Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1899-12-23
The Case of Senator Clark of Madison County Was
the Only One Which Was Considered by the Judges
--Stress Was Laid on the Fact That Though the
Accused Was Present During the Hearing He Did
Not Take the Stand In His Own Behalf to Deny
the Charges
Special to the Inter Mountain.

Special to the Inter Mountain.
Helena, Mont, Dec 23.-The supreme
court decided the Welcome case to-day,
holding that the Butte attorney must be
disbarred The decision was trfle sooner
than was generally expected as rumors
have been around town for several days
that the case would not be decided before
the latter part of next month.
Few people We're in when the court filed
in and the chief justice announced the
decision. The opinion is by the whole
court.
The court begins it's opinion by review
ing briefly the charges OF bribery and con-
spracy to bribe preferred against Well
come as Well as the recent proceedings
before the court.
The court eliminates in the discussion
of the case all charges based upon nfor-
nation, addressing itself directly to the
question of the guilt or innocence of the
accused, upon the specific charges of
bribery. The court says that on account
of the voluminous evidence taken and
because disbarment must be made in
case either the charge of bribery or con-
spiracy to bribe is sustained by proof,
the court will confine itself to the charge
VI tiC VI YlUUUU " w. "A. 1ldFk
of Madison county, referring to the cases
of Carr, Whiteside and others only in SO
far as is necessary to elucidate the Clark
charge.
The court dscards those portions of the
evidence bearing upon the financial
transactions of Warner, Geiger and Hob
son a. irnmaterial
The court quotes extensively from the
testimony of State Senator Clark as to
his meeting with Whteside, planning to
meet with Welcome for the purpose of
getting the money and the famous scene
in Welcomes room in the Helena Hotel
when the money was paid to Clark. The
court reviews the testimony of White
side and Meyers and continuing says:
The accused was not sworn as a wit
ness but was present throughout the
hearing. At the time appointed by this
court for the accused to answer the
charges he did not appear in person. His
answer was made under the oath, upon
information and belief. of one of his
counsel. Thus the charges themselves
are not challenged by any direct denial
by him. The statements of Clark and
Whlteside are not contradictel by any
one. The accused is the only person ex-
cept Carr and Steele in relation to the
Carr matter, who could deny them or
otherwise enlighten the court concerning
them, for it appears from the evidence of
these witnesses that not more than one
person was present with the accused at
any of the negotiations, except in the one
instance when Clark was paid the ten
thousand dollars at room POI of the Hell
ena Hotel.
I'm the formal charges it is alleged that
Welcome was active in the support of
w. A. Clark of Butte, for United States
senator. This is admitted. 1t may be
further noted that in his testimony
Whteside details several conversations
With Welcome as to Welcomes nego-
tiations with many other members of the
assembly whose votes he was trying to
secure by the use of money and other
wise. The same remark may be made
touching the testimony of Clark.
another circumstance, somewhat cor.
roborarive of the stories of Clark and
Whiteside, in view of the conversation
first had by Clark with Welcome also
the intention 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 thereto
fore had opposed Clarks candidacy shift
ed over and voted for him without an
parent cause. Steele was not called as
a witness.
"Clark and Whteside, prior to their
examination in this court. had twice been
examined touching niese transactions.
once before the legislative committee, and
once before grand jury called by one OF
the judges of the first district to inquire