were
not n every respect exactly correct.
MI. Whiteslde testifies to conversations
mad with Welcome, Biekford and
Neil, and specifically names mum
Der OF the members of the legislative
assembly who were designated BY
Welcome as being fixed through the
use Of money Hobson is mentioned
by Neill, Bywater, Fine, Jaqueth,
lierney, Geiger, Warner, Marcyes,
Carr, and others are mentioned by
Welcome. Mr.. Bckford is shown by
the evidence to be associated with the
unlawful combine through his offer
made to Sullivan. and Steele with a
munificence of offer that would stag
ger credence is shown to be an active
eonsplrator to secure by purchase al
most the entire membership Of the
sixth legislative assembly. Proof Of
this character cannot be affected by
glaring generalities The existence of
a DAILY combine in politics will not OBJ
ware the effect of evidence such as
was adduced from the witnesses who
TESTIFIED to the use of money by Mr.
WELCOME and his associates. It will
not 90 to say in the face of evidence Of
this character that there was Daily
Toole at the head and Mr.. DAILY be-
hind the scenes directing his move
ments. The accused and those who
represent him must go further than
this, for. as have already stated, brib-
cry as a crime grows diminutively
small when contrasted with the crime
which would be committed providing
this money was not the money which
Whiteside' testfies it is, but was
money placed in his possession belong
ing to Mr.. Daily or somebody else for
the purpose of creating a hostile feel
ing to Mr. Clark in his meritorious eff
forts to- secure an election to the office
Of United States senator. Surely Mr..
Welcome must be oblivious of propri-
ETY. if upon the tlimsy evidence intro
duced in court he would ask that a
fnding should be made generating
him and charging that the money in
question came from Daily sources. w
A. Clark Of Virginia City is an Off
Ger of the court, as is Mr.. Myers of
Ravalli county, and in the face of their
positive declarations under oath as
to the source of this money, and as
to the mode of its being obtained, the
court would not be at liberty to brand
them as perjurers simply because a sug-
gestion is made without proof as to the
existence of DAILY conspiracy when
Mr.. Welcome thus far has not denied
that he committed all of the acts which
he is charged with committing &a
Most of the evidence adduced by the
accused might be designated character
evidence. Character evidence is helpful,
providing the facts under investigation
receive from some source or other de-
NAL. Aside from the character witnesses
so-called, Mr.. Hoffman, Jerry Connolly,
Joseph K. Toole. William Muth, w. r,
Rodgers, s. S. Hobson, A. l.. Jaqueth,
Minnie +. Bowers and Frank r.. Corbett
testified. 1t cannot be seriously con-
tended that the testimony Of the wit
nesses named in the slightest degree
AtAAPNhA1u IhC 4olIe anu lEilluS e1iGCC
the evidence for the prosecution show
Ing the existence of conspiracy to
bribe members of the legislature and
showing acts of bribery. So long as Mr..
Welcome, Charles w. Clark, A. i.
Steele, Walter M. Bickford, W. A.
Clark, Mr.. Bywater. Mr.. Fine Mr. Tier
ney, Mr.. Geiger, Mr.. Warner, Mr.. Mar
eyes and Mr.. Carr refrained from tes-
tifying. SO long did Mr.. Welcome alb
solutely put himself beyond the domain
or favorable consideration of his nom
completely in the criminal acts charged
1t is true that Jaqueth and Hobson
testified, but dspassionate considera-
ton Of the testimony of those two wit
nesses leads unalterably to the conclu-
sion that there was a concealment of
the true facts. Mr. Hobson testifies of
the proceedings at the meeting when 1t
was agreed that the republicans should
support Clark; in fact. his testimony
SHOWS that there was no meeting and
there was no discussion. and scarcely
had his voice died away when Mr..
Jaqueth testified to a protracted meet
ing, at which speeches were made and
letters read, over which Mr.. Hobson
presided. Another significant fact
might be referred to in connection with
the examination of Mr. Hobson, The
charge was specifically made that he
received large sum of money for his
support Of Mr.. Clark, and an offer Of
proof was made as to a bank stock
transaction where purchase was made
of the stock by the cashier of Clark s.
Bro. of Butte with no transfer entry
upon the stock book. 1t is true that this
stock purchase might be explained
consistent with the innocence of Hob
son, but no inquiry was addressed to
him when on the stand regarding this
transaction, or regarding the obtain
ment of money by him on account of
voting for w. A. Clark. 1t is true that
Jaqueth contradicts Mr. Whiteside re-
specting the transaction about which
Whiteside testified. He states, however,
that Whiteside represented to him that
he could obtain money, a statement
suggestive in itself that the so-called
DAILY conspiracy was a myth, and that
there was money available if the M en-
bers were disposed to accept same. II
is true that Jaqueth denied the receipt
of $4,000, as testified to by Mr. White
side. The envelope which 1t is alleged
contained this money was offered in
evidence with the initials of Mr.. Jaqueth
upon 1t. 1t is singularly strange that
Jaqueth's attention was not called to