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

troduced by the accused in support of
this defense. But taking this all to-
gether and giving it the utmost weight
to which 1t is entitled, 1t Is hardly suf-
fcient to require consideration. as II
establishes nothing beyond the fact
years a strong political hostility be-
tween w. A. Clark of Butte and DAILY
as rivals for leadership in the demo-
cratic party. There is no fact proved
from which an inference Is permissi-
BILE upon any legal principle, that the
party was other than such as was per-
fectiy lawful. 1t was certainly no
crime for any number of men TO COM
bine together to elect W. A: Clark OF
Butch lawful means to the United
States senate. 1t was certainly equaliy
lawful for any number OF men to join
forces to defeat him, IL they used law
full means only. 1t does not appear In
this record that the opponents OF clark
used any unlawful means In their OPP
position to him; nor Is there sem
tilla OF proof tending to show that any
of them furnished the money In evil
dence in this case.
1t appears from the proof that the
accused has heretofore borne an ex-
cellent reputation for honesty and IN
tegrity In his profession. This act
we have considered in his ftyor. Tut
a spotless reputation Is no License ftr
a crime where the proof establishes
it as a fact. So, in this proceeding,
being satisfied from all the evidence
that the accused is guilty, notwith-
standing his previous good character,
we must so find. people VS.. Belts, IS
Pac. Rep, 1917
Welcomes Previous Good Character.
Finally, counsel insist that men who
deliberately deceive another In orler to
win his confidence with purpose to be-
tray him, are not worthy Of belief, and
that an attorney, heretofore above re-
preach, should not be degraded fr I'M
his profession upon the testimony OF
men in the position Of Whiteside, Clark
and Myers. Courts always act eau
tiously upon such evidence Many of
them condemn such action in the Sc
verest terms. We ourselves agree that
the course pursued by these persons
is to he censured. Far better and more
righteous would 1t have been for Clark
and Myers, who are members OF the
bar of this court, to have gone to
Welcome, their brother lawyer, and,
if possible, persuaded him to iesist
from the abhorrent practices he was
engaged in; far more in accord WI n
those high sentime nts Of professional
honor and integrity which honorable
lawyers should always possess. to have
law, and not to have deceived him, and
encouraged him to commit crime. But,
however reprehensible it may be as
violative Of the principles of propriety
and morality. the fart that witness
has acted as detective or decoy, APP
parently entering into the criminal
plan in order to detect and expose it,
unworthy Of belief. The adjudicated
cases are numerous where convictions
upon this character Of evidence have
been sustained. Gam. & Eng. Enc.
Law, I'd Ed, Vol. s, 295; Stale VS..
stickney So Kan. sos; People VS..
Noe'ke. 81 N. z, 1877; Grimm VS.. Unit
ed States. 1856 U. S.. 5o4; Rater VS..
% Fed, SOL; State VS.. Janron. % Kan,
49s; United States vs. Moore, 10 Fed.
80; Rice on Ey., 522-523.)
The fact that the act here charged
as a ground for this proceeding had
no connection with the professional
conduct of the accused makes no diff
ference as to the treatment to be given
it by this court. Under our statutes,
as heretofore construed in this case
(5S Pac., 45), offenses within the line
of professional duties and those with
out these lines, stand upon the same
footing SO far as concerns the guam
tum Of proof necessary to establish
1nem. NOT uOeS IL matter tHHt no III
jured sutton Is demanding redress. With
the motives prompting this action on
the part Of the accuser we have Moth
ing to do further than as they reflect
upon the credibility of his story. The
ultimate end sought by him may be
very far from an honest purpose to
purge the profession of an unworthy
member. Still, when charge Of this
kind is presented, and the proof Is
made showing that a member Of the
! profession has been guilty Of acts tend
| ing to subvert the very foundations of
society. the court must act. painful to
us as the performance OF the duty in
| tits case is he the ultimate conse-
| quences what they may
IT is therefore ordered that John B
| Welcome be removed from his office
| Of attorney and counselor of this court.
and that his name be stricken from the
| roll.