The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-12-24
SUNDAY. DECEMBER "a, 1899.
TWENTY PAGES.
The Disbarment of Welcome.

70 Ssn, who will dn,a read carefully re-,
preme court disbarring John &.
Welcome from the practice of his pro-
fession of lawyer. will note two things:
the court is convinced beyond the re-
hottest doubt, first. that Mr.. Welcome
did bride members of the Sixth legis-
1ative assembly to vote for W. A.
Clark for United States senator; sec
ond that there Is not a scintilla of evil
dence that there was any conspiracy
on the part of Mr. Clark's opponents
to defeat that gentleman through he
use of money or by any other corrupt
or unlawful means wha tsoever.
These two propositions are estab-
Hshed facts W. A. Clark did resort
to wholesale bribery to secure a ma
jority Of the votes; and w. A. Clarks
counter charge that the $4,000. now in
the hands of the state treasurer, was
money contributed by unscrupulous
conspirators in a corrupt and mali
disgrace and detestation that no hon
est man would dare vote for him, falls
miserably to the ground.
The decision is exhaustive and thor
with candor and care In its entirety
it will be interesting reading both to
lawyers and laymen. But all else that it
says is subordinate to these two great
unmitigated corruptionist, and that his
defense is an unmitigated lie.
That Welcome was Clark's agent
and acting for Clark els admitted"
says the court. That it was Clark's
money he was using in the purchase
of votes for Clark. no one. not even
Clark's most active and aggressive
friends, will deny. Any other SUPPOSE
tion would be the height and depth of
absurdity.
Among other things, the supreme
court officially Endorses the reputation
of Fred Whiteside and State Senator
Clark of Virginia City for truth and
veracity-that reputation which Mr..
Welcomes attorneys strove so holly
and bitterly to break down. Three
times. says the supreme court, We're
these witnesses under the fire Of cross
examina tion-before the legislative
committee, before the now disgraced
and discredited Lewis and Clarke coun-
~ grand jury. and before the supreme
court itself. "a careful and painstak-
ing examination of their accounts CIV
en- at the hearing" says the supreme
court, ''in so far as they relate to the
same matters, also fails to reveal any
substantial contradiction or omission
These statements are not unreasonable
In the light of this whole record, and
it is highly improbable that such a
story could be deliberately concocted
and repeated so many times without
being discredited in some substantial
particular. After seeing and hearing
the witnesses ourselves, and noting the
silence of the accused when he ought
to speak, and his failure to produce
other witnesses ITO rebut material state
rnents made by Clark and Whiteside
which it was in his power to do, we
can reach no other reasonable conclu-
sion than that this charge is true
The way of the transgressor is hard
Mr.. Welcomes previous good standing
at the bar and in business and social
circles could not gave him from the
consequences Of his crime. Disgraced
. as he is, he is not so branded as the
man for whom he sacrificed himself
for w. A. Clark viii go down to his