The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-07-13
Opinion of the Supreme Court in
the Case of John B. Welcome.
AS TO MORAL TURPITUDE
Attorney General Nolan Given Five DAYS
in Which to File Afidavits Showing
Why 1t Is Matter for the su-
prone Court to Pass Upon,
Special Dispatch to the Standard.

the disbarment of John B. Welcome,
the Butte attorney, on the charge of
bribery in connection with the sena-
torial contest, were advanced several
degrees to-day by a decision rendered by
the supreme court This afternoon the
court, in an opinion per curiam of the
| whole court, passed upon the points
! raised by counsel for Welcome in their
| demurrer or objection to the accusa-
| tions.
The decision practically holds that
Mr. Welcome must meet the charges CT
bribery set forth in the Whiteside re-
tition for disbarment. The numerous
objections to the petition were over
ruled, with the exception of the single
one made ito the allegation in the petit
ton that sums of money We're used to
| aid in the election of members of the
| legislature who would be favorable to
the candidacy of w. A. Clark. These
| averments specifying in no particular
the manner in which the money was to
| be used, or the manner in which the
| election was to be corruptIy influenced,
the court held that by reason of their
| indefiniteness the objection on that
score was well taken.
This leaves the petition intact in ev-
| cry material particular, so that not
only will Mr.. Welcome be required to
| answer to the payment of corrupt
| money to the members specifically
named in the petition, but he Will
| likewise be called upon to meet proof
showing his corrupt use of money on
| members of the legislature other than
| those expressly named
| 1t was insisted by Mr.. Welcome that
the acts charged, being done outside the
| line of his professional duty, the court,
under the provisions of the code, did not
have Jurisdiction to conduct disbar-
| ment proceedings, but that such pro-
ceedfngs could only be instituted after
| a trial court had investigated the truth
4 fulness of the criminal charges This
| contention is declared without merit,
and 1t is declared that the court has
| Jurisdiction in all of such cases. Ordi-
narily trial courts would take up the
investigation of charges such as were
enumerated in the petition, and the
presumption should be INDUCED in that
a judicial investigation in a criminal
| court would be full and thorough, so
| that resultant therefrom the labor of
an independent Investigation might be
| dispensed with. The petition nowhere
| accounts for the trial courts inactivity
| in the premises, and the presumption
would not be indulged in that proceed
| ings were instituted for disbarment be-
| cause criminal prosecution would
prove abortive. The accusation not hav-
ing stated reason why Mr.. Welcome
could not be prosecuted, the court de-
clined to inquire into the truth of the
charges. This refusal was based upon
the facI ..Iat the petition did not ex-
plain in any way why the court should
exercise its jurisdiction, which was un-
uyh he aip
stances should only be exercised in ex-
traordinary cases and Sparingly.
The attorney general was directed, If
he desired to amend the accusation, or
file affidavits disclosing the grounds for
the nterposition Of the court within 20
days. The attorney general, who was
present in court, said that he believed
he could have the affidavits ready
within less time than 20 days. He call
ed attention to the fact that the sum-
mer vacation would soon be at hand.
and it would expedite matters If during
that period issue could be Joined. He
said he was able to furnish the affida-
Wits within five days, and the court ac-
cepted his suggestions and reduced the
time accordingly. The court also or
dered that counsel for Welcome make
answer within five days after service
is had.
The courts decision is pronounced
by attorneys as practically overruling
all the demurrer or objections of Well
comes counsel, with two minor excep-
tions, as stated above. The court, in
it's opinion, after reciting the substance
of the allegations contained in White
sides petition, says:
THE accused has answered by FL
ing objections to the sufficiency of the
accusation, in which he asks that GER
tain parts be stricken out as uncer-
tain, indefinite, vague and ambiguous,
and by which he moves the dismissal of
the accusation because: % 1t is not
preferred by any person by law au-
thorized to prefer such charges: CD
the court has no power to consider
charges looking to the disbarment of
an attorney of this court where the
accusation is based upon alleged fel-
onies or misdemeanors involving moral
turpitude, not committed while acting
in his official capacity as an attorney;
(3) the court has no jurisdiction in a
proceeding of this kind to adjudge an,
attorney guilty of a crime not perpe-
trated while acting in his official ca
pacity; (4) the accusation is in par
ticulars specified vague, ambiguous,
unintelligible. uncertain and indefinite.
So much of 402 Of the code of civil
procedure as concerns this proceeding
reads: An attorney and counsellor
may be removed or suspended by the
supreme court or by the district courts
of the state, for either of the following
causes, arising after his admission to
practice: First, His conviction of a
felony or misdemeanor involving moral
turpitude, in which case the record of
conviction is conclusive evidence, Sec
ond, Willful disobedience or violation of
an order OF the court requiring him to
do or forbear an act connected with,
or in the course of his profession,
which he ought, in good faith to do
or forbear; and any violation of the
oath taken by him or of his duties as
such attorney and counsellor Third,
Corruptly or willfully and without au-
thority appearing as attorney for a
party to an action or proceeding.
Fourth, Lending his name to be used
as attorney and counsellor by another
person who is not an attorney and
Fifth Who ia guilty of