The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-11-14

| This was sort Of off day in the dis
| barment proceedings. The court spent
| the day in hearing argument on the
| motion to strike out various portions Of
| the plaintiffs testimony. Scarcely any
| spectators We're present; the stenogra-
| piers took a day off, neither Welcome
| nor Charley Clark appeared in court,
J and the Welcome attorneys turned the
| argument over to Governor Carpenter
and took a rest themselves.
The matter was ably argued by Car
penter and Nolan. The latter is having
a busy time Of it. for. while the accused
has four attorneys who can relieve each
other, Nolan is all alone in the court
| and whether an argument is to be
made, an examination to be conducted
or witness to cross-examine, it is No
Ian who is doing it all Furthermore
| he is doing 1t well and seems to be a
| match for his four opponents at every
turn.
The argument consumed so much of
the day that at its conclusion the court
| decided to adjourn until tomorrow
morning. It is expected that it will
render it's decision and that the TAX
ing of testimony for the defendant will
begin thereafter wN...
| At the opening of the morning ses-
sion Attorney General Nolan inquired
| as to the number of character" wit
nesses to be allowed by the court. He
understood that the defense would at
/ tack the character of some of the
| plaintiffs witnesses. In most courts
the number Of such witnesses is limited
| he desired to know the number, so that
! he might provide the same number
Mr.. Wallace thought the number should
| be fixed at five or six. Chief Justice
| Brantly said the number is usually
| three. Attorney General Nolan sug-
gested five. The justices agreed that
the number of six should be allowed
Proceed with the argument" said
Judge Brantly.
! Carpenters Argument. |
| 3. Platt Carpenter opened the argu- |
4 ment for the defendant, in favor of !
striking out certain portions Of the tes-
t tinony which had been offered by the |
plaintiff. The major portions Of thei
testimony Of Minahall, Myers Stiff !
| sullivan, Anderson and Berendes were
! moved to be stricken out as having no
bearing in theIcase against Welcome, {
| and showing no conspiracy. Mr.. Car
| penter said that when a conspiracy is
proved any acts of the conspirators af-
ter it is once established and in further |
| ance of the conspiracy are admissible. /,
Any acts or statements of those who |
| afterWard became conspirators prior To
| the formation of the conspiracy, he
| claimed, are not admissible. If three |
men enter conspiracy to kill two men,
| and kill one of them, and if after the |
| first man is killed a fourth man enters
! the conspiracy to kill the second man,
| he cannot be held responsible for the
murder of the man killed before he
| Joined the conspiracy. Because Peter
Brown brbed John Doe is not proof
| that John Jones bribed Richard Roe.
! Each act of bribery must stand by it
| self unless it can ne shown that the
| two bribers had directly entered into an
| agreement to do this. AS to the testi-
mony of DR.. Minshall therefore, all
! his testimony in regard to conversation
| with Bickford should be stricken out.
For at the time of this conversation
there is no evidence of Biclsford belong
| ing to conspiracy or of there being
any conspiracy at the time There is
certainly nothing connecting Welcome
| with that matter. 1t was an independ-
! ent act of Bickford There is not the
| slightest evidence up to the time of
| that conversation of a conspiracy hav-
ing been entered into to elect Clark ny
unlawful means by anybody The talk
of Bickford and Stiff stands on the
| same footing. There is no showing
| that Bickford had any connection with
the accused. The testimony of Myers
| with DR.. Minshall is not admissible.
Minshall and the accused We're entire
strangers to each other. The CONVEX
| sation of Bickford with Sullivan was
merely an electioneering talk, and the
accused's connection Herewith has rot
been shown. Mr.. Clark's friends and a
| large portion of the democratic party
were in a combination to elect Mr..
Clark; that is true. But the fact that
| they were seen talking together and
walking together is not an evidence of
| conspiracy to unlawfully elect him.
There is nothing strange that those in
| terested in the election of Clark should
| enter into conferences with Clark or
| with Welcome or with others who were
working to that end; but there is no
evidence that they were conspiring un-
| lawfully.
| Conspiracy.
The conversation between Whiteside
and Anderson, argued Carpenter Is
| clearly inadmssible. If there was a
| conspiracy, there was certainly none
| until January l, and Whiteside was
surely not co-consprator. He testi-
| fes that he had no intention of trying to
bribe anybody, but that his intent was
to try to thwart the purposes of Well
come. Not being a co-conspirator, what
he did with Anderson cannot be taken
as evidence against the conspiracy or
any member of 1t. The act of one
whose act is not in furtherance of the
| conspiracy cannot bind the members
of the conspiracy. Welcome could not
be bound by the acts of Whitesida,
since Whiteside was not a co-conspira-
tor and what he did is not admissible
as evidence against Welcome. There
is no evidence that Whiteside ever Of
fered a bribe to Anderson or Myers,
either. He made no offer: he merely
said he was authorized to offer such a
sum and Went on to make his proposi-
ton for the exposure of bribery As
the conversation of Whiteside with An
derson should be excluded, so, on SINH |
| lar grounds, should his conversation
with Myers be excluded. The conversa-
ton of Myers and Bickford should be |