The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-07-16
He GIVES HIS REASONS
Amdavits in the Welcome Dis
barment Case.
PART OF THE EVIDENCE
Given Before the Grand Jury in the
Bribery Investigation Presented py
Attorney General Nolan to
the Supreme Court.
Special Dispatch to the Standard

Helena, july l3.-AftidaVitS We're filed
with the supreme court late this after
noon by Attorney General Nolan and
Fred Whiteside in support of the dis
barment proceedings instituted by the
latter against j. b Welcome for al
legged bribery in connection with the
senatorial contest. The supreme court
| decided few days ago that the petit
ton of Whiteside must be amended or
proofs shown why the proceedings were
of such extraordinary character that
the supreme court could act without a
conviction having been secured
The affidavit of Attorney General No
Ian is by far the more important, as
he attaches to his verbatim copy of
| the more material part of the evidence
which he took himself in shorthand,
| having once been court reporter. He
swears that the evidence is a correct
| transcript In every particular. In his
| affidavit he recites briefly the circum-
| stances leading up to the calling of the
| grand jury to investigate the bribery
charges; says he was present at the ses-
sions and examined all of the witnesses
with the exception Of John B. Well
| come, who was not examined by your
affiant and who, in the judgment of
your affiant, considering the character
| of the testimony adduced before said
| grand jury, should not have been
brought before said grand jury" to
| quote from the affidavit.
The attorney general also recites that
| Odell Mcconnell, county attorney Of
Lewis and Clarke county, was also
| present before the grand jury and ex-
amined Welcome as we'll as the other
witnesses. Coming down to the time of
the receipt of the report of the grand
jury, the attorney general, in his afti-
davit, says:
Your affiant respectfully shows and
says that upon the presentation of said
report he objected to its acceptance and
that in the event this report was final
so far as the investigation of bribery
charges or the commission of conspir-
acy and bribery went he asked that
another grand jury be empaneled to
take up the investigation of bribery,
perjury and conspiracy charges: that
as an item of evidence there were $780,
900 alleged to have been deposited with
one Fred Whitesde in consideration for
which votes should be cast for w. A.
Clark for the office of senator of the
United States, and that so long as said
evidence had a physical existence with
all of the participants as shown by the
testimony appearing before said grand
jury, an investigation which failed to
make findings for bribery or perjury
was incomplete. But your affiant says
that respecting said application to Sc
cure further and more effective inVestl-
cation the Hon. Sidney II. Mcintyre,
judge of said court as aforesaid, refused
to empanel another grand jury and re-
ceived said report as a final report so
that no further investigation was con-
Quoted by said grand jury then empan-
eled respecting those bribery charges.
After quoting the court minutes, the
receipt of the report and the refusal to
empanel another jury, the affidaVit
continues:
mo further investigation was had
by said grand jury until finally dis
charged of the charges of bribery, per-
jury and conspiracy consequent upon
the alleged use of money as hereinbe-
fore set forth. Your affiant further says
that no information has been filed
against the said John b. Welcome
charging him with the crime of brib-
cry or any other offense, and there is
not now pending in the court, so far as
your affiant is informed, any charge
for any acts of bribery alleged to have
been committed by him as set forth
in the petition for disbarment now on
file in this court; that during the ses-
sions of said grand jury the question of
the propriety Of securing the presence
grand jury to testify arose and your
affiant verify believed that some risk
attached to his being compelled
through the process of the court to ap-
pear before said grand jury in the
event an Indictment was filed against
him. (Quoting section 200 of the penal
code releasing from liability of prose-
cution Of any person who has testified
against others as to bribery
Notwithstanding the risk attendant
upon the presence of John B. Well
come before said grand jury and of his
regarding bribery charges
then under Investigation by rea-
section, the said Welcome was
before said grand jury and was exam
ined as witness respecting said brib-
cry charges. and further affiant says
not"
The transcript of the testimony which
the attorney generals af-
fidavits makes very interesting read |
ing.
The AFFIDAVIT of Whitesde says. in |
part: "Affiant says that he was pres
ent in Helena during the sessions of the |
Fifth legislative assembly, and was in
Helena during the time when a grand |
jury empaneled to investigate bribery |
charges was in session. Attiant says
that in the senatorial contest. so-called |
Wnlcn was on uuflHS tllt SeSSlOH VI tHS
Fifth legislative assembly, the senti-
ment of the community was overwhelm-
ing favorable to the candidacy of w. A.
Clark. Affiant further says that politi-
cal lines in Lewis and Clarke county
were practically obliterated and that
We'd with democrats in ac-
tivity to compass the election of the
said w. A Clark as United States sem
ator Affiant further says that the
people of Lewis and Clarke county, in
'avor:ng the election of w. A. Clark as
United States senator, felt that they
we're discharging an obligation due to
he said Clark on account of assistance
'endered to the said county of Lewis
md Clarke in the selection of the city
If Helena as the state capital. and that
INV means which would accomplish the
election of the said w. A. Clark We're
ustifiable against the opposition which
vas offered to his election
"Affiant further says that from obser-
"a ations made by him, and from a care
ul consideration of the sentiment gen
rally prevailing iP Lewis and Clarke