The Anaconda standard., 1899-11-07
Special Dispatch to the Standard.

Helena, Nov. 6.-The disbarment pro-
ceedings against John B. Welcome. the
Butte attorney who is accused of hav-
ing handled the money and negotia-
tions Tor the purchase of a number of
legislative votes for w. A Clark for
the United States senatorship, were
taken up by the supreme court this
morning, and although the day was
devotea entirely to preliminaries, it
was not wholly devoid Of interest; in
tact, decided sensation was produced
ny the disclosure of some of the facts
Wnch are expected to be proven
against Mr.. Welcome. The first move
was made by the attorneys for the ac-
cused. They made a demand for
jury. Jury trial. and IT was denied by the
court. They next demanded bill of
particulars including the names Of leg
islators, with the dates and amounts of
money paid them or offered to be paid
by Welcome, in consideration of their
votes for w. A. Clark, in addition to
those set forth specifically, and in de-
tail in the affidavit or bill of accusa-
tions against the attorney, and upon
Which the prosecution proposed to in
troduce proof. Attorney General No
Ian, appearing for the court in the in
vestigation, offered mild opposition to
the demand, but the court decided that
the accused was entitled to the bill,
and an adjournment was taken to give
the attorney general time to prepare it.
When the case was called, a few
minutes after the opening of court,
there were present but a small number
of the interested parties, among them
Mr.. Welcome, Charles w. Clark, w. NJ.
Bickford and Mr.. Welcomes attorneys,
J. B. Root. Frank e. Corbett and E. c.
Day. Attorney General Nolan, repre-
senting the court, H. C. Stiff, speaker
of the house of representatives; ex-
Congressman Hartman, c. P. Connolly,
county attorney of Silver Bow county;
Senator Myers of Ravalli county, Fred
Whiteside, number of newspaper rep
resentatives comprised the others pres
ent. When the case was called by
Chief Justice Brantly, Mr.. Day asked
that the name of his firm, Cullen, Day
6, Cullen, and that of Frank E. Corbett
be added. to the list of attorneys for
Mr.. Welcome, and then, at his request,
a recess was taken to await the COM
ing of William Wallace, chief counsel
for the defendant, who was attending
the United States court. 1t was 11:15
o'clock before Mr. Wallace arrived,
and Attorney General Nolan then an
nounced that he was ready to proceed,
but made the statement that W. A.
Clark of Madison county, a material
witness, was in Kansas City, but ex-
pected to be present in court by Wed
nesday.
Mr.. Wallace opened the proceeding
with demand for jury trial for the
accused
I'm line with our objections to the
jurisdiction of the court and in line with
our settled conviction on that matter,
and as the accused is to be tried for
felony, or on charge involving an
accusation of felony, we ask that he be
accorded his constitutional privilege Of
a trial by jury said Mr.. Wallace
Mr.. Nolan, in reply, said there had
been no instance of the kind in which
the accused was given a trial by jury,
and after a brief consultation by the
court the motion of Mr. Wallace was
overruled.
Recognizing that an exception is
OF no avail, we desire to enter a pro-
test, said Mr.. Wallace. He next
made the demand that the defendant
De furnished with complete bill Of
items of the charges against him, as
contained in the general allegation of
tne aIlldaV1t on which it was proposed
TO oier evidence, and especially the
names OF the members of the legisla-
ture to whom it is alleged money was
paid.
MI: Nolan said Mr.. Welcome was en-
titled TO no greater particularly of
charges against him than he would be
II on trlal for penitentiary offense.
IN criminal proceeding it is only nee-
essary TO aver one overt act and at the
trial evidence may be intorduced nf
other acts. The averments in The com
plant against the accused, he said. arc
sufficient to fully inform him of tn.
nature of the charges against him,
Justice Pigott inquired if Mr., Nolan
meant to say that the court in it's dis
cretion could not order that the ac-
cused be furnished with bill of partic
ulars. and Mr.. Nolan replied that the
court had such discretion, but it would
be a question whether it was rightly
exercised. He said that in case evil
dence was introduced which the tfefen-
dant could not possibly or reasonably
have anticipated he would then be en-
titled to sufficient opportunity to meat
it. but that he was not entitled to a
bill of particulars in advance.
The questions asked of counsel by
members of the court during the argu-
ments indicated that the court was
of the opinion that the request of Mr..
Welcome was a reasonable one. and
that in fairness to the accused he
should be furnished a bill of particu-
lars of the general charge of bribery
and corruption made against him in
what is known as subdivision six of
the bill of accusations, and which fol-
lows a number of specific and detail
ed charges of bribery. Chief Justice
Brantly, in giving the opinion of the
court, said they thought the accused
should be furnished with a bill of par
ticulars, including the names, times,
places and amounts of money paid, SO
far as known, in reference to which
proof would be offered. This order, of
course, said Justice Brantly, did not
include the names of Clark of Madison,
Carr. Bywater and others named in
the bill of accusation, but referred only
TO the final and general allegations in
Whlch 1t was alleged that Mr. Welcome
had corrupted other members of the
legislature whose names We're unknown